EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I appreciate the member’s comments and I appreciate his ongoing support.
That’s exactly what I was trying to do is hire local support and work with existing Justice Committees and coordinators so that we can do this at the pace of the communities to support them in their efforts.
We will have ongoing central staff like a psychiatrist and family mediators that will be there to support the communities and implement this legislation.
We will have JPs who are specially trained under this Act so that we can get away from the current practice of separating the families and not working on healing themselves.
So that’s the objective and I appreciate the ongoing support from my colleague.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Premier. (interpretation ends) Page 7.
Not previously authorized. $1,643,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Community Justice.
Not previously authorized. $5,070,000.
Chairman: Next page. Page 8.
I have some questions on this item to the Minister of Income Support.
I know that the rate for food allowance has been increased since 1989. However, I continue to find it strange that Sanikiluaq is the only Nunavut community that is located in Zone 1.
For example, a family of six people in Sanikiluaq received $1,199 per month for food.
A family of the same size in Iqaluit, which is Zone 2, receives $1,280 per month.
Can the minister explain why Sanikiluaq is the only Nunavut community in Zone 1, and will he commit to reviewing this issue and move Sanikiluaq into a different Zone?
To the Minister of Education, please.
The department will commit to reviewing the placement of the zone which Sanikiluaq finds itself in now, which I believe is Zone 1, and we will review that to see if we can have it placed in a different zone based on the costs.
Again, the cost of a regular food basket and so on usually dictates where a given community is placed within a given zone. So we will review that.
I know that the minister has done some good things, such as stopping the practice of clawing back Co-op dividends.
Can he tell me when rates for other benefits, such as the clothing allowance, will be reviewed and increased?
The member is correct. We have done some changes to the program, including increasing it by five, then ten percent, and then 15 percent over the last two budgets.
We’ve also allowed for not having monies clawed back on the Co-op dividends and some other federal programs that are in place.
On the areas, specifically with the clothing allowance and so on, those are, again, reviewed departmentally. The next review will probably be this fall to see if amounts can be looked at within the cost categories, for example, for food only, or clothing allowances, and so on.
I have been hearing concerns about the National Child Benefit Supplement. This is for low income families.
For the purposes of the Government of Nunavut’s Income Support Program, this is considered unearned income and must be deducted from the amount of support that income support recipient gets.
Although this is a small amount, every little bit helps lower income families.
It is my understanding that some provinces do not claw this amount back.
It would not cost the GN very much to allow people to keep this extra money, which they could use to meet their family’s needs.
Will the minister commit to reviewing this issue and reporting back to the House?
The National Child Benefit Supplement is provided by the federal government to lower income families in the territory, in the same way that it does across Canada. It is a national program.
For 2005-06, the federal government put in almost $7 million into the National Child Benefit Supplement that was paid out to Nunavut residents.
The member is correct, other jurisdictions like Nunavut make adjustments to our social assistance or the income support amounts that we have for families with the National Child Benefit Supplement.
We’ve had some discussions internally on how we can deal with this and move forward with not allowing a claw back on it. Again, there are some issues with the Nunavut Personal Income Tax and how deal with that. That is something that is still being reviewed by the department.
We take the member’s suggestion, and hopefully this fall be able to report back to the House again on we can move forward with making a recovery to the fund, or enhancing programs that we use the money for across Nunavut.
I also have concern from constituents about deductions in the income support benefits when they receive air tickets that have been paid for by relatives or friends.
I understand why the government does this for the tickets that are used just for visiting relatives.
However, I am aware of a situation where people have used tickets for such things as attending important graduation ceremonies, or to escape abusive situations.
Would the minister commit to this reviewing the issue, so that people who get tickets for legitimate travel do not suffer a reduction in their benefits?
We’ve had some discussion on that in the House in the past and during Question Period. We’re reviewing it.
There are a couple of good opportunities within the program right now, which number one, if there is a concern raised, the individual has an opportunity to appeal that decision, the income support decision.
But at the end of the day, the idea, Mr. Chairman, again, if someone receives a ticket to visit a sick relative or what have you, then that isn’t taken off the Income Support Program. If there is a situation regarding a compassionate need for a ticket, that isn’t taken off a person’s income support amount.
However, if I give a ticket so I can send a relative for a holiday for a few weeks, and then when they come back and they apply for income support, although leaving on a holiday, then, of course, they would be ineligible, like most jurisdictions would do that.
Again, that’s something that we need to review, and that’s something that we’re looking at on an ongoing basis. Again, this fall, we will be doing some of the work on the Income Support Program, that will be looked at again.
