Thank you, Minister Dent. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Picco. Mr. Picco, I heard four or five questions there. I presume that we are going to deal with the last one now. Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there are three PYs in this budget that are definitely a reduction in terms of funding that will go to the Language Bureau. The restructuring of the Language Bureau, the Member asked me earlier, is this a budgetary issue. The answer is no. The restructuring which is 18 PYs, all of the money from that was going to be redistributed to departments to ensure they could still purchase the same level of services as they are getting through the Language Bureau right now, as well as freeing up about a half a million dollars to provide to language communities to take on the function of language development and language promotion. The 18 PYs, not 17, are not a budgetary issue. It has nothing to do with last year's budget, this year's budget or next year's budget. That is a restructuring of the Language Bureau in order to provide funds to departments and to language communities. This budget does contain a three PY reduction.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. I want to know from the committee, did we all hear the Minister say four times that this has nothing to do with the budget reduction? In other words, we have heard him say three or four times that reduction to the Language Bureau will not happen until the plan is put in place. It is not a budgetary process. We all understand, so there are no more questions on that line. Is that agreed?

I believe I have heard the answer four times. Mr. Picco, your line of questioning. I hope that you have got the answer clearly. You have one more question, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Picco. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I said the 18, not 17 PYs are not in any budget because all that is a straight restructuring. The line would stay the same except for 3 PY reduction in the Language Bureau. Eighteen PYs is not the total Language Bureau. It was a portion of the Language Bureau, a big portion. If we were to restructure the Language Bureau, those 18 PYs would disappear. Whether we restructure or not, this budget includes a reduction of three PYs. As I was trying to help the Member understand, where those PYs turn out to be I cannot say exactly right now, as I indicated to the Member for Inuvik earlier, because we have more locations than we have PYs to layoff. It did not mean that there was necessarily one or two or three PYs laid off in the same community. If the Member is asking me, will all three PYs that we are reducing be in Iqaluit. If we do not restructure the Language Bureau, the answer is no. Will one of them, perhaps - I do not know. We will have to look at that. Somehow, if we do not restructure the Language Bureau, we have to find a way to run it with three PYs less in total. Where those PYs are located, I am not sure. We may try and work it through a vacancy rate rather than to have to lay people off, which is what we have managed to do in the regional offices. I hope that has cleared that up for the Member, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. That was your fifth question, Mr. Picco. I will now recognize Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in order to gain the full range of benefits under income support, participants will be expected to make productive choices. Productive choices range from education, that would be upgrading or continuing education, looking for work, it may even be wellness counselling. It is a fairly broad spectrum. In the end, what we are hoping to do is hand over administration of the income support programs to the communities. In some communities, it may make sense for the income support worker to suggest that someone who is on income support could contribute back to the community, perhaps by cutting wood for seniors or banking up snow around seniors' houses in the winter or perhaps hunting and providing food for seniors. The productive choices are intended to be relatively broad and we are hoping that each community will take a look at what makes sense in their particular community and then work with people on the income

support program to make sure the dollars that are being expended are for the good of the whole community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure what the Member is questioning as not being universal. It is a universal program. The choices are broad and varied. Some people, in order to have a good chance of progressing from income support, need to undertake wellness activities, others need to take upgrading, others need to gain work experience. There are all sorts of different options, but each person will have to work with a counsellor to develop a career plan and then be seen as moving along that career plan to stay on the full spectrum of support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you allow a community to take control of a program, you have to respect a community's decisions about what makes sense in the program, within a broad range. We expect to be able to allow communities to make their own choices. It is entirely possible that what the Member suggests could happen. Although I would have to see a specific example to know whether or not it could. Our expectation is communities will, along with the individual career plan, take a look at what makes sense for that individual in that community and quite broadly assess what makes a productive choice. Thank you.