Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert,
Yes, Mr. Chair. I certainly concur with Mr. O'Reilly's observations that this is a very important contract, which it is, and there are certainly terms in the contract which the John Howard Society must adhere to, failing which they would be in breach of the contract. Now, the John Howard Society, I see some notes here, has been around for 150 years; not perhaps, delivering this exact type of program, but somewhat related program, so we do have some confidence in their ability to deliver, and should they fail to do so, they would be in breach of the contract. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. John Howard may have been around for 150 years, but how long have they been here in the Northwest Territories or, indeed, in Yellowknife? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
I see from my notes here that they have been around since 1994 in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Recognizing the time, I will allow one more. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate the time. Can the Minister's staff let us know whether the John Howard Society has ever delivered a program like this in the past? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Perhaps I could have Ms. Gardiner answer that question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The John Howard Society is responsible for the administration of the contract. They will have subcontracts with qualified counsellors whom we are working with in partnership with them. They are close to having those contracts in place. The staff member at the John Howard Society is not responsible for the actual delivery of the program. As we mentioned, qualified counsellors are required, the same as we required in the RFP process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleagues for proposing the questions. Every time this is brought up in the House, the Minister states that minor changes were made to this program based on the evaluation report that was done. Right near the beginning of this report, it recommends that consideration should be given to the fact that the program is more than a curriculum, and community outreach should be considered a part of any future program. The community outreach that has been happening at The Tree of Peace includes workshops at the North Slave Correctional Centre, I believe the only program available to those in remand. It has happened in adult education centres, with the YKDFN, the Salvation Army, the Bailey House, and more. In addition, there have been training sessions delivered to nurses in the Stanton Psychiatric Unit which the nurses seem to find quite useful.
However, as I understand it, the RFP states that program facilitators must strictly adhere to the curriculum as set out by the department, which excludes all of this community outreach. The evaluation report also states that some men are not well-suited for group counselling sessions, and future programs should include provisions for individual counselling based on A New Day's curriculum. Yet, as I understand it, in the new RFP, men who are not well-suited will be referred to outside counselling services, in stark contrast to this recommendation. The one recommendation that I did find that was followed was to break the program up into segments so that if you drop out partway through, you can get right back in without having to wait the 20 weeks.
The evaluation also stated that many of the individuals that they interviewed would not change the program the way it operated. Yet, we have a letter from the Coalition Against Family Violence which spent years developing the A New Day program tailored for the North, and this organization was made up of, the Government of the NWT was a part of it, Disabilities Council, Status of Women Council, Tree of Peace, Yellowknife Women's Society, White Ribbon Campaign, Alternatives North, Salvation Army, and the RCMP.
Most of the organizations I just mentioned sent a letter to the Minister on May 10th stating essentially that they have no faith that the program the way the department envisions it is going to be successful. They write, "It remains the position of the coalition that a successful program must be a community-based therapy program. The work with men who abuse must be ongoing while healing and treatment options that are designed to be flexible enough to address the actual needs of those who seek help from this program. As such, the new program design as described in the recently advertised RFP was met with a degree of surprise by members of the coalition. The new program design has some aspects that appear to us to be incompatible with program success and with continued widespread community support."
I ask the Minister: why was the coalition engaged in the first place if now their input is being disregarded? They are begging the department to, well, I will not say "begging." They would like the department to work with them to retool this program into something that they think would be successful. How do they know what is going to be successful? Well, they work with these people every day. They developed the first program. They are the people on the ground. It still boggles my mind that they are being completely ignored and left out of this process. It has been front page news that all the coalition members refused to bid on this RFP, because they felt so strongly that it was such a poor program. These are people who are dedicated to helping end family violence, and yet they were not willing to put their name behind a program that the department says is going to do that.
I do not want to use unparliamentary language, but there is some arrogance from the department on this, I find, and I am at loss. Why will the department not work with these people who have years, decades, hundreds of years between them, of experience in this field? Maybe I will start there with questions. Why did the department flat out refuse to work with the coalition or coalition members to come up with a program design that would be palatable, at the very least, to the coalition? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.
Thank you. I am going to refer that question, if I may, to Martin Goldney, my deputy minister. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and there is a lot to unpack there. I am going to do my best, but I certainly would welcome follow-up questions as well. First, I think I have to challenge the notion that the department was unwilling to work with the coalition. I think we are very appreciative of our community partners, but I think there might be a bit of a disconnect. We do commend our community partners for their commitment to addressing this issue, but I think where there might be a bit of a disconnect is in the department's recognition that this is not a program that will fix all family violence issues or even is appropriate for all offenders and men who use violence in their intimate relationships. It is a program that is very specific, is designed for men of a certain risk profile, and cannot be the solution to all of our family violence programs or issues. It is not a one size fits all solution.
