Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Testart.
On that point the intention of this move is to have that separation with government to create a more client-friendly atmosphere. The previous operators of this program had very good relationships with our many, many clients. I may not have heard the response to this question that has been asked, but what is being done to retain their expertise for the nationally recognized program they developed? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, the previous providers were not interested in bidding or continuing with the contract, so that was their choice to take that path. It was necessary for us to look to other NGOs. I can't advise, however, that there will be, of course, government observation and monitoring of this and also the coordinator will be in-house in the government. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Testart. There's nothing further from Mr. Testart. Next, I have Mr. Thompson.
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm going to try to narrow down my questions because my colleagues have provided a number of good comments and questions. I guess my first concern is did not this, the coalition work with the original RFP and then what I've heard from the Minister is something, was different. Can you explain why the department works with the coalition to come up with RFP but then we end up in this situation? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps Ms. Gardiner could assist.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to answer what I think your question is. The original program design, when it was established in 2011, was developed with a committee of some coalition members and government as well as community subject matter experts. The curriculum and the approach was established through that group and then a request for proposals for the program as designed, which was broader in nature than what we've gone with for the long-term program model. It was a different situation in that case in that it was up to proponents to provide a proposal that encompassed the entire program.
In this case, the RFP was based on one segment of the program delivery, in a modular way, if you will. The balance that we tried to strike was understanding that we knew we had significant interest from members of the coalition and other community members, as well as potentially members of the private sector or other community members such as elders, who may not be associated with any official organization. That RFP was designed in that way to make sure that all of those different groups would be encouraged to provide these services, so that we had the ability to provide that depth across the board.
What we did was try to balance making sure that RFP process was fair, so that we were not giving information to one group of potential proponents over another, as well as getting information from our community partners, in which coalition members were quite involved and consulted by the third-party evaluators. We took that into consideration, as well as the lessons learned from the delivery and the operation of the program. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Thanks for the answer. I guess, to me, red flags. You want to learn something? You had nobody from the coalition apply for this. That, to me, is a big red flag. Have you guys taken this as an opportunity to learn something from this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Well, we were disappointed when we did not receive a response to our RFP from the Tree of Peace or from other possible providers. Therefore, it was necessary to seek other avenues to make sure that this very important program would continue to be delivered. Therefore, we went out to NGOs that we thought would have the capacity to deal with this type of contract. Ultimately, the John Howard Society stepped forward, and that is how they ended up with the contract. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister did not answer my question, so I guess four years from now we will probably be in the same boat. It is unfortunate because we could have learned something from it. I guess I will go to my next question. What was the government's response to the coalition letter dated May 10th? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
We did receive the letter. However, we found it absolutely necessary that we move ahead. As mentioned earlier, there was a very extensive report done on the program. It did suggest several changes that we did not see as terribly significant to the overall program. At that point, obviously, there were parties that were not particularly happy with the new RFP, including the previous provider. Therefore, to make sure that the program would still be delivered, we looked to other NGOs, and as I said earlier, the John Howard Society, an organization that has existed in Canada for 150 years, stepped forward. We now have a contract with them, and we are optimistic as we move forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for the 150 years update. It was very important to hear that I think for the third or fourth time here. I now understand that John Howard Society is 150 years old. It has been in the Northwest Territories for 23 years. Thank you very much. However, I guess my big concern is you went out, talked to his organization, and gave them from a one-year term to a four-year term. You did not follow the same process given out to everybody else. To me, I am not worried about John Howard Society so much as the process. You basically said to the coalition that you have heard what they said, but I don't know if you listened to them. Listening to them is different than being heard. Heard, you can sit there and nod your head; listening to them is actually listening to their concerns and making a decision that benefits all parties. It is a win-win. It is a negotiation process. It is a big concern for me.
Let's move away from the society and that. Let's go to your logic model, the evaluation. Now, the department has had a long period of time to come up with an evaluation tool. Now, we still do not have an evaluation tool in place. Will the department get an evaluation tool done right away, so that it is not after the fact, it is not a year down the road, but will be done right away, so that you can see if this program or this process that you're talking about works? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Mr. Chair, we would like to think that our decisions are evidence-based. After all, we did go out and commissioned a very extensive report on this program, which suggested certain changes, which after a good deal of consideration, were incorporated into the new RFP. We then went out, and unfortunately, there were not any bidders. Therefore, we had to look further afield to make sure the program continues. As to evaluating the program, of course we will be evaluating the program, and perhaps I could have Ms. Gardiner expand on my answer. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to clarify that we do have an existing logic model. What we are hoping to do is improve upon it based on our experiences so far, and that is the intention for further program evaluation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister and Ms. Gardiner for the answer. Having a logic model and actually implementing something and knowing what you're looking for? It is great that you have a logic model, but you do not have an evaluation tool in place. You've developed this program. You've developed this RFP. Now, you are sitting here talking about how you are going to develop an evaluation process. If you are going to do something, you should have an evaluation process set in place before you implement this. You guys have been working on it, so it is a concern. I understand you have a logic model. My last question, because the time is running out, is there significant cost, yearly cost to this program, from what we originally proposed to the RFP? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I request that the Minister keep his answer brief, as we are running short on time. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is quite correct. Time is running out, and that is why it was necessary for us to move quickly on this. There is an evaluation process, and we are confident that the provider will live up to expectations. If they do not, then would be in breach of the contract. Thank you.
I will allow you perhaps to answer the question briefly. Minister.
There are no additional costs. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Time has expired for Mr. Thompson. Next, I have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a few points or a few questions that I would like to ask. First, maybe I will just ask some of the basic questions that I understood about the program previously that I just want to make sure are going to still be in place. One is that I understood to some degree that the program was available in the past to those that were in remand. Is it going to be available to those in remand? I am not talking about those who have been sentenced, but those who are awaiting sentencing. Is this program going to be available to those in remand?
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, this program is not going to be available to those either serving sentences or in remand. After all, they are both in custody, and in fact, the program was never meant for those groups. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you. Will the program be available to those that are just simply seeking healing? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Definitely. That it is one of the groups that is targeted for this program. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like it was previously, will partners of men seeking healing, their spouses or common-laws or even family members, be able to attend counselling as well? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
I would like to have Ms. Gardiner assist with this question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely, the connection of victims of domestic violence to supports that are right for them and designed for them is a key focus of the program. It remains that way. That will continue in this case, that, with the appropriate privacy policies and approaches in mind, those services and those people will absolutely be connected to services designed for them and meant for them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay, thank you. Those are good answers. Mr. Chair, I just wonder, we know that there are a variety of programs that are available to those who are incarcerated, that have been sentenced. We know that there is limited access to programs to those who are in remand. Is there a men's healing program available of some sort to those who are in remand currently? If there is not, why would they not be eligible to access this men's healing program? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Certainly, Mr. Chair, there are such programs available, but, if I could let Mr. Goldney expand on that.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are definitely programs available. The challenge, of course, with remanded inmates it is often difficult to schedule them in those programs. The department has been working, as have other jurisdictions that are facing this challenge, trying to find modular programming that can benefit so remanded inmates can participate in, so we certainly are working in that direction to provide various programs. With respect to the A New Day program specifically, though, I think we have to recognize it is a group program that is not wellsuited to be delivered within institutions and, in fact, it never has been delivered in the institutions. But, certainly, we do anticipate greater connections with inmates as they transition out of the institutions, through correction staff and probation staff, to certainly make individuals that might be wellsuited to that program offering to be connected with it. Then, hopefully, they will make a choice to further their healing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
