Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the community and residents of Hay River are very concerned with the events over the last several months that resulted in a number of overdoses and alleged drug offences. It has become a crisis.
Can the Minister confirm that he is willing to have his department set up a meeting with the RCMP, Town of Hay River, and NGOs, to discuss solutions to address the issue of the drug trade? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I was just on the phone with the mayor today of Hay River to talk about such a meeting where we bring together those organizations, and I'm happy to do that.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Thank you, Member for Great Slave. Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the main provision of laws would be under the Criminal Code, and so there's quite a number obviously of potential areas where, depending on the nature of the events, someone who is a victim, or believes themselves to be a victim, could certainly go to the RCMP to take that route if they choose to, and anything ranging from harassment to threatening behavior to invitation to sexual behaviours, child pornography for another one, for instance. So there's quite a number of potentials, and it would certainly depend on each instance.
That, of course, is assuming that an individual wants to go the route of reporting to the RCMP, which certainly not every victim may want to do so, in which case there may in some circumstances be civil actions that an individual can take. At that point, Mr. Speaker, they may be well placed to reach out to an advocate like the Status of Women who I know can help connect people to the right tools depending on what they need. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that response, as she is not the Minister of Justice so I do appreciate that her background does allow her to know those answers.
My next question is that the Status of Women Council has created a safety planning tool that can be found at SafePathwayNT.com for those experiencing sexual violence.
Can the Minister speak to what these tools are, how they were developed, and how will be they be distributed in order to reach all the vulnerable communities? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I became aware of the unfortunate incident, the sexual violence that my colleague experienced. In doing so, I went myself to the Status of Women's page. I appreciate the plug that we've just had. They do have an incredible resource on there, quite innovative, that is trying to take a different way of looking at how women too often women, but anyone would be able to safety plan.
That information is only just starting to come out. In fact, having followed up I'm aware that they're putting packages together for MLAs right now, and we'll certainly be undertaking to circulate that to all colleagues here so that we can get it out to residents and information will be sent to all 33 communities, both in print form but then also I will also follow up and make sure that we're utilizing any and all other channels that we can use, Facebook and social media for instance, so that we can get that information out so that given that safety planning, unfortunately, remains a reality, that we can get information about how to do that out there. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, risk factors that increase the risk of experiencing sexual violence in Canada include being a young woman or girl living in a remote or northern community, being Indigenous, an immigrant, or black, being disabled, or identifying as gender diverse or 2SLGBTQ+.
How is the work being done by the status of women being sorry, executed in order to specifically reach or help the most at risk? What accommodations are being made or steps being taken to protect those at risk given the small town nature of the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, while I'm responsible in name for the status of women file, I'm not directly responsible for the functioning of the Council for Status of Women. But and I know that they are doing a number of initiatives and I'm you know, certainly will take whatever opportunity I can to table documents here to let people know the work they're doing.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary, Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I have been using my questions to sneak in a few more stats. So sexual violence is very underreported. Only five percent of sexual assaults are reported. Last year, I spoke about Clare's Law.
Is the NWT any closer to adopting this law to protect Northerners against intimate partner violence? Has there been any progress regarding GNWT process or procedures to ensure greater safety for our people dealing with sexual assault and violence? And I do recognize that's probably just a lot of the same responses as my last question. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is one where I think both my colleague, Minister of Justice, and I would have some relevance just to speak to this issue.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. My questions are for the Minister of Lands, who seems to have primary responsibility for the former Cameron Hills production area held by Strategic Oil and Gas.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister responsible for Lands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the receiver is working through the results of this sale process. There is one bid for a portion of the site. The department is reviewing the bid and will provide comments back to the receiver. However, it is in the hands of the court and the receivership process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that, though those bids closed in September. So several months. Although there was a conditional approval given for the fourth version of the closure and reclamation plan for the Cameron Hills site, the receiver's not yet submitted a final version with numerous changes required by the land and water board. It's been over two years now, and this plan is needed to do a cost estimate and calculate financial security.
Can the Minister explain why a final closure plan has not yet been submitted and give us a date as to when it's going to come? Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the receiver has not submitted a reclamation plan because they're awaiting for the outcome of the sale process. A process for the plan will begin once the sale process is completed and, unfortunately, the receiver hasn't provided a timeline for the conclusion of the sale process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that. Seeing as we seem to have some leverage with the receiver, maybe we can suggest that they speed that up a bit.
In my statement, I noted that the financial security held for this site was totally inadequate and has probably run out by now. Can the Minister confirm that the financial security has run out and tell us how much additional money our government has paid to the receiver for the compliance and limited reclamation at the site? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The security for the land use permit and water licence is at $2.9 million. In addition, OROGO holds an additional $1 million as proof of financial responsibility. The financial securities that have been converted to cash are being held in trust accounts. To date, the receiver's costs have been approximately $3.0 million which has been funded fully by the Department of Lands. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary, Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that. The full cost for implementation of the close and reclamation plan that's not yet finished does not appear on the public record anywhere but our government must have prepared some sort of estimate by this point.
