Thank you, Madam Chair. This issue is a highly sensitive one and I think a highly emotional one for a lot of people. But one point I would like to make clear in this issue is, while we debate the level of the threshold for this program, I do not think it is a fair comment on anybody's part to try to imply that because we may not all see eye to eye on specific issues in this program, that any one of us has any less concern or respect for elders and we want them to live in dignity in their communities and the respect that they have earned over the years. I would not attribute that motive to anybody around this table. I hope it would not be attributed.

I am a Member of the Social Programs Committee. We looked at this particular issue, along with the Minister, Mr. Dent. It was put forward as a cost-cutting option and to meet some targets. We agreed to that. It was sent out, along with all the other cuts that we all did -- the multi-million dollars in cuts. The Minister has indicated that in addition to that he red flagged it to all MLAs, mayors, chiefs and councils, so now, as we sit here with sober second thoughts, half-way through or a little over half-way through the fiscal year and we are starting to get questions, we have been asked to reconsider.

Madam Chair, I have sat around the Ordinary Members' Caucus and listened to this discussion. In fact, my understanding was that the ordinary Members' caucus was going to agree refer this back to the Social Programs Committee and we have a meeting set up with Mrs. Braden from the Seniors' Society for the Northwest Territories to discuss this very specific issue.

We have to recognize that this is one of many issues we are going to be dealing with in terms of subsidies. As we speak, we are trying to gather, hopefully, a comprehensive list of government subsidies across the board that may exist in Education, Health and Social Services, Renewable Resources and Economic Development. There is a whole range in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We set a direction for ourselves for two years and we are moving into the second year. We have a lot of hard decisions to make. The Social Programs Committee has committed to review this matter and see if there is room to move and what suggestions we could make that would help resolve this issue.

I also think we have to be very careful when we start unravelling the blanket that we have knit here over the last year because there is a relationship. There is a policy in place that people over 60 can live rent free in public housing that has a great impact on this particular situation and what it does for motivating elders and seniors to stay in their own home or not. It ties in with all the other subsidies we talk about with income reform and single, healthy males living rent free for the most part.

This is a very complicated issue that I do not think this government or this Assembly really has a good handle on. I think we should be given the latitude as a Social Programs Committee to look at this. We have received a very clear indication from Members that this is an issue and that they would like it reconsidered. I am prepared to do that. I am not prepared just to jump in and support a flat increase that does not recognize, for one thing, regional disparities, which is a big issue. I want to know very clearly where we are going to find the money because I do not think we are being responsible if we just say after we have improved this budget, tell Cabinet to go find money somewhere else and cover this because surely it is out there somewhere.

While there are the struggles with those we are trying to hit targets. I am willing to look at this and I want to do it in a way that is going to be responsible, and in a way that gives everybody a chance to look at some of the things we may have overlooked in a rush the first time to get the budget approved which, I think it is fair to say, we overlooked a number of things in our haste to try to meet deadlines and targets.

I think I cannot support a motion just for a flat increase, Madam Chair, but I am willing to look at this as a Member of the Social Programs Committee if it comes up.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. General comments. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to table a motion.

I MOVE that the Committee recommend that the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment considers amending the Senior Fossil Fuel Subsidy Program by implementing scheduling income eligibility that takes into account regional disparities, the cost of living, generally and too that the cost of fossil fuel be supplemented in northern communities.

AND FURTHER, that the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment consider an increase in income eligibility requirements for single seniors from $12,972 to $20,000, and couples from $30,744 to $40,000 to represent the other end of the scale.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Your motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I suppose I would support concept of this motion simply because it is does address the fact that our senior citizens have been kind of identified as the first people that are getting the cuts in government subsidies.

Personally, I had no problem with the subsidy being cut last spring when we presented the budget because we thought that everybody was going to receive cuts. But I think the most obvious one is this one here at the present time. I am sure that in my communities that I have been to, there is no obvious cuts at this point in time to social services, welfare people.

The Minister said these are coming and I believe him. I just wonder why the elders had to be singled out as the first to get the cuts? I also feel that there are other programs that this government subsidizes that would have been more beneficial and more productive than picking on the elders.

Mr. Miltenberger asked where we will find the money, the $200,000 roughly. Have they forgotten what it cost us -- $30 million a year just on capital? That does not include O and M. Have we forgotten that? Because I do not see any action towards -- I hear a lot of promises from Cabinet saying they are going to discuss it now. We have been patient with them for a long time now so I tend to lower my credibility and whether this thing will ever be cut.

I will support that, if we cannot cut one, we have no business cutting the other. So I will support this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. To the motion. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. To the motion. Mr. Barnabas.

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. To the motion. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I cannot support this motion. In answering the question from the Member from the Mackenzie Delta two days ago, I said that I hoped if he were to bring forward this kind of motion, that in it he would indicate where the money should come from. I have to say that, without knowing where that money should come from, I cannot, in good conscience, support this motion either.

I would dearly love to put the money back into the program, but I need to know where it should come from. I want to know where else we should cut because, unlike what Mr. Steen says, we have cut social assistance allowances. We cut them significantly a year ago this month, and they were cut further in January of this year.

There are more changes coming in November.

We have cut funding to schools. We have cut what we give to kids to get through school. We have cut the funding to colleges. We have cut the funding for grants to cultural and heritage organizations. We have cut millions of dollars out of funding for adult education. I am sorry. We have cut across the board. This is not the first cut that has happened in this department. I hate to say it, but it is definitely not the last one.

Madam Chairman, I think that if we want to deal with this responsibly, I need to know where the money should come from. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. To the motion. Mr. Krutko, would you defer to Mr. Erasmus and maybe you will be able to sum up since it is your motion. To the motion, Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. To the motion. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Erasmus has expressed a lot of the areas that were of concern to me. I am sympathetic and supportive of the seniors' position that they should not be cut. There are some other issues that I am concerned with, and they were raised by the Seniors' Advisory Council and the Seniors' Society. I asked the questions from the Minister the other day to see if he would have further consultations with them. I got an answer on that. I cannot support this motion, to me it requires further information, as Mr. Henry stated, what are the financial implications of this and this raises a lot of other issues in my mind, this motion. It needs to be studied further and I support the idea of it going to the Social Committee.

I support the idea of keeping the seniors' independence and perhaps by re-instituting the Subsidy Program to all seniors we will avoid, perhaps, the taking advantage of the program because one of the areas I see of concern is that people will move out of their own homes into subsidized homes. We are encouraging that by cutting it off. I have some questions with respect to why are we putting a threshold of $12,000 on an individual, and $30,000 on a couple. I just do not understand that, perhaps there is a logical explanation, but I need to have those explanations before I can support a motion on this nature.

I think that is all I would like to say, Madam Chairperson, so I will not be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. To the motion, Mr. Enuaraq.

Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq. To the motion, Mr. Evaloarjuk.

Thank you, Mr. Evaloarjuk. To the motion, Mr. Picco.