Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have stated goals and initiatives of this government. For example, educating people. To that end, we boast the best SFA, student financial assistance, system in the country.
We have a stated goal of increasing the population of the NWT by 2,000 people. These are well-known goals and strategies that we work and expend resources to advance. However, every day we hear of anomalies, contradictions and decisions based on policy that fly in the face of these goals. I believe in rules and transparencies, but sometimes our policies lack discretion and common sense in applying these policies in real life situations.
This week in the House, my colleague from Hay River North shared the story of a constituent, born, raised and educated in the NWT, moving south for a period of time and upon return to enroll in northern post-secondary program with support of SFA is required to re-establish residency for a whole year with no regard for their lifelong residency in the North. The message is don’t come home, don’t pursue higher education.
It’s well known that young people often decide to work or travel between high school and post-secondary education. Could there not be some accommodation for that reality?
Then there’s the single parent in public housing who goes south to educational opportunities to improve their life. They come home for the summer no longer eligible for any housing support because technically doesn’t conform to the residency requirement. Why come home?
Then there’s the single parent in social housing who proudly sends their child off to university and when the student returns home to work for the summer to make money to go back to school, they land a job and mom’s rent goes up to reflect that temporary increase in household income and then mom has no choice but to get their son or daughter to take those needed earnings to contribute to pay for the increased rent. Welcome home, Mr. Speaker.
Then there’s the income support client with a disability who gets financial support and contributes to the expense of the family that cares for them. The disabled client gets a GIC cheque and fails to disclose it, interrupting the benefit that they received. Those same benefits that help their family support them in their private accommodation, probably avoiding a very expensive care and support that would otherwise be provided to government service and agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I know we need rules. I know the staff on the front-line positions managing these programs are only doing their jobs in compliance with those rules and implementing too much discretionary latitude can also be a slippery slope.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
Implementing too much discretionary latitude can also be a slippery slope, as we know. But surely we, as a government, committed to our goals and stated priorities, could find a way to expeditiously deal with these situations that arise. I know it sounds like the job of an ombudsman, but for now it remains the domain of MLAs advocating for constituents and Ministers and their staff using their time to consider these things on a case-by-case basis sometimes with positive outcomes, but often with unnecessary stress to everyone concerned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
