Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Masi. Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Hay River North.
Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, and commends it to the House.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations ("the committee") is pleased to report on its review of Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act.
Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, sponsored by the Department of Justice, has been referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review. The bill proposes to:
Consolidate the Office of the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Director of Human Rights into a single agency called the Human Rights Commission;
Clarify the public interest mandate of the commission and provide for the carriage of complaints at hearing by the commission, in recognition of this public interest mandate;
Provide that restorative principles are to be applied to human rights protections and processes in the Northwest Territories;
Make changes to the operation of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel, including giving adjudicators the ability to use practices and procedures for resolving complaints that are different from those in traditional adversarial processes;
Add gender expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination to expand upon and clarify the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity for which discrimination is already prohibited under the act;
Remove the offence and punishment provisions of the act, in recognition of the shift to a restorative process; and
Bring the amendments into force annually over a three-year period, from 2019 to 2021.
The Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act received assent in 2002 and came into force in 2004.
In 2014, to mark the 10-year anniversary of the act's proclamation, the Human Rights Commission ("the commission") undertook a review of the human rights system in the Northwest Territories, which included a review of the system's governing legislation, the Human Rights Act. The commission contracted a team of experts, with an extensive background in the areas of Canadian constitutional and human rights legislation, to carry out the review.
The recommendations of the Comprehensive Review Team were set out in a report titled "Northwest Territories Human Rights Act Comprehensive Review: A review and analysis of human rights promotion and protection in the Northwest Territories," which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 7, 2015.
The review report made a number of findings, including that:
the complaint process is over-legalized, which creates a serious barrier for members of the public to access justice;
the organizational structure is unnecessarily complex;
the threshold for referral of complaints to the Human Rights Adjudication Panel is too low to allow the director to properly screen complaints;
outreach and services to communities outside Yellowknife is limited; and
the current focus on individual complaints makes it difficult to effect systemic and institutional changes.
The report recommended that:
the commission adopt a restorative approach to all human rights work, encouraging all of those who are affected to be involved in resolving the issues giving rise to a complaint;
the commission and the director's office be amalgamated into a single agency and that, in addition to the work that it already does with respect to the promotion of human rights, the commission be given responsibility for determining whether complaints should be dismissed or referred to the adjudication panel;
the screening threshold be raised by amending the act to allow the commission to refer, for hearing by the adjudication panel, only those cases having merit and raising significant issues of discrimination; and
the commission be empowered to identify and address systemic discrimination by moving from an adversarial and highly legalized process focusing on individual complaints to one that fosters a culture of diversity and inclusion by identifying and prioritizing pervasive issues of discrimination in the Northwest Territories.
The three agencies that currently make up the Human Rights Commission, the commission, the Office of the Director, and the adjudication panel, supported the overall findings of the review and developed a plan to implement the recommended changes. This work was captured in a report called "Moving Forward: Implementing the Recommendations of the 2015 Comprehensive Review of Human Rights in the NWT," which was also tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 7, 2015.
Upon completion of the comprehensive review and the implementation plan, the Human Rights Commission began to make changes to move towards a more restorative human rights system in the Northwest Territories.
Through its reviews of the commission's annual reports, the standing committee has been kept apprised of this work, which has included training for staff on the principles of restorative justice. The commission has also hosted workshops and events, in concert with its partnership organizations, to promote restorative approaches. As this work has proceeded, so too has the work to develop amendments to the Northwest Territories' human rights legislation.
I will now turn the reading over to the honourable Member for Nunakput.
Member for Nunakput
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Human Rights Act differs from most territorial legislation in a key respect. While most statutes provide that a Cabinet Minister is responsible for the act's administration, the Human Rights Act provides that the Human Rights Commission is responsible to the Legislative Assembly for the administration of the act.
Consequently, amendments to the Human Rights Act necessitate a high degree of collaboration between the commission, having administrative responsibility under the legislation; the Department of Justice, as the sponsor of the bill; and the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, which has responsibility for the oversight of the territory's statutory officers, including the Human Rights Commission.