I think what we hear our partners saying is they are looking for additional supports and additional avenues to address all aspects of family violence, and we agree. We are happy to work with any community partner with a proposal that could be complimentary and that could tackle some of these related issues perhaps in another way, perhaps for a different segment of the population with a different risk profile. But when we talk about A New Day, when the department talks about A New Day, it is talking about that very specific curriculum and very specific program, and our challenge was really to do the best we can with that program and the resources that we have available.
I would suggest we did not make any significant changes apart from focusing the administration to make sure that we get the best results possible, and we did look at the evaluation very carefully. We are also informed by our experience delivering the program and looked at what needed to be improved. Clearly, we recognize that outreach is one component, but if you look at the number of men who were made aware of the program, very few actually enrolled in the program and made the commitment to do the work required. We think, frankly, there are better ways to connect men with the services that they need. That tells us that a very small number of the men who were made aware of the program felt it was the appropriate program for them or maybe they were not ready at that time. The new program designed does offer the opportunity in that structured assessment phase to connect people with different supports, and we hope that leads to improved outcomes.
Certainly, one of the biggest changes was that modularity, that flexibility to recognize that we need to deliver it in a more flexible model, so we did focus on that change. As I mentioned, we are very willing to work with community partners. I think there has been some disappointment expressed that the department didn't go to the coalition to discuss the changes. I think it has to be appreciated, at the balance, the need for and the potential benefit for further input, with the reality that we had a pretty clear understanding of what changes needed to be made. Again, we are not saying this is the program that is going to fix everything. We do recognize that there are going to be continued conversations required, but we also had to balance the need to have a fair procurement process, as well. It wouldn't have been appropriate for us to talk about things that would show up in an RFP, which is a select group of organizations recognizing that that might create some unfairness to other potential proponents who aren't members of that organization. I think it is also fair to note that not every member of the coalition supported that letter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. The time allowed is up. I will move Mr. Simpson further down. We only had one question, one answer during that time period. We will move on to the next. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to take an opportunity to seek some clarity and understanding and ultimately seek reassurance that the spirit and intent of this program has not been affected. My understanding, with the previous speaker recalling Mr. Simpson, stated very clearly that vision that the groups had in terms of coming together, in terms of trying to address the very big issue of family violence in NWT. The program that was conceived, developed, and established was operating ineffectively and unsuccessfully, from my understanding.
The recent meetings with some of the people who work on the front lines, I was very disappointed that the program had tanked and, in a sense, it is demoralizing that perhaps the initial vision of the program has dramatically changed. I understand the sense for keeping programs and funding resources in the stream of being uncomfortable, but it shouldn't be systemized so much where it becomes very stringent. It discourages people from taking a step to seeking help.
From my understanding, that is what it was and that is what it came to be. After its assessment evaluations, there are some recommendations and changes that were implemented. It went to RFP, and a lot of the groups that could have perhaps put their name forward were discouraged. I was deeply disappointed to see, perhaps, just the diminishing of the program when it was first originally started. What I am seeking from the Minister is if he could explain this question that was asked. I want to understand and seek some reassurances that the original vision of A New Day, with input from, as an example, the Coalition of Family Violence. A lot of the NGO organizations have played a hand in developing the initial vision. They know the philosophy behind that. I wanted to have the Minister explain: are those features still intact as we go forward with entering a new stage with the John Howard Society? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister.
Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear that the A New Day program, the group's therapy model, and the basic curriculum is not changing. That will stay the same. What is changing is some of the administration around the program, the flexibility which has already been mentioned today, so that men might be able to rejoin more easily. Efforts are going to be made to make more facilitators. We also think that, should the program work out well, which we are confident of, that the new slightly changed model will enable us to take it outside of Yellowknife to other communities, where this type of program is also badly needed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I think the Minister answered my second question. It was whether the terms would outline the possibility of building upon the successes of the A New Day program to see if there are opportunities for outreach. It has been pointed out that sometimes people, especially men, can't access the program because they are incarcerated.
