Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About a year and a half or two years ago, this legislature mandated the Special Committee on Health and Social Services. I was a Member of that special committee. We visited the chosen communities from respective regions and we met with just about any achievable group in each community, mainly the elders' group, youth, women's groups, parents, the front line workers, and so on. Many good ideas came out of that consultation visit that we did, Mr. Chairman. As a mandate from the legislature, we made a number of very good recommendations to the House. We did this report in the form of a committee report. I am wondering if the honourable Minister has acted on any of the recommendations that were made by the Special Committee on Health and Social Services up to this point in time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I am referring to the report by the Special Committee on Health and Social Services. I wonder if the Minister has taken any action on the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Health and Social Services because there were many good recommendations coming from the local communities, the people who live in the communities, not from the government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to Mr. Ningark's question on the recommendations of the Special Committee on Health and Social Services, our response to some of those recommendations will be tabled by our Premier and it will also include family law review and the income security reform is another. They are being translated right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the honourable Minister for taking some action on some of the recommendations. Hopefully, when we do get all of the information compiled, translated and ready for the House, we will see some positive results from the Department of Social Services. I am not able to comment further because I am not sure what the responses are from the Minister. But when I do see the answers, I will probably be able to speak to the matter in the House.

When I travel I like to always go back to the time when I travelled through all my communities in my area, to Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, Holman Island, Spence Bay and Pelly Bay, my home community. People who are solely dependent upon social assistance sometimes talk to me about their concerns. One of the concerns is that those who are able to do other things in order to earn a little bit of money, when they do earn money, the next social assistance payment is reduced. It seems to discourage people who are living on social welfare payments from looking for other means of earning income for their family. For instance, if a person who is a recipient of social assistance earns a little bit of money by carving, trapping or getting a casual part-time job in the community and then he goes to Social Services to collect his social assistance payment, he is asked if he has earned money. Native people, being very honest about it, usually say what they earn. They will get a receipt from someone in the community. Before long, that person stops looking for other ways of earning income for the family. I think this is not fair. If the recipient is allowed to earn money to a degree, perhaps six months, that person may get to like the job. He/she may be able to earn money by other means. Given time, that person is going to stop relying on Social Services. There should be a time frame whereby a social assistant will say, all right, you can earn income other than social assistance for a period of time, perhaps half a year or three months. That person will begin to like what he or she does by earning other than social assistance.

The way it is now, the system we have in place now discourages a social assistance recipient from trying to earn extra money, because every time a little bit of money is earned -- maybe through bingo and other ways of earning money -- right away, the social assistance on the next pay day is reduced. It doesn't seem to be very fair.

If you start doing something, before long, you are going to get to like it. If not, you are going to say, well, this is not for me. But in most cases, when a person is able to earn money, sooner or later he is going to say, this is the kind of job I like to do, something I can do given the opportunity and given the qualifications that person has. So give them a little time to get used to it, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, social assistance payment rates were increased in other communities across the board in the territories in our jurisdiction except for Pelly Bay, Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak and Holman Island. Of all the regions in the system, I thought that the cost of living would be one of the highest in the Kitikmeot region.

I feel that the assessment that was done by the Department of Social Services was unfair. I am not really able to speculate on it, but I feel that it was a little bit unfair. It may not have been unfair but, according to my opinion, that is as I see it.

So I wonder if the Minister for Social Services would revisit the assessment that was done by her department -- or was it done by other agencies, I don't know -- because the cost of living, especially in Pelly Bay, is very high. The only way that people are able to afford to buy the basic stuff from the co-op store is through the subsidy that we get from the system, from the government.

I know the cost of living in Taloyoak is quite high compared to other communities in other regions. I know the cost of living in Gjoa Haven is quite high compared to other communities in other regions. I am not sure about Holman Island. I am sure that the cost of living is high, as well, in that particular community.

What I am trying to say here is that we need fair assessment. Perhaps her staff in those communities could go down to the store, the co-op store, the Hudson's Bay Company or Northern, and just take some information, just walk around the store and find out how much a litre of milk is, how much a ten-pound bag of flour is, or what have you. That concludes my remarks for the time being.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the concerns that Mr. Ningark brought on the rates that are deducted from social assistance recipients whenever they earn a little bit of money, we are planning to increase the allowable rates for earnings for recipients and, hopefully, by the summer, we will be able to implement them. The present rate for a single person is $50.00, and we are planning to increase that to $95.00. For the family, today's rate is $100.00, and we are proposing $190.00. I do realize that, in some cases, this can be a disincentive to some individuals to look for employment. I believe that is one area that we are planning to tackle with the income support program for those who want to be productive in the community. They will receive income for work performed.