Committee wishes to acknowledge the cooperative effort that went into the development of Bill 30. In its review, committee has remained mindful of this work and respectful of the commission's objective of moving towards a more restorative human rights system. Committee also gave careful consideration in particular to two issues raised in the development of the bill, for which the Department of Justice and the Human Rights Commission had differing views.
These are:
That the act should be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics; and
That the act should be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of an unrelated criminal charge or conviction.
Committee's input on these matters is addressed further on in this report.
Bill 30 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on October 1, 2018, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review.
To commence its review of Bill 30, the committee sent letters inviting input from stakeholders, including all municipal and Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories and a number of non-governmental organizations.
During the week of January 21, 2019, the committee travelled to and held public meetings on Bill 30 in Fort Smith, Inuvik, and Fort McPherson. A final public hearing was held in Yellowknife on February 5, 2019. Committee thanks everyone who attended these meetings or provided written submissions to the committee sharing their views on Bill 30.
In a presentation to the committee at its Yellowknife public hearing, Mr. Charles Dent, chair of the Human Rights Commission, and Ms. Deborah McLeod, director of Human Rights, indicated the commission's support for the amendments proposed in Bill 30. They further noted that the commission previously brought forward genetic discrimination and unrelated criminal conviction as potential prohibited grounds for discrimination under the act. They indicated that "the commission would like to see these grounds added as an amendment to Bill 30 if there is agreement to do so," but noted that they would not want to see passage of the legislation delayed as a result.
In a written submission, Alternatives North, a Northwest Territories-based social justice coalition, expressed its support for the amendments being proposed to the Human Rights Act. Their letter noted that:
"Previously, complainants were responsible for presenting their evidence in a formal and legal type process, a difficult task for many to accomplish, especially in instances where respondents with access to more financial resources were represented by legal counsel. The change to a restorative process for addressing human rights complaints will address unequal power dynamics, result in a less confrontational approach and offer more support to complainants."
Alternatives North recommended an evaluation framework, including both "an Indigenous lens and a gender-based analysis," in order to measure the effectiveness of the change to a more restorative approach. As well, they noted the importance of developing plain-language communication tools to explain the principles and practices of a restorative process, and the orientation and continued training related to cultural competency for commission staff and any contracted agencies.
In each of the smaller communities to which the committee travelled, committee heard support for the inclusion of genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the act. Mr. Mike Keizer, a Parks Canada employee from Fort Smith, expressed his support for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics. So did Ms. Lauraine Armstrong, also of Fort Smith, who noted that the fear of being discriminated against might serve as a deterrent to some people getting genetic testing that could help improve their lives. Mr. Richard Nerysoo, of Fort McPherson, told the committee that prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics "is a good thing to pursue," but offered the view that prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an unrelated criminal charge or conviction could be more challenging to implement.
During the review period, committee also received a written submission from the Human Rights Adjudication Panel suggesting technical amendments to improve Bill 30.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass this report to the honourable Member for Sahtu. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Member for Sahtu.
Discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics occurs when a person is treated differently in employment, in the provision of goods or services, or in tenancy on the basis of their specific genetic information, without bona fide and reasonable justification.
Committee Researched The Proposal To Amend The Northwest Territories Human Rights Act To Prohibit Discrimination On The Basis Of A Person's Genetic Characteristics. Committee Learned That, In The Intervening Period Since The Work Started On Bill 30, Federal Bill S-201: Genetic Non-discrimination Act received royal assent on May 4, 2017. This bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the ground of genetic characteristics. It also amended the Canada Labour Code to protect employees from being required to undergo or to disclose the results of a genetic test, and to provide employees with other protections related to genetic testing and test results.
Masi. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Clause 25 of Bill 30 proposes to repeal the offence and punishment provisions of the act, replacing them with a provision providing that anyone who contravenes section 15 or subsection 40(1) is guilty of an offence. However, clause 25 does not specify any penalties for the offences set out in these two sections of the act.