I’d like to thank the minister in regard to claw back of income support, and for him trying to resolve those claw back concerns.
Because we don’t have a highway in our Nunavut communities, sometimes we cannot go and see our relatives just like that, we have no choice but to go on the airlines.
Either we try to go through the charters, even if you want to go back on a certain time you can’t do that because you don’t have any money to go back, no return ticket.
And I think the minister has to review this situation on an ongoing basis because the money is not lost.
Look at the projects that are being initiated by the government and there’s a lot of money being wasted like doing such things as design; there are hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to waste.
Like the people that go and visit their relatives that are on income support, that’s their only livelihood. The department keeps saying that they cannot receive claw backs and money because they go and see their relatives?
(interpretation ends) I’m not proud of that and I think the minister is quite proud of provision. I really truly believe that he should have a fairer reviewer of that provision and really present the case to the public, not just to his advisors and himself.
Present it to us, and see whether or not we could find a proper line.
If you were down south and were able to drive to visit your relatives, or your relatives can come in for a month, for those that are employed, it probably doesn’t affect them.
But our people need to be able to visit their relatives as well.
So for that reason, I would like some commitment from the minister that he will properly evaluate and maybe put in a little more compassionate recommendation to members.
Can he do that, Mr. Chairman?
I know the minister has very good people working for him on this Income Support Program, and in some cases it’s very challenging.
I know that in some cases, many of the income support applicants know they have to go through what they call emergency basis, not on permanent basis but emergency basis.
I have seen some of these communities that are more effective and have a very good emergency nature program.
Whereas where I live, the emergency nature situations don’t always get its support.
Could the minister maybe outline to us whether or not some of these, what I would call ‘emergency nature’ type of programs for situations people get into, aside from the regular ones, are they similar right across Nunavut?
Is it the only difference; maybe because the amount up-front? Or what is the difference that creates a difference in applying for emergency nature?
I can use a word, for instance, like one-time support meetings to fill up the tank or half of it for the homeowner.
That’s a Nunavut-wide program.
The minister has a way of making it very simplistic with his responses but he has to understand that it is not applied across the board.
I have a constituent this year, she was willing to give up her house and give it back to the Housing Corporation. She had no way of getting help to heat the house. The only thing that was running was the revenue collected from the power corporation.
She had the oven on 24 hours a day. She did not qualify and she couldn’t get any help. What is the difference when an emergency like this occurs?
Specific cases have specific needs and each case is judged on its own merit. I can’t speak to the case in question because I’m not aware of all the details of the case in particular.
Mr. Curley: I’m surprised because the minister said earlier this was across the board, Nunavut-wide basis; the policy applies throughout but yet when it comes to actual reality, it doesn’t. So that’s puzzling.
I have a further question to the income support. I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to the claw-back provision. The minister has, like I alluded to earlier, been improving that provision with some of the benefits that occur to Nunavummiut, including Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated related programs.
To put it the other way around, can the minister explain to us whether or not the income support benefits, like the Senior Citizen’s Fuel Supply Assistance Program, are subject to CRA clawbacks?
Can the member define GRA for me?
Mr. Curley: I am referring to CRA; Canada Revenue Agency.
The Canadian taxation agency, as the member knows, has its own regulations in place, which guides and judges the tax responsibilities of all Canadians.
In this case it’s the money being paid through the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program, which is considered unearned income, and then it would be considered income on behalf or for the person; they would be issued a T4A, I believe.
Mr. Curley: My last question to that is: does that mean then that even if you have a certain amount of arrears with the CRA that it doesn’t prevent you from qualifying for benefits if you meet all the policy provisions and qualifications to get the Senior Citizens Fuel Subsidy Assistance Program?
Just for correction, I said T4A. I would say that it’s actually the T5007 Form that is used in this case.
Any income received under this program can be tax deducted; the chance of it being considered earned income on a person’s T4 slip.
Specifically, to the member’s question, I really can’t answer that because it is a CRA matter. However, any income received, the T4 slip would be issued, and they’d have the deduction on their Income Tax claim form, like the member indicated.
On the same issue, maybe from a different angle, the funding that is not previously authorized of $3,438,000 is in addition to the $38,097,000, which is totalling $41,335,000.
In 1999, I remember that the income support budget was approximately $22 million.
This is almost doubled in six years, almost seven years now.
I seem to recall that we wanted to create the Nunavut Government so that we could become more self-sufficient and create our own economic opportunities, yet income support has continually increased at an alarming rate.
I suppose this is due to poor education and some other reasons.
I also understand that the Income Support Program was placed under Education so that the people who are on income support, especially the young people, can be advised by the Department of Education about educational opportunities, skills, and training opportunities for the purpose of employability of that young person.
