Mr. Chairman, if I may recommend that we consider Member's Statement 86-13(3), Senior's Fuel Subsidy Program.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. We wanted to discuss this matter and we tabled the relevant document today so we could discuss it in some detail. Just to summarize a little bit of the background of why there is concern amongst a number of the Members regarding the change to this fuel subsidy. I will just outline a few of the points and I am sure other Members will put the meat on to the issues. It is felt that the policy as it was changed was done too quickly, without enough thought of the fact that the policy is too broad and it does not take into consideration regional disparities and the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. In fact, the threshold is far too low when you look at it in terms of what the national poverty line would be and take into consideration the additional costs of living in the North.

We also want to question the Minister with respect to the consultation that took place with the NWT Seniors' Society, because we have certainly heard from a lot of seniors in a lot of very vocal ways including, in my constituency, an actual protest march through the town, with seniors carrying placards and so on. If they had been consulted in advance, it was a rather unusual reaction after the fact. With that I would just like to close by saying that there is a lot of concern about this. It is not saving the government a tremendous amount of money, and the last thing we want to do is take measures as a government that are ultimately, in the end, going to cost us more to deal with the problems that they will cause. Thank you.

I could start off with a question for the Minister. Perhaps he could just outline for us the consultation that took place with the seniors. It was my understanding that the NWT Seniors' Society had been promised by this government previously that any further changes or cuts to assistance to seniors would include prior consultation with them. Perhaps the Minister could just elaborate on that consultation for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is bit of a difference of opinion between the Seniors' Society and departmental staff in terms of just what happened in consultation. I have already apologized to the Seniors' Society for miscommunication that has taken place. Department staff thought that they were letting the Seniors' Society know about changes which were planned but it appears that in fact the Seniors' Society did not feel that they were being adequately consulted.

Starting in the summer of 1995, our director of income support programs met with Mrs. Braden, who was president of the NWT Seniors' Society; Shirley Hislop, who is a consultant; and Barb Bond who is director of the NWT Seniors' Society, to discuss the transfer of social assistance from Health and Social Services to Education, Culture and Employment. At that time, the issue of reductions to the Seniors Fossil Fuel Subsidy Program was discussed at some length. From that meeting our staff person felt that the recommendation was that the benefit should continue as a contract to supply fuel and not a cash payment. At the same time, although the Seniors' Society does not agree that this happened, our staff person thought that he was advised that tying the subsidy to the Seniors' supplementary benefit was appropriate.

In the summer of 1995, again at the NWT Seniors' Society Annual General Meeting, a briefing on the transfer of income support and anticipated changes to the program, including the planned reduction to the Seniors Fossil Fuel Subsidy was given by a department member. In the fall of 1995, again there was a meeting with the Seniors' Society to confirm that the fuel subsidy would not be reduced for winter starting in the fall of 1995 but that it would be reduced for the fall of 1996.

Then in July of 1996, another meeting was held with representatives of the Seniors' Society to discuss the changes to the Seniors Fossil Fuel Subsidy Program. At that meeting, in July 1996, Mr. Chairman, that would have followed the adoption of Education, Culture and Employment's budget in this House. So the program would have been set or the changes would been basically cast at that time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to review a number of items.

Two hundred and fifty senior homeowners in the NWT have become ineligible for the assistance, which is $135 a month. It is provided either through wood, propane, fuel oil, or natural gas. For the government, this has meant a 35 percent reduction from $570,000 to an expenditure of $370,000, a saving of $200,000. The NWT Seniors Advisory Council was established by the NWT Seniors' Society and the Department of Health and Social Services in April 1995.

Today, the Advisory Council says, and Mr. Dent has spoken on this, that it was not given the opportunity to review the changes to the fuel subsidy program. Mr. Dent has explained there may have been a communication problem in this situation. The council, though, continues to ask if it can work with the government on developing a new policy.

They have a number of questions. For instance, instead of using the NWT Seniors supplement benefit as a means test, the new policy proposing using a single income of $12,000, and a couple income of $30,000 for those 60 years and over. One of the items that the Seniors' Society has pointed out, is that government is telling people to use thesSeniors information line as a phone number to get information. They are not quite clear as to the eligibility of people. Also, there seems to be some confusion, because they have stated, and I am getting this from reports from the Seniors' Society. They have stated that government workers are telling people they have to be 65 and over to receive the supplementary benefit, to qualify.

The society feels policy changes are not clearly thought out. The seniors have offered to review the policy, but they feel that that offer has been ignored. At their most recent meeting, they passed a resolution. In that resolution, they pointed out that seniors should be encouraged to own their own homes. The government needs to encourage people to be self-reliant, by owning their own houses, and be self-sufficient. They point out that owning their own homes contributes to an independent and healthy lifestyle for northern seniors and elders. Also, it reduces the dependency on government.

