Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Member's continued commitment and dedication to this particular program and the important work that it has done in the past and the important work that we need to continue to do. I did have an opportunity to meet with the Member earlier in May, where we had an opportunity to discuss the current status. Last session, I indicated that I would direct the department to move quickly to put in a day program. They did proceed with that work, but then they came back to me after they had an opportunity to talk to the other stakeholders, and the stakeholders raised a good point, that, before we design a program, we should really talk to the clients who are utilizing the program to make sure that the program we make actually suits their needs. It's been great that Members in this House, myself included, have been talking about how important it is, but we actually hadn't had that conversation, so I withdrew from aggressively pushing it to changing the direction slightly and asking the authority and the department to work with a steering committee that has been established to reach out to the residents in Yellowknife to find out exactly what they want so that what we design meets their needs. That work is currently under way. They are reaching out to seniors throughout the community to figure out what exactly they would like an adult day program to look like. We are hoping to have all that work done and the program designed by the fall of this year.
If I understand this correctly, it was the stakeholders who told the Minister to put the brakes on this while he did an assessment of needs. Do I have that correctly?
No, that is not what I said. I said the stakeholders indicated that it would be valuable to do that work, that it would be important to actually hear what the residents say as opposed to us in this Chamber assuming we actually know without talking to the clients or to the residents. At that time, I realized that it's important that we get their voice, we get their input, we design programs to meet the needs of people as opposed to meeting the needs of the individuals in this House, and I directed them to take that new direction at that time.
The thing that I find most difficult to understand is, two and a half years after the day program closed, the Minister is now looking at an assessment of what the needs are. This, to me, does not indicate real priority to address this area. Why has it taken so long to get to the point of assessing needs?
The Member might want to go back and review Hansard for the last two and a half years. She has certainly brought this up a number of times, and it is a priority. The Member should not be blind to the fact that, based on her recommendations, her encouragement in this House, we did go for an RFP; we had no applicants. We went out for another RFP; we had no applicants. We reached out to some stakeholders; there was some indication of a desire to work together. We were going through that process when, in October or January, February of this year, the Member said we really need to make progress. I made a commitment to actually move it forward with a program at that time. At that time, when we started to move out with the program, the stakeholders said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We really need to do this assessment." I respect what our stakeholders are telling us, and I made the direction to the department at that time to reach out to users, not just stakeholders, and get that work done, which is what we are doing. We will have it done in the fall.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. This is a botch. This assessment should have been done before the RFP went out. On what basis was the RFP issued in the first place, if not to describe the needs that the bidder was supposed to work on? I fail to understand how doing an assessment at this point is the next logical step. It should have been done years ago. Now, the Minister is saying to us not only will it be done now, the whole program will be implemented and designed within the next four months. Mr. Speaker, I have been here long enough to think that that is unlikely. What confidence can the Minister give us that that will happen? Thank you.
The Member has been involved in this for a while. There was a report done after the original program shut down. I have heard the Member in this House say that we need to duplicate that program with a few amendments that were identified in that report. That is what we moved for in the RFP. That is what the Member and others encouraged me to do. I did as the Member suggested. It didn't prove to have any value because nobody applied on the RFP. We went to some stakeholders and got a few amendments on how we thought people wanted this to go, once again potential proponents. It also bore no fruit. Then we went to other stakeholders who hadn't expressed interest, and we started to get their input. This is based on the wishes of the Member, who has continually raised this issue. We have done what the Member has asked us to do, and we will continue to make sure that this program is effective.
