The New Deal that was done about five years ago is up for an evaluation. It was supposed to be evaluated after five years to see how we can improve how we work with communities. I have to say that with all the infrastructure money that we’ve been giving to the communities, they have the responsibility for the projects that they want in their communities. It’s a program that’s worked very well. We’ve heard back from many of the municipalities that have done a lot of good work with the money that they’ve been given. However, we are looking at re-evaluating or evaluating the program and seeing how well it’s worked. In my opinion, it’s worked very well for the communities.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister indicated that there will be a review completed. Can the Minister tell me the expected date on that review completion?
We’re just starting the work now; however, I will keep the committee updated on the work as we go forward and hopefully have a finished product for them quite soon. I will keep committee updated on the work that we’re doing.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke about the government’s declaration of May 26th tomorrow for the residential school healing and reconciliation process and I want to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services if his department has been looking at what type of programs within the field of mental health and wellness counselling and other sorts of areas that could support residential school survivors to take…
---Interjection
Continue, Mr. Yakeleya. Sorry about that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the department look at what type of programs are there for residential school survivors and the ones who are also affected by it?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that a lot of the truth and reconciliation in residential schools have become a very high-profile issue in the government. The department is putting together the action plan that we’re going to be rolling out in the next two years. In addition to that, we have about $6 million, a little over $6 million in the Community Counselling Program. We have one residential treatment facility that’s still operating and we also have about a million dollars or a little over targeted into the communities for aftercare and also for on-the-land programs, if that’s something that the communities are interested in carrying out.
I do look forward to the Minister’s release of that document sometime in the near future and certainly give him support where it’s needed to be. I want to ask the Minister, we do have Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Program at Hay River Dene Reserve. We have what Mrs. Groenewegen talked about, a facility also maybe being opened up in Hay River. We looked at Inuvik where they have possibly a facility, or even in Fort McPherson. So there are some facilities that are going to be available. I want to ask the Minister if there’s anywhere in that action on addiction or treatment programs, anywhere in the plan of the department where we can possibly slate a residential school treatment program specifically for survivors of residential school.
Within that action plan and also a commitment from the government that we would look at more treatment in existing infrastructure, we will be asking in the action plan that a Minister’s forum be struck on well-respected people within the addictions and mental health field to travel to the communities and see first-hand what is required. We are going to be supporting that forum with a request through a supplementary appropriation of about $300,000 so that they can gather and hear firsthand from the communities what is needed. We believe, from our initial travels, that there is a requirement or a request for some sort of residential treatment in the Beaufort-Delta for residential school survivors.
When we look down the Mackenzie Valley and you look into the communities, we have small communities. In a lot of our small communities probably about 60 to 70 percent of the people who live in our communities have some direct impact of residential schools, so there’s a high need for this. I want to ask the Minister where in his department is there a policy that says that if you, Mr. Yakeleya, want to go to a program for your family and yourself – and I have a lot of brothers and sisters and they had big families too – where in the policy that we can go to the department and say we want to go to this program. Is there a policy that will take a family of four or five and say you’re going, or are we going to have to wait to future time where we could look at this through the action plan that he’s indicated in the next couple of weeks?
Right now the residential treatment that is being offered is individual treatment. They used to have couples treatment, but it was decided by the facility that they would be better off to have individual treatment, gender treatment, actually. Right now we don’t have residential family treatment available, with the exception of something that could occur on the land. It appeared as though in the communities when we travelled and heard first hand that the communities felt that a solution could be to have families, several families, in fact, going out on the land and going to that type of on-the-land treatment with some counsellors on the land, but at this time we don’t have anything as far as family treatment goes unless they go out of the territory.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, the policy of the genocide intentions by the federal government was to take the children away from the family and do that. We’re no different than doing this with this program here, taking people away and looking at treating them in this manner. I think what we’re looking for is a family treatment program. That’s the power and the strength of the people here. I ask the Minister, would he look at this as one possibility, one solution of family treatment programs on the land as a starting point where they start doing the true healing and reconciliation of the suffering that was done of the residential schools.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the action plan and as part of the Ministers’ forum, we want to look at all aspects of treatment and if family treatment is something that’s proposed by many of the communities, then it’s something that we will try to work into our action plan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister for Education, Culture and Employment. I highlighted in my statement an unfair situation, I believe, which exists within the Department of Education relative to students being able to challenge a French second language exam.
I’d like to initially ask the Minister what the rationale is for this particular policy change. Our curriculum is allied with that of Alberta, and Alberta made the change and changed it back to the original. We’ve maintained this change in policy, and as I’ve said, I think it’s unfair, and I’d like to ask the Minister why we’re doing this. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister responsible for of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. There has been no policy change in the senior secondary school administrative handbook on this particular subject. The core French 30 does not exist anymore in Alberta. French 30 did not have a former exam from Alberta, as well; Alberta education. In no other subject do we or Alberta permit the students to challenge a course in which outcomes have been covered in previous level courses.
This is a particular issue that was discussed with the French coordinators at the divisional education council and the district education authority in June 2011, and they also agree with the rationale. We’re following with what the discussion that was agreed upon. Mahsi.
