Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to point out from my recollection of history on this particular program. This program started out about five years ago or so as a wood subsidy program for people that burned wood to help them out, over 60, that live in their homes. It was geared for people that did not live in major centres, was the initial intent, if my memory serves me correctly. There has been steady upward pressure on the program to expand it for fuel oil, for electricity, propane, and in increasing numbers. They started out with a universal program, where you had people making sixty, seventy, eighty thousand dollars a year, getting the fuel subsidy, because of the largesse of the government.

In that space of five years, it is not seen as a subsidy program anymore. It is seen as a necessity, an entitlement, and people do not want to give it up, and who can blame them. The intent, I think, has got a little skewed over the years. Now we are in a situation where we are trying to carve back areas. A program like this that was universal in nature, definitely needed changing. It made no sense to me to pay people that are government employees a fuel subsidy on top of what they may be making as a government employee, or employed in the private sector.

The question I have is, this thing was run through the social programs, it was highlighted, it was raised by the Minister, and went to everybody. Every mayor, every MLA was told it was coming. So now we are in a situation, we have people that are upset, and of course, when people get upset at MLAs, MLAs get concerned and sensitive. That is their job. As I sit around the table here, we want to keep this program.

So where are we going to get the money from? Are we going to take back a piece of road, are we going to carve up some bundles of fur? Are we going to carve back a few teachers, and increase the student-teacher ratio, community recreation quotas, where are we going to get the money from?

I think we have an obligation, if we are going to start doing this kind of shuffle. When we set the targets, we changed the Deficit Elimination Act. We are the ones, with the exception of Mr. O'Brien, who has been very consistent, and said we have a two-year plan to balance the budget. Where do we take the money from? Are we going to be doing this on a regular basis? Every time we get squeezed a bit, we are going to come back to the House, to either pillory the Cabinet for not giving them more money, or not saving this program? What are we going to do as an Assembly? How do we deal with this?

It is an issue, like Mr. Picco says, it is a motherhood and apple pie issue. So let us get past the high emotion, and let us look at the specifics. What are we going to do? We could sit here for the rest of the week, and keep singing the same song, but let us be constructive. If we do not want to cut, we have all these other initiatives. Well, then, where do we find the money? I am more than interested in looking at that, because I am interested to see what the options are, what the seniors have to say. Where do we go from here? I do not want to do the Minister's job, but I have an interest in the social programs on this issue. What are we going to do? By all means, give us some input. But give us something concrete. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. That is a grand speech, but personally I have some major problems with it. I do not agree that we should be cutting people that need it most, especially seniors. It does not matter, oh, we have to think of reality here. Reality is, times are changing. Things are getting tougher in the communities.

We take the emphasis, well, you know, they worked all their lives, they should pay for it. I do not think that is the case. This was a subsidy that was put there to assist people in regards to keeping them in those communities, and keeping them independent. We either look at that cost, versus the cost that it will cost this government to put them in institutions which basically seem to be the method that most governments are going at now. Let us push them aside, and say, that is the end of it. You have done your time, you are no good to us, so we will push you out the back door, and go out to pasture. We are treating these people like a bunch of cattle.

I think the statement from the individual on the social committee, I do not think that there was consultation with myself, as an MLA, and the constituency I represent. From the statistics you can see in my riding, especially in the Inuvik region, there are 148 people. Out of that, 84 people have been affected. In Gwich'in, that riding, basically the Mackenzie Delta, people have worked many years to have their own homes.

The ratio that you are using for the people that are qualified, is so far down in the streamline of putting them on the bottom of the barrel basically for them to get the subsidy, they are still going to be able to find other revenues to get through the rest of the winter.

I think that using the formula you came up with, it is not practical in the sense of the word and for using the excuse that, "Well, we have to cut so we are going to take $200,000 from the elders' subsidy." We just passed a couple of motions dealing with the way things were moving around in the budget, somewhere in the realm of $5 million which everybody blinked and passed a motion and that is the end of it. When it comes to individuals in the communities such as our elders, we seem to have a real problem just saying, "Sorry, we support our elders but they have to take the cuts, too." I think they have taken enough cuts living in the North all their lives and raising their families.

Most people work for this government to get to where we are today and most of the other people that work for the government and go south and basically retire down south, maybe that is the message we should give to our seniors. That is, they are better off going south because this government does not care for you. I think this is the message that is coming from the Minister as well as the Member from the social committee. I think surely we can find $200,000 elsewhere.

Also, the Minister said he consulted. There is a letter here from the seniors, Esther Braden, clearly stating that they were not consulted. If the Minister says he consulted them, I would like to know the method he used because when my phone started ringing, basically I do not think I was consulted either. We just finished going through a process of moving capital and things around, consulting MLAs that are affected.

You talk about consultation and the whole idea that we cannot do anything about it now. I believe we can do something about it now -- put a motion on the floor and basically find the money elsewhere. Do consultation fairly so that everybody is involved and come up with a formula that we can all live with. But, I do not think that is what I am hearing here. If there is a method out there that someone can come up with, the more power to them, or just leave the thing the way it is and find $200,000 elsewhere would probably be the simplest process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I outlined earlier what process had taken place. I said at the time that I was outlining it that there was a difference of opinion between the Seniors' Society and departmental staff as to whether or not it had been in consultation. I have also said that I apologized to the Seniors' Society for the miscommunication and have committed to them that it will not happen again. I have said that I will personally pick up the phone anytime we are going to make any future changes and let them know before my Department does anything that affects support programs that we provide to them.

