Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sounds like we’ve resigned ourselves to the fact that locum nurses are going to be in these positions and the department and the authorities are not going to post the positions to be filled by resident nurses here in the Northwest Territories. Is that what I’m hearing the Minister say? That locums are there permanently, we’re not posting those jobs? I’d like to ask the Minister why aren’t we posting the jobs that locums are filling today. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it has to go without saying that our system would rather hire our own local nurses before we would have agency nurses or locum nurses. So if there are any jobs that are...

Mr. Speaker, as I’ve stated, if the Member would listen, these nurse graduates don’t go through a regular hiring process; they go through a Graduate Employment Program. They go through a separate preferential program that the government has organized with HR, and HR people are talking to the graduating class. We are going to have a list of positions that could be matched up with them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record for the people out there and the graduates and nursing students in the classroom, that we are committed to working with them to make sure that we do everything we can to find them employment and that we will be providing them with the information. The fact that the jobs are not being posted should not be a distraction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Education some questions on the Member’s statement I provided earlier today on the students of Wrigley on the concerns of their parents about not accessing proper education for their children in Fort Simpson.

The issue is, Mr. Speaker, there is a residence in Fort Simpson that is exactly designed for out-of-town students but, for whatever reason, they’re not able to attend there. There’s no option to provide education to our small, remote communities if we do not access that residence. There must be

alternate solutions. So I’d like to ask the Minister what can be done about this situation. Mahsi cho.

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

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Obviously there’s a reason why these students are not in a residence and we need to get that confirmation from the DEA or DEC, probably the DEA. I will be following up on this particular matter with the DEA. There are various options. The students and the parents in the community can work with the DEA, if they can meet with the local DEA and erase those concerns. We will do our part as well.

When I spoke with the parents and the members of the DEA in Wrigley, they asked that... It’s a long way to travel. The DEA and the Dehcho Divisional Education Council have the resources for them to come to Wrigley, meet with the parents and discuss some of the solutions and issues around their children not being able to attend school in Fort Simpson. As I indicated in my Member’s statement, we have an obligation for Aboriginal education and we must find solutions no matter how tough they are.

Obviously there is a solution we need to find within the system. This is an area we need to work closely with the district education authority on. We allocate funding based on the operations and maintenance of the school board and they work closely with the students and the parents in identifying where issues arise. We need to find out the situation that the Member is referring to. What is the real issue? Why aren’t the students in their residence? I’m sure there’s a reason. We need to find that reason. As the Member alluded, there’s a solution to this, so let’s work on that.

I’m pleased that the Minister and I are of the same mind. I think if we take it one step further, of course the Dehcho Divisional Education Council must meet with the parents in Wrigley, sit them all down in the same place and find out some of the issues. I think the next step is to also get an independent evaluation of the residence system that’s there to see how it can better fit for the smaller communities and students in the post-secondary education from the smaller communities. I’d like to ask the Minister if we could work towards that for the time being.

I will work with the DEA on having those Wrigley students attend Simpson with regard to the residence. Also the independent evaluation would have to come from the DEA if they wish to do that.

We as a department will work closely with them. Maybe this is a concern that we can bring forward

to the DEA. The Member raised that issue. It’s a concern to the Member and to the community. We’ll follow through with that.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The first step I always believe is communication. I’m glad the Minister is willing to work towards that and work with the Dehcho Divisional Education Council. I would also ask the Minister to bear in mind that other communities are having the same issue, like Nahanni Butte, Trout Lake and Jean Marie River. Please bear in mind and ask them to get involved at some point. It’s an issue that concerns all the small, remote communities in my riding.

I agree with the Member. It is across the board in the Northwest Territories, not just in Nahendeh. It is in Beaufort-Delta and other places. This is an area that has been brought to our attention and we are working within our department and the DECs and DEAs.

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

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government’s response lays out our response where we say that we have accepted 22 recommendations and on the whole we’ve accepted 61 out of 73 recommendations. In reading those recommendations, we have explained what our responses are. We have made the effort to include as much information as possible. I understand and I am encouraged by the Member’s statement earlier and other Members saying that we have a good start. They like some of the things that we have said. They are happy with the fact that we have accepted so many of those recommendations. I understand that they would like to work on some more of them. I’d be willing to sit down with the committee and go over some of the details if the Members or committee would like to do that.

I would have thought given that these responses and the information and action items, if you actually read through them, they do seem vague. They’re not always clear. I’ll just give you a real quick example.

We asked the government to mandate prevention and early intervention and include a presumption of prevention and early intervention in the principles of the act. They responded by saying the presumption of prevention and early intervention is implicit. This is what I talked about in my Member’s statement. We read the act. We’ve identified the sections that they’ve identified in their response. We also felt it was implicit. But it’s not being done in the communities. It’s not happening on the ground. What we’re looking for is explicit action. If we make it explicit in the act, then it will happen.

Going to the Minister’s agreement or commitment to meet with us, I understand that they’re also developing a strategic plan. It’s identified in this. My question to the Minister is: will she commit to meeting with us and sitting down with us and going through each of the recommendations and the suggested responses to find some common ground so that both sides understand what is going on here? We know what we expected. We don’t fully understand the recommendations, but I’m not sure they fully understood our recommendations. I’d like to sit down with the Minister and have a meeting going through point by point. Will the Minister commit to doing that prior to developing a strategic plan?

I’ve already agreed to do that on many occasions and I’d be happy to meet with Members and the committee. The example that the Member presented here is a good example. I want to state that the department and government took every recommendation very, very seriously. We

approached it in a very positive way. Our responses are about how do we make this happen. The Member raised a question about the way the law is right is it’s implicit. We would like to make it explicit. The example he gave is under section 7