During the public hearing, the Human Rights Commission indicated its support for the removal of penalties specified in this section of the act, arguing that they are not consistent with a restorative approach to the adjudication of human rights complaints; the commission does not use those provisions; and that other human rights acts in Canada do not contain penalty provisions.
Committee reviewed the human rights acts of 11 provinces and territories. Of these, Committee found that 10 contain penalty provisions. Only British Columbia's Human Rights Code does not.
It is the committee's view that, generally, the various acts distinguish between the remedies that may be ordered or imposed by the body adjudicating human rights complaints, as distinguished from process-related offences under the act for which fines can be imposed by the courts.
Remedies are largely directed at compensating and restoring the dignity of the individual whose human rights have been infringed, or requiring remedial activities on the part of the violator to prevent similar infractions in the future. In such instances, offences often occur because the person or organization was unaware of their obligations under the act.
Committee believes that the restorative approach is most appropriately exercised through the remedial actions that may be ordered by the commission or adjudication panel in the process of resolving a human rights complaint. In these cases, the offences and penalties set out under subsection 72(1) of the act are not required, as the appropriate remedies will be determined through the commission's restorative justice processes, including mediation, or by the adjudication panel in accordance with its authority under the act. Therefore, committee agrees with the removal of subsection 72(1).
In contrast, section 15 and subsection 40(1) prohibit actions by those who attempt to thwart the authority or operations of the act by wilfully refusing to comply with direction under the act or by engaging in deceitful, fraudulent, or intimidating behaviours related to activities governed by the act.
Committee cannot support the removal of the penalties specified for these offences as this would deprive the courts and, by extension, individuals who have been wronged of the opportunity to punish unlawful behaviour that is wilful, deliberate, and thus not as likely to be made better by restorative measures. Accordingly, committee moved Motion 7 to amend Clause 25 to repeal subsection 72(1) and to retain subsection 72(2).
Subsection 62(3) of the act sets out what remedies an adjudicator may include in a remedial order where there is a finding that a human rights complaint has merit. Clause 24 of Bill 30 proposes to amend this section to broaden the adjudicator's power to "do anything the adjudicator considers that the party ought to do to promote compliance with this act, including with respect to future practices."
Committee is concerned that this proposal is too broad. It allows the adjudicator to order a person or organization that has been found to have violated a complainant's human rights to do anything the adjudicator thinks necessary to ensure future compliance with the act, potentially going beyond the particular grounds of discrimination dealt with by the adjudicator in the complaint being adjudicated. Committee expressed the concern that this language was too permissive and could result in over-reach by the adjudication panel.
Accordingly, committee moved Motion 6 to amend Clause 24 to restrict the proposed power of the adjudication panel such that it may only order remedies that may prevent future contraventions that are the same as or similar to the contravention that is the subject of the adjudication.
Mr. Speaker, I now pass the reading of this section to honourable Member for Hay River North.
Masi. Member for Hay River North.
Committee received a submission from Mr. Sheldon Toner, Chair of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel, recommending technical amendments to Bill 30.
Subclause 12(2) of Bill 30 proposes a new subsection, 29(2.4), in the act. This new subsection provides that, in hearing an appeal of refusal to accept a complaint, the Human Rights Commission will adopt the adjudication panel's process with such modifications as the circumstances require. In the adjudication panel's submission, Mr. Toner argues that the proposed wording of this subclause is potentially confusing because it implies that the adjudication panel rather than the commission hears these appeals. He further suggests that the commission should be able to determine its own process rather than adopt that of the commission, which was established for a different purpose.
Committee agreed with this assessment and moved Motion 4 to amend the bill to specify that the commission will establish its own appeal process.
Subclauses 21(2) to (6) of Bill 30 deal with the matter of "carriage of complaints," which refers to who has procedural leadership for presenting evidence and arguments before the commission or the courts. The submission argues that the provisions giving the executive director carriage of complaints should appear in part 5 of the act, which is dedicated to commission hearings where carriage is exercised.
