Debates of March 9, 2017 (day 67)

Date
March
9
2017
Session
18th Assembly, 2nd Session
Day
67
Members Present
Hon. Glen Abernethy, Mr. Beaulieu, Hon. Caroline Cochrane, Ms. Green, Hon. Jackson Lafferty, Hon. Bob McLeod, Hon. Robert McLeod, Mr. McNeely, Hon. Alfred Moses, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Nakimayak, Mr. O'Reilly, Hon. Wally Schumann, Hon. Louis Sebert, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Testart, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Vanthuyne
Topics
Statements

Question 728-18(2): A New Day Program Request for Proposals

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As far as the Department of Justice is concerned, the only benefit from the A New Day program has been to the 12 men who have completed the program start to finish. The department gives no weight to the benefits to the men who didn't graduate but who will attest that they can better control their anger and that they've slowed their drinking and that their lives are just generally better after participating in the program. It doesn't consider the fact that A New Day is the only program available in remand. So what the department has done is structure the RFP to eliminate all these qualities and really sterilize it making it more palatable to government.

So my first question. The first point of contact for the program will be a GNWT coordinator. I said that accessibility is one of the strengths of the current program, so I'm interested to find out: where will this coordinator be located? Is it in the courthouse? Do people have to go to the courthouse to sign up for the program now? How will that initial contact take place? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: MR. SPEAKER

Masi. Minister of Justice.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can advise this House that the coordinator will be located in GNWT offices. I don't think an actual address has yet to be determined; however, we did hear from contractors during the evaluation of this program that the administrative work was a burden, and for that reason it was decided to have a GNWT coordinator so that burden would be lifted from the deliverers of the program. Thank you.

So far, it's not looking good. The evaluation of the program which we eagerly awaited last sitting states that probation services were particularly emphatic about the usefulness of the program and the importance of it. However, the RFP appears to indicate that the program will not accept referrals from outside agencies like Probation Services. Is this in fact the case?

I'm not absolutely sure about that. My impression would be that they would be accepting referrals from outside agencies, but I will look into that and get back to the Member opposite.

Oh for two. The program currently incorporates traditional knowledge and elders. Will there be a similar cultural component to this program? Because, again, the RFP is silent on this.

I can advise that the coordinator will actively support facilitators to include cultural supports in the delivery of the program, including connection with elders.

Speaker: MR. SPEAKER

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very bureaucratic answer. It's a ball. Two strikes and a ball; how about that?

---Laughter

The RFP is virtually silent as to what the new program will look like. It states that the information on the model of the long-term program is attached in Schedule A, but all I can find is a blank page that says "Appendix A" at the top. So can the Minister commit to immediately making the details of this program public? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've not had an opportunity to review the request for proposals. I am confident, however, that all the necessary information is in the request for proposals. I have a competent staff; they spent considerable amount of time preparing this and I am content that the RFP does set out what is required by potential contractors.

Speaker: MR. SPEAKER

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.