Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the changes to this program in 1996 created, and continue to create obviously by today's motion, considerable concern to Members of the House, the public, and to seniors. I have heard these concerns, contrary to what some Members may think. We have been faced, Mr. Speaker, with some difficult choices. I am no less sympathetic than anybody else to the contributions of seniors and the need to ensure that seniors are adequately supported. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have outlined in this House, we have been faced with difficult choices. We have had to make cuts to income support programs. We have had to make cuts to schools. We have had to make cuts to bussing. Mr. Erasmus has questioned us about the cuts to adult education and colleges. There have to be some choices made and they are always difficult choices when you are talking about cutting. None of these choices were made lightly or taken easily.

Mr. Speaker, the motion presented suggests that my department maintain the Seniors' Fuel Subsidy Program, increase the income threshold, and include those seniors who rent housing in the private market. The motion further suggests that funding for this expanded program come from a rental increase to seniors who are in public housing. Mr. Speaker, I think that this motion is premature. I have committed to the committee, to Members, and to the Seniors' Advisory Council, that I would keep looking for ways to ensure that there could be a program in the future. This motion presents me with an option as to how the Seniors' Fuel Subsidy Program should be run, which may not be the best way. Departmental officials and I met only recently with the Seniors' Advisory Council. I have heard their concerns, as have my officials, and we have received, just recently, some suggestions from them. The Council has made it clear that the fuel subsidy program was very important in maintaining a dignified lifestyle for seniors. They have also suggested the income cut-off level was too low, especially for single seniors. I have committed to continue to work with Mrs. Braden and the Seniors' Council to address these concerns and I am committed to continue to look at sources of funding.

Mr. Speaker, the motion suggests that the program be amended to reflect the real cost of fuel in northern communities by indexing the income threshold to provide support to low income seniors. The program currently does that. It pays for an equivalent amount of fuel, no matter the cost in the community. Mr. Speaker, I want to also remind this House that the government provides an income support program to all persons in the Northwest Territories, including seniors, that is fully indexed. The income support program provides the full cost of fuel all year to those seniors most in need, renting or in home ownership, along with the full cost of rent, food, utilities, and other financial support to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the motion suggests that the cost of this subsidy be transferred from middle income seniors to low income seniors in public housing. Analysis of the proposed amendment by departmental officials suggests that a program of the sort outlined in the motion would significantly increase costs. The preliminary analysis indicates that the revised program would cost between $500,000 and $750,000 per year. Based on this proposal, these monies would need to be obtained from rents charged to low income seniors living in public housing. The administrative cost of the program will be further increased by over $30,000 a year due to the increased case load and need for eligibility verification. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, it needs to be remembered that seniors living in public housing are among the poorest seniors in the Northwest Territories. The rent that they would pay would be used to fund a fuel subsidy for seniors living in private rented accommodations. This group of seniors is likely more affluent than those who live in public housing.

Mr. Speaker, in early May, the final report of the working group, which will be the comprehensive review on supports to seniors, will be available. May would also give my department more of an opportunity to look for areas of savings in next year's budget in which to offset the cost for seniors' fuel subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, I will again suggest that this motion is premature. I have already said that we will look for a way to continue the program, if we can find the money. We are working with the seniors, we have committed to work with the committee and Members of this House to try and find some way to carry on the program. This motion really sets a standard for the program that is beyond the level that I believe the committee Members had initially expected that we would try and maintain and makes it much more difficult for us to find the monies. I think it is important that Members remember that when they vote for this motion, you are voting to raise the rents to the poorest of the people in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be speaking to the motion and speaking in favour of the motion as put forward by my colleague from Yellowknife North. Indeed, we have had difficult choices to make in considering the reductions and meeting our targeted reductions in our budget. But, I believe that we have made those good choices in good faith and this is a choice that we are making. We are asking the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment to reinstate the subsidy to seniors in the way of fossil fuel subsidy. In response to Mr. Dent's suggestion that this motion is premature, may I suggest that no, this motion is not premature. The cut of the senior fossil fuel subsidy without reviewing it and giving it due consideration, that indeed, Mr. Speaker, is premature. So, I am aware that there is income support available to all citizens in the Northwest Territories, but I do not think that we should be asking our seniors to go through the tedious task of applying for income support. This was a program that was in place. It was working.

On the subject of charging rent to seniors living in public housing, I believe that what the Minister Dent said in respect to that is somewhat misleading. He is making a categorical statement that every senior living in public housing is a low income individual and that is absolutely not the case. It may be an east/west issue. There may be more people in the east, for example, that have not come out of the wage economy that paying rent would be more difficult for. But I can guarantee you that in some of the western communities, there are people living in public housing who did come out of the wage economy who are getting pensions not only from this government but from the federal government and are classified as low income. So to suggest that the Members of this House would try and charge low income seniors for something to supplement middle income seniors is a categorical generalization which in fact is absolutely incorrect.

I would encourage Members, I am not going to respond to the heckling here, but I would encourage Members to support the motion. The motion is not premature. The Minister's actions are premature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to rise to speak in favour of this motion.

I must say quite clearly that I am somewhat aghast at the foot dragging and shuffling of my colleagues in the social envelope on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. Very clearly there is a need to send a message which is what we are trying to do. There was a message sent months ago that met little response. Now we are being asked to place our faith in the commitment to find the money if it is available. It has been indicated to us that, in fact, the Ministers of the social envelope are now collaboratively working together which they should be applauded for. But, I would like to point as well as I speak to this motion, that we are talking about a $700 million combined budget. To tell me that now if you are bringing all these players to the table that they cannot between them all with their big hearts and bigger wallets find the money for this particular program defies belief, Mr. Speaker. I think that very clearly asking for a nominal rent of $32 a month is not an onerous burden on anybody and would help a lot to alleviate this issue. Every suggestion that we have put on this floor or in writing as a way to get funding for this program has been summarily or cursorily dismissed. So, we are at somewhat of a loss, Mr. Speaker.

I know very clearly that elders do not want welfare. Without a doubt, they do not want to be in the welfare lines for something like this. I think it is shameful that we would even suggest that is where they go. It has been indicated that there is to be a review of subsidies for elders. On one hand they are reviewing, on the other hand they are cutting at the same time. You cannot do both. In the very least, we should get a clear commitment from this government, from the Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, that he is going to more than commit to the process, but will in fact commit to funding this program with his colleagues in the social envelope. To do otherwise is unacceptable and shameful. They should be hanging their heads at the thought of taking that money out of the pockets of the poor, the elderly who have worked their whole lives. Now the thanks they get is, get in the welfare line if you need help. Unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Unacceptable.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would say that we vote in favour of the motion. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that we are taking this out of the poor and giving it to the middle income. He is painting a picture for people out there that is incorrect and irresponsible. I think that to the Ministers of the social envelope, I think we have given direction. We have left it open. They have turned it away as we have heard earlier. Now, we are giving a little more direction to it. I think that if they had reacted sooner as we started this process back in the springtime or early fall, that this would not be at this stage today. I know many people who have moved from their own homes to public housing because it is cheaper to stay in public housing. I have had people, who have their own homes and turned senior, ask me to ask the government to pay their bills because it is being done so in public housing. We are showing an incorrect picture here. I think this would be taken care of quite easily if the work was done soon enough. So, I would suggest to the Members that we do not react to certain words and put down by the ways thing are expressed. The fact is, we suggested a nominal rent to those in public housing because that was there before. We charge people who are disabled in facilities, sometimes up to $700 a month. Yet, we argue the fact that those who do have pensions and that cannot afford small rents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause