Debates of May 14, 2007 (day 6)

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to add my view or just add my thoughts on this topic to sort of enrich the conversation, perhaps. I don’t know. Let me just put my two cents into this. In looking at this, at first I looked at this and thought, I guess, it is an item that may raise an eyebrow or two. But if you really look at it, maybe it’s the name, maybe they should change the word “conference” to something else because if you look at it as an assembly in the North, it’s very important. We put high value in bringing community people together into one place, wherever that might be, to exchange information and to get their input into what’s going on on the ground.

I want to tell you, in February, when the Status of Women Council organized a Joining the Circle women’s conference, that was a huge undertaking and I believe I made a statement in the House stating that the keynote speaker who came from Toronto, she told me, she said she could not believe how permeating the issue of family violence was. We could not move on with our agenda because no matter what the topic was -- it could have been about community capacity building or it could have been about leadership, how to run for office, it could have been about how to put a proposal together -- just the topic of family violence came up everywhere. The most popular session they had was the healing session. The women that were there felt empowered to learn that other women leaders were going through the same thing and they were also empowered to learn what was being taught at the conference and knowing that they could take that to their communities and do something with that. In fact, out of that conference, the Status of Women Council is organizing a two-day workshop at the end of the month to debrief all that went on and they’re going to put up strategies together for the government to act on.

So I’m thinking, I think it’s important for us to think of this as a, you know, the community government conferences. There have been a series of conferences, very well organized by NWT Association of Communities, to learn about the new formula and the New Deal for the communities, the whole water and subsidy programs that’s quite complex. It’s a professional development course, as well as learning, as well as sharing information, as well as crying together. I mean we, all the women had to talk about what they were going through with respect to family violence issues and how the family violence issues are affecting every aspect of our lives in our communities. So I think I could see that if the headline tomorrow is “Government is Approving $195,000 for Conference” that may not look so good. But I think that we know enough in this gathering to know that it costs money to bring people together. I believe it costs 40 to 70 thousand dollars a day to have us meet here. It is important for the people who are caregivers or who are working with people who are suffering from family violence, people who are trying to do something about what to do about our family violence issues, that they gather together. We know that to bring 120 people together, it costs money, and it costs money to travel, it costs money to accommodate them, it costs money to bring people together. It’s not just for them to get together to just get together, it is an action place, it is a thinking place, and I’m sure there will be lots of good recommendations coming out of that.

So I just wanted to add that to the context and to also add to a comment made about the fact that we need to address the issue of family violence against men. I do understand that there are men who are victims of family violence and other forms of violence, and the government has a role to play in addressing their needs. But I don’t think we should ever lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims of family violence are women and overwhelming perpetuators of family violence are men. It’s not all men, but that’s just the way the stats lie. So I just don’t think, in putting forward the good suggestion that government should look after the men who are victims of violence too, we should in any way underestimate or undermine the overwhelming stats that show it is the women who are locked up in a house and raped repeatedly for days and left to...We’ve had that happen in our communities in the last two days. The most violent crimes committed, in family violence or sexual assaults, are done by men against women. So I just want to make sure that we put this comment in proper context. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I stated earlier, this is the initial start of the response by our government towards looking at Framework for Action II. The rest of this will fall through the business plan process. We do need to get some of this information as we proceed and put a framework together on how we would react as a government and where our investments would best be made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Is there anything further, Ms. Lee? Thank you. Next on the list, I have Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to follow up. I heard what the Premier had to say regarding the survey and the conference. There were about 750 respondents and 120 participants for these two items. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to surveys. I am pretty sure that all the shelters that are across the Territories have intakes that they work with. Can they take those intakes from the region and the communities and say, look, if there are numbers there, it tells us that there is a problem. I am sure that, while the intakes that they have, it will show that without doing a survey. We could put that money for the front-line workers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we know that there is a lot of information out there. It is a matter of pooling it all together so that we can use it and how we would prepare or respond in future years as we look at what parts of the framework we would be able to fund. There is information out there that we can use. As highlighted earlier, there is a lot of information out there, but we need to pull it together as well as do some in-depth interviews with individuals as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for that information, Mr. Minister. Again, I feel very confident that putting $195,000 for the front-line workers so that they can do education and all that prevention of all these things, I think that would be utilized a lot better than doing a survey and a conference. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. I guess that was more of a comment than a question. The Department of the Executive, operations expenditures, executive offices, not previously authorized, $199,000. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For $75,000 they are proposing a family violence survey. I disagree with that. If you want to get a survey of all the family violence that goes on, talk to the people at the front line. I think they will give you a much better survey. Who initiated this request for a survey? Was it the people that provide the services or is it another government initiative? The government seems to like to do surveys and studies. The people on the front line, I am sure, can use this $195,000 to enhance the programs and delivery of programs they already have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this all comes out of the work that was done back in 2004 when the government released its response to the Coalition Against Family Violence, NWT Action Plan on Family Violence. Our response to that is what we are starting to look at. So it is the government’s review of that work and coming forward with some recommendations as a result of that initial work. That is where it is stemming from. The Premier, as well, has more information on that, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of the recommendations come from the coalition itself. The government is one member on that coalition. There are the groups I mentioned before. What they are trying to do is get a balance between the support for salaries and so on for our front-line workers and training of workers. Just to put more money into workers and not giving the training that is necessary may not be the best arrangement either. So it has to be a balance. The idea of collecting the baseline data came largely from the coalition. They want to know whether or not what they are doing is changing and having an impact on attitudes toward violence, for example, and a number of other areas where what kind of public education programs or campaigns would be most effective. A lot of it comes from the coalition itself. We respect what they are saying. We know that they are experienced people. They are the ones who can give us advice. A lot of it is their advice to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to close with the fact that none of us on this side of House is questioning the importance of all the work that these folks out there do. None of us would ever do that. In my particular case, I try to make sure as much funds as possible reach the people on the front line because they are the ones that are providing the service. I have had the opportunity to deal with a few of them. I know some of the stresses that they are under. A lot of it is financially related. So that is the point in my asking the questions on these particular issues, Madam Chair, because I just want to make sure that we don’t get too top heavy again in administration and not enough flowing down to the people who actually provide the service. Thank you. It was just a comment.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. That was just a comment. There was no question there. Executive, operations expenditures, executive offices, not previously authorized, $199,000.