I am from Pond Inlet and this is not being done because the present income support officer right now under the hamlet is just a welfare officer that doesn’t have any background in training, or advising young people what employment opportunities there are.
If the trend continues to be like that, then we are not really encouraging young people, who are on income support right now, to find the job skills and to start a productive life.
Are there any plans in place somewhere using this Income Support Program, or is there something else in the department that works directly with the income support workers to encourage young people to find skills, and also encourage other people?
For example, in Pond Inlet, we are now talking about and hearing on the radio that those who are on income support, or in public housing, and those who are attending school, or people who are at the hospital are paid for by people who are paying income taxes.
Those who are collecting garbage, water truck drivers, carpenters, these are the people who are paying for these services and I think there will be more public information because people who are on income support probably think that the money comes from the government.
The money does not come from the government. It only passes through the government.
There will have to be more education in the area of responsibility so that some of these, I know they cannot be reduced, but at least slowed down because with 25,000 people, we cannot really afford these kinds of program.
We complain about not being able to get infrastructure programs.
Can I ask the minister if there is anything in the Income Support Act or some kind of legislation to be able to encourage, at least from the hamlet, to find work for these young people, especially during the summer, to be more productive because the hamlet will come up with so many little projects - access roads in parks, picnic tables - they have all these things. Can the minister tell me if we can access some of these income support funds to turn the young people into a more productive lifestyle?
The member raised some really interesting points. The member talks about that if you are on income support being productive and so on, specifically targeting our younger people.
Just to clarify in the O&M book, the current child services, the amount is $38 million, and then we are appropriating the extra $3,438,000.
That’s not the total for income support alone.
That includes early in childhood learning services, funding for day cares, and so on. That is not strictly income support.
In 1999, we were spending around $21 million for income support. In 2006, we spent $28 million. This year, we are looking at spending about $29.6 million.
That’s an increase of over $8 million in seven years.
However, we have to put on top of that the 15 percent increase we have given out into the programs. So that is about a $3 million or $4 million increase.
Plus, with our young population as the fastest population growing, you are going to have an increase in the Income Support Program.
There are programs to help make healthy choices if you’re on income support. A good example is if you’re on income support and if you identify a job in a community, income support can pay your way to go to another community to get that job that you see there.
Income support can help if you’re a single mom trying to go to school to better your education and your on income support, we will pick up the cost for your child care, daycare expenses.
So there are a lot of programs in income support for training, if you’re income support eligible, we can help get training for you.
And all those productive choices that the members’ talking about, we’re trying to put in place within the program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that, and all the members’ know that that’s a very good program.
My question then is: how do we make it work? It doesn’t work in my community. My income support worker is the welfare officer, and there’s no one in my community doing all the things that Mr. Picco is talking about.
How do we move the wheel?
That’s the quandary that we find ourselves in, and that’s what we’re talking about.
Where there are jobs available, we want people to be able to access those jobs. And if there are no jobs available, income support is a support of last resort.
The member raises several issues about our young people being productive.
We’re not talking about elderly people who should be on income support, people who may have a disability, people who can’t find work and so on.
I think the member is talking about people, aged 18 to 35, that cohort of group.
On one hand we want to support them, on the other hand, we want to help them get out and help make proper choices. And that was the point we just made earlier when the question was, “Why can’t we allow them to have tickets?” If you want to take a ticket, I’ll send my sister, aunt, uncle who’s between 18 and 35, they could go to Clyde River to visit their relatives from Iqaluit, costs $3,000 worth of tickets, it shouldn’t come off their income support.
Well, if they’re travelling to these communities and so on, they’re not making healthy productive choices; they’re visiting people. However, if they’re going for a compassionate reason, if there is a legitimate reason to go, then they would get the ticket and it wouldn’t come off.
So on one hand, we’re trying to enforce a stricter regime on income support. On the other hand, we’re trying to make it more productive and more eligible.
I would suggest to the member that we are reviewing that program again, and in the next cabinet sitting in September, hopefully, we’ll be able to look at some other policy issues that we can bring forward under income support.
But again, the member is correct, income support is a program of last resort, and you see an increase of over $8 million in less then eight years and we see the numbers of people on income support increase, then that’s an area of concern that we need to address.
I don’t want to argue through this, but I did want to have a debate sometime, in the proper form, not in a budget. But more, how do we have an operational debate to where we want to go with it.
We did that in Baker Lake years ago I think there were some other debates, too.
The government came up with fancy words in Inuktitut and they’re going to follow through with it but that’s only good on paper.