On the last round, I said, "We are going to move. We are going to design something." At that point, the stakeholders, our partners, the people who want to be part of the solution said, "Before we do that, we should really talk to our clients to figure out exactly what it is they want as opposed to what has been delivered in the past, which did not work," which was in the RFP which was built on a report that was prepared based on what had previously been done, which did involve some input from stakeholders. The Member obviously appears to be upset that we are not making progress. We have been responsive to the Member. I am as frustrated as she is that it is not done, but the reality is, if we are going to do it, we need to do it right, and we are getting it done, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. Now for something completely different. Two days ago, the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources tabled an annual report under the Environmental Rights Act that covered 15 years. Can the Minister explain why this annual report covers 15 years when there is a statutory requirement to report every year to this Assembly? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is correct. We have not tabled one since 2002-2003. This is primarily due to inactivity under the ERA. In the future, however, reports will be tabled on an annual basis regardless of whether or not there were any activities conducted under the ERA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Minister for that. From my calculations, in the 28 years since the Environmental Rights Act has been passed, there have been three requests for investigations into the release or potential release of contaminants into the natural environment. Only one of the three requests for investigation was accepted, and that happened back in 1991. Can the Minister confirm those numbers on investigations under the Environmental Rights Act: three requests and only one actual investigation in 28 years?
My understanding is that there were four requests for investigations. For three of the requests, it was determined that the appropriate permits and licences were in place. Therefore, the investigations were declined. The fourth request, a full investigation was undertaken, and recommendations were made.
I would like to thank the Minister for correcting the numbers there. I was one of the two people who filed the one that was actually accepted in 1991, so I know a little bit about that. There are some other reporting requirements under the Environmental Rights Act set out in Section 8 that were not covered in the tabled report. The annual report is also supposed to cover all prosecutions commenced by individual NWT residents for environmental offences, all court actions commenced by individual NWT residents to protect the environment, and the use of any money received as a result of the court actions and all convictions for offences as a result of protecting whistle-blowers. I am not aware of any of these provisions of the Environmental Rights Act ever being used in the last 28 years. Will the Minister table a report on these matters in this House?
As required under Section 8 of the ERA, the annual report tabled May 27, 2019, stated that no applications, investigations, prosecutions, or actions had been undertaken between the reporting period 2003-2004 and 2018-2019 other than one application for an investigation in 2013-2014. As there were no prosecutions, there was no disposition of money or any convictions.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I see that in the report. Maybe future reports are going to be a little bit clearer about the reporting under each of the subsections in section 8 of the Environmental Rights Act. I think the Minister, though, has made my point here. Given the issues of late reporting by the Minister under the Environmental Rights Act and the lack of use of the rights established under this legislation, what is the Minister doing to promote environmental rights in the Northwest Territories? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member is currently aware, amendments to the Environmental Rights Act have been proposed to make it easier to make an application for an investigation. Bill 39 is currently undergoing review by the Standing Committee on Economic Development and the Environment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Finance. The GNWT's Affirmative Action Policy dates back at least as far back as 1989, when it succeeded the Native Employment Policy. It was meant to even the playing field for Aboriginal people by giving us priority hiring opportunities when seeking employment with the GNWT. This was done out of a recognition that many Aboriginal people have faced systemic and other barriers to getting a good education and also when applying for a job. My question is: why has the Affirmative Action Policy not been updated in the last 30 years? What is preventing the GNWT from getting this done? Mahsi.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, have seen some of the benefits in my riding of the results of Affirmative Action, and I do support it. If it hasn't been reviewed for a while, I think there is an opportunity to do a review, but it has reached some of the goals that it was intended to. Across government-wide, I think the Member pointed out before, we have only 1,533 Affirmative Action employees. Outside the capital, we have about 1,100. It is about 46 percent of our workforce outside the capital are P1 candidates, getting closer to the 50 percent. As our people start to be more and more educated and get into some of these positions, I think we are going to see those numbers rise. I am sure if you go community by community, you will probably see a higher percentage of Indigenous/Aboriginal employees within the communities themselves. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the Minister has stated that some aspects of the policy is working, but I didn't hear a commitment. Will the Minister commit to having his department bring forward innovative ideas from improving Aboriginal employment rights? As an example, what about an Aboriginal employee advocate who is tasked to work with management to assist interested Aboriginal employees seeking employment with the GNWT?
