Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious to know when this intermediate construction will take place in Behchoko. The elders are waiting anxiously. There are places of residence that have mould and whatnot. So when is that going to occur? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that some of the work on the roof, first of all, is being done as we speak. I am not sure of the exact detail of where they are at with that. During the 2007-08 year, there will be a flooring repair or replacement. I understand that some of that work is currently underway, and then some work on crawlspace, some repairs to the sumps, some minor interior upgrades, and inspection upgrade of the heating and ventilation system as well as piping would all go on during the 2007-08 fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to continue along my line of questioning I had earlier today about my constituents who are being pulled down into poverty because our government doesn't seem to want to help them.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Minister of Education wishes to protect the bureaucratic approach when there is a special circumstance here that is required. So I am going to hopefully look towards the Minister of Health to maybe see some sensitivity in addressing this serious issue. Mr. Speaker, extra home care will help this family get on their feet. Would the Minister of Health and Social Services help this family with more home care so that the other partner can get out and work so they don't lose their home and family, because it is cheaper to keep them in their home together than it is to put this family in a hospital or break them up? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the department has some flexibility. In fact, what we have found in a number of cases where we work on case management with either Education, Culture and Employment or the Housing Corporation is to look at the case and work together on trying to find solutions. It is not our practice to deal case by case in this scenario. But as the Member is aware, all departments have been very involved in this and looking forward to try to find some solutions that fit. That doesn't mean, as was stated earlier, that we can go beyond what our programs are, but we have been working together to find a solution that would work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will make it simple for the Minister because that sort of preamble didn't work. Will he send a message to his department to increase the home care services provided to this family so we can allow them to go to work, save their home so they don't lose their shirt and we end up having to take care of them through the income support process and this other person who is disabled in the hospital, so it is going to cost us a lot more? Will he increase the home care support? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member raises some important issues around that, but I think, at the same time, he should be, as we respond to some of his inquiries here, we have worked on different cases and we have allowed flexibility. That is over and above what we have as our standard program. We will do that on a case-by-case scenario. The Member is aware of that. We are doing what we can, but there has to be some acceptance of the limits that we face as a government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have to admit that was a mirthless answer but yet I was intrigued because there sounded like something there. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is this Minister could say today, yes, we will look into this and, yes, we will make something happen. That is all that we are asking for, because this family is about to lose everything. It is going to cost us a heck of a lot more if we mop up the mess later. So let's do something today. Let's be proactive and let's not see this family destroyed. Yes. That is all the Minister has to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, quite easily I could stand up and say, yes, we will look into it. But as the Member is well aware, we have looked into this situation. The fact is, as a government, as I stated earlier, we are not in the situation of dealing in this public forum on a case-by-case scenario. There are avenues for that. We have sat down as departments to work on a case management situation. We are trying to be as caring as possible, but there has to be some acceptance. There are limitations to what we can do as the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Time for question period has expired. I will allow the Member a final supplementary. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister is correct; a number of people have talked about this situation, but nothing has been put forward to solve the problem. The problem is that this lady in the wheelchair cannot be left alone. Her doctor says she cannot be left alone. We can do all the fancy designs, schematics, and make some adjustments in their house, but it doesn't change the fact that she requires full-time care. So does the Minister want to state today that we are going to give her 10 hours and that is it and we will let the family fall apart, or is he going to say today, Mr. Speaker, it is better to have this family broken up and put her in the hospital? Because he is also the Minister of Finance and he should be able to tell me which is cheaper. We should be able to do a better job by helping with better home care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member continues to not have listened to what is being done and provided. I am sorry. I guess in this scenario, we are doing what we can. We are offering...and as I stated, we are going beyond some of our programs to try to be caring in this situation, but there are limitations. I am sorry; I can't help the Member's campaign strategy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Time for oral questions has expired. Written questions. Returns to written questions. Replies to opening address. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Replies to opening address. Petitions. Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Social Programs undertook extensive consultations on Bill 7, the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, also known as SCAN, in all regions of the Northwest Territories, and heard from 42 different persons and organizations.

Despite the initial excitement at the community level on the department's first round of consultations in November and December 2006, it became obvious to committee members as we proceeded that residents had serious reservations with the final version of the legislation.

The concerns raised by residents of the Northwest Territories centred on the social implications of enacting the SCAN; the rights of an individual to face their accuser and appeal orders made under the act, and the extent of the powers that would be given to officers appointed under the act.

Hearings were held in Yellowknife on April 19^th and 20^th and on August 14, 2007; in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk on April 23, 2007; in Ulukhaktok on April 24, 2007; in Colville Lake on April 25, 2007; in Behchoko on April 26, 2007, and, finally, in Fort Smith on May 30, 2007.

Residents of the Northwest Territories raised the following concerns with the proposed Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act.

Even though the committee received advice that Bill 7, as it is written, is in accordance with Canada's Charter, we should be mindful that Canada's Charter is an ever-evolving document that is constantly being reinterpreted by legislators and the judicial system.

With a program like the SCAN office, it would not be unreasonable to assume that it, too, would evolve, and that the actual practices in enforcing the act or the regulations could be in contradiction of the Charter at some point in the future.

With this in mind, the committee believes it would be beneficial to quote the concerns raised by the NWT Human Rights Commission in their written submission:

“Section 2(d) of the Charter protects freedom of association. Bill 7 could be seen as punishing individuals for freedom of association. For example, persons living in a unit under investigation may be adversely affected even though they are not engaged in criminal or other activities. Yet, their privacy can be invaded and residence taken away. The appeal mechanisms are onerous and do not provide for meaningful protection for an innocent occupant.

“Section 6(2) of the Charter protects the right of every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada to move and take up residence in any province. The Minister of Justice has made it clear that “if the people who are causing the problem move to another house, we will gather evidence and evict them again. We will follow them wherever they go until they stop their illegal activities or leave the NWT” (Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Legislation: A consultation paper about a proposed new way to make their community safer, page 1). Bill 7 sets up a process where privacy can be invaded, due process denied, and persons can be harassed until they are forced to leave the NWT.

“Section 7 of the Charter protects the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Yet, there are violations of the principles of fundamental justice in Bill 7. For example:

• Bill 7 can require self-incrimination. Failure to do so could result in being charged with a criminal offence and imprisoned for up to a year (Section 30 and 66);
• Bill 7 can allow the Director of Safer Communities (the “Director”) to designate a fortified building as a threat to public safety in the absence of a hearing (Section 41). The Director can then impose a closure/eviction order without notice to the owner or occupant;
• Bill 7 requires a low standard of proof given the severity of losing one's home or facing imprisonment;
• Bill 7 denies the rights of the accused person to face their accuser or to have all information necessary to mount a defence. Indeed, Bill 7 does not even guarantee that occupants can argue in their own defence.

“Section 8 of the Charter guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The search and seizure provisions in Bill 7 are broad. For example, neighbours could gather video surveillance in support of their own application for a Community Safety Order (“CSO”). Government agencies and individuals could be forced to provide confidential information or face fines or imprisonment if they refuse. There is no requirement for a warrant for this information. Also, Bill 7 allows for an intrusive investigative process in which the Director can place dwelling houses and other places under video surveillance.

“Section 1 of the Charter states that a government can infringe upon Charter rights if the infringement is a reasonable limit “prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Bill 7 exceeds this reasonable limit.”