I appreciate the response from the Minister. I’m having great difficulty because I have looked at a policy for secondary high school education from Alberta and from NWT and they do seem to be definitely different in that Alberta both policies state that any student can challenge any course. I need to obviously have a better explanation from the Minister as to why what I’m reading doesn’t obviously jibe with what he’s reading.
I guess I need to ask the Minister again why, when I read the policy, I see that French immersion students may not challenge a French first language exam, and yet it appears to me that the Alberta high school policy does allow it.
This is this information that we received from the Department of Education in Alberta. We follow their curriculum, as well, and the examinations. They’ve also provided some information and also within our department working with the French coordinators that there were some concerns raised where some groups, if the French immersion students increased their average with a course where the outcome is already credited, how fairly are they competing against other students that are applying for the same post-secondary institution. There could be an unfair practice as well. All those are taken into consideration. We are following what the divisional education council has recommended and we continue to work with that.
I have to disagree with the Minister. I mean, what I’m hearing the Minister say is that we have students with special skills and we have students who are very proficient in French, and we are penalizing them. We’re not allowing them to get an extra course. For some of these students it’s the one credit that they need to get them into the particular course that they need and we’re saying, no, I’m sorry, but you can’t do that. Go back and take the whole course and then maybe you’ll get the credit.
I really feel that the Minister is suggesting that students who already have these skills shouldn’t be able to challenge an exam and get an extra credit. It is unfair and I really have to wonder if the Minister considers, and I ask the Minister if he considers it’s an acceptable way to run a department, to penalize students with special skills over those that don’t have those special skills. Thank you.
All I can say at this point is that I can bring this information back to the French coordinators at the divisional education council and work with our colleagues in Alberta, as well, on this particular subject, and I can get back to the Member on the outcome of that.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for his commitment. I guess I would like to ask the Minister, if he’s going to consult with French coordinators, I would ask him that he also consult with parents. There has been little, to my understanding, consultation with parents whose students are involved in this particular situation. It’s one thing for a French coordinator to say that this is the way it should be, but I would ask the Minister to consult with parents and to consult with students as well. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to reach out to the parents, as well, along with the French coordinators and the divisional education council. We will do that. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today will be for the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of the Power Corporation. I think known here was in this agreement. We have seen some pretty good things in the budget address yesterday, especially in areas of community-based alternative energy programs out there. Again, my hat’s off to a lot of those great programs in solar, wind, biomass. I think these projects are definitely needed to enhance our position statement on cost effectiveness for the residents of the Northwest Territories. In a lot of cases, these initiatives are really no more than throwing rice at a freight train for some of the urban centres. I think the fact that remains is that the hydro project which was mentioned in the delivery of the budget address was a motherly statement at that.
What are this government’s plans with the hydro project and, more importantly, with the Taltson project? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Member’s interest and comments about alternative energy and his interest in hydro.
I would point out that we have done a significant amount of retrofits, for example, and we are saving many hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot of rice. It should be appreciated for the value that it brings. I know that the Member supports that approach.
In terms of the hydro project and in Taltson, we spent over the last probably two Assemblies about $13 million doing technical assessments both on the project at the Taltson site and the other piece was the initial plan to put a transmission line up to East Arm straight to the diamond mines. That project did not go ahead. The technical work was all done, the geophysical work, the engineering work, all the environmental approvals were there to do the project.
Now we are revisiting the issues that the Member is wisely talking about, the benefit of linking the Taltson and the Snare grid, the ability to be able to power and provide energy to places like Avalon, Nechalacho, Thor Lake, the NICO mines. There are going to be some energy requirements at Giant. There is over $100 million heating market here in Yellowknife. There is also eventually a long-term benefit if we not only had those grid connections but a southern grid connection so that we could move power north and south. There is tremendous opportunity.
Minister Ramsay’s economic plan and his Mining Strategy are going to be contingent upon us being able to deal with that energy issue, so this is a big issue for the government, for this Legislature collectively to be looking at in the coming months. Thank you.
I do agree with the Minister that there is great economic opportunity and I’m not disagreeing with the fact that a lot of money has been spent on the project and enhancing it especially for our diamond or mineral sector. The problem we have here is that the residents themselves are suffering greatly. We are seeing some increases in power consumption and rates that will probably push the cost of affordability in this territory to probably one of the highest in the country.
I am really concerned that we need a long-term strategy. We need a legacy project to push power and energy costs at the forefront so that we can put this to the people of the Northwest Territories to make it more affordable.
When can we see these economic opportunities in print? When can we see them on paper? When can they be debated in the House? When can we see a business case statement that we can actually debate here? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there are three key components to a broad territorial-wide Energy Strategy that I believe in the coming life of this Assembly. One of them is the one the Member has talked about, which is the Hydro Strategy. We are visiting that. There are also significant opportunities, for example in places like Deline to put in power in a very environmentally sustainable, friendly way. The Solar Strategy will help us address the crushing diesel costs in the thermal communities. Then we have the broader issue and the pressing issue of sorting out the Inuvik long-term energy needs.
