Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present the Standing Committee on Social Programs review of the 1997/98 main estimates.

General Comments

Prior to the review of the 1997/98 business plans, the Minister of Finance warned all Members that the plans were living documents and would change over time. As a general statement, we found this to be true. In a number of cases, departments were unable to provide clarity on proposed changes. Studies have not been completed and plans are only in the development stage. The Committee understands that all government departments, including those in the social envelope, have been under tremendous pressure with decreased resources. We have tried to recognize this in reviewing the information provided.

Reviewing the Proposed Changes

However, the Committee still reviewed all proposed changes with a critical eye. Last year, we supported initiatives based on the general information given. Unfortunately, some of the changes were implemented in a different way than was presented during the review of the 1996/97 Main Estimates. We approved an overall package of changes last year. We looked for balance and fairness. Changes were approved based on other changes. When reductions and changes were not implemented, the package didn't make sense any more.

As a result of our past experience, we were more judicious in giving support to changes proposed by departments. We looked for key indicator:

- that the actual program changes would be well thought out;

- that changes would be based on the principles and goals the Committee Members talked about during the review; and

- that there would be appropriate consultation with affected groups.

We wanted adequate information before we were able to support specific initiatives. We looked for results rather than just focusing on spending. In most cases, the departments provided the information we needed to make informed decisions.

Social Envelope Subsidies

The issue of subsidies came up in every department. Until there is a clear understanding of the various subsidies, at least within the social envelope, how can the government determine the connections and potential overlap between the subsidies? Without this big picture, we are not comfortable continuing to make changes to subsidies without a sense of what other programs or subsidies might be affected, directly or indirectly.

The social envelope partners have established a working group to review and possibly revise the range of subsidies for seniors. There are currently 21 seniors subsidies spread over nine boards, agencies, and departments. This review is a good start. However, we believe the social envelope partners also need to review the comprehensive list of subsidies they provide. There are a number of areas of inconsistency and overlap which should be addressed. As a start, there should be a list compiled of all subsidies available through the social envelope.

Recommendation No. 1

The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends that a comprehensive list of subsidies available through the social envelope should be provided to the Committee by September 1st, 1997.

Review of Seniors' Subsidies

In October, after looking at the seniors' fuel subsidy, we asked the Ministers to develop a long-term plan which would address a number of concerns raised about subsidies for seniors. We think there is a need to look at the big picture. If the seniors' fuel subsidy were eliminated, how many of the 400 people who received the subsidy will move into social housing where they will cost this government far more in the long run? How many additional applications will be made for income support from seniors who just can't make it in the winter months?

The Minister indicated that there is a Social Envelope working group looking at the array of programs and subsidies available to seniors. This group may recommend that the fuel subsidy be eliminated and replaced with a comprehensive package of programs and subsidies for seniors. However, there is no indication of when this working group will report. In the future, when the Social Envelope has rationalized the array of programs and subsidies available to seniors, there may be new solutions. However, for now, the Committee will not support the elimination of the wood fuel subsidy.

The Minister of Health and Social Services has provided a summary of the twenty-one programs and subsidies currently available for seniors. These programs are delivered by nine different departments, boards, and agencies. The summary also highlights inconsistencies in the eligibility requirements, particularly in age and income, for the various programs. It is clear that there is a need to complete a comprehensive review and reform of programs and subsidies for seniors.

Recommendation No. 2

The Standing Committee recommends that a plan to integrate the various GNWT subsidies and programs for seniors should be provided to the Committee by September 1st, 1997;

And further that the seniors' programs and subsidies integration plan should:

- be developed in consultation with the NWT Seniors' Society

- address the idea of consolidating all programs for seniors under one authority

- contain an action plan for implementing the reform of seniors' subsidies and programs.

Preparing for Division In each of the department, there will be hundreds of tasks, both big and small, to prepare for division. After this budget process is complete, we expect Ministers and their departments will turn their attention to these tasks. We look forward to the departments' division plans coming to the Committee later this spring.

Standards

In each department, we looked at the standards for service. In the past, this government had the dollars to provide a cadillac service. It is time to review whether we can still afford this level of service, particularly in the social areas where a high birth rate and extreme levels of social problems are driving programs to the limit. As a government, we need to look at whether we put our money into top of the line facilities, or whether we are now ready to live with more modest surroundings but more direct services. We have to look at the standards for qualifying for a facility. When does a community qualify for a community learning centre? What population is needed for a long-term care facility? These are the kinds of questions we will be asking and we hope the departments will also consider.

Departments also need to be more flexible in looking at alternate uses for infrastructure. We were pleased in particular with the openness of Health and Social Services to considering alternate uses for facilities. Times have changed and we have to be more creative in how we look at facilities and what can be done with them. For example, a building may not look precisely like a community learning centre we are used to, but that does not mean it could not function as one.

Use Pay/User Say

In each of the business plans, there is additional responsibility as a result of user pay/user say initiatives. In most cases, the funding transferred was first reduced, so departments will have to be more efficient than the departments with the original responsibility and economies of scale. As these initiatives take place, we are starting to hear about the difficulties and implementation details which were not thought through. We are very concerned that there has not been sufficient analysis before proceeding with this major initiative. The Social Envelope departments are already struggling to meet the demands for services. We will be monitoring the impact and potential additional costs they may have to carry as a result of user say/user pay. We hope this will not be another initiative where we have to pick up the pieces in the end.

Recommendation No. 3

The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends that each department in the social envelope provide an analysis of the financial and operational impact for each user say/user pay initiative by October, 1997.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague for Yellowknife North to continue with the report.