Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we can certainly do that for next year,

break it down so it’s more clear for the Members. Mahsi.

Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I’ve got a couple of areas I’d like to ask some questions about, or tackle. One of the issues that I’ve been in contact with the Minister is regarding home heating fuel for seniors, elders that live on the land just outside of Yellowknife core but still live within the city limits. They don’t live on your traditional legal land, as such, that’s gone through the normal process of land tenure. Does the seniors home heating subsidy take that into account, that we have people who are living, to some degree, a more traditional lifestyle than living in the downtown of Yellowknife, and would the home heating subsidy fuel apply to them? Thank you.

Minister of Education.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, that particular area that has been addressed by the Member, we did look into that where individual seniors, if they own a home, then they’re eligible for the seniors home fuel subsidy. There is a criteria for that where they have to own the home in order to qualify. Mahsi.

Mr. Chair, does the Minister have an opinion in the context of what’s the difference between owning land outright through a tenureship of title as opposed to living in your home on untitled land? I’m trying to understand the particular differences between the two. I mean, it’s a senior who needs home heating fuel. So we’ve got two areas we’ve checked off. It really comes down to the fact is who owns the particular land and why is that an obstacle with the department. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, if the Member is referring to those seniors that are living on the highway, if they own the home then they’ll clearly qualify for the program for the seniors home fuel subsidy. But with the policy itself, it is policy driven and we can clearly look at other options that the Member is also referring to. Mahsi.

I appreciate that answer and I look forward to the next step of where that will go.

Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that comes up from time to time is under income support assistance. The government does not allow a telephone as part of an allowable expense, and I’m trying to get some rationalization as to why that wouldn’t be included as a real expense. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this particular program is basic needs, food and shelter. If we go beyond food and shelter, where do we stop with that? Plus it’s just a subsidy program so we

would prefer to spend on shelter and food for the families. Mahsi.

I wouldn’t want to argue with the Minister on that particular point because I agree with him that income support is there to provide for basic needs and certainly food and shelter are a basic need. However, I would like to think that safety and security certainly could be provided in that. Where I’m going with that is if you were on income support, of course, you’re in of those positions, as we discussed earlier, sort of, that poverty cycle, that motion that we had passed earlier. So people have to make choices between food or clothing or support for their kids versus safety. So in other words, what if you need the phone to call an ambulance? What about a job? You know, trying to get those things, I mean, it’s yet one more element of tearing down a person’s ability to climb out of the poverty cycle.

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask the Minister, would they take that suggestion back to the department and perhaps evaluate it. I mean, most phones don’t cost a lot of money. If the territorial government agrees through income support if we only provide basic service for phones it may not sound sensitive enough, but maybe it means we have to strap the phone, which is, you know, those are part of the agreements that people can’t make long distance calls to ensure that the phones don’t get out of hand and lose control. I feel that even though it’s taking some of the empowerment away from people that I always strive we should have, but it also provides safety and security, which is the next step of where we should be. Would the Minister take that consideration back and evaluate that? Because I think it’s a missing element of our income support program. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we take into consideration what the Members throw at us. We appreciate that and we can have that as an ongoing discussion that we have, but we have to keep in mind that this is basic food and shelter. If we start providing and paying phone bills, whether it be $32 or $260, are we going to pay for gas to go to the clinic, as well? One can argue that it’s a necessity and as an emergency factor, but this is a basic program subsidy that we provide through the Income Support Framework Agreement that we have. Mr. Chair, we have to keep that in mind, that we do provide subsidies to all Northwest Territories. That suggestion can be part of our discussion, but we have to keep in mind it’s just the basic food and shelter. Mahsi.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to what solutions and considerations will come out of that. I think it would be a step forward and certainly an empowerment.

Mr. Chairman, on this section here, the last area I think at this time or, sorry, the second last area was

student loans. Another colleague of mine, I believe Mr. Ramsay, has raised this issue before. I certainly agree with the issue. Under the student loans program, has the department ever contemplated building into a program that helps buy student loans back? What I mean by that is, if we are struggling in a particular area of staff, obviously in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources, has the department ever contemplated on buying student loans?

I know American hospitals and whatnot will scoop into Canada and go to these colleges and say, you’re a radiologist. We need them at the hospital. We will pay you twice as much as they pay you in Canada and we will buy your student loan and we will buy the contract that whoever paid to send you here, we will buy you out of that contract.

I know there are a lot of areas as we have run into such as auditors. I have raised that particular spawn with the Department of Finance continually, that we have always understaffed in the Audit Bureau. I am just wondering if the Department of Education, Culture and Employment has ever thought about that type of strategy, building it in.