Agreed.

Regional operations, not previously authorized, $16,000.

Agreed.

Total executive offices, not previously authorized, $215,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. Executive continued, operations expenditures, Financial Management Board Secretariat, directorate, not previously authorized, $2.623 million.

Agreed.

Government accounting, not previously authorized, $19,000. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, one of the items under the directorate, $798,000 is to provide contribution funding associated with the transfer of public housing rental subsidy funding for seniors’ assisted living and seniors’ caretaker housing units from ECE to the NWT Housing Corporation. Madam Chair, we just went through quite a turnaround here over the last couple of years of moving operation money from the Housing Corporation to ECE; now we are moving some back. I would appreciate an explanation, for the record, of what this $800,000 contribution funding is going to do that otherwise can’t be done or can’t be done as well, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the initial work in transferring the program from the Housing Corporation over to the Department of Education, Culture and Employment looked at all of the different subsidies that were out there in the housing area and put within the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. After further review of the program, it was felt that a couple of areas would be better situated back within the Housing Corporation that fit with the existing program that they deliver in the area of assisted living for seniors. So you see this pile of the money going back. What was originally part of the original large transfer from the Housing Corporation to Education, Culture and Employment, this piece is going back to the Housing Corporation because of the further review of the subsidy areas. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

I am sorry. I am no further ahead. What is it paying for? What is this $800,000 supplying, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It breaks down into a number of categories. For example, assisted living in seniors’ units. The rental subsidy there is about $478,908; independent seniors’ caretaker units, $75,948; and O and M for independent seniors’ units makes up the remainder of $242,760.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Okay. What is the difficulty or what are the issues that ECE is encountering that it cannot administer this along with so many of the other contribution programs that are made through housing? Madam Chair, it’s quite a confusing piece of work here. I am just trying to make sure I am not missing anything here.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Madam Chair, as stated, it’s money that was originally part of the original transfer, now back to Housing Corporation and deals with the two categories of assisted living for seniors and independent seniors caretaker units. For more of the detail, I believe Mr. Dent can provide it.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All of the funds were transferred over as part of a global program, but afterwards we discovered that, like most landlords, the Housing Corporation had been providing either free rent or reduced rent to caretakers of buildings. So the buildings had a caretaker who looked after them. That’s a Housing responsibility; it’s not one of the income support programs. So this wasn’t really a subsidy to someone with a low income. So it’s more appropriately handled through the Housing Corporation. So since it’s a management function making sure that the caretaking of the units is looked after, the way that that’s done is through either free or reduced rent to somebody who is the caretaker of the unit, not a unit but a building. We’ve transferred the money back to the Housing Corporation, so through their local housing authorities they can properly administer the operations of the buildings.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

How many buildings and how many caretakers are we talking about here, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The total number of units is 45. I should add a little more detail. It’s not only about the independent seniors’ caretaker units. There are only seven of those units. When you look at assisted living for seniors and the way the services are provided, it’s level two senior level care provided at the Jimmy Erasmus Centre in Rae-Edzo and support services for the cognitively impaired adults at the Stanley Isaiah Centre in Fort Simpson. So because there is a health attachment to that area, it was felt that it was best not suited to be in public housing but back in the Housing Corporation where both departments can work cooperatively on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Okay. So we are blending a health issue, housing issue, a staffing issue all in a bundle here. I am beginning to understand now, comprehend the intention here and I don’t find any argument with it, but the manner in which it’s presented is very obtuse, Mr. Chair. I guess it makes me a bit frustrated in having to deal with these sums because $800,000 is no trifling matter.

I also wanted to ask, Mr. Chair, it’s called contribution funding to the NWT Housing Corporation. Is this new contribution funding that we are turning over to the Housing Corporation or is it a transfer from ECE of money that you’ve already got, so we are just moving it back and forth? Why is it called contribution funding then? Perhaps I may not be paying close enough attention. Is there an offsetting amount somewhere else in the supp? Right now, this looks like new money going into the Housing Corporation, at least the way it’s stated here, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of ways this breaks down. One is the $798,000 is not new money. It’s in and out. The other portion is offset by, I believe, you are referring to the $1.080 million was your second question. No? Okay, the $798,000 initial amount that was raised is not new money. It’s a matter of the way we flow money now because of the recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada. The money comes through the Financial Management Board Secretariat and is now flowing through FMBS and then to the Housing Corporation. That’s as a result of recommendations from the Auditor General.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Okay. Thank you. There is further in the supp an offsetting amount, a similar amount. Thank you. That satisfies my question about new money or just switching pockets here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I’ve exhausted that one. I do hope the Minister has taken some notice to sometimes the degree of information provided and just how clearly stated some of these programs are, these projects are. Mr. Chairman, that’s all, thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Financial Management Board Secretariat, directorate, not previously authorized, $2.623 million.