Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the EPO, the process, and also the issues that we’ve been dealing with over the years, we have managed to do an overall review of the EPO process, the guidelines and so forth. At this point it is within my office to review. The recommendations are brought forward. I will be reviewing the recommendations brought forward.

Yes, the review has been done and the recommendations will be coming down to possibly make those changes that will reflect what’s been happening on the outset.

It’s interesting to note that there are two reviews relative to the Protection Against Family Violence Act which were posted recently on the Justice department website. I think it was on Monday. The one the Minister refers to, I think, is called an Analysis of Emergency Protection Order Hearings in the NWT and it’s dated October 2010. In the summary of findings in that report it says: “The EPO legislation is well conceptualized and well written, but may need some modification to deal with special circumstances.” The Minister says he’s considering this report. I’d like to know whether or not since this evaluation was received, if the department is considering making modifications to the legislation governing emergency protection orders.

There is a process that we need to follow. I haven’t looked at those recommendations as of yet but I will be reviewing them. When it comes to making those changes, we have to consider all options as we move forward.

I appreciate that all options will be considered. I guess it’s a matter of when we can expect something to come back, when the report will be evaluated. We’re getting on to almost a year since it was received.

Another quote from the summary findings is: “Any difficulties with the EPO hearing appear to be in its application, not its design.” It goes to the heart, I think, of the matter of some of the difficulties that have occurred in the last while. I’d like to know if the department will consider, when it does its review, the application process and the specific finding from this report.

Part of the recommendations brought to our attention was that matter from my departmental briefing. I will be going through the recommendations and possibly making those changes as we move forward. They are recommendations brought to our attention and we are currently reviewing it. This matter will be before the 17th Assembly as well as the new

government, so we’ll do what we can as the department of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister. I’m really glad to hear that the department is actively looking at this report and is actively considering making some changes. I think that there are some necessary. The report presumably was received late last year. It’s dated October 2010. I’d like to ask the Minister, if this is going to the 17th Assembly, when we might expect

to see some recommendations for change from this report.

As I stated, the recommendations are before me now and it will be

part of as we move into the 17th Assembly

government. We’re at the tail end of our 16th Assembly. There are only a few more days here. I will be reviewing it, and if we need to make those changes, we’ll definitely work on that.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment getting back to my Member’s statement where I talked about a 31-year-old mother of four children, aged six to 14, who is having her living allowance for SFA cut back from $1,550 a month to $1,040 a month. She also has been informed by the SFA caseworker that she is only eligible for another year. She is going to hit the $60,000 cap. The reason she’s going to hit this $60,000 cap is because she has four kids and she’s getting a living allowance which is just over twice what a single student would get. It amounts to a discriminatory practice by the department and SFA when it works against somebody for having children. I’d like to ask the Minister if this, in fact, is a reality and how we’re going to fix that.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. We are aware of the situation and the only way we can review and make some possible changes is through the review of SFA that will currently be underway in September of this year, and completion we’re hoping for next year.

This individual is into her second year, and the following year will be third year. We’re aware of the situation and we want to do what we can to support all students in the Northwest Territories.

The cap is there -- $60,000 -- and the policy states that, and it’s fair to all the students across the board as well. We are aware, again, and SFA is currently under review, so the changes will definitely be coming. It will be the voices of the students, because we are reaching out to the students, and that particular student will have a voice in the system as well.

During the review period, which the Minister says might take up until next fall, I’m just wondering if the government is going to have any provision that would see students in the situation that I outlined earlier that would protect students from undue hardship. Especially those with, you know, I said four children, so that they aren’t faced with hardships and they’re not getting their living allowance reduced while the department and the government is out there reviewing SFA. I think we

should put some provisions in place that can maintain living allowances until the review is done so that students aren’t faced with those types of hardships.

The Department of Education, Culture and Employment works with all students. I know some students are struggling with their daily living allowance. That’s the very reason we are reviewing the SFA program. The current policy exists today that we have to follow. We cannot break the policy as it stands. We can amend that policy.

As we conduct the overall review and see the results of the recommendations in due time, we can make those changes. In the current time we’ll continue to work with the student and other students, as well, where they can access other potential funding that may be available to them.

I thank the Minister for that. I know the Minister; his intentions are good and I know his office is trying to work out a solution for this student that I’m talking about, this mother of four who is encountering problems. The Minister talked about the review and I just want to get some assurance from the Minister and the government that the SFA review that’s going to be started this fall is going to be finished in time for next calendar school year so that we’re not going to affect the next two school years. If it doesn’t come in until October next year, the students that are in the situations like this are going to be impacted not only this year but next year. Can we get some assurances from the Minister that the review of SFA will be done in time for next school year, which would be next fall?

The only assurance I can give is that’s our goal as a department, to complete the overall review by early next year; for next school year, if that’s possible. That is our goal. I cannot guarantee that it will be done before next school year, but our department will do what it can to reach out to the students, the parents, the public, to hear their perspective. In order to make those changes, we want to reflect on all the needs that will be addressed. Definitely that’s our goal.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hear what the Minister is saying. Again, there aren’t any guarantees here. I appreciate the fact that they want to talk to students. They want to talk to anybody that’s interested in SFA, including Regular Members of this House I think should be heavily consulted on that. In the dealings we have with our constituents, I think we can’t leave any students out of this equation. While we’re studying this, we can’t afford to let it drag on. I think we need to get some assurances from the government that we are going to take a set amount of time and get the review done so that it’s not going to have a negative

impact on students that are out there awaiting this review to be conducted. I think the Minister said there was a bit of a commitment there, but he wouldn’t quite commit. I think we need a firm commitment that the work will get done by early next year so that it won’t impact the following school year.

All I can say at this point is the work will get done next year. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister responsible for Transportation. They are in follow up to my Member’s statement from earlier today where I talked about the rerouting of the Ingraham Trail through the Giant Mine site.

I understand that there is a public consultation process going on right now that is expected to be done in August, where they’re hopefully going to decide on some routing, and hopefully going to decide on a timeline for the completion of this project. I was wondering if the Minister could give me a bit of an update on the results of that public consultation. Do we know a route, has a route been finalized, and what kind of timeline are we working on for the completion of this project? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. About three questions there. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you. I appreciate the recognition of all the questions he threw in that quick question.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working on the realignment of the Giant Mine road. We’ve been working with the Giant Mine Remediation Team over the last while. We want to ensure that whatever option is selected meets their requirements for remediation. We’ve also been talking to various stakeholders, such as the City of Yellowknife, the YK Dene, and we’ve also requested public input on the three options that we put out for consideration. We intend, as the Member indicated, to take one more round of consultations -- that’s going on, I think, right now -- and have some results before the end of August, after which a final decision will be made on which route will be taken.

Not to answer the second question but just to give some information, right now the information that we have indicates that there is a preference to relocate the road completely away from the mine site, so

one of the options that does that will be considered. Thank you.