EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I wonder what kind of preventative initiatives the government has that whatever little income the family members are getting from Income Support is not spent unwisely and financially because of those members of the family who are addicted to substance abuse.
Again, as I had replied in an earlier question, we don’t police how people spend their money. It’s very difficult.
Most of the payments or cheques are issued for food, clothing, and electricity, but we don’t actually have a mechanism where we can actually be with the people and see how they spend their money, if they have any money to spend.
The information that we have as MLAs occasionally is that it is quite expensive to maintain a habit of addictions if you have more than one person addicted. Many times, those family members who are dependent on income support do have more than one individual who is dependent on substance abuse to maintain their habit.
It is really up to the family whether or not the family member wants to maintain support to those members who are addicted. In most cases, they are known because they are also involved in other families’ problems.
So the government really has no hands-on or no advice for those members who may be really spending more money on maintaining substance abuse.
Is that what I understood the minister to say?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Curley for the comment and question.
Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Curley will see that when the new Department of Family Services comes into being on April 1, we will have other components that will be able to assist the families. We have the Social Services side, which will be able to assist families who have family members who are experiencing difficulties.
There will be counsellors.
We will be working very closely with the Department of Health. We’re going to make sure that happens. There are MOUs being put in place or will be put in place.
There will be support in the communities for the families and for individuals who are struggling with addictions and for families who have relatives who are struggling with addictions.
I understand the minister. I did understand the minister say that it’s very difficult to control the independence of those members who do receive income support as to how they spend their money.
I wonder if the minister can elaborate a bit on why he excludes the possible option that he has to at least allow 50 percent or more of the income support to be directed towards food by way of vouchers directly with the local suppliers.
Why is that so complicated?
I think, again, it comes down to we have to respect the people that they are going to be responsible and that they will spend the money on the food and clothing that the income support is intended for.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I mentioned that as one example is that there are many family members, primarily individuals, who are provided with the cheques, who are not the authorities within the homes. When you have addicted individuals, these individuals who have addictions normally take control of the finances within that [family].
It’s much like the drug lords.
I heard a true story from somebody we know that she was afraid to purchase a mop and pan that was desperately needed in order to keep the house clean. The house is pretty clean, but they were afraid to buy that because the money would immediately be grabbed once it’s cashed.
The minister has indicated to us that they can’t do anything about advising family members and allow responsible spending for food that children desperately need.
When will the minister start representing children instead of those who are addicted in the families?
If Mr. Curley is aware of a specific case where people are getting cash and spending it on drugs or alcohol, as I have said, I would like know if he can give me some more details privately.
As I indicated earlier, most of the income support cheques are issued to the stores.
The recipient gets a credit and then they purchase the food with income support. We don’t write cheques to people and they get cash and then they can go spend it on everything else. The cheques are issued to the vendors and then they can purchase the food or clothing.
I appreciate the offer, Mr. Chairman, but the minister gets paid to enforce regulations, not me.
The minister’s staff is charged with responsibilities provided by this Assembly to do their jobs.
My job is to raise cases that are happening that the vulnerable in Nunavut must be fairly represented and treated, as the mandate of the government says.
We are here to make your department more accountable and to represent Nunavutmiut.
For me, for you to completely try and reverse cases, there may be many examples.
The information is out there.
We’re trying to make sure that the families are benefiting from income support, not those who are addicted. Is there likelihood that we can reduce the amount of leakage of income support getting to those who are addicted and getting them more into supporting children?
I appreciate Mr. Curley’s comments.
We would all like accountability. We would like accountability from top to bottom.
We hope the recipients of income support are being accountable as well because it is a fund of last resort, and food and clothing is very important to life in Nunavut.
We always hear that there isn’t enough food and clothing in Nunavut, especially for our kids. We want to make sure it gets to our kids.
Again, being in a new department, we have many opportunities going forward to review what works and what doesn’t work.
If the MLAs are aware of or any of my colleagues as ministers are aware of specific instances where there are abuses occurring, our officials should be made aware of it and we can look into it. If there is a way to close some loopholes and improve accountability, then we are very willing to look at it.
I thought it was going to be Mr. Rumbolt. I have one question.
How long is it before you review social assistance? The response, (interpretation ends) if it could be simple, precise, and prudent.
Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Chairman, it will likely be within the next year and we will do a review. We’re going to look at it, with all the great work that has been done on the poverty consultations that are underway. Hopefully the debates on the legislation will give us a lot of good information and we will be able to do a more in-depth review.
I just want to go back to my line of questioning earlier for a minute. The last question I asked was whether this government would be willing to follow suit that other governments have used across the country with helping income support recipients hold onto more of their income tax money.
In the minister’s reply, he stated that it could cost this government a lot of money.
I’m just wondering if the minister has any idea how much this would cost the government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I haven’t done any calculations. Just based on what I know from those other jurisdictions, I know it could be very expensive to the government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Anybody who is receiving income support probably doesn’t get huge income tax refunds.
Personally, I don’t see it being that great of an expense.
So I’m wondering if the minister is willing to commit to looking into how much it would cost this government to allow income support recipients to keep more of their income tax refunds.
I’ll ask my friend, the finance minister, if he can assist me to do that. I think it’s worthwhile to maybe take a look at it and get that kind of information.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. I appreciate that you work well with other ministers. It is appreciated.
I thank the minister for his commitment.
I know income support is a means for trying to help people out for a while until they can get back on their feet and get out and get a job, but there are constituents in our communities that could be considered long-term income support recipients.
One example is full-time hunters. They provide food, not only for their families, but for their communities.
After they provide food, they end up with the furs and the skins of the animals and they prepare and sell them for extra money, not so much for the food, but to repair and buy hunting equipment so that they can continue hunting for their families and community.
When they make extra money from the sale of skins, their income support is reduced or they don’t get any income support at all for that particular month.
Can the minister explain why full-time hunters are penalized for making extra money while on income support?
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for the question. I’ll ask the deputy minister to respond to that.
In response to the member’s question, to be frank, we don’t often hear about the additional income that people make on the sale of furs and skins.
It’s a voluntary process to report income. We do not penalize anyone for the hunting equipment, the gas, and the bullets. If anybody buys that type of equipment, that’s not charged against their social assistance, but it is considered income if somebody sells something and it is part of the program and it is in the regulations.
So in order to allow hunters to keep that money, we would have to make a regulation change and then go to FMB to allow the additional funding in the program.
Just for clarification, I just want to make sure I heard Ms. Teiman right. If a person sells their skins and if they use that money to buy hunting equipment, whether it be gas, snowmobiles, or whatever, are you saying that they’re entitled to keep that money and it’s not deducted from their income support?
Ms. Teiman will clarify the question.
It’s the same for anybody who wants furniture and equipment as well. If they receive income tax, we work with the family. If they buy a big-ticket item that normally they wouldn’t be able to get any other way, we wouldn’t charge that against their social assistance and it would be part of the productive choice program.
I thank Ms. Teiman for that information because I think there are a lot of clients out there who are probably not aware of that.
Most people come to me with this exact thing that I’m saying about not being able to keep their money because they go out and they sell a couple of polar bear skins and they try to buy a new snowmobile, but then they go to income support and they can’t get any income support for that particular month. So I’ll take that information back to my community for the benefit of the hunters.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I believe that was just a comment.
I would like to kind of elaborate a little bit more on the question that Mr. Curley had asked in regard to accountability on the income support monies there.
I think we’re all aware and you have probably seen in your own community where clients will go buy groceries, it will be a cheque made out to one of the suppliers, and they will buy a bunch of packs of cigarettes and they stand outside the front of the store selling cigarettes for $10 a pack.
I know of another example where a client will go in and buy $600 worth of groceries because the [cheques] are made out to the store and then the next day, return $150 worth of groceries and get cash for it.
So I think one of the big issues is we should be informing the retail outlets that they shouldn’t be doing this, that if the client is not happy with the food they bought, they could be able to exchange it, but I don’t think they should be getting cash for it.
Did you want to make a comment on that? Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Schell for the comment.
Again, as I replied to Mr. Curley, if MLAs or ministers or anybody is aware of these types of situations in the communities or wherever they are, then we encourage you to let our income support workers or other officials know, and then we can look into it and follow up.
Mr. Oshutapik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) In regard to income support, I think we have to do something about it in all the Nunavut communities because all the communities should be operating the same way.
