Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Premier of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, Nellie Cournoyea, the chair and CEO of IRC; Fred Carmichael, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council; Grand Chief Frank Andrew of the Sahtu Dene Council; and the interim president Raymond Taniton, chair of the Sahtu Secretariat, put forward their views on the circumstances surrounding the recent court decision by the Deh Cho. In response, the leaders of the three settlement claims expressed their opinions that the legal actions taken by the Deh Cho represent a threat to the Mackenzie gas project and deliberately undermine the rights of the claimant group and future economic well-being of the three regions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier what is the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories on the Deh Cho First Nation's legal action? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The item you referred to, Mr. Yakeleya, is presently before the courts and should not be discussed in this House. So I'm going to rule that question out of order.

---Ruled Out of Order

Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I would like to follow up on some issues raised regarding income support. Sir, this is with the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent. These are chronic issues and it has had an effect on, certainly not all, but a substantive number of clients on an ongoing basis. We have so many rules in place regarding clawbacks and income levels, timelines and deadlines, and repetitive and sometimes very invasive reporting requirements, and it amounts really to controlling, not helping these people. What are we doing, or are we doing anything, Mr. Speaker, to change the way we do business in our approach to supporting these clients? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Could you clarify to which Minister you are referring your question? Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is directed to Mr. Dent, the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the department responds to comments, suggestions and criticisms that may come from non-government agencies or from standing committees of this House or Members of this House by checking to see whether or not the policies need to be revised or reviewed. So there is a constant process of examination to see whether or not the process that we undertake in the income support field is proper and adequate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This gets us part way into the area that I would like to explore. The Minister is quite correct. You know it is in our policies and the limitations that we design and then we set in those programs. The people who actually deliver these, I have the highest praise for. They handle a difficult job and most of the time, Mr. Speaker, they do it very well. We have ways of monitoring those kinds of things that I have illustrated and that my colleague Mr. Zoe talked about, that have been there for years, Mr. Speaker. What are we doing to really address these issues? As I have asked previously, will you change the way we do business to look after these clients who have different sets of circumstances than the majority? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As well as the ongoing regular consideration of our programs and policies and the response to comments or criticisms, there have been, over the past five, six or seven years, a number of reviews of the program that have resulted in changes; for instance, the way in which we deal with those who have handicaps. They are now treated significantly differently than they were a number of years ago. The program has changed to respond to different needs and different circumstances. As I said, sometimes there have been formal reviews, more often the reviews have been as a result of internal examinations. Some of the issues, though, there haven't been any changes to because the policy hasn't been seen as required to be changed. For instance, if we have a policy that says that somebody's household only qualifies for assistance if they have lower than this income, that policy doesn't tend to change as quickly as the way in which the program is delivered. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, I take up the example that my colleague Mr. Zoe raised, I guess as an illustration of our approach. Of course, it does make sense to have limitations on the amount of support that taxpayers' money goes into in a given household. We have to have some way of measuring and keeping some measure of sound management on this kind of thing. Does it really amount to helping people, or have we simply designed, got our system designed, so that it works very well for us, as legislators and budgeters and policy people, or have we really designed something that looks at this through the eyes and the lives of -- we call them clients -- but they are residents, they are people, they are constituents? When are we going to adjust our systems so that we can accommodate that point of view? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it does right now. I think our system does accommodate differences, but there has to be a policy base for all that we do.

Ten years ago the policy was...For instance, the Seniors' Fuel Subsidy was a universal program. Everybody in the Northwest Territories who was a senior got the program, no matter what their income was or whether they needed it. This Legislative Assembly made a policy change to say that government funds would only be provided to assist seniors for fuel when there was fiscal need, and set the standards then for that fiscal need. There are three different standards, depending on the community in which a senior lives. That was a policy decision. It was set in this Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Assembly, and the budget is passed for that program based on what is presented in this Assembly. So we as legislators have made those changes to policy in the past and can again

make those changes in policy where they are seen as necessary. Those are the sorts of ways in which a policy can be changed, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answers from the Minister. He did, I think in response to an earlier question, say that there is a process of monitoring and checking and vetting and confirming that what we are doing is indeed the right thing. Can the Minister advise of perhaps the most recent report that there may have been on that, or when the next monitoring or reporting cycle will come up? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there were program reviews in 1995, 1996, another one in 1996, three in 1998, a further one in 2001. Those were the formal ones. We have the ongoing ones. I have had some ongoing discussions with the Standing Committee on Social Programs, as to the operation of our current Income Support Program, and will continue to have that dialogue with them to find out their opinion on our programs and policies.

I am also committed to bringing forward to the standing committee a policy framework for income security and how this government delivers that to the standing committee this fall. So sometime before Christmas I will present to the standing committee a policy underpinning, if you will, for all of our income security programs, just to make sure that we are offering our programs in a consistent and fair manner.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this House helps me set the policies for income support, and I would have to work with Members in this House to review the policy if that is the will. I am quite prepared to embark on that initiative. I have, in fact, started some of that work with the standing committee; it started some time ago. The Standing Committee on Social Programs and I have met several times to talk about the policies, the underpinnings for the program and how it is delivered.

I think one of the things we have to first of all decide is, is this program an entitlement? Right now, our government's philosophy is that you are not entitled to income support. It is a program of last resort, only provided to make sure people are not going to freeze to death or starve to death. It is not an entitlement program where people are guaranteed a minimum income. That is the basic philosophy that underpins the program right now. If that is the type of program, then all of the income that is available to an individual is assessed before this government then tops up what else is available, or tops up what is available to them to bring them up to the absolute minimum. That is all the program has been designed to do right now. If Members want to talk about the philosophy of the program and whether it should be a guaranteed minimum income, or the kind of program we have now, I'm quite prepared to embark on that discussion. We have to remember, of course, that every time we change the philosophy of the program, we're also going to change the cost of the program, and perhaps significantly. So that all has to be worked into our discussions, as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.