The view of the department is that this, like income support, is lumped together with income support. It is one of the support programs that we provide to people in the North. Reducing it does not say that seniors are not important. What we discovered was that there were a number of people who are making significant sums of money in a year who are also getting the subsidy. We cannot afford to provide subsidies who can afford to look after themselves. This is intended to help people who have no other way of supporting themselves.

Our income support program is designed to make sure that people are not left in the cold and are not going hungry. I do think they recognize the cost of living across the North. This one aspect of it is not set up that way, but that does not mean that the whole program does not take that into account.

In terms of the recommendation that we just find the $200,000, I wish I could. I do not have any idea where I would find that money at this point in time. If the Member plans to put a motion forward, I hope that he would, in that motion, indicate where the funds should come from. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned that you are sorry you did not consult and basically that you will never do it again. The thing is already done. Basically, 60-some percent of the people that were receiving the subsidy will not be receiving it. Basically, the other issue you are talking about is that you came up with an equitable amount. I do not think this amount is equitable. People have to sustain themselves. If you are talking about someone with $20,000 or $30,000 and, from your statement, it sounds like you were earmarking the people making $50,000 to $60,000 who are basically in private business or in government, I do not see it in here. It seems like you came to the bottom of the threshold and used that number as low as you could get it to to eliminate as many people as you can. If that was not your intention, maybe you should deal with the issue you are saying was the issue, which is people who are making large amounts of money and who can afford it.

For the people in my riding, it is basically survival of the fittest in the Mackenzie Delta with regards to if you have a job, good for you because the other 90 percent of the people do not. If you sew for a living, we will charge you for that too. If you were earmarking the wages of people at the higher bracket, why did you not go after those people instead of going after everybody and leaving the people who are so far down that they are probably going to have problems making it with what they have anyhow? In my riding, the people that were saving the fuel subsidy last year were still having to get three or four extra fills just to get through the winter because it was such a cold winter last year that they had to find additional money to try to get through. There are a lot of people out there that were depending on this to get them through this winter. Basically what you are saying now is, "Sorry, it is eliminated and maybe better luck next year." That does not help them out because they were planning to hopefully fit that bracket, but the way it is right now, it is so low that they will not be able to do it.

In regards to the idea of finding $200,000, we are going to be dealing with a separate supplementary appropriation. There are a few dollars that have been moving around there. We have just finished going through a circus here about people paving their streets and basically people moving projects; there was no problem there to find the money to do that stuff. There has to be money in the budget that we can do that with. If there is a will, there is a way.

There has to be money there. If you are able to do that, I cannot see why you cannot find $200,000. My point is, if the people we are after are the people in the higher bracket, why do we not spell that out instead of basically eliminating everybody that is above a certain level and say they have hit their target at 60-something percent and saving $200,000, I do not think that was the intention of this. If it was, I sure will not support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the Member may have misheard me. I was not apologizing for not communicating on this program. I think I communicated fairly well on it. What happened was a misunderstanding about the communications between the Seniors' Society and departmental staff going

up to October 1995 which is before the time I was appointed Minister of this Department, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out that I think I communicated very well. As I understand our process, each Minister is supposed to take to their envelope committee their budget and to discuss it in detail with them. I did that.

As I said, I do not think any of the budgets, when presented on the floor of the House, had every single reduction initiative highlighted. They could not if we were to get through the budget in the time that we had to get through the budget.

One of the ways this House works is that the committees of the House are delegated to take on some of the detailed work. It is not possible for every Member to get into. The way this has proceeded was done, since I have become Minister, basically as I understand the process is supposed to work. I was not apologizing for a lack of communication. What I did do was apologize to the Seniors' Society because there seemed to have been some miscommunication between my departmental staff and the Seniors' Society. Three of the meetings I am talking about happened before I became Minister, but I still apologized for it and said that it will not happen again.

I would also like to point out that none of the instances that the Member has referred to -- reallocations among budgets -- the Member has not referred to reallocations that happened between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. None of the funds from my Department went to one of those other Departments to assist with any reallocations. I am not sure, when the Member says it should be easy to find the money, that he recognizes that the money does not move outside my Department. Yes, money has moved around within the Department, but we take the capital funds in the same general area. I do not know that it is as easy as some would present to find that $200,000. I certainly have not found it easy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some questions, Mr. Chairman. It is in relationship to the correspondence we have received from the NWT Seniors' Society and the NWT Seniors' Advisory Council....

The Council has passed some resolutions. They raise some concerns about confusion in the program and I wonder if the Minister could commit to us to meet with both the Council and the Seniors' Society to address these particular concerns. I have concerns like the other Members that, you know, we are cutting money out of people who have contributed all their lives to our society and their society and now they have to basically pay a price for what they have done by not getting this program.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us if he will commit to sit down with both the Society and the Council so that they personally can address their concerns to the Minister on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when I recently met with representatives of the Seniors' Society, I at that time told them I would be happy to meet with them as soon as they had had a chance to review the information that they had asked my Department to forward to them. Obviously I am prepared to meet with them and the Council. Again, I do not have any problem. I would be happy to make that commitment to meet with them as well.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could suggest that we leave this item on the order paper and carry on with the next item on the order paper?

I would like to suggest that the Committee of the Whole consider the report of the Auditor General to the Northwest Territories

Legislative Assembly.