On your second concern on the rates for the four communities in your region that I reinstated, after reductions were made, I think I have made a commitment that our department will do a detailed survey on each community. Our increases were based on the survey done by the Statistics Bureau, so the rates we used were not carried out by our department. Thank you.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of my questions have been partially answered by the Minister of Social Services.

I have a question. I am sure it is answered in your recommendations. When I first became a Member of the Legislative Assembly, we tackled the issue of welfare recipients, and in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994, we tried to rectify some of the problems we had with welfare recipients, although I am not against welfare recipients. I know that some people will be happy about the increase in the amount. Since 1992, we have said that welfare recipients should be given the incentive to work.

For example, I am not against young people receiving welfare cheques, because there are no job opportunities in the north, therefore they have to be on welfare. So, Mr. Chairman, the people who are capable of working are receiving welfare cheques. We started to consider the fact that we can give the welfare recipients some incentive to work -- especially the young people who are at the age of the work field -- as they receive welfare cheques due to a lack of employment. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that this in one of the recommendations, that we should have more work incentive for the younger welfare recipients.

The number of welfare recipients can be reduced if we can give them more work initiatives. Then, perhaps, they can stop being the recipients of welfare, if we can give them some kind of a work program or some kind of incentive. That way there would be fewer welfare recipients. I would like you to be able to understand my question. Thank you.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have stated earlier, this is going to be in the income support program. I know that this will deal with the younger people who are capable of working. For those who need to further their education, the income reform program, which I talked about, the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services have started this program. Do you understand what I'm saying?

(Translation) Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question. With regard to John Ningark's question, I don't know if I'm allowed to ask the question again. I have a concern about welfare recipients who make a bit of money, especially those who are incapable of working, including the elders. They often have many children and many dependents in their houses who have to be fed and clothed. If they make a little bit of money it is deducted off their welfare cheques. I know we are running into some problem with this, due to cutbacks. However, I have a concern that the welfare cheques of welfare recipients, who come from very large families and who make a little bit of money, are deducted.

Is this issue dealt with in your guidelines or policies? Perhaps it is within your policy to deduct the amount of money they have earned from their welfare cheques, when they are incapable of working. After they use up their welfare money and make a bit of their own money, Social Services deducts it, although the recipients require the funds. Is this due to finance policy or the department's guidelines? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Translation) To answer the Member for Baffin South, it is in our guidelines and policies. I want you to be aware that anybody who receives welfare has to be eligible. It states this in the policy. We don't let them sell property such as their hunting equipment, so aboriginal people can hunt for their subsistence. Thank you.

Qujannamiik. Thank you. I believe we're on section 15-10, directorate. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, there's a trend in Canada right now with regard to social reform. A lot of it has to do with changing the system in order to have some kind of balance, if you want to call it that. The federal budget is making sure that there is no longer what you call family allowance, we don't have the universal program any more. We might eventually have the same sort of situation with health. The way the

programs are designed right now, give social assistance recipients something to look forward to when it comes to child tax benefits for example.

But, I'm afraid what is happening right now -- and I can only refer to the aboriginal family -- is we tend to leave a family in a position where they are cared for to a point where they are surviving, but there is nothing there for self-determination. We have a program that is designed in a way to keep people down. It is degrading and humiliating that we have to put people in a situation which really doesn't give them any kind of hope.

In the report of the department, I don't see stats which really give you a feel of where it thinks we are at in the different regions. In Fort Providence, I have to thank this government for the amount of work that is going on in that area. But if we weren't on the highway system, we would have the kind of situation where welfare and unemployment would be high. Since the government has been established up here, there must be trends in the north that indicate what areas we need to concentrate on. There are perhaps more suicides, more solvent abuse, or violence.

I don't know how you are addressing those issues. When we address violence, for example, we don't concentrate on it from a regional point of view or even from the community point of view. But, you must have some answers by now, after thirty years of government here, where this government can point to areas that need help. I will use my region as an example. There is high unemployment because most of the work that is created is not based on what is happening from the economic point of view, but because of government initiatives. Maybe that also means that in a community with greater employment, there is also more solvent abuse. Maybe, I don't know. There have to be some trends that this government is studying in order to address problem areas.

