Thank you, Minister Dent. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you. So this one, if I understand correctly, the Minister is saying that's because of the UNW agreement, I guess. There will be no increase in staff under this program? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Minister Dent.

In the $3.166 million there would also be...Just a second while I clarify something with Mr. Devitt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the $63 million there are 10.8 additional staff and that's including the regional staff for the delivery of the Public Housing Rental Subsidy Program. I can't say how much of that staffing increase is in the $3.166 million because it will be in more than one place in the $61 million. But in total under this activity, there is an increase of 10.8, which is entirely for the delivery of the public housing rental subsidy.

Thank you, Minister Dent. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so I understand correctly, there will be an increase of 10.5 positions. If so, where will these positions be applied and when will they be applied? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Minister Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The increases are all across the Northwest Territories. There is an increase of .75 in Fort Smith; of 1.5 in Hay River; .25 in Fort Providence; .25 in Aklavik; .25 in Holman; .25 in Inuvik; .25 in Tuk; .5 in Deline; and .25 in Norman Wells. As well, there would be the three positions in the North Slave, which includes: .75 in Rae; .25 in Whati; and 2.5 in Yellowknife.

Thank you, Minister Dent. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to understand why they need the increase of all these people to deliver the program. Can the Minister give an example on why it's required to increase the personnel? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Minister Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our staff will see an increased number of clients because of the transfer of the program. There are 1,300 clients right now who are receiving the public housing subsidy that are not currently being seen by income support workers.

Thank you, Minister Dent. Mr. Pokiak. Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister in terms of the proposed initiative by the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, in terms of the national childcare in terms of he's going to look at $1,200 to each family for children six years old and under, including income support. Some of our people in the region will be qualified for that funding, should it go through. Are there any positions in the department to look how that would be seen as income support, and some of the people may get a clawback on that issue? So I just wanted to get some general indication from the Minister in terms of how his department, or the government, is looking in terms of that program if it does come into force. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under our current regulations, the program, as its been laid out so far for us, the payments would be considered income and it would be included in a family's income before we calculated what amount was owed for support. We're in the process, as the Member knows, of taking a look at our Income Security Program structure and before that program is proposed to come into effect, we will have had a chance to discuss with the standing committee what approaches we should be taking to the whole Income Security Program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do recognize that we are going into a review of the Income Support Program in the North here and that we give some serious consideration in terms of this benefit to the families. I'll wait until we come to completion of that when it runs through the documents, I suppose, in terms of the meetings, and the presentations, and what we come out with. I'm going to save my comments for that committee when we have time to have some discussion.

The other one I want to talk about is the clawback on the IBA benefits. I know there's some legal opinions on it on both sides of this House here in terms of that clawback and in terms of income support, and the IBAs are considered a transaction and a business deal and that, in this day and age, it's considered by this government as income, more of a business. It just scares me in terms of interpretation of how this IBA came out, and depending what side of the bed you wake up in terms of how you're looking at it. However, for us in the region, it's deemed as

a treaty right, or treaty obligation, under our treaties under our land claims. So I want to say that until we hear differently right now, because of the benefits of working on our land, that the land was given up in terms of having rights, go on there and work on it. There's different various legal opinions on this. So to have a benefit be clawed back, in terms of what the government sees, is something totally foreign to us. So I just want to state I know I'm going to get opposition from the other side, which is okay, but the people in our region say that the IBA benefits are a treaty obligation that flow out of our treaty that flowed out of our land claim, and our land claim is a modern day treaty. So the only way we had these types of avenues open up to us is because of our land claim or because of the treaties. That's the evolution of these IBA agreements, otherwise oil companies won't do anything if we had no treaties or no land claim. You know, they wouldn't have any legal obligation. Also, that's where it came up from, and I said there's various legal opinions out there and, you know, they put a lot of weight on them by both governments, aboriginal governments and the territorial government, in terms of how they see these IBA payments. I'm going to say it again to the history of our people, if we didn't have the treaty or the modern day land claim, also known as a treaty, these impact benefit agreements I don't think they'll be coming out. So those arrived from these types of negotiations, but that argument can go on for another day. I am just letting the Minister know that the feelings from my region and feelings from my people that because of these impact agreements and having the right to work on the land, there are benefits to it. You pay out on the one hand and the government is concerned that it's income. So they make adjustments to their funding in terms of services and programs to people who deserve it. I am not going to speak on it too much because we will have some more time in terms of having that type of discussion. I just want to state that, for the record, Mr. Chair. There are some serious concerns about how the income program is looked at. I am happy the Minister is doing some changes to the framework policy and to the way the programs are run. I am going to just leave it at that. I don't require any response from the Minister, if he chooses not to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Dent, would you like to comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what Mr. Yakeleya is saying and I have no doubt that we will have, someday, a very extensive discussion about this topic, particularly like as we get into the whole review of the Income Security Program.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Yakeleya. Thank you. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess while I have another chance on this page, I am going to say this once again. That is, I continue to be baffled at why the government is insistent upon us spending $1.3 million to carry out the Public Housing Subsidy Program when today it's already being delivered for what we are delivering it for. Now, because it's under ECE, we are going to have to spend an additional $1.3 million. Mr. Chairman, I can't put it any other way. It's quite wonky or quite, I'd say it's ill-conceived, however you want to put it, but something just does not add up for me. I try to think about what little money we have to go into housing and why we would rush out and spend another $1.3 million on a program and on the delivery of a program that is already being done is beyond me; really it is. I think there had to have been some more work or whatever to try to come up with a better way, a more cost-effective way of delivering this program. Obviously, there wasn't. Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't need a reply from the Minister. I have heard it all before. Again, I am not very happy with how this is laying itself out. I am disappointed in the fact that we have to spend $1.3 million more today than we did yesterday to deliver the same program. It makes no sense. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. On page 9-35, activity summary, income security, operations expenditure summary, $63.897 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Page 9-36, activity summary. Mr. McLeod.