All of these pieces are being looked at. There’s work being done internally here as we talk about the way forward in these critical areas that have implicated that were coming forward with the Solar Strategy, for example, and I would suggest within the next five months or so we should have our thinking clear enough that we’d be able to put things on the table.
There’s been a tremendous amount of work done on the hydro piece and it’s a question of looking at some of the very specific issues like the Member has mentioned, which is going to focus on not the technical work on the actual dam expansion but the transmission lines and what route would we go and how would we pay for it. Thank you.
Today, for the first time, we’re hearing a move forward from this government that sounds like it’s putting hydro in the front seat of their decision-making rather than the backseat. I think that’s a very clear message that I’m hoping we can earmark further.
The Minister indicated within the next five months, but yet we’ve already talked about the budget address here. Is there any possibility that the Minister can make a firm commitment that this policy, moving towards a stronger hydro commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories, will be done sooner than later? Five months is a long time from now. Thank you.
I will commit to take the Member’s request under advisement. I’ll report back and we’ll have a discussion in the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee to see how fast we can move on this.
There’s a lot of work that’s been done, but there’s more required, and as I indicated, there’s also some important related work like the Mineral Strategy and the Economic Development Strategy. So there are a lot of pieces at play here and that are linked. We want to move those along as quickly as we can, I agree with the Member. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny. The Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I dare say that occasionally Members on this side of the House have a really good idea, and there are many small things in our communities that this government could fund, which would make a huge difference, but we can’t be told no, we have no money, and if you do want that money, find out where you can cut something. We do not have the resources at our disposal to identify where those funds are.
Let me just give you a couple of examples. In Hay River, recently in just talking with people, the youth centre needs a piece of land, the youth treatment in a seed group that wants it going, we have people who just need shelter at nights in existing accommodation, we have a soup kitchen that needs a container to store the extra stuff donated to them. These are small things, but these harness the passion and volunteerism of people in the community that make a huge difference. The Persons with Disabilities Council was just told in Hay River no, you can’t have an increase from your $33,000 a year because we don’t have any money. So you go out and fundraise harder. You know, this is a difficult message to deliver for us.
Could I ask the Premier is there any possibility that he could go to his deputies and go to his Ministers and go to his departments and say could they identify some place, some savings within the departments that are low impact, that are not going to upset the progress of government that could come up with some kind of fund that would allow us to take some wins back to our communities on behalf of our constituents for some low budget stuff? I’m talking about things under $50,000 that in smaller communities would have a huge impact, but we don’t have access to anything like that. I’m not asking to sit around with a multi-million dollar capital budget and we’re going to divvy it up from this side of the House. I’m talking about some small wins or some small things for some communities and regions outside of Yellowknife. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would welcome the opportunity to do so. We have a number of processes that we can use to do that and we also have the business planning processes and we always welcome all the good ideas from the other side of the House. We’re quite prepared to look for those pots of money, but we obviously would need the support from the other side of the House as well. Thank you.
I’d like to thank the Premier for that response. I’ve obviously been a part of some previous governments and I can remember sometimes when we were going through cost-saving exercises as a government and we went to the bureaucracy and said, you know, what could we cut to save some money and the list they sent back to us was so unpalatable. I mean, they would go, oh well, we would never do it. So maybe it’s not actual cutting, maybe it’s reductions in certain areas where we can find some money, as the government always says, from within to come up with a program. I think it would send a very positive and clear message to the people out there that are trying to undertake good on behalf of our constituents if we could do something like that.
So is the Premier prepared to have a discussion, with our support, with the senior management at the deputy minister level in the departments to find some savings? Like I said, not to change the course of government but find some savings from within that could allow us to access some funds for some initiatives in our communities. Thank you.
Over the years we have made a number of attempts of doing so. I think in the last government we looked to find ways to find funding that we could use to fund strategic initiatives and I think I understand what the Member is talking about, I think on a much smaller scale, to look at specific funds that we could use to meet some immediate needs and I think that we have a number of processes that would allow us to do so. I think it’s just a matter of us getting together, talking about it so that we can give some specific direction to our senior management, so that we can find ways to identify funds, for example, for disabilities and other projects or programs that the Member has outlined. Thank you.
Again, I think that the people of the Northwest Territories will take heart with that response that the Premier just provided. I don’t condone or support our government throwing money out there, either, kind of willy nilly and hope it hits the right place. So I think that we would need to have a process whereby we could make a case, we could get the support of our colleagues, we could make a case, we could make the pitch and the onus would be on us to a large extent to show that there’s continuity and there should be accountability structures. So how soon do you think we could have this discussion? Thank you.
I would think that we could come up with some sort of a framework that we could have a discussion with committee. For example, I think we have $350,000 in it and every time we call for applications it’s oversubscribed by $1 million or so. So I think that if we put our minds to it we could come out with a process and also look at how it would be tied into our existing planning processes, because we are talking about public funds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think the Premier’s suggestion of perhaps enhancing the NGO Stabilization Fund may be the perfect vehicle for which to do this, because these are small things I’m talking about, but they make a huge difference in supporting the efforts within our communities. So I would just like to close by thanking the Premier very much for his response to this request. Thank you.
