Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all of our highways are important to us. We need to provide safe travel for the commercial traffic as well as private vehicles. Highway No. 1 is slated to have some paving overlay on the south end of it, and we will be

looking at some minor upgrades in certain areas of the north end of Highway No. 1. I don't have that specific information, but I will commit to providing that information to the Member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to reassure my constituents that indeed the department is placing a priority on that road, and especially when it comes to tourism. I was wondering if the Minister is aware that last year the people in my riding were concerned that the highway wasn't maintained on a regular basis, that the big motor homes were turning around halfway and if the Minister will address that and keep a target on more frequent maintenance on our highways. If I can get assurance from the Minister with that regard.

Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the Member had concerns regarding maintenance. Our reports indicate to us that the highway is safe. We are targeting some dollars for the riding of Nahendeh, especially in the Liard area. We will be looking at a study that is being conducted by Transport Canada to project increases on traffic volumes as a result of potential development. We will be using this study to access more federal funding. Thank you.

Item 6, oral questions. Member for Great Slave, Bill Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is today continued to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment in the area of the clawback of the national child benefit supplement. In a discussion last week, we learned that one of the reasons for continuing the programs that the GNWT has and financing through this clawback is that we want to help people create an attachment to the workforce. This is a bit of a nebulous phrase and I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could explain what is meant by helping to create an attachment to the workforce and how do we indeed measure our success in this objective. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, by creating an attachment to the workforce, what is meant is the goal is to encourage people to transition from income support to working and gaining income on their own, as opposed to receiving a supplement from the income support program. How do we measure the success of that? We do have some follow-up with clients, but by and large the biggest measure of success is the turnover of the people who cycle through the system, coming on and off the program.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, the number of people cycling on and off. You know when we look for value for money, one of the results we are getting, all too often, these are the fuzzy answers we get. What I am looking for here are some real numbers, something that I and others can hold up and say this is getting us somewhere or not. I would really like to know. Can the Minister justify what the results are by not giving families in poverty situations the national child benefit supplement?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, whether we should calculate the national child benefit as part of the family income before calculating income support, or whether or not there is a measurable way of determining if that's helping get people into the workforce, I am not sure that is the issue that is most important. If we are going to use public monies to provide support to people, we need to make sure we have a consistent and fair way for assessing. Some people might qualify for the national child supplement, others may not. If we are going to have a mechanism for determining what support this government gives people, it shouldn't be just because they qualify for one program or another. The whole gambit of what they have needs to be taken into consideration. I met with Alternatives North. Clearly, their concern was the support that we're providing and they feel income support program isn't adequate. I suspect that that is what the Member is saying as well. I don't think that we should take just one section that some people might qualify for and agree that it should be passed on.

If there is an issue of adequacy, we need to deal with that. It should be dealt with in a consistent manner so that all the income that people have is taken into account before we figure out what we should give them. I suspect that the Member is really speaking about the issue of adequacy of our current program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answers. These are wide ranging, complex issues. A lot of different value systems and ideas come into play. Where the Minister talks about eligibility, there is also an aspect that I think deserves some more exploration. That is where we take a National Child Benefit Supplement from whoever is eligible and then we create programs for families and young kids. Is there equitability in the access to these programs? Taking from somebody in a given

community, can we reassure them that they are getting an equal benefit in return? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot necessarily guarantee equity in access to those programs because they are community-based programs. They are funded based on applications. So, typically they are programs that are developed in the communities. They are not necessarily in all communities, so there isn't necessarily an equity of access.

One of the other things that we use the monies for is the territorial worker supplement. That is a program which is designed to encourage low-income people to stay in the workforce. It is provided equitably to all people who qualify for it. So the one portion that the Member has asked about, no, I can't guarantee that there is equity. In terms of adequacy, I have committed already that I would meet with the standing committee to discuss the program outlining its purpose, its costs, what benefits it provides and discuss with them where we might need to make some changes and that commitment stands, Mr. Speaker.

Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, to that commitment, and I have indicated already, as other Members have that I certainly look forward to engaging that. It has also caught the attention, needless to say, of non-government organizations and others who would like to be able to participate. I would like to say that they could and should because they are very much the people on the front line. Would the Minister welcome the participation of stakeholders and non-government organizations in this review? Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not the intent when I said that I would involve the standing committee, that I would embark on an expensive road show. I have no money in the budget for a consultative process. I would much rather examine with the standing committee where we go from here before agreeing to do that. If we have any money to spare, I would rather see it put into the program rather than into the review process. I have met with advocates such as Alternatives North to talk about the program. I think I know what the concerns are. I would like to hear from MLAs who represent the public on the standing committee, what they feel the concerns are with the program, and then discuss with the standing committee where we might make some changes. I have no intention of embarking on an expensive public process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 6, oral questions. Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Allen.