Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was not pleased at having to come forward with this kind of program change myself. The only reason the Department came forward with this change was the need to meet the fiscal targets that were set for the department. What the reasons are for this program in the past, I cannot say. I am not sure that it was necessarily intended to keep Northerners in their homes. I am not sure that the initial reason was to keep more people in the North. I do agree that it was most likely intended to enable more Northerners to stay in their homes which is, of course, much less expensive for the government and usually provides a better quality of life for seniors.

I think that, in addressing one of the comments Mr. Ootes made about the confusion, there is no question that the initial guidelines as instituted left a gap, and that was for people between the ages of 60 and 65. After talking to Members of this Legislature and the Seniors' Society, I directed that we make changes to the program to ensure that those who are between the ages of 60 and 65 could qualify at the same level as what had been set for those over 65. In that time period, when the first set of guidelines came out and when it was pointed out to me that that meant there was a gap over who we said the program was intended to serve and who it was actually serving, yes, there was some confusion.

We, I think, have fixed that now and if the Seniors' Society has any questions about the operational guidelines for the program, I would be happy to ensure that they have a copy of the guidelines that are being used by the staff members of this government when determining who is able to qualify.

In terms of how the decision was made to tie the income levels to the cuts, it was basically done on an analysis which cross-matched recipients from the 1994/95 year with those seniors who received the NWT Seniors' Supplementary Benefit in 1995/96. This analysis depended on information which was supplied by the regions and was collected in differing formats. This is complicated because we had not in the past applied any income or means test to the program, so we did not have any hard and fast numbers from which to work, and yes, there were some assumptions made in arriving at the final numbers.

Let me remind you that the bottom line was that this was done to meet the fiscal target. It was also recognized that it is part of our social programs, part of our income support programs, and it has to be tied to those most in need.

I met with the Seniors' Society and offered to provide them with more information. I said that after they had that, I would welcome their comments. So, I would certainly like to hear what they have to say. It will not mean that we can change this program this year. I do not have the money to change this program this year. In order to meet the Department's targets, this reduction has to proceed. I do not have to remind the Members here that we have a Deficit Elimination Act which says that Cabinet has to meet the targets that are set for them and I am afraid that I do not have any flexibility when it comes to something like this. I have no choice but to say that we have to continue.

If the Seniors' Society can come to me with a re-designed program that makes some sense for future years, that does not cost this Government any more money, I would certainly be willing to consider that take it back to the Social Programs Committee to see whether or not we can put into our future business plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.