Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleague got excited that he got a second chance at questions.
---Laughter
I have some questions today for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment and I’d like to go back and revisit some of the questions I asked the Minister the other day about income assistance policies.
The Minister suggested in Hansard, and I’d like to quote from Hansard of the other day, “If an individual client presents, say, a suggestion to us, then we will seriously look at it,” and again, “From the general public, if there is more than one policy that they want us to make some amendments to, those are areas we will seriously consider looking at.” He also said that reviews are based on feedback they received from the clientele and the general public.
So I guess I’d like to know from the Minister, I asked about a review of policies. The Minister suggested to me that they have reviewed policies based on complaints from the public, complaints from clientele. So I’d like to know from the Minister, my question was a comprehensive review of policies, and I’d like to know if the Minister will commit to a comprehensive review of income assistance policies with a view to providing the best for our income assistance clients and to iron out some of the contradictions that seem to be in our current policies. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. When we did a comprehensive review back in 2004-06, based on the feedback that we received, we made some drastic changes in 2007. As I stated, there were some changes along the way, as well, with our income security programing in 2011.
We are always open to make changes as necessary, as long as it benefits the community and also the clientele. Those are some of the areas that we’ll continue to push forward within our department of income security programming. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks to the Minister and I guess I would have to say that 2007 is seven years ago, almost eight years ago now, and I think it’s about time that we have a comprehensive review of income securities policies. Piecemeal changes do not necessarily produce the best product.
I’d like to go back to the Minister’s statement that a RRSP for an income support client is a rainy day fund and needs to be used up. Yet, there is also an Income Support Policy which allows clients a RDSP, a Disability Savings Plan, or a RESP, an Education Savings Plan. Those do not have to be cashed in, yet a RRSP does.
So, knowing that RRSP is a protection for old age, and I’d like to know from the Minister how we can have two plans which are protectionist, so to speak, which do not need to be cashed in, and we have one which is a protectionist program and it does need to be cashed in. So how does the Minister reconcile keeping two and having the one that needs to be cashed in? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, a RESP or disability insurance, child disability benefits and CBS, they’re all exempt from the child tax benefits through our income security programming. RRSP is considered as funding that could be available.
We have to be fair because we are dealing with public money, and we’re dealing with the communities, 33 communities, and when an individual has a surplus of funding through an RRSP and an individual in small communities do not have any. So, as a department head, Minister responsible for Income Security Program, I have to focus in those areas. It’s public funding and we have to be fair to all the constituencies throughout the Northwest Territories. Those are just some of the areas that we are seriously looking at and how we can get around the system as well. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
To the Minister, I hardly consider it fair that we’re going to penalize somebody because they happen to be proactive and they happen to have the opportunity to save a little bit of money. Because I don’t have a RRSP, my next door neighbor has to cash it in because we both need a little bit of income support. That’s hardly fair and I think it therefore puts income support clients longer on the government dole and I really don’t think that’s where we should be going.
It seems to me that we penalize everybody in the income support programs because there are a few people that we feel either are scamming the system or they, in case, have a RRSP.
I would like to know whether or not the Minister will consider revising our policy so that the majority benefit, not the minority, and that the minority are dealt with as they should be. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we must be fair and equitable when we are delivering the Income Security Program. As I stated before, when an individual has an RRSP, it could be a substantial amount, we don’t know the actual number, but we could use, let’s say, a figure of $200,000 to $250,000, for example. If the individual has that compared to other small community members who do not have any of that, we just have to be fair to these individual clientele. Having individuals receiving $1,200 from a small community that does not have anything versus an individual that may have RRSP of the same amount, we have to deal with this public money fairly and equitably.
As I stated with policies, any policies that require amendment or changes, I am always open to that. What Member Bisaro is referring to is an area that we should look at, so by all means, my department will look at options that we may consider down the road. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be short. I guess I have to say to the Minister that the idea of fairness apparently is individualized, because I certainly don’t agree with the Minister’s characterization of fairness.
My last question, since he mentions that RRSPs need to be cashed in, I would like to know from the Minister what it costs the department to allow people to keep a RRSP. What extra money is the department spending to allow me to keep my RRSP and to give me a little bit of income support? Thank you.
As the Member knows, within our GNWT department there are various areas of subsidies that individuals can qualify for, whether it be training on the job or productive choices, those are some of the areas that we have provided over the years. Again, when we talk about income security as a basic needs subsidy programming, those that are in desperate need of subsidizing in a community, we found that over the years and have made some changes in 2007 and 2011 and we will continue to make those changes. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Time for oral questions has expired. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mahsi.
---Unanimous consent granted