Can the Minister provide that cost estimate and its calculation to this House? Or if he has to give it to me on a confidential basis, I'd be willing to take that. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there has been some very high level work completed around estimates for the cost of reclamation. However, due to the lack of information about the conditions of the wells and the site infrastructure, it is not possible to accurately establish the cost at this time. One of the next steps, once the sale proceeds is complete, will be to better understand the conditions of the ground, its strategic, and complete work so the government can actually estimate the cost to fix this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my statement today, I spoke about a number of possible changes to the Liquor Act. I guess one of my hopes is that in the Liquor Act, we will revisit the current liquor commission monopoly and perhaps looking at options of private stores or allowing beer and wine in grocery stores.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Minister responsible for Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask answer the second of the two questions first. I have recently spoken to the department and reiterated the importance of getting this piece of legislation moving along. It's a large act. It hasn't been updated in a long time and it's now in a state with lots of different pieces in it. But that is still my goal to see that it does is ready for introduction during this Assembly. And I'll continue to update Members accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, right now, there's not any consideration to expanding the current retail model that sells liquor. That is not something I'll be doing at this point and obviously if, or hopefully when, the Liquor Act comes before the House, certainly then we'll be open to hearing what all Members have to say and see how they may want to treat that piece of legislation at that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My hope in getting that change made is that in Yellowknife presently there's two liquor stores. The licence to that is in 2025, and I was hoping that in place by for 2025 when we go out to some sort of competitive process, I had some issues with the last one that well, it would be a competitive process that would allow, you know, some different options of who would run the liquor store possibly, and I was also wondering if in 2025, when we put that out under possibly a new Liquor Act, whether the possibility of an additional store in Yellowknife would be considered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a lot of hypotheticals at this point given that we're still under the current act and given that the tender hasn't even been begun; that process hasn't even begun yet. But right now, the way it's set up under the act is, of course, that it has to go through a system whereby the official retailer would have to be designated. And even before getting to that point, Mr. Speaker, when considering what the procurement process would look like, and there's an analysis that's done by the NTLCC, the liquor commission, that looks at whether or not more stores are needed, whether the current quantity and type of store is, in fact, working. And as I say, again, at this stage we're still a little bit early given that we're three years out. But those are the kinds of considerations that go into determining who or what type of procurement takes place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, I think there's a lot of work that could be done in opening up the Liquor Act, and I think one of the big areas that I would like to see is delegating some more powers to communities and I think they could set things such as store hours, whether they want a store, whether they want to set limits on how much alcohol can be sold, how alcohol can be served at festivals and events, how licences can be obtained. There's actually I'd basically like to give the whole act to communities, Mr. Speaker. But I'm wondering if in the planned changes that we are hoping to get done in this Assembly whether delegating some authority on liquor to communities is at all being considered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, communities have a lot more power than just prohibition or not. They actually can hold plebiscites here across the Northwest Territories to determine what type of system they want, what kinds of rules they want, the nature or degree of prohibition they may want. And there are powers within the act for some of the liquor licence sales that they may want to see on different properties within the community. So there actually is quite a bit in there already community to community. I certainly again, though, this is, indeed, the kind of question and the kind of area that is under consideration for the Liquor Act and ways in which to continue to make it flexible and responsive because the MLA's quite right that this is an area where is quite a great divide between the different communities in trying to find that balance to allow everyone to make the choices that they think are appropriate for their community's going to be a difficult one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary, Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think another area where there's quite a great divide is open beverage. And I think it's no surprise that many people, they drink their beer at a softball game in Yellowknife but when the police come we all run and we throw our beer cans away so as not to get arrested, yet then when you go downtown it's no surprise to see a bunch of people drinking in public already. And I mentioned in my statement that, you know, we mandate beer gardens presently. You can't ever have alcohol being drank around minors such as at festivals and events. I'm wondering when we go out for this engagement on the public Liquor Act whether open beverage is one of those conversations we can have? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the question of public consumption was one of the questions that was part of a recent consultation in preparation for the Liquor Act review and that "what we heard" report is coming, I believe, later this session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. On the issue of the mandatory vaccinations policy, or COVID19 vaccinations policy, the mandatory vaccinations list, I note that from the amended vaccination policy guidelines, that the definition of COVID19 is the coronavirus. That was at the beginning of the whole outbreak in 2020. This has not been updated to include the omicron variant and the science behind the omicron variant. There's nothing. I've never seen it since the omicron came out. There's no science to say what will work to cure it except to stay home. And it didn't distinguish, and I say it again, between vaccinated or unvaccinated people. It didn't. Vaccinated people were the ones that got you know, they were sicker than anybody else. And it's been known and it's shown around. I'm not sure where the science is behind all that, behind that there. You know, they're putting in new revising the implementation or putting new public health orders. They're not new. They're still the same. You know, it was in there already, work with vulnerable you know, people have to have proof of vaccination. That's what it's saying. We haven't changed anything. We're just reiterating what was already there. We're still marginalizing our people. People still need vaccine passports to get into facilities and everything.