I am not sure if we have an actual advocate within the department. I am sure a number of our staff people are working, trying to improve the percentages across the Northwest Territories, but I do know that we have a number of innovative new initiatives that we have been bringing forward. We have one I spoke to yesterday where we would like to work with some of the Indigenous Governments, take on some of their employees, provide them an opportunity to build some capacity, then they go back and serve the people who they represent. There are opportunities. I do believe that we have a lot of opportunities within the government system to help those who want to move through the system.
Again, I have always been a firm believer in trying to improve the numbers. I think that we have seen the numbers improve; I am confident that we have seen the numbers improve. My biggest thing is that I want to see the move through the system based on merit, and we have a lot of really good people out there who are going through the system based on what they bring to the table. I wouldn't want to put somebody in a position because they are a P1 candidate just to a fill a quota and have them fail at it. It doesn't do us any good.
My other question is: when the performance of deputy ministers is reviewed, are they graded on how successful they have been in reaching the Aboriginal employment targets that the policy is designed to reach?
The Premier is responsible for the discussions with the deputies, but I will assume that there are a number of goals that deputies have to achieve as part of their performance. Within the departments that I have had, I know that there are some opportunities in there for the deputies to try to improve the workforce and come up with new initiatives to improve the workforce. Again, I think we are getting there. I really think that we are getting there, and I believe that, in the future, there are going to be more and more Indigenous P1 representatives within the GNWT, but they will get there based on merit.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty clear that, yes, indeed, there should be a system to help Indigenous people, and I think that the Minister has clearly stated that it should be based on merit. I agree with that. Is it a standard employment practice that anyone applying for a GNWT job, anyone, must first write a written test? Are exceptions being made for Aboriginal people applying for jobs, especially in areas such as labour, where writing is not a required skill or, for example, where their Aboriginal language could be used? Mahsi.
I understand that there are some tests that applicants have to take. Like everyone else, they do the test to see if they qualify for the position, and if the qualify for the position, on top of being a P1 candidate, that would help them get to the next stage. I have seen cases where a number of Aboriginal people who were working within the system were doing some quality work, but didn't quite meet some of the qualifications that were required. I think that we have taken some steps to correct that. I have heard of cases where people were being brought in to do a job that the applicant in the same office, who had been doing it for a while, was not qualified to do; so who is tasked with training the new person coming in? The applicant who wasn't qualified to do the job. Thankfully things worked out at the end; the two people in the office did move into managerial positions because they had been doing that work for a long time, but based on the paper qualifications, they didn't really have them.
I think that that was a good case of applicants and our people moving through the system based on their ability to do the job. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In follow-up to my Member's statement, I have a couple of questions for the Minister responsible for Housing. I would like to ask the Minister: are we on schedule for the completion date of the elders home in Fort McPherson? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Member for his Member's statement and recognizing that our elders are important. Allowing our elders to live in an area where they can continue practising and teaching our youth their cultures and traditions is very important. We are expecting to have the completion this summer, sometime in June. I don't have an exact date, but I will keep the Member, as well as the residents and the elders, updated so that we know when we can do the move-in. I just want to thank the community for their patience. I know that this was a project that was a little bit complicated, and we had to deal with it.
I want to thank the Member for bringing this up, and we will keep the Member updated so that he can keep his residents and elders updated as well. I don't have an exact date right now, but we are looking at sometime in June. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is good that we are on track here. When does the department plan to have their grand opening?
Once we have a firm date, we will let the Member, as well as community leaders, know that we will be opening it.
One thing that I do want to mention is the design that we did fix and change up. There has been a design for improved accessibility, high energy efficiency, as well as having a space for health and wellness programming. Once we do have a firm date for the opening, as I mentioned, we will have the elders, the community, and the leadership know when that day is. As usual, as the Member knows and Members around the table know, McPherson really does do a good job when we celebrate things as such.
We know that we are going to finish the building in June. When will the department hire a caretaker? That way, that position is in place before the elders move in.