For unemployment insurance, there is an increase in the number of hours you have to work in order to qualify. How is this government addressing that? In the Northwest Territories we have short building seasons and long winters. Certainly, an announcement made by Paul Martin or the Executive must have an impact, where you, as Ministers, should be saying that down south, it sounds pretty reasonable, but it is not reasonable up here. Those are some of the concerns.

Again, pension is another area in which I believe the federal government is going to have an impact on the north, too. But, what are we doing as a government? I am expressing those concerns, Mr. Chairman. Even though much of it doesn't have to do with this government itself, the kinds of decisions that are made in Ottawa are going to impact on the average person in the Northwest Territories with regard to family allowance, social assistance, pensions, unemployment, shelters for women, suicide prevention, alcohol and drug treatment programs, everything. Everything that is going to happen is going to have a major impact on people up here. The government is saying we need to reduce those programs by a reduction in the allocation of dollars going to the Northwest Territories. How is the Minister addressing all of those major national issues that are going to be impacting the north? I wanted to touch a bit on custom adoption after the Minister responds.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Member for his comments and his concerns with the way in which the social assistance is applied. I do agree. I know most of the recipients don't feel good about just having it handed to them. At least that is one of the things I do know. I think that is why the reform has to take place. The income support program is a partial solution to some of the problems that we face in the north. One of them is that, like I said earlier to Mr. Ningark, if the community member wants to be a productive member of the community, then the income support program will play a large role in that. It will lift the self-esteem of many individuals into a better situation.

With the UIC and pension, I do realize what the Member's concerns are. We have been fortunate that we have not been adversely affected within Social Services. Our programs have not been affected by, at least, this year's federal government's budget. I don't know if it will continue like that. I do agree the trends are there that the dollars are getting harder to come by.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the last comment that the Minister made, we do need to have shelters because of the higher rate of violence. You didn't have to tell me that. I knew that. The only thing is, why? The "why" is what I would like to have answered. Why is it happening? Is it because of unemployment, low self-esteem or a combination of other factors? What is causing the high rate of violence? We seem to be doing everything to address the situation by providing all of these facilities in order to address the immediate concern, but we are not sitting back and saying, why is it happening? Why do we need to spend so many capital dollars to address a situation which should have been addressed a long time ago, perhaps? I don't understand.

I don't know what the reasons are or the answers on how to address it, but I think there is certainly something most definitely wrong out there. I think much of it has to do with lack of employment. Low self-esteem is something I have always had a concern about. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken much away from the communities. We have taken much away with regard to responsibility for their own direction and destination. Perhaps we or the department know that is one of the major factors of why those trends are happening the way they are. I am not hearing it. We seem to be hiding things so we don't address it. We just look at piecemeal solutions, shelters, alcohol and drug treatment centres, training in suicide prevention and that sort of thing. They all address the immediate solution, but we are not looking at the "why." I wanted to touch on a different subject. I don't expect the Minister to respond, but I wouldn't have minded her giving me that kind of answer. Then, we would know, as legislators, where the problems are. We might be able to deal with it. We certainly could support the Minister in that direction, if she was to say publicly that those are some of the main factors.

Touching on custom adoption, Mr. Chairman, I believe many years ago, around 1983 or 1984, we were going to come up with a new legislation called the human rights code. I think it was called that at that time. Mr. Nerysoo took the initiative of taking the lead role in that direction. One of the main reasons why this code didn't go through was because of the collective rights of aboriginal people. One of the things that is coming up every year is that you are looking at a collective right and devolving it into an individual right, by virtue of tinkering with it. I don't know why you feel that we should have an act with regard to custom adoption. It says here in your definitive plan that, "in conjunction with the Department of Justice, legislative amendments are being proposed to simplify the process of native custom adoption. This will help to simplify the process and clear the backlog of applications to be registered through the courts."

I've looked at this and I've looked at other examples where this government has taken a lead role in fitting aboriginal customs into the existing system. In a lot of cases, I have to tell you, it's not working. If customs are recognized already, and they have been recognized in the Constitution, why should we be tinkering with it? Is there a legal requirement by this government to draft legislation with regard to aboriginal customs? Is it their responsibility to do that, or has that been recognized already under the Canadian Constitution? And, if it is, why are we looking at doing things in this area?