The committee again reviewed the human rights acts of other Canadian jurisdictions and learned that six of 11 human rights statutes contain provisions providing for carriage of complaints. In all of these instances, the provisions specifying carriage of complaints are set out in the part of each act dealing with parties to adjudication. This is consistent with the proposal contained in the submission from the Human Rights Adjudication Panel. For this reason, committee was persuaded that this change was appropriate and moved Motion 5 to amend subclauses 21(2) to (6) of the Bill 30. The amendments move the carriage of complaint provisions to section 53 of the act.
Further technical amendments were completed through Motion 3, which amends related references in the act, and Motion 8, which ensures the coming-into-force provisions of the act reflect this reorganization.
An additional unrelated technical amendment was made through Motion 2 to correct a drafting error in clause 9 the bill.
Based on its reviews of the Human Rights Commission's annual reports, the committee believes the commission has undertaken a significant training directed at implementing a restorative approach in all of the work that it does. Committee is confident that this work will continue. Committee also has confidence that, to complement the extensive public relations materials it already produces, the commission will develop pamphlets and plan language materials to explain the changes to the act and the implementation of the restorative approach.
Committee supports the recommendation made by Alternatives North with respect to an evaluation framework and therefore makes the following recommendation.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Human Rights Commission develop an evaluation framework for assessing the efficacy of moving to a restorative process, which includes in its methodology a gender-based analysis and an assessment of the impacts on Indigenous people.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations further recommends that the findings of this review be tabled in the Legislative Assembly in the first sitting following April 1, 2021, at which time the amendments to the Human Rights Act made by Bill 30 will be fully implemented.
The clause-by-clause review of the Bill was held on March 7, 2019. At this review, the committee moved the following motions:
That clause 2 of Bill 30 be amended by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following: "(a) in the second recital, by adding "or expression, genetic characteristics" after "gender identity"; and"
This motion was carried. However, the Minister did not concur, so the motion did not amend the bill.
That clause 9 of Bill 30 be amended in proposed paragraph 23(1)(c) by striking out "or by the commission" and substituting "and by the commission."
The motion was carried, and the Minister concurred. The bill will be amended accordingly.
That subclause 11(1) of Bill 30 be amended by deleting proposed paragraph 27(1)(e) and substituting the following: "(e) have carriage of complaints on behalf of the Commission in accordance with subsections 53(4) to (6);"
The motion was carried, and the Minister concurred. The bill will be amended accordingly.
That subclause 12(2) of Bill 30 be amended by deleting proposed subclause 29(2.4) and substituting the following: "(2.4) The commission shall establish a process for conducting an appeal under subsection (2.3)."
The motion was carried and the Minister concurred. The bill will be amended accordingly.
That Bill 30 be amended by (a) deleting subclause 21(2) and renumbering subclause 21(1) and clause 21; (b) and adding the following after subclause 23(2):
"(3) The following is added after subsection 53(3):
(4) The commission has carriage of a complaint before the adjudication panel.
(5) The commission may elect to have carriage of complaint in a proceeding before a court.
(6) For greater certainty, the commission has carriage of a complaint for the purposes of representing the public interest and upholding the principles of the act."
The motion was carried, and the Minister concurred. The bill will be amended accordingly.
That paragraph 24(b) of Bill 30 be amended by deleting proposed subparagraph 62(3)(a)(ix) and substituting the following: "(ix) to do anything that the adjudicator considers appropriate for the purpose of preventing the same or any similar contravention in the future; and"
The motion was carried and the Minister concurred. The bill will be amended accordingly.
That Clause 25 Of Bill 30 Be Deleted And The Following Substituted: "25. Subsection 72(1) is repealed and subsection 72(2) is renumbered as section 72."
