Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question from the Honourable Jackson Lafferty, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, to a question asked by Mr. Bromley on March 12, 2014, regarding compliance with income support guidelines.

Mr. Bromley asked the first question of five as follows: “What is current ECE policy regarding income support clients who fail to comply with ECE guidelines? Specifically, what is the policy around “cutting off” income support to clients as a way to enforce compliance?”

Under Section 16 of the Income Assistance Regulations, there are nine reasons where a client services officer (CSO) shall terminate income assistance (IA). The IA Regulations state that:

16. (1) Every officer shall terminate assistance to a recipient and in the case of a family of recipients for which one application was filled under section 3, the officer shall terminate assistance to all other recipients in that family

(a) the recipient has the means available to maintain himself or herself and his or her dependents adequately;

(a.1) the recipient refuses or neglects to utilize all the financial resources that he or she may access including but not limited to employment, unemployment or disability benefits or, subject to subsection (1.1), pension benefits;

(b) the recipient refuses or ceases to participate in an activity or program recommended by an officer under section 13.1 unless exempted under subsection 13.1(5);

(c) the recipient refuses or neglects to provide the officer with any information that is required in order to determine the financial resources and other circumstances of the recipient that may affect the amount of assistance provided to the recipient;

(d) the recipient obtains employment resulting in earnings adequate to meet the needs of himself or herself and his or her family, but assistance may be continued until receipt of his or her first paycheque;

(d.1) the director is satisfied that the recipient has made a false or misleading statement for the purpose of obtaining assistance for himself or herself or any other person;

(d.2) the recipient voluntarily leaves employment without just cause as set out in paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act (Canada);

(d.3) the recipient’s employment is terminated by his or her employer for just cause; or

(e) subject to subsection (2), the recipient leaves the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Bromley’s second question is as follows: “In the last three years, how many income support clients have been cut off from income support, for how long and for what reasons?”

Mr. Speaker, to answer this question, later today, at the appropriate time, I will table “Income Assistance Refusal Reasons by Fiscal Year,” which details the number of IA recipients who were issued a refusal of benefits, the reason and length of refusal over the three previous fiscal years.

The third question that Mr. Bromley asked is as follows: “In the last three years, how many income support clients who were cut off had children in their care?”

Mr. Speaker, in the 2011-12 fiscal year, the department received 19,365 applications for IA. Of those applications, 1,825 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, 738 or 4 percent of the total applications for IA were issued to clients who had children in their care.

In the 2012-13 fiscal year, the department receive 19,050 applications for IA. Of those applications, 1,585 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, 644 or 3 percent of the total applications for IA were issued to clients who had children in their care.

In the 2013-14 fiscal year, the department receive 19,376 applications for IA. Of those applications, 1,414 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, 578 or 3 percent of the total applications for IA were issued to clients who had children in their care.

For his fourth question, Mr. Bromley asked the following: “In the last three years, how many single parents were cut off from income support for failing to take their ex-partner to court to seek child support payments?

Mr. Speaker, in the 2011-12 fiscal year, a total of 19,365 applications for IA were received. Of those applications, 1,825 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, two were refused for failing to seek child support payments.

In the 2012-13 fiscal year, a total of 1,050 applications for IA were received. Of those applications, 1,585 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, two were refused for failing to seek child support payments.

In the 2013-14 fiscal year, a total of 19,376 applications for IA were received. Of those applications, 1,414 refusals were issued. Of those refusals, none were refused for failing to seek child support payments.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, for his last question Mr. Bromley asked the following: “For comparison, in the last three years how many clients of income support have managed to rise far enough out of poverty that they no longer required income support for at least one year?”

To address this question I must point out that when an individual no longer receives IA they are no longer clients of the IA Program and the department thus does not track there post-IA income or personal economic situation. Individuals may no longer be receiving IA for a variety of reasons including better employment or because they have left the territory and so on.

We do encourage clients to make productive choices when they are on IA. Productive choices are a key component of the IA Program and are intended to empower northern residents to participate in opportunities in their community, such as education or training programs, or the wage economy.