Thank you, Member for Deh Cho. Minister responsible for Finance.
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me maybe just explain, again, what the vaccinated policy is for the Government of the Northwest Territories. I think that's what the question was.
Vaccines have, and continue to be, the most effective way of preventing not only transmission but also serious illness. And Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of sitting with the Chief Public Health Officer where she has reiterated that science to us repeatedly, that this is the single best way of preventing severe illness. We've obviously realized with omicron that the nature of the COVID virus is changing, it's evolving, as viruses do. And that is where we were seeing a change in the approach from the public health agency and, as a result, a change in the approach by the Department of Finance on behalf of the public service.
Our vaccine policy was not mirrored on the federal policy. Our vaccine policy was done in keeping in mind the advice of the Chief Public Health Officer here and in looking at the approach of other jurisdictions all across Canada.
As we've seen the change in the Chief Public Health Office and the health approach here in the Northwest Territories, so we too at the Department of Finance are modifying our vaccine policy, which is something I know I have committed to doing several times.
So at present, or rather starting imminently now, what we're going to be suggesting as of tomorrow is that it would be proof of vaccine is required for individuals who work with vulnerable members of the public in healthcare, educations, and corrections. This is just to continue, as we are coming down the wave of the omicron variant, to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, either themselves or working with most vulnerable, are still given the best possible form of protection and those working in federallyregulated work sites.
Mr. Speaker, I have no jurisdiction to change the rules of the federal government, for instance with respect to airlines, and those individuals, therefore, have to continue to be vaccinated. The alternative, it's never been a mandatory policy here in the Northwest Territories other than for those who are those federallyregulated sites. Employees who aren't within the vulnerable sectors can continue to be tested and wear PPE. If you do have to attend a federal work site, again, Mr. Speaker, that is out of my hands, and at that point they have to comply with the fact that the federal government will continue to have mandatory policies for them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi to the Minister for that. I think we can argue this all day if we wanted. But anyways, I think my question was can we make any allowances for the settlement maintainers in the small communities who aren't vaccinated, you know, to not work in the RCMP facilities but to have people from the regional centres come in to do those duties? Because even what she' saying, I'm just not clear yet, you know. I'm not sure if I read somewhere where we're getting rid of the vaccine passport for travel. I don't know why they would do it there. But I don't know if she can reiterate if that is the case and if she can answer if the vaccine passport has been is going to be done away with. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything from the federal government directly in terms of how employees are being dealt with, that there's been any change in their approach right now. And as such, to the extent that an employee has an obligation as part of a bona fide work requirement to travel or to attend a federallyregulated space, then they will continue to have to apply by or to apply those rules.
With respect, again, to our own policies, right now, Mr. Speaker, there are only 326 employees of the public service who are undergoing either the enhanced testing approach or and who may therefore be having to get testing and PPE. It's a very small number. The vast majority of the almost 6,000 employees of the GNWT's public service have actually been able to comply with this policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't quite clear on what the Minister stated about the unvaccinated population, whether they're given the options to do all the testing regardless of the facilities that they would have to enter. If I could get that clarity. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So Mr. Speaker, again, so there's 326 employees that departments have asked for testing materials, meaning the amount of materials required for to do the proof of or do a COVID test and to wear PPE rather than comply with providing a proof of vaccine.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary, Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker, and mahsi to the Minister for that answer. My concern here is, and I mentioned it several times, because one of the requirements is it's saying to work in a RCMP facility, it's federally regulated all right. I know about the flights and that; I wasn't alluding to any flights. But for the facilities, like in my community we have a facility the settlement maintainer can't go into there. But employees out of Hay River who typically and normally, perhaps on a weekly basis, do come into our communities anyways. I'm just wondering if those employees can cover that facility and still have our own settlement maintainer stay employed? Because I've talked about marginalization at length a lot of times because a lot of our employees are longtime Northerners and many are Indigenous and they have, you know, mortgages, payments, and all this stuff, and what we're doing is imposing our will upon others, to people that choose to have a right to do what they want with their bodies. And, you know, I don't want to say any more about the government in this regard at this time. But, you know, I'm just wondering if there would be any allowances made that can be relayed to Infrastructure to make these happen? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if an individual cannot do their job and their job requires them to attend a location that is federally regulated, then they then that there's not much that can be done about that. People have bona fide job requirements and job duties and if they have to attend a location regulated by the federal government and the federal government has put on a policy saying that they have to be vaccinated, that will apply to them as much as it applies to me.
The GNWT, unlike many jurisdictions, did not have a mandatory policy. Most many jurisdictions did. We've allowed in fact, specifically, I allowed and insisted that we ensure that there's the ability for testing, that we allow the ability for testing and PPE. But when the handful of individuals run up against a federal policy, there's not much I can do to change it.
