Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, previous, before we made the changes to the income assistance program, the federal child benefit was actually counted as income. What we did was we took that child tax benefit out of the assessment, which came out of the food and clothing and used it to recalculate how we get the new funding going forward. So it was actually part of the food and clothing. That came out, so it wouldn’t be re-assessed again. The NWT contribution remained the same. That is what is shown. It was just taken out to do a different way of re-calculating. That is what the Member is referring to, I believe.

I appreciate that the Minister has now enabled income assistance recipients to keep a wider range of income than was previously the case. However, the amount of money paid for both food and clothing has been reduced for income assistance recipients. How can the Minister justify reducing these assistance amounts when they are meant to alleviate poverty for the people who are most in need?

When we restructured the program, the Federal Child Tax Benefit was included in the assessments. We took those assessments out. Our contribution, the NWT's contribution, hasn't changed. That's what the Member is seeing, that number now, not included with the federal dollars. So not that the federal dollars are out and we're not assessing it. It does look like the funding went down for food and clothing, which, in fact, it hasn't. Actually, more families are getting more money.

Since we haven't had any concerns brought forward since we did the implementation, as a result we did do a review. We reviewed 171 families since we did the implementation. I just want to share a couple of quick stats, here. Since we put the changes in, we have seen an increase in approximately 14 per cent from July to September for our families. In July, approximately $79,000 of children's federal benefits was counted as income. September of that year, families were getting a reported total approximately of $166,000 extra in that month. So instead of taking $79,000 back, we actually increased it to $166,000. On average, that's about $500 extra per family, and then 17 of the 171 families received a total of $10,120 in September in child support payments. The government has not reduced its food and clothing allowance. It has remained the same. We just took out the Child Tax Benefit and have actually given families more money since the implementation.

The information I'm drawing on is information that the Minister provided. We're talking about the amount of money that's paid to income assistance recipients. In every example that the Minister provided, the amount of money paid for clothing and for food has gone down. While the bottom line for most people is better, it's not as good as it could be because the overall effect of the Canada Child Tax Benefit has been diminished. So my question again is: how can the Minister justify not enabling families to collect the whole amount that they are eligible for?

In fact, they are collecting every cent that's come from the federal government. As I said before, our dollars didn't change, their contributions didn't change, and all the examples that the Member is referring to in the presentation we gave her, we took out the Federal Child Tax Benefit and it has been recalculated so that families actually get every cent that they were supposed to get from the federal government. Our contribution hasn't changed. So every example is just that Federal Child Tax Benefit coming out so that families can get every cent that they were entitled to.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you to the Minister for that answer. I think one of the major issues here is that I needed the help of the research department to understand exactly what was going on in the administration of these benefits. I stand by the remarks that I made, that every example shows a decrease in both food and clothing allowances. So I understand the Minister doesn't believe that this is the case, but that's what my research shows. So maybe -- and this is going to turn into a comment rather than a question. I'll follow up with written questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. I'll take that as a comment. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation explain if the corporation is, in fact, overcharging by 114 per cent for the costs of power delivered to Northland Utilities for resale in the Yellowknife market? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no basis for NUL's assumption or assertion that we are overcharging by 114 per cent. As the House will know, electricity rates and cost of service percentages are regulated by the Public Utilities Board, which is an open and thorough process. So residents here are not being overcharged. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister also explain if the Yellowknife rates are being used to subsidize rates in other rate zones throughout the NWT?

Yellowknife rates do not subsidize those in other rate zones, such as the South Slave or the thermal communities. This could never be the case, as cost of service in one zone is not applied to other zones.

Just to return to my first question, the Minister made a comment about overcharging by 115 per cent. The reality is it's a 100 per cent rate versus 114 per cent rate. So are Yellowknifers being charged 14 per cent more than other communities?

No. Residents of Yellowknife are not being overcharged and are not paying 114 per cent of other zones. If that's the question; I'm not sure that I understood the question fully.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Either way, the rates for power generation are far too high in the Northwest Territories. Making the North a more affordable place is an important priority for me and for every Member here. Can the Minister explain what this government is doing and how it's working with the Power Corporation to reduce the high cost of electricity? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure Members of this House will recall, a new board of directors was put in place in the spring of this year, which in itself represented a considerable savings. If I recall, the number is approximately $1 million. The new board has been tasked with many things, but clearly they are there to examine the costs of providing power in the Northwest Territories. We are faced with certain difficulties in that the population is stable, or declining in some cases, and yet costs continue to go up. So we are working with the corporation, the board, to reduce costs. We recognize that this is an important issue. We are looking as far afield as perhaps supplying power to southern jurisdictions. So this is a primary focus of the new board, the corporation and the Minister.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I spoke of a most disturbing decision by the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources to not accept a decision by the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board on a water license amendment and to send it back for reconsideration. I would like to ask the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources whether this has happened before under water legislation for the Northwest Territories, where a Minister has refused to accept a decision and sent the matter back for reconsideration? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.