Masi. Member for Hay River North.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Committee Report 15-18(3) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize a couple of Pages from Mangilaluk School in Tuktoyaktuk, Ms. Natasha Panaktalok and Jessica Pokiak, and also their chaperone, Denise Cockney. Welcome to the legislature. It is nice to see you here listening, especially on the representation of women. I hope that the female MLAs here will give you a tour of the legislature and give you a -- what do you call it? Not a speech, but -- I am lost for words right now, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, welcome to the legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 7, acknowledgements. Colleagues, at this point in time I am going to call for a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Yesterday he reported on the draft child and family services quality improvement plan by chapter and verse, yet the plan itself has not been made public. How does doing consultation with Indigenous entities at this point provide them with real input into the plan? Thank you.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the entire process, the department has been reaching out to staff in the Indigenous governments to make sure we are getting feedback and ideas from them. At the same time, I have also had some correspondence back and forth with a number of the Indigenous governments, and my deputy had an opportunity to meet with the Tlicho Government to provide some presentation on what we have heard, what we have seen, in order to get some feedback from them. We have put together a draft quality improvement plan that has been presented to committee. We have taken committee's input. We have modified and we will be modifying the quality improvement plan. Now that we have it at this stage, we are to take it back to the Indigenous governments to seek once again any additional information, any additional clarity, any additional recommendations that they would like incorporated, and we will incorporate them in. We have always said this is a living document. We want to be able to evolve it as more information becomes available, as more issues become available, but there is definitely opportunity to hear from them, get their input, and make this quality improvement plan even stronger, like we did by working with committee.
Thanks to the Minister for that response. In his statement yesterday, the Minster said the plan will address the recommendations in the OAG's report as well as "additional gaps that were found." Will the Minister please describe these additional gaps?
The quality improvement plan isn't just based on the Auditor General's report. It is based on the recommendations from the Auditor General's report. It is based on our findings from our own internal audits. It is based on input and guidance and recommendations we got from the committee. It will be based on input and guidance that we get from other parties. Throughout the entire process, the document itself has grown far beyond just the document that is responding to the Auditor General's recommendations. That is what I was referring to. As far as other information, the committee yesterday made a number of recommendations on how we could improve our plan. We are incorporating those into the document.
I am now going to turn to a few specific recommendations that the OAG made that the department agreed to complete by the end of this month. One of the key findings was that the health authority staff maintain minimum contact with clients, which was a failing of the department in the audit. The Minister has said that he has set up quality reviews in this area. What does that mean in terms of actually meeting the contact requirements with the youth and children?
I will get that information from the department so we can actually be explicit with the actual numbers. I do want to point out that there are over 80 action items in the quality improvement plan. Those build on the recommendations of the Auditor General, internal findings, and committee recommendations. A number of those actions have been completed. Nine of them are already completed out of 80 action items. Nineteen of them are ongoing, which means we have already made the improvements and now it is a matter of implementing them on an ongoing basis. Thirty-two of them have been initiated. We are doing the work. Fifteen action items have yet to be initiated, but they weren't intended to be initiated right at the beginning. They are timed out over time.
There are four items where we haven't met our timelines. I am happy to provide that information to the Member so that she can see some of the areas where we are struggling. One of those areas was an area I talked about yesterday in Committee of the Whole. It was based on the recommendations provided to include a gender-based analysis. It is going to take a bit more time. As committee said, we want to get this right. We agree. We want to get this right.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to gauge is how the planning and bureaucratic process is going down to the front line and to the clients in order to make substantive changes that the OAG had talked about. Another of the things the OAG report flagged was an increased risk to children in care because perspective guardians hadn't been screened properly. The Minister reported yesterday on changes to screening. My question is: has the front-line staff be trained in these new protocols so that they are in effect now? Thank you.