It is supposed to be helping the less fortunate, but it’s putting them in a worse state.
These are for food and other items that the family should have, but it has been putting them down.
For example, if an individual is on income support for a long period of time, it seems to push them toward committing crimes, not just in my community but in other communities as well. They get income support to help the less fortunate, but in turn, they make it into cash and use it for other things.
I just wanted to add to the comments made by one of the members in my community.
In the new department, you have a lot of work to do and you listed them down.
We talk about income support recipients and it states that income support should be used to make families better before they can go on their own while looking for employment.
Are there any changes that are proposed if something like this fails?
I thank Mr. Oshutapik for his comments and concerns.
Again, we’re integrating different components of other departments into the new department. There will be income support, career development, and social workers. We’re hopeful that within the department, they will all work together.
We don’t want a department where people will just rely on income support.
We want to encourage them to speak to our career development officers to seek out training opportunities and educational opportunities. That is our hope. It is very ambitious, but we think that if they can come together in one department, a “one-stop-shop” so to speak, we can help people get off income support.
I thank the minister for his response to my question. (interpretation ends) Do you anticipate bringing forward proposed legislation to change the Social Assistance Act in the near future?
In response to Mr. Oshutapik’s question, we anticipate that it will be about a year.
Hopefully the information, research, and reports that are coming out through the poverty consultations will assist us in that regard.
I heard that response, but I wanted to ask it again. (interpretation ends) The income assistance electronic delivery system has been in development for some time now. What is the current status in deploying the new system to the Nunavut communities?
The current plan is to roll out the new system to all communities within the next 18 to 24 months.
Mr. Oshutapik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation end) The business plan indicates your intention to cross out possible changes to have income deductions for income assistance clients. Can you describe what kind of changes you are considering?
Mr. Chairman, again, that will be part of the ongoing consultation in the next year leading up to new legislation or amendments.
The government has stated that they might be changing the income support legislation.
Can you clarify how those changes will affect service delivery under the Income Assistance Program? They will change the rent scale for public housing. How is it going to change the Income Support Program?
I don’t anticipate that the new rent scale program will impact on the Income Support Program.
Page D-6. Family Services. Branch Summary.
I just wanted to make a comment as well.
Mr. Curley touched up on it and Mr. Schell touched up on income assistance being abused, people going hungry, and people buying alcohol and drugs.
For example, an individual with a skidoo and Honda wanted to buy bullets and gas, so he went over to the Northern Store.
Some people do abuse their income assistance, sometimes the hunters who want to buy gas. I wonder if this can be rectified.
If a person gets $300 a month from income support and even though he wants to get some extra money to buy gas to go out hunting, sometimes it’s not possible for them to do that.
Family Services. Branch Summary. Income Assistance.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $43,942,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Did I miss you, Mr. Schell?
Sorry. (interpretation) Moving on to the next page. Page D-7.
Branch Summary. Family Services. Career Development.
Although the Department of Family Services will take over the delivery of the FANS program, the Department of Education will remain responsible for its policy development and governance.
Following the report on the FANS program tabled last November, it appears that a number of students will no longer be eligible for FANS.
How will your department work with the Department of Education officials to ensure that no student falls through the cracks when it comes to accessing funding for educational and training opportunities?
Mr. Chairman, Family Services and the Department of Education are working very closely together and collaboratively, recognizing that this is an important area.
We don’t anticipate that anybody will fall through the cracks.
There is another program, the Adult Learning and Training Supports Program that they may be eligible for.
Do I take it then that the minister is confident that this new approach will not hinder in the new family services department to take on the responsibility without having the provision to have policy development or the governance of it?
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, we are working very closely together. We’re sharing resources and we will be developing a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the information is shared and that there will be no disruption or concerns with individuals applying for training programs.
I am glad that the minister just mentioned that he will be able to share the MOU so that members can also be up to par on the agreements.
That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you.
I know it’s quite a challenge.
I don’t consider these new programs or new services or whatever. They have been going on.
If there is a notion here that they’re trying to get us to believe that this is all new stuff, let’s not fall into that trap.
My question is simple: who qualifies for the FANS program?
What are the conditions that prevent a student from Nunavut getting FANS assistance? Does it depend on the social system or social status?
