Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Minister giving some details, particularly in the areas where he provided, for instance, the change from $500 a month to $750 a month for singles accommodation.

Under the food benefit, increasing that by $580,000 does not help people understand what that means to an individual or family. I know that just last week, we had a demonstration here in the Great Hall that showed us what was contained in what is considered to be a healthy food basket, according to one source. Could the Minister advise, is this $580,000 going to allow us, for instance, to achieve a healthy food basket in what we are supplying for people on income support?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The increase we are looking at, Mr. Chairman, over the past year by approximately 13 to 15 percent in the food basket area, I understand what that represents is approximately, give or take a few percentage points, about 75 percent what we would term a healthy food basket. I sort of relied on my officials to provide that to me, the director of income support.

What must be taken into account is there are federal programs as well that are provided that add to our funding. In other words, our funding is for the food benefit, but individuals additionally receive, on a monthly basis, child benefit funding and so forth. It increases that 75 percent even more, Mr. Chairman, to a healthy food basket. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that Northern residents who are forced to get by on income support will have trouble making ends meet. With us only providing 75 percent of a healthy food basket, this has to have some impact when you are expecting people to make productive choices in order to stay on a program.

If a person is worried about whether or not their children are being adequately fed, or whether they have to find supplementary food or go to some other source to try and make sure there is enough food in the house, it cannot make their life any easier when they are trying to, for instance, better their lives through education, if that is the productive choice they have agreed to.

Surely we have to be looking at ways to increase it above the 75 percent level in the food benefit. Is the Minister not concerned that this has to have some impact on people's ability to pull themselves out of the cycle of dependency that we often find people in who are trapped on income support?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated, our funding formulates approximately 75 percent of what could be termed a healthy food basket. Additionally, there is federal funding, such as the national child benefit, that also comes into play here, that also contributes on a monthly basis to the income of income support people.

What has to be considered and taken into account here, Mr. Chairman, is the balance between those on income support and those who are low-income earners. We have to consider that and always take that concern, because what we provide on income support is the cost of housing, and it does not matter what the cost is. If public housing is available, then they are able to obtain that or we pay the cost of whatever it may cost for an individual to be accommodated in private housing.

We also pay for the utilities. We pay for a clothing allowance on an annual basis. It is $200 to $250 per person, per year. We also pay for a furniture allowance. An individual can earn $400 per month that would be considered earned income and is exempted.

We do have what I think is a balanced area for individuals to have a situation where they can move into a productive choice and accommodate themselves. The program was never meant as a lifestyle program, Mr. Chairman. I should also point out in most cases, we are two times the national payment that is made here. If you work all that out to an hourly rate, it is quite substantial.

We have to be concerned about the balance between low-income earners and those on income support. At what point do we discourage people from making the productive choice and discourage them from going to work but stay on income support? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that I personally agree with the Minister that we want to make sure the people who work are not penalized for going to work, so that is an important issue. I think we also want to make sure that people are not deprived of being successful in a productive choice because they or their kids are hungry. I think we have to be careful and walk a very fine line here.

Perhaps one of the areas we need to examine is the sharp cutoff. I know we are allowing up to $400 per month for earned income to be kept without it affecting the amount of income support, but perhaps there needs to be a sliding scale. Perhaps we need to find some way to continue past that $400 per month to encourage people to enter the wage economy.

If we are now concerned about the benefits, look at providing them on a sliding scale so we can make sure people have adequate nutrition, yet we are still finding a way to encourage their entry into the wage economy.

Mr. Chairman, I also wonder if we could get some details on the changes that are proposed to the seniors' home heating subsidy. The Minister says there is $100,000 there, but what is that going to mean to seniors across the Northwest Territories?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think Mr. Dent has a very good point about looking at a sliding scale for the amount of earned income. I think that is a good suggestion for us to take up and see what we can do in that area. We need to continue the program that was instituted back in the mid-90s, 1996, I believe. I think Mr. Dent may have developed this system, which I think is very good. I am sure the Member still agrees with that.

I know the federal government has done some programs on this to provide a combined system. It was done in B.C. and one of the other provinces, whereby individuals were allowed, and supported financially through income support, but allowed to keep what they earned. We can take a look at that program and see how it worked and how successful it was.

On the seniors benefit, Mr. Chairman, this was an important area because Members had raised a lot of concerns about that previously, of the inequity if you were in an area that had a colder climate, longer winters and so forth. What has been done is that the amount of support provided is different per zone. Zone one has, by way of example, five cords of wood and zone two would be increased to six cords of wood, zone three would be seven cords of wood, or the equivalent, Mr. Chairman, of fuel supply; natural gas, propane, oil, wood or electricity.

The other thing that we have done is raised the thresholds for zones one, two, and three. The threshold was $30,000, which has been increased to $35,000. Then we have a sliding scale for that, so you get 75 percent for $1,200 above that, 50 percent for $2,500 above that, and 25 percent for $3,700 above that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Page 9-11, advanced education and careers. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The impact benefit agreements have been an issue, Mr. Chairman, which several Members have asked me about. The difficulty we face with this, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not have access to the content of the impact benefit agreements because they are private agreements between a corporation and a land claims organization or an aboriginal group.

We have no indication that is related, Mr. Chairman, to a land claim benefit. I have to adhere to the policy, Mr. Chairman, because of that. As I said, we have no access to those particular agreements. If we did, perhaps we could be more definitive as to whether they are or are not related directly to treaties.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have the evidence of that. The legal advice we have been provided follows the policies as we apply them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The treatment that has been given to this is that it is an agreement between a private corporation and an aboriginal group, Mr. Chairman. It would be no different than, for the moment, as far as we can see, income earned from a building they may own in the community. I guess that is just the point. We do not know that.

The legal opinion that has been provided states without having other information, there is just no way to suggest that this is a benefit. Plus, there are further items that would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the provision is made that it is a payment to the organization but in turn, that the organization provides it to the individuals, if it is not included in the IBA agreement, then the benefit could be considered as a gift from an organization. It is clear in our regulations that would not be considered as part of the treaties. Thank you.