The process around guardianship has changed. We put some policies in place around that. Training has occurred for many of the individuals. I can't say that every individual has received that training, but every individual will receive that training. When the deputy minister met with committee in December, he outlined a number of the actions in the Auditor General's report that we have actually take action on and completed. There was a significant list there. Since then, we have even more action items that we have completed. We have committed to providing updates and reports to committee, and we will do so. We will be able to demonstrate what areas we have made progress and what areas we haven't made progress. More importantly, we will be able to provide statistical information and front-line information that shows where improvements are already visible and where files are being monitored appropriately and where there is still work to be done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I spoke about the long-running Growing Together program in Hay River. It is a successful program that, unfortunately, is going to lose a significant amount of funding and, subsequently, will have to make programing cuts because ECE has re-profiled the funding pot that has been funding this organization for 22 years. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment: since the department did fund these parenting programs for 22 years, is it still the position of the department that parenting programs like Growing Together are valuable and provide a vital service? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most definitely. When we look at the results of our early development instruments, our EDI, it shows that children's vulnerabilities are increasing. The research shows that earlier intervention such as parenting supports will have a positive effect on that. I am totally on board with supporting as many parenting programs as we can. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is good to hear. Since the department is supportive of this notion, what pots of money are available to support parenting programs?
Through the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, the major pot of funding for parenting programs would be what is currently known as the Healthy Children Initiative monies that will be changing into the Supporting Child Inclusion and Participation. That is within Education, Culture and Employment. That is where our pots for parenting are. I should also say that Health and Social Services also has the Healthy Family Program that goes throughout the territories.
Now, you can see the problem. The pot of money that supports parenting programs is no longer going to support parenting programs. That is the only pot of money that there is. I understand the reasons why they want to re-profile this money; there are other areas that also need money. This is a proven program that needs to be supported. Right now, the way I understand it, going forward, only licensed childcare providers will be eligible for this pot of money.
Understanding that maybe there needs to be some tweaks to the Growing Together program so it fits in here a little better, can I get some assurance from the Minister that this funding won't be limited only to licensed daycare centres? Because there are some programs that just can't, by their very nature, fall into that system. Can I get some confirmation that, going forward, unlicensed programs like Growing Together will also be eligible for this funding?
It is not acceptable that we would limit this funding to only licensed daycare centres. If we had licensed daycare centres throughout the Northwest Territories, I might be more willing to go that route. However, we don't. We need to provide as much parenting support as possible. Within that funding, though, I do want to say that the funding stream isn't going to be open for everything. We do have some agencies that are using it for operational, et cetera, and not actually providing support to parents. The funding will be for one-on-one support or one-to-multiple-children, group support for parenting. It will also be the support training. It will also be for parent-and-tot education programing. Those would be the parameters around it.
Basically, it is going to be for parenting supports, training, or support one-on-one for children, because there may be other organizations that don't do the parenting. We need to make sure that parenting supports are there in each community, as many as possible. I can give my commitment in the House today that parenting supports, as long as they are having parenting for parents, will be supported.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is giving me all the right answers today, and I appreciate it. This is the $1-million question. Well, it is not a $1-million question. I think this is probably a $50,000-a-year question. Can I assure the people over at Growing Together and all the parents and the children who rely on this service that, come April 1st, there won't be a reduction in their funding and that their programming can continue? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Member for clarifying because, if it was a $1-million question, I couldn't support that, of course, because I don't have $1 million to give to one parenting program. I will give a commitment that, although we may be changing the program, any program that is currently providing parenting support will actually be either getting the full amount through the Healthy Children Initiative or they will be supported in applying for the application for the new program called the Supporting Child Inclusion and Participation. Anyone that is providing parenting support to community members will have their funding as is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Previously in other sittings I have had questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services regarding the boarding home in Yellowknife. Can the Minister advise the House: is that contract renewed every year, annually, or is it an RFP process? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The process has actually gone through an RFP in the past. I can't tell you exactly how the last one was, whether it was an extension to a contract or whether it was an RFP. I would have to check and get that information, but it does go through an RFP. The current contract that is in place now actually expires on December 31, 2019, and within the contract that we have with them, we do have the ability to extend until December 31, 2024. The contract is not renewed. The authority would follow up through the normal RFP process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
