Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment in relation to the issue of the clawback on the National Child Benefit Supplement. Mr. Speaker, to illustrate this briefly, a single parent in Yellowknife with two kids, receiving social housing and on income support loses the equivalent of about $2,700 a year because of our government's clawback. My information is that leaves just under $10,000 for this family of three to look after their necessities. What justification can the Minister provide to this single parent for keeping the National Child Benefit Supplement from them? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit Supplement has three purposes to it, as posed by the federal government. One is to create attachment to the workforce, another is to reduce child poverty, and the third is to reduce overlap and duplication of programs and services. I can tell the Member that I was at the table when this was initially set up and that one of the biggest concerns from the federal representatives there was in fact making sure that the program was aimed at people who are working and to ensure that there was an attachment to the workforce. The way that this was approached when we set it up was that around the table there was general agreement that while that would be the main target, that nobody who was collecting income support would be in any way worsened in their condition by the implementation of the national child benefit. That was one of the basic tenants of the way that the program was set up, and it was in fact accomplished by the way that we've done it in the Northwest Territories. So nobody is getting any less than they were before the NCBS came into place. Those who are working get the territorial worker's supplement, a cash payment to families which is funded by some of the money that is paid to northerners through the NCBS.

We have a situation now where we have two programs that are funded by the monies that are over and above what people were getting on income support. As the Member pointed out, I had a very strong argument put to me by the social agencies in town that we should make the change. I haven't been able to find a way to fund those two programs and still accommodate that. So at this point, we haven't made any change to the program.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the explanation, it is a multi-layered issue. The Minister explained that one of the core principles that the federal government had behind this is it wanted to help stimulate development and inclusion in the workforce, but our program, our own income support program, recognizes that staying at home to raise a family is recognized as a productive choice, just as productive to our society as being out there working. So does it not stand to reason, Mr. Speaker, that income support clients who make this productive choice should be entitled to the full benefit of the National Child Benefit Supplement? Thank you.

Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In comparison to other jurisdictions, the amount of support that is provided to a parent who is staying home to look after children is very good in the Northwest Territories. The feeling is that the program, as it's designed, in fact, does accommodate that desire. For instance, those jurisdictions like Newfoundland which have allowed the straight flow through, even though there is a high cost of living in many of the smaller communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, their level of support is nowhere near what we provide to individuals living in the Northwest Territories.

One of the issues here is how much money is needed in order to get by. The program as it stands right now is one that accommodates people by saying if you come to the table with a certain level of funding in hand and you need twice that amount to get through the month, we'll provide the difference. That's what we look at as what people need. That's how the program has been approached to this point.

Having said that, I agreed that I will review the program with the Members of the Standing Committee on Social Programs and I am prepared to discuss with them what other options we might have. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Minister's commitment to have a look at the broad application of the program is a welcome one. As a Member of that standing committee, I look forward to engaging in that. But in the meantime, the Minister's answers have made it very clear that, for now, there's not going to be any budging on this issue. So I'd like to ask that at least this aspect of it, if we're not going to be making any moves to get off this clawback kick of ours -- Alternatives North reports that over the past two years the NCBS has increased something like 17 percent the size of its allotment -- to what extent has the GNWT increased our provisions of support to income support clients? Have we kept pace, at least, with what the federal government is doing? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't answer if it's been on the same percentage that the NCBS has increased, but in fact the food rates have increased this winter to reflect increased costs. We do an annual survey now and adjust the food basket rates on a regular basis rather than waiting until we get way behind. I would be quite prepared to provide the Member with what the percentage increase might be in the program.

I can also say that I've had some discussion with the department, and the fact that the NCBS has increased is one of the aspects we're considering and will be discussing as part of the overall approach that we might possibly take when we come forward to committee.

Item 7, oral questions. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I may draw your attention to page 4 of the budget address, there's a quote in there that says current projections show this virtually unchanged at $70 million. That refers to our deficit. Now it also points out, going a little further into the quote, it says, from the Finance Minister yesterday, we project a $46 million operating deficit for 2004-2005 and that was with some very classy intervention with raising some taxes, creating some revenues, finding some money. But the obvious question that has caused me some concern is, has the Finance Minister considered looking at any avenues other than the bread-and-butter basics of what people have to call their personal income. The personal income, being the pay cheque, is the only main source that people can have for getting money. So did the Finance Minister consider raising revenues through the sin tax?

Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did look at a number of tax revenue options and fee options. We've gone forward with a number of them in this budget so that we can have revenue come to this government during this upcoming fiscal year. The areas of the cigarette and alcohol taxes and fees were looked at. We are highest already, for example, on the cigarette taxes compared to other jurisdictions right now. We are also amongst the highest in the alcohol products markups for the Government of the Northwest Territories. So those were not looked at as areas of increases. They were increased in two previous years. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the next question that follows up is will the Minister address this in the next upcoming budget? Thank you.

Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we will again be going back to the table and looking at all the options we have before us. Right now we've highlighted reductions going forward, we're dealing with the tax initiatives upfront and depending on what happens in our discussions with the federal government, we will once again have to look at all our avenues as a government. Right now, again, we're highlighting reductions for the two upcoming years of $20 million in each of the two fiscal years going forward. Thank you.

Item 7, oral questions. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. We spent a lot of time in this Chamber talking about the devolution of powers and authorities to the territorial government and I remember that it wasn't so many years ago that the Department of Health was devolved from the federal government to the territorial government. Over the years, many other departments and many other responsibilities have come from the federal government to the territorial government.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I had occasion to find out that the deficit from the NIHB, the non-insured health benefit, the deficit from that program, which we deliver on behalf of the federal government, continues to grow and be a burden to this government as we try to administer it and manage it on behalf of Inuit and status First Nations people. I'd like to ask Minister Miltenberger what the current status is of that deficit and what his department is doing to address this through negotiations with the federal government. Thank you.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are two main program areas that we administer programs on behalf of the federal government: the non-insured health benefits component, which is about $5.9 million a year, recently up to about $7.3 million or $7.4 million; and the big ticket item for us under DIAND is the health services to Indian and Inuit people. That's one where we've been running an annual deficit, which is about $22 million. So we have had some relief from the federal government. They've acknowledged under NIHB that it is under-funded, so we have a commitment from them to up the base to $7.3 million or $7.4 million, I believe, which is a bit of good news for us, but there's still about $4.7 million outstanding. The big ticket item is the DIAND one.

Also, we're constantly running arrears with DIAND just on the way they pay. They hold back money. They make you go through many hoops to get the money that they are

going to pay in addition to not paying for millions. So it's a very frustrating process in the system. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.