That particular program, as I highlighted earlier, was an ASEP position due to the sunset clause. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. We’re on page 8-30, information item, Advanced Education and Careers, Active Positions.

Department of Education, Culture and

Employment, Activity Summary, Advanced Education and Careers, Active Positions, information item, (page 8-30) approved.

Page 8-31.

Information item, Advanced Education and Careers, Active Positions.

Department of Education, Culture and

Employment, Activity Summary, Advanced Education and Careers, Active Positions, information item, (page 8-31) approved.

We’re on 8-33, Activity Summary, Income Security, Operations and Expenditures Summary. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll just start this discussion off by saying that I’d certainly like to see the Public Housing Rental Subsidy work its way out of this program. I’m not going to speak for other Members, but from my experience with the types of calls and discussing them with the Housing Authority, it seems like a very frustrating program — how the relationship seems to be built between the Housing program and the Income Support program.

Minister, I’m not a believer in how it’s worked out. It certainly would have been nice to see it the one-window, one-stop approach. I think, over the long haul, maybe that will be how it will migrate into a working system; but right now, I’m not a believer and supporter of this in its location. I think maybe just in this area I’ll leave it at that for now.

Thank you,

Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr.

Chair. This

area has been an area of concern for the Members. We did highlight in the February session that we told the Members we’d come back with a progress report, which we’ve done, two weeks ago. In that area I believe there is a progression that is happening. We are opening lines of communication between LHOs and client service officers in the communities. I think we are making, I would say, substantial progress compared to where we were last fall, working closely with the Housing Corporation on this matter, with our Department of Education, Culture and Employment. I do believe we are making progress, and I’ll leave it at that. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mentioned in my opening comments about the amount of money that’s being spent on Income Security. According to the Minister’s remarks, it’s about $70 million. We’re going to a new common policy framework and model, which is going to cost us an additional $5.9 million. I see further on in this section that we are adding five positions under Income Security. I wondered, between last year and this year, are we really adding $6 million to this particular section? And if so, why?

Thank you,

Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Daniels.

I wasn’t here, but I understand that when the transfer of this program took place, there was an increase in the number of bodies required to administer the program. Now we are adding another five positions to administer this program. I understand the explanation on the increase and the dollars attributed to it. I am sure some is due to the five positions, and the rest, I gather, is due to increases in the amounts in terms of a subsidy. I’d like to ask the Minister, when can we expect that we will stop adding $5 million and $6 million per year to the Income Security program?

The positions the Member has highlighted…. Those positions are client service officers in our regions like Beaufort-Delta, Deh Cho, Fort Smith and also North Slave, in order to be part of the new Income Security redesign last fall — the changes. As to answering when we are going to stop, there are always ongoing challenges and changes, so I can’t really say if it is going to stop now. But certainly we will inform the committee if there are any changes happening, keep them posted in what is the transition period. Mahsi.

I would like to make a motion, Mr.

Chair. I move that this committee strongly

recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment take immediate action to review and improve the Childcare Subsidy Program to ensure that child care operations receive stable levels of funding regardless of daily fluctuations in the attendance of children due to…. Oops. Wrong one. Sorry, we did that one.

Laughter.

I forgot to turn the page. I’ll try again.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. A motion is on the floor and is being distributed now. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we’ve covered this ground already. I’d like to speak briefly, though, to the motion.

In the briefing with the department the Standing Committee on Social Programs discussed the fact that Income Security programs at the moment penalize a family member who moves in with another — say, an elderly family member — who is on income support. So if a granddaughter moves in with Grandma to help Grandma stay in her own home, and the granddaughter happens to work at The Bay — oh, I’m dating myself; at the Northern — then the income from the granddaughter is considered as household income, and Grandma’s rental amount goes up.

The intent of the motion is that the department needs to look at this particular situation. It’s certainly cheaper to have a family member stay in their own home than to put them into institutional care and have the government pay for their accommodation. So it needs to be looked at, and we are trying to encourage the department to look at this sooner rather than later and amend their policy so that basically the person who is on income support does not get penalized when someone moves in to help them out. Thank you.

Thank you,

Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair, if I can speak to this. On this motion before us, we did talk about it within my department.

I guess the question would be: someone who works at the Northern Store and cares for a grandma — how many hours? That’s also taken into consideration. We certainly will look into that as well. But at the same time, there are individuals who are making $97,000 a year and caring for their elders for a couple of hours a day. Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? It does get complicated. We do assess elders with a fuel subsidy, the Homeownership program. At the same time, there are individuals out there who are living for free. Some are working at the mine, maybe making $150,000 a year.

So it does draw some concern to our department, as well, because we have to protect the elders. It’s also based on the medical recommendations that an elder needs to be cared for. We do follow up on that with our department, but how far do we go with that? So those have been taken into consideration. I just thought I’d speak to that from the department’s perspective. Mahsi.

I’d just like to elaborate a little bit on the intention.

It’s not intended that this is a way to get around the system. But I suspect that Income Security has quite a few policies already in place and that things are evaluated, probably to the nth degree, when somebody makes an application for Income Security.

The intention is not to cheat the government. The intention is to get around if…. I’ll back up. As an example, if Granny wants to stay in her house and the family hires someone to move in and live with her, there is absolutely no impact on the rent that she pays. But if her granddaughter moves in to live with her and happens to be working, then that is considered household income, and Grandma has to pay extra rent.

It just doesn’t seem to be fair. I think the department certainly could devise a policy and devise certain standards that have to be met. Again it’s not intended to defraud the system, but it’s simply meant to keep people in their homes as long as possible. If a family member is willing and able to look after them and happens to also be working, then that income should not be considered in the calculation of the aged person’s rent.

Thank you,

Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

She’s closed out, because she moved the motion. But that doesn’t necessarily mean….

Interjection.

Oh, we’ve got the “rule police” over there. So this does open the door for some unusual circumstances.

The situation as described by my colleague is such that it envisions one elderly person living in a public housing unit paying no rent and one grandchild moving in who works at the Northern Store, which we know, as a private sector employer, doesn’t pay a lot of money. It doesn’t envision Grandma getting a public housing unit for free and four or five grandchildren moving in, who all make $100,000 a year at the mine. It doesn’t envision that scenario.

All I’m saying is that I support the concept of some discretionary latitude on the part of the housing authorities to look at cases on an individual basis. Translation of this motion for me is “Let common sense prevail.” I think that surely the government, with all of its resources and intelligence, can figure out a policy that does not fling the door open wide for abuse of free accommodation, but at the same time allows for those situations where — the key thing is — the person living in that house adds to the quality of life and the independence of the person living there without penalizing them to the point that it is prohibitive to have any family member live with them in aging years. Thank you.