There is an item I would just like to point out. There seems to be some confusion on this as well. I have been reminded by two official people in two official positions, the president of the NWT Seniors' Society, Esther Braden, and also by the chairman of YACCS, Yellowknife Association of Concerned Citizens, that the origin of the program was an effort to also encourage people to stay in the NWT when they retired. The fuel subsidy program recognized that, in certain areas, living in the NWT, costs were higher. In other words, it is an inducement program and an incentive program to stay in the North. But, this is not clearly defined anywhere, I understand, so it may have gotten lost. This is what I have been told by two official people.

The other item I wish to draw attention to, which I believe the Minister has, is the resolution that the Seniors' Society wishes to defer until April 1997. That is, the implementation of their vision to the Seniors Fossil Fuel Subsidy Program, and that the NWT Advisory Council be mandated to develop and recommend a fair and reasonable proposal in conjunction with the department on how revisions to the program can be implemented. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have raised this issue in the House, and also it is dear to my heart because the individual that has been affected is someone I respect dearly, and who is a widow who basically sews for supplementary income. Because of those two circumstances that she is under, she does not qualify because she happened to try to continue a cultural activity such as sewing slippers and shoes for people for weddings and dances. She has been a widow for over 10 years. Her husband worked for this government for many years. Yet, because of her having an extra income besides a pension and a widow subsidy, she basically has been disqualified.

Living in Fort McPherson, the cost of living is a lot higher because of the longer winter season we have. Also the cost to maintain a home; the home that she has is one of the old Weber units, which she paid into for almost 20 years. It is not like these are new HAP units or ACCESS units. It was a mortgage for them to qualify for those units, and her and her husband paid until the day he passed on and she continued to pay on her own. But, because of the gouging that took place in regards to this subsidy, she is not able to be eligible for something that we take dearly as an aboriginal organization and people in the North, which is to respect our elders.

The way you look at what this government is doing in the way of these cuts, they basically tried to cut the people that try to keep their dignity and their values of being independent, and take that away from them to become another statistic in an old folks home.

I think this government has to clearly identify its priorities. It says it is going to improve the social conditions of communities. This is not going to improve it. It will probably make it worse. They are going to become another statistic that we are going to

have to pin on the wall and say, "Oh, oh, Social Envelope dollars just went up again." The same thing with empowering communities and community wellness. These people get the respect and maintain that dignity in the community by being elders and people that you can look up to because they show the other people that they do not need government and that people can try to do it on their own and. But because I am a pensioner, we are not going to push you aside and use you as another statistic.

My question to the Minister is, I would like to know exactly how he came up with the criteria in which he cut almost 60-something percent of the people that used to be eligible, in which the remaining 38 percent of the people that he came up with. I would like to know if he took into account the cost of living in the other areas of the Northwest Territories in the form letter that he used, and that there are people out there that are widows, there are people with disability insurance and benefits that were arrived at because of the circumstances that they found themselves in.

Could I have the attention of the Minister, if he can get his head out of that book. I would like to know if he has the answer to that question because I believe that if this is how we are going to treat the elders -- and we are talking about the 24 positions we agreed to in this House when we came in here, is that we would not affect those people that need it the most.

Those are the words that we basically put forth when we came into this House yet, from the positions that have been taken, it seems like they are the first ones that are on the firing lines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.

It is not hard for me to hear you say that you cannot change it. I think from what we have seen we can basically change anything on that side of the House so I do not think there should be a problem changing this thing.

I would just like to state that from the percentage that we are looking at, especially in my riding where there are a large number of people who are elderly, who basically made the move to continue to maintain their own homes, and live in their own homes without moving into social housing and basically to keep a life style that they have grown to know. They have a lot of respect as they felt they were doing what they have done without being dependent on Government.

But from the way you have slashed and burned that is almost 60 percent of the people in the Mackenzie Delta that are excluded from this program, and for the people that you have left there, for the amount of money that they do have to maintain and basically operate their lifestyles, to continue to live in those units, they are going to have a heck of a time to make it with the income that you are leaving them with. $12,000 or $13,000 is not much when you are living in a community like Fort McPherson where basically it is going to cost four or five extra fill-ups besides the two that you get from the Government in a winter to maintain those units. Plus, for the amount of money that you do leave them with, you put them at such a low wage bracket that it is going to be amazing as to how these guys are going to sustain their own units.

I think you should reconsider the position, that you should make it retroactive and find the money elsewhere. Like I mentioned earlier on in my statement earlier last week, it is costing this government $80,000 a year to keep someone in YCI but we do not blink at that. Yet when it comes to saving $200,000, which is two individuals, maybe they are better off to go to YCI because at least there you will be taken care of by the government at $80,000 whereas it is going to cost you $1,200 to take care of an elder. Let us get our priorities straight here.