There should be some efforts made to try to see if they could have an established program, as an example, the North Slave Correctional Centre and, at the same time, looking within the possibility of maybe, in the long term, seeing if this program could be expanded in one or two communities. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I may have mentioned earlier, this of course is a program for men who are not in custody, but there are certain programs they can access in the custodial setting. However, we are hoping to have better connections with probation services. Perhaps those who have been in custody and are released, in completing their sentence, may be able to access the program more easily. Again, as I mentioned, in the future, should the program work out well, which we are certainly hoping for, we may be able to expand it to communities outside of Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. I see nothing further from Mr. Nadli. Next item, Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister, in his statement this morning, the statement we are discussing right now, seeks cooperation and support of all Members of this Legislative Assembly to move forward. I think that has been a challenging proposition for many of us. The merits of this program are undeniable. I have a few questions. I would like to thank my honourable friends on this side of the House for canvassing well the concerns of both the community and honourable Members on the many questions that they are still waiting on for this program.
The Minister said that all counsellors will be properly trained. We have had a brief discussion about that training, but does this new contract include a training component, and is the John Howard Society charged with delivering that training? What competencies exist around that? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. The Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am wondering if I could have Ms. Gardiner answer that question. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The contract with the John Howard Society doesn't explicitly lay out what additional requirements for training on top of the minimum requirements to meet, as we have done with the pilot program, and as was made clear on the RFP document is the level of cooperation with our department to make sure that any opportunities available for professional development are met and there's a requirement in the contract that counsellors do maintain a minimum level of professional development hours. It's our intention as we've done previously to work with the contractor to make sure that those opportunities - and from our division, for example, we have many opportunities with our community justice coordinators providing training for those coordinators and victim services workers, as well as upcoming through the family information liaison office - that training opportunities that are appropriate for many of these service providers and they would be included in that. Our intention is to continue that and provide whatever support we can to make sure that the counsellors are receiving the support they need as well as of course as the requirement for the clinical supervision. It still exists for this program which would provide additional support in that way as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does that mean that additional training spaces will be opened up for these counsellors or will they be competing with existing public service employees? I say this because I know some of these training opportunities are quite limited and I'd like the Minister to give a commitment then that the department will make these opportunities available and provide additional resources if required. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Thank you for your answer to at least a portion of that question. Thank you.
Pardon me. I'm sorry, Minister. Can you please repeat that?
I'd ask Ms. Gardiner to answer that question.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There will no competition for spots. The training needs are similar and we will be including those opportunities for all of those service providers that we're connected to, so it will not be a competition. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that response. The Minister acknowledged the community partners that the honourable Member for Hay River North brought up in his line of questions and further recognizes the hard work done by the clients to heal themselves, but at the same time we know that the RFP was not taken up; that it was a rejection of that by those community partners and that as much as we, the Minister, has given kudos to these individuals who have worked hard to rehabilitate themselves is the recognition that only a small number of men. The message is a bit confusing, but does the Minister, does this new deal, is this new deal going to take those considerations into account? How are we going to be continuing to work with community partners and ensure they have input in the future. I want to make sure we're not just paying lip service, political lip service, to people who are benefiting from this program and we're actually showing real support and we are listening to our grass roots when they deliver things. I know this question has already somewhat been posed, I'd like if the Minister can answer this rather than the department officials. I think they've already well explained the department's position, but I'd like to know how the Minister is going to ensure that the viewpoints of clients and of these groups are well connected to this program on an ongoing basis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister. The Member requested that you answer. Of course, you are under no obligation. Minister Sebert.
Mr. Chair, of course, we are always hoping to work with community organizations. We are, of course, always interested in hearing what the clients have to say. The whole point of this exercise is to review the, the very expensive review, that took place, that was tabled in the House in November was to the effect that not that the program was broken in any way but that it could be improved. Ultimately, that improvement is for the clients. We're hoping as we move forward the program having become more flexible that we will be able to better serve those clients that wish to avail themselves to the A New Day program and that we're optimistic that will take place. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if the Minister addressed my concerns about working with the community service providers, but I'll leave that alone for now. My final question is the concerns from the department about this program have always been on an administrative basis. I appreciate the program is more flexible, but these admin, and we just heard that the John Howard Society will be administering the program but not actually operating it. They'll be doing that through subcontractors. Why is it the GNWT then not just subcontractors are handling the administration itself? Why do we need that third-party step? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Perhaps Mr. Goldney could answer that question.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, as the program evolves, we do anticipate and do hope that there will be opportunities to build capacities with other facilitators. The reason the John Howard Society and an NGO was selected was because we did recognize there is some value and we have heard this from NGOs of having a bit of distance from government and having an independent storefront-type scenario available to make it less onerous or less intimidating for prospective clients. We did hear that concern. Moving forward though, we might look at other options that might see the government taking more of a direct role. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