As I mentioned, we are looking to open it next month. We are hoping that we will have elders into the eight units and have a caretaker in place. We will have to go through the regular process. As is tradition, we do have our people taking care of our people. As the Member noted in his Member's statement, our elders are very important, and we will have somebody capable to take that position on. As we progress through the opening and working with the seniors complex, we will keep the Member apprised, as well as the leadership in the community of Fort McPherson.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. As I mentioned in my Member's statement, there is great potential for a polytechnic university to enhance our educational system, our economy, and our society in general.
Mr. Speaker, Arctic research and knowledge has an increasing profile in Canada and around the world, and in fact, last year, the federal government and Government of Quebec announced more than $53 million in funding for a new campus of the Institut nordique du Québec that will have a focus on Arctic research. I would like to ask the Minister: has the Minister begun any, call it, lobbying to the federal government for support for the development of the polytechnic university? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As for the term "lobbying," direct lobbying to build our polytechnic university, at this point, we have not. I know that the federal government is working with us. They just gave us $4 million, I believe, for the Centre for Mining and Industry in Fort Smith that was recently opened, which I attended just a couple of months ago. Word on the street is that they are actually looking at post-secondary universities in the north all over, so we are trying to get in on that team to find out what they are doing and what their interests are. Once we have an implementation plan developed and we have decided what types of canvas, student supports, et cetera, that we need, at that point, when we have a concrete ask, we will be approaching the federal government with an ask.
I'm very hopeful. I know that they are looking at us, and I also know that they have supported not only Quebec, but also the Yukon, with their post-secondary. We're in line. We're watching them closely, and we're hoping they're listening today.
Thank you to the Minister for that update. I appreciate that it is an election year, and so I would ask that the Minister and the government keep the pressure on.
In February, the Minister updated the Assembly on post-secondary development, referring particularly to a public consultation process to gather input of the needs of our post-secondary system and the establishment of the Public Advisory Board. I'd like to ask the Minister: can the Minister update the Assembly on progress in these areas?
Yes. Actually, we're going to be presenting to standing committee as well on June 5th, so I'm going to give a little bit of heads up to what we're presenting on June 5th, I suppose. We've completed the survey. We've gone across the Northwest Territories. We've reached actually almost 750 surveys. I don't have the number on hand. We'll present it to standing committee. We did a real focus on youth, 29 and under, which I'm very happy to report that we've actually been very successful in getting those voices. With that, we're still breaking down what the vision will be. That process is still ongoing. Not only the vision, but the goals which have become our framework. We're doing that process.
The advisory council is really important. That will actually support the associate deputy minister of post-secondary renewal to define where he's going with the courses, and also to do the evaluation. I know that the associate deputy minister has already approached some universities and colleges throughout Canada. We're really looking for people with a strength in polytechnic to actually help us mentor us through, and we're developing. We're just doing a draft terms of reference for the advisory committee that will be shared once we're finalized with standing committee, and then put out, but we're in the process of doing that currently.
Thank you to the Minister for that update. That's much appreciated, and we certainly look forward to the presentation on June 5th. In my statement, I spoke about the benefits of a made-in-the-North curriculum. Building on the curriculum that's been taught at Aurora College for many years, what does the Minister envision for the new, call it "directions," which the curriculum of a polytechnic university might take on?
We've often heard it all along saying, "we need to get this right." With that polytechnic, we need to get this right. This isn't going to be something that's done too fast. The first thing was developing our vision, trying to find out what are our strengths; what programs should be done. One of the critiques that was in our college foundational report is we tried to do too much for everyone. Sometimes, when you try to do too much, like over 200 mandate question areas, you don't get enough done to address them all. You get spread too thin. We are trying to figure out what our specialization should be, and my direction has been all along from the beginning, I said that when I first came into the Assembly. I have not changed my stance. I am huge on accreditation. Accreditation means best practices. Whatever specialization will be defined, I want accredited programming, programming that our students can take their qualifications and go throughout Canada, internationally, to be able to provide their skills throughout. That is my direction, is that the curriculum be based on best practices, and that we work towards accrediting all of our programming at our polytechnic university.