I can speak from personal experience where I actually had a cousin who graduated I believe with radiology. She was approached as well as she told me a number of people had been approached. Now they have sought employment in their home towns and their communities in Canada. When we have particular areas to fill that we just cannot fill whether you are a nurse in a community… I mean, can you imagine being a southern student and say, look, if you go to Tsiigehtchic for three years, we will buy your student loan out? We need a teacher in Sachs Harbour. It is difficult to get one. We will buy your student loan out and transplant you there for a couple of years and we will get you a job right away. It is that type of philosophy where we have certain positions and I am sure it is easy to identify them where it is a difficult challenge to staff people and a difficult challenge to attract people. It is that philosophy that I am suggesting. Does the department have an element to start building in that sort of thinking and flexibility to maybe develop in that direction? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we have already thought about those areas. It was brought up before. We are working with Human Resources on creating an incentive program where the student loans can be paid off immediately if they go to a community, more so in isolated communities. It has been brought up as well. Mr. Chairman, yes, we are exploring all avenues that we possibly can, to make it more attractive for those students to go back to our communities and pay off their loan as quick as possible. Mahsi.

Mr. Chairman, the last year I wouldn’t mind just getting some clarity in the budget

here. Our allocation for child care subsidy programs, I am just curious as to what is the percentage basis still being provided to day homes or child care facilities for kids that are not in school. Is it still based on percentage and sort of like a head fee and further based on attendance of children, or is the department contemplating that these types of facilities, regardless of where they are located whether they are in Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Inuvik, who knows where, they are based on actuals running these types of facilities so then they can keep the doors open and they don’t run at risk when they have shortfalls by having to shut their doors? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this was brought up as well. We provide funding to facilities or establishments to offset their costs of their mortgage or start-up costs or operation costs. Not only that but, as I stated, we are exploring options because enrolments are going down. Not only the schools, but also, if it happens to be a child care area, it is also based on the enrolment of attendance of the children or in establishment. We are also looking at that. It has been brought up in the House here, exploring options of attendance versus the operation costs. At the same time, we are looking at some consequences in that respect. Mr. Chairman, this is a work in progress period that we need to improve on. We continue to improve in this program. Mahsi.

Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we are done the comments on this page, I would like to … If there are other comments out there, I would be happy to hold my comments, but if not, I will go forward at this time. I want to follow up on some of the debate we had yesterday on the $400,000 for the nutritious food plans. I just want to mention that we have had motions and recommendations both from the House, from the Social Programs committee over the years without any response from this department. Calling for a milk subsidy for prenatal or neonatal, preschool and early school year children, the responses over the years have varied from good intentions to work with the food baskets, to work to reduce electricity rates. In more recent weeks, the responses have varied from funding yet another nutritious foods survey within the NWT, as if we needed one, and most recently, forming an NWT Nutritious Foods Steering Committee. I have to wonder what it will be next week, Mr. Chairman.

While this was raised for debate yesterday, the Minister went off on a new direction and said he would be funding things like I think it was NWT Foods First Foundation. I think he also mentioned a breakfast program in schools and said that he is

meeting exactly what we want. Now, that is good to hear, but I haven’t developed any confidence in that because of the ephemeral nature of the department’s current stance on this. I think we ended the debate expecting that the Minister will provide us with details that will assure us, give us some confidence that, in fact, we know exactly how these dollars will be spent and that they will be used to supplement food programs, nutritious foods programs for children where they are needed and very similar in some of the remarks that the Minister came out with. I think this should not be onerous and, to that end, I have a motion, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, do you want to respond?

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The $400,000 has been debated in the House yesterday. Maybe we can make some points clear that we are on the record saying that the $400,000 will be going to the Food First Program or the breakfast program, the nutritious program, the snacks program that are currently being offered. Those may not have been addressed or fell through the cracks. We want to subsidize those programs. This $400,000 will go towards that.

We talk about the steering committee. I guess we need to stay away from that terminology where we just want to have a coordinator approach where it is identified what is needed in the community. Let’s put the money towards that. We are going to work with the schools and the department such as Health and Social Services and NGOs, the Food First Foundation and Breakfast for Learning, because, Mr. Chairman, over the last three years, Food First Foundation has provided just well over $250,000 for Kids in the Kitchen Cooking Program in nine of the communities. Maybe we can top up on other communities that may have been left out.

Those are the prime focus of the $400,000 to meet the needs of the communities that are somewhat left out where we can talk about Breakfast for Learning currently supporting breakfast, lunch and snack program as it was identified yesterday, 42 out of 49 schools. Maybe this will cover an additional seven schools as well. On top of that, other subsidies that will certainly benefit other communities or the schools, but we need to work with those organizations.

We have to keep in mind that after we’ve listened to the Regular Members about addressing their concern about the study, their concern about the steering committee and now I’ve made a commitment in this House that the $400,000 will go towards the Nutritious Food Program. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate those comments from the Minister. I think that’s going a good ways in the direction that we’d like to see this. The Minister mentioned in his remarks yesterday that 90 or 95 percent of these dollars would be going directly into those programs and I think as long as he agrees that that’s the sort of figure we’re looking at, I think that would satisfy the committee for now and I’d welcome his response to that. Thank you.

We talked about 90 or 95 percent yesterday, but after hearing the Members, I will rank it up to 100 percent. Mahsi.

I’m smiling. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We’re on page 10-27, income security, operations expenditure summary, $71.533 million.