Everyone agree that the Minister bring in his witnesses?

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in.

...(inaudible)...27, operations expenditure summary, income security, activity summary. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions. The first on the seniors heating subsidy. We have a lot of seniors that are eligible for the seniors fuel subsidy and then lose their eligibility if one of their children move home or anything like that where they can, indicating, I guess, from the department, that there’s any income that person has or the history of the income goes toward the senior and they lose their fuel. In reality the individual is not contributing to assisting the senior with the cost of operating a house. It puts a burden on it and it’s difficult for the senior to deal with the adult child that’s moved back into the home. I’m wondering if the Minister could just, I mean, I guess it could be a fairly standard answer that’s up to the senior to deal with, but it’s difficult

for them and they don’t even like to discuss that with me, but they do in a confidential way and ask that I take the issue to the department. When I do speak on the issue it’s a fairly standard response. I’m wondering if the department has looked at that situation to maybe do things differently or maybe do it more on a case-by-case basis as opposed to always taking the income of the adult child into account.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Lafferty, before you answer the question, I guess you should introduce your witnesses. Introduce your witness for the record.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I have with me, to my left, Mr. Dan Daniels, deputy minister of Education, Culture and Employment, and also Paul Devitt, director of Business and Strategic Services.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Welcome, witnesses. With that, Mr. Lafferty, you can respond to Mr. Beaulieu’s questions.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. This particular area has received a lot of focus for the last year or two. We did make some changes there when Members in the past approached us about how we should deal with it and gave us advice. One bit of advice, of course, was increasing the threshold, which we’ve done successfully. I believe it was $10,000 across the board.

We continue to change the program. As the Member alluded to, we’re trying to do things differently. Yes, we are. We are making change as we go along. This particular area is on household income. The Member is correct on that. I did instruct my department to look at options of how to deal with this because we don’t want to have an impact on the seniors. If they have older kids living with them and if they’re earning enough income, some are working at the mine and should be able to pay the subsidy. So instead of having a burden on the senior, why couldn’t we put that invoice towards those individuals who are living with them? Those are the areas we are exploring as we speak.

Just on the public housing rental subsidy Income Support Program. I’m pleased that the government has returned the subsidies back to NWT Housing Corporation. However, in this business plan the 34 million-odd dollars plus the $12 million recoveries from CMHC are still in this business plan. I understand why, because we’re going to do the transfer back during the next fiscal year. I’m wondering if the department and the Housing Corporation could maybe work together to speed the process up. I feel it should be a fairly simple process to transfer it back. We have a month and a half to be able to transfer as much of it back as possible. So I’m wondering if the Minister would make a commitment to work with the

Housing Corporation Minister to see which local housing organizations are ready to take the subsidy back and start dealing directly with the clients’ rent on April 1, 2010, as opposed to the target date of April 1, 2011.

I thought we were transferring that program and the money is still here, so that’s a good sign that the money is still with us. But it’s in the transition period. We are going to be transferring the program over to the NWT Housing Corporation. We’re looking at possibly between June and August or September, because there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. We’re still working closely with the NWT Housing Corporation on identifying those individuals and also LHOs at the community level are taking on the additional workload. There are still a lot of areas that need to be fleshed out before we transfer the program, but it will happen later on this summer.

Same topic. I just again ask the Minister as a final word on this from me if they could look at something a little bit quicker than the summer. I recognize that there are certainly some logistics to transferring the program back, but because it’s broken down by each LHO and, I think we’re talking about 19 LHOs, I’m not 100 percent positive, but I would implore the Minister to try to get this done on April 1st .

Really it comes up to the two departments and LHOs and organizations that we need to work with. If we can expedite the process, we are certainly open for that. As long as we have our ducks lined up and the transition period is as smooth as possible, we’ll take those into consideration as well. The Housing Minister is here, as well, listening to the process.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Next on the list I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions here. One has to do with Income Security Program. When we discussed the business plans, there was some indication from the Minister in response to one of our questions that there is a review of income security for persons with disabilities. I wondered if the Minister could advise if that is indeed correct, and when we might see the results of that review, and what recommendations are the results of the review with the recommendations that would be arising. When would we see that?

Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. We are working on that review of the disability portfolio area. As soon as that’s done, that’s part of the planning process for next year’s business cycle. Once we’re done with that we can

share that information with the standing committee on what needs to take place at the next level.

I don’t believe I heard a timeline in there. I wonder if I could get an approximation of... I understand that the review is being done for next year’s business planning process, but when might committee, for instance, see the results of the review and the recommendations in it?

Mr. Chair, we are hoping to complete the review of the particular program we’re hoping by this fall and then we will present it to the standing committee. Then it will be part of the business planning cycle for next year.

Thanks to the Minister for that. I have one other question. I mentioned in my general comments that I was very dismayed to see that we have other expenses, another under other expenses. In this department particularly, the other expenses are some $56 million and they’re broken out reasonably well, except then we come down to other within other of $2.419 million. It’s a pretty large other without any kind of definition. So when I asked the Finance Minister, we did get a sheet which told us what all the other expenses were. The education one, the $2.419 million is bad debts expense. So I, unfortunately, didn’t understand that either and kind of went, well, what’s that mean. So I’d like to pass that question on to the Minister and his officials, please. Why do we have bad debts expense for $2.5 million in the education budget? Thank you.

Mr. Devitt.

First off, I would hope that next year I won’t see $2.4 million in an undescribed expense. Secondly, it seems a little strange to me that when we forgive a loan for our students it’s considered a bad debt. Is that the only way that we can account for it from an accounting perspective or is that simply the language that the department chooses to put on it? Thank you.

Maybe next year we could split it out so we have a debt expense and bad debts. But thank you. That’s all I’ve got.