We want to get into more of a tangible area because the minister is trying to muddy the issue.
I’m sorry I’m not going to get lost in the mud, with all these documents we kind of shown our system now, I think.
I appreciate the minister and the government who have these programs. I support those programs; I’m not arguing those programs.
But when it comes to the implementation of these programs, that’s the difficulty we have in our community. There are tons and tons of paper on us alone in this House.
We get about 200 pounds of paper in a couple of weeks in our offices.
It doesn’t move what’s in the community. The young people’s first choice or first resort is income support for some only.
For example, in Pond Inlet, I have 38 young people working in the mine, and six are not. I shouldn’t be complaining, but they are doing this by choice.
There is work available.
Because Baffinland couldn’t find any more workers from Pond Inlet, they hired people from Iqaluit; about 26 of them. That’s how I know there is work there.
But these particular few young people have chosen not to work. Now, we support them under this legislation.
Is there anything we can do? We can say it’s a last resort but it’s not a last resort, it’s a choice, it becomes a choice.
We can’t force people to work.
We are a democratic society, a free society, and we can’t do that.
But we have to find a way before we start denying eligible infrastructure projects in the communities in place of the money to be used for income support.
This is mostly just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I’m done.
I want to make a very quick comment before I recognize the clock.
From the questions that I’ve heard, and the questions that I was going to ask is: this increase, is it due to enhancements to the program? But it isn’t, it’s just growth.
And, I think that $8 million over seven years, as the minister had indicated, and I know there has been a 15 percent increase over the last few years, but it should send red flags out there, that whatever we’re doing as a government, it’s not working.
This is, like the minister said, a program of last resort.
We want to be able to be more self-reliant, get paid more, employment locally, and for whatever reason, it isn’t working.
I think that maybe we should use indicators to say maybe we’ve got to re-look at some of the things that we’re doing to try and achieve what we started off to achieve.
That is just a comment. It has nothing to do with income support, other than the growth in it. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the clock and move to report progress.
You cannot debate the motion.
Thank you, Minister Simailak, Mr. Ma, and Mr. Green.
Your committee has been considering Bill 10 and Bill 11, and I would like to report that Bill 10 is immediately ready for third reading.
I move the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
A reminder that a meeting of the Full Caucus at ten o’clock tomorrow morning at the Nanuq Boardroom.
Orders of the Day for June 5:
This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, June 5, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 18:08
Appendix – June 4, 2007
Written Question 007 – 2(4): Victims of Violence in Nunavut
Date: June 4, 2007
Broken down by fiscal year, from April 1, 2000, to the present, in which Nunavut communities were crisis shelters for victims of violence operating?
What types of data and information are required to be reported by these shelters as a condition of receiving funding from the GN?
How does the GN track patterns of use and outcome for Nunavummiut who have used crisis shelters in Nunavut?
Broken down by fiscal year, from April 1, 2000, to the present, how many nights did individuals stay at crisis shelters in Nunavut communities?
Broken down by fiscal year, from April 1, 2000, to the present, how many individuals had transportation arranged by the Department of Health and Social Services to travel out of their home community to a crisis shelter elsewhere in Nunavut?
Broken down by fiscal year, from April 1, 2000, to the present, how many individuals had transportation arranged by the Department of Health and Social Services to travel out of their home community to a crisis shelter outside of Nunavut?
From April 1, 2000, to the present, how many individuals who stayed at a crisis shelter returned to a crisis shelter on one or more occasions?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Pages 1558 – 1637
Opening Prayer 1558
Speaker’s Ruling 1558
Ministers’ Statements 1559
Members’ Statements 1564
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 1568
Oral Questions 1569
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 1590
Tabled Documents 1590
Notices of Motions 1592
Motions 1593
First Reading of Bills 1593
Report of the Committee of the Whole 1635
Orders of the Day 1636
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 1558
071 – 2(4): Language Legislation: Official Languages Act and Inuit Language Protection Act (Tapardjuk) 1559
072 – 2(4): Videoconferencing Technology at the Nunavut Justice Centre (Okalik) 1560
073 – 2(4): 2007 Public Service Commissioners’ Conference in Iqaluit (Tapardjuk) 1561
074 – 2(4): Health and Social Services Grants and Contributions Policy (Aglukkaq) 1561
075 – 2(4): Changes to Homeownership Eligibility and Access (Akesuk) 1562
076 – 2(4): New Identity Screening Requirements (Simailak) 1563
164 – 2(4): Recognition of Joanie Pudluq (Barnabas) 1564
165 – 2(4): Jukeepa Hainnu, Master of Education (Arreak) 1564