Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wrote the Minister concerned on the changes to the fuel subsidy for seniors a few weeks ago. My main concern with the fuel subsidy for the seniors is that it does not seem to be based on any regional variation in the cost of living by territory. I would personally like to see that change. A threshold income of $30,600 for a couple in my riding and in our region of the Baffin is not very much. I think that is a major concern. To me it would not matter if it was just one senior or fifteen losing the subsidy. If it hurts one person then it is hurting. I would ask the Minister to again revisit the threshold of income and base it on the needs.

The amount for a single person, for example, is $12,924, which is below the poverty line for sure in our region, especially in the High Arctic. So as a general comment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see that threshold be looked at based on the regional variation of the cost of living in the different regions as opposed to the flat threshold rate which seems to be based on Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I believe there was some question towards the item. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have Mr. Picco, Mr. Henry

and Madam Groenewegen. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone is under the guise that the Minister has an easy job or an easy task. I do not think there is anyone here today trying to give the Minister a difficult time over the tightening fiscal situation that we find ourselves in as a government.

After saying that, I want to say that, for example, in the Nunavut region, there is only one tax based municipality where an elder would get a discount on their tax bill. Whereas the rest of the 99 percent of the communities in Nunavut, for example, are not tax based and thus the little adage story that the Minister mentioned does not apply.

What I am saying is, Mr. Chairman, that the $30,600 per couple is not sufficient as a threshold based on the cost of living in Clyde River or Igloolik or Pond Inlet or Iqaluit or Pelly Bay, Spence Bay, Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay. Somehow we have to take that into account. Based on the Minister's own numbers provided to me and to the committee and to the Members earlier, I do not see that being much of a cost to this government. I think the total savings is something like $300,000 on cutting and eliminating this subsidy. By raising the threshold amount and taking in the regional variations it would be about $80,000 or $90,000 difference.

I think, and I would ask the Minister again to look at his numbers, re-check the numbers and see if we can make some type of arrangement for our dedicated and well respected elders in our communities on this subsidy, based on the threshold amount based on the regional variations in cost and living allowances. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Dent, did you wish to respond? Do we have room to manoeuvre? Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. The honourable Member for Iqaluit.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I just want to clarify I would like to see something in writing where in actuality the GTA or the General Taxation Area people are actually paying taxes. As a person who has lived in Clyde, Pond, Dorset, Broughton Island and Iqaluit, I have never paid taxes anywhere other than Iqaluit, which is a tax-based municipality. I would like to hear from someone else who is living in a town outside of a tax-based area that is actually paying taxes. I think the point is rather moot. But, again, I would request the Minister to try to find the additional $40,000 or $50,000. Maybe the Minister could look at the actual differential with his departmental officials, to find out exactly what the threshold amount would be, and to see what the cost to the government would be to try to help out our respected elders.

As Mr. Krutko has pointed out, we said we would never take the deficit strategy out on the backs of the elderly or the unemployed. I do not think we are trying to do that, but, I think that the point has to be made, as you made clear. Again, I would ask the Minister to re-examine his dollar values, and report back to the Legislative Assembly with these savings. I do know the Minister is compassionate, that he is staying awake at night worrying about the deficit situation that he talked about earlier. That he is trying to find the money from all the different sources, from the consolidated revenue fund that seems to have eaten my eight million dollar hospital money too.

So I would like to see the Minister re-think his position, and come back with a cost of living allowance amount that will allow the threshold to increase for places in communities that are outside, especially off the road. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The honourable Minister, will you re-examine your position, Mr. Minister?

Thank you. General comments, we have Mr. Evaloarjuk.

(Translation) Mr. Chairman, none of this document is written in Inuktitut. I would like to understand the gist of the meanings of our conversation today. Even though it is not so much involved in our meeting in our community, there are two items that I would like to have clarified. I am sure there are going to be more elders that are going to live longer in the future. For this program to have benefited them that they had been able to get last year, and this year, that people will be eligible for, that have been cut off. I would like to have this document translated into Inuktitut.

Thank you Mr. Evaloarjuk. I must apologize that some of these documents are not translated. They will probably be translated as you requested. Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. It is unfortunate the honourable Member for Amittuq does not have the translated version of a very important item. Perhaps in the future, we will endeavour to make sure that some items of importance would be translated for the benefit of the honourable Member. Mr. Evaloarjuk, do you have any further comments? Mr. Evaloarjuk.

No, I am done.

Do we have further comments? Mr. Henry.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I believe what we are discussing is a question of fairness. There are some seniors who can afford to forego the fuel subsidy. The policy nonetheless that is in effect, states that if you have already paid your taxes, have already taken care of your retirement, this government is going to extract more from you. We are going to hit you again. I believe that there would have been much less discussion about this situation if all seniors, or if the policy was implemented had been fair. Those that can afford to pay, take a bigger hit than those cannot afford to

pay.

I believe that is where the department and the government fell down. They took it from one end. Everybody can afford to give something. Everyone can afford to participate in reducing the debt. I believe that the seniors are also saying that. They are talking about those that have more hardship, through this initiation. I am a little dismayed at the Minister today offering to receive input from the seniors group, the same group that he could have received input from previously, after the fact. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Den, I believe you wanted to respond to the honourable Member. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. In times of fiscal restraint, I think we need to define departments-in-line within our jurisdiction. What really constitutes poverty within the system. I think we need to define that. Mr. Henry, are you still...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister has stated that he is willing to receive input into a plan from the seniors in the next fiscal year. Do I deduce from that there are not any additional reductions that are being looked at? If he is going to receive input on how to restructure the program?

Thank you, Mr. Henry. We still have Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Krutko, and Mr. Minister.