Just to go back to Mr. Curley’s earlier comment, there is a new program, Adult Learning and Training Supports. That is new.
With respect to who qualifies, the Department of Education has been working with a number of post-secondary institutions, including Nunavut Arctic College, where they have a post-secondary education designation policy which they use to determine which programs offered by organizations are deemed to be post-secondary education for the purpose of funding under the FANS program.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate the response.
Can the minister clearly explain exactly what it means?
Chairman: Minister Peterson, what does it mean?
It means that they have to be taking 60 percent of their programs from post-secondary education institutions.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Does that mean that there is no point in applying for financial assistance right from entering into an educational level?
Did you say that they have to have completed a certain amount within a year or the whole duration of the semester?
I’m going to ask my deputy minister, if we’re going to get into the real technical details here, perhaps she can help Mr. Curley.
May I ask for a repeat of the question, please.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, please repeat your question.
My last question was the result of the minister’s response, which I’m sure the deputy minister understood what it was.
They have to accomplish a certain amount of courses that they’re attending or attended or succeeded. I don’t know.
If that is the case, then to me, it doesn’t appear to make any sense for the student to apply right from the beginning when they enter into a program. When should they apply?
Students should apply right off the bat if they know that they are attending any type of schooling.
In the 2013-14 year, we will have a list of designated programs that are post-secondary and a list that will be considered under the new Adult Learning and Training Supports.
Regardless of where they go to their schooling, they should apply right away because it will be a one-stop shop. So if someone applies for FANS and it’s not FANS eligible, then that application will go to the career development officers and they may be eligible to be funded under the Adult Learning and Training Supports.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also referred to the social status of the applicants.
Is that also a factor, meaning in the last fiscal year, they made a lot of money, because their income taxes and statuses are normally allowed to be included in there? Why would that be the case?
I’m not sure if I understand Mr. Curley’s question. I’ll ask my deputy to take a crack at answering it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Teiman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. FANS is a program that goes through an eligibility process. So it’s mainly for individuals who are coming out of high school and adults who may be coming from the social assistance side of the equation.
If somebody who was employed wanted to go to school, they would normally apply through the programs that are available through their employment. For instance, if a GN employee is applying for education, they would go through the educational programs, educational leave through the various departments that they work in, and/or the programs administered through the Department of HR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Teiman. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Yes, I think it’s difficult to follow exactly how and what works within the FANS program. I know the new program will be a learning curve for all of us.
In terms of FANS itself, which I believe you now administer, as well as trades students, they’re required to submit a record of employment and if they don’t have it, they don’t qualify.
So to me, social status is one of the big factors. That means if you’re making a lot of money in the previous year, then it will show through your record of employment.
That has an impact.
I had one student who said, “I’m not going to qualify. I’m not going to get anything because submitting my record of employment is delayed. The previous employer couldn’t get it organized.
So I’m just going to hang up.” Those individuals who fall into that trap for not getting the appropriate records don’t qualify.
Mr. Chairman, we’re going to have to take that question as notice and get some details to respond to Mr. Curley’s concern and to the committee.
The question really is the social status of an individual is a factor. It is primarily one that I want cleared up because it involves having a financial record from previous employers and all those factors.
So to me, does it say to the committee, “Yes, the social status of an individual is a factor in getting either a percentage of this allowable or not?” So it would help us to understand exactly how the whole program works, not only for me, but for Nunavutmiut.
I believe that was more of a clarification and we anxiously wait to get information back.
We are on page D-7. We are at (interpretation) Family Services.
Branch Summary. Career Development.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $13,246,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Go back to page D-3. Department Summary.
Family Services. Detail of Expenditures. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $112,974,000.
Do we agree that we have concluded with the main estimates for the Department of Family Services?
Mr. Minister, if you have any closing remarks, I give you the floor. Minister Peterson.
I would just like to express my appreciation and thanks to all our officials who have worked very hard on pulling all this together for this new department, especially, of course, my Acting Deputy Minister, Sandy Teiman. She had to step up to the plate when our Deputy Minister, Aluki Rojas, was injured during Christmas. We certainly extend our best wishes to Aluki for a speedy recovery and come back to the new department.
I would like to thank, of course, David Kolot. He has done a lot of work. He has a real technical binder.
I have never seen that type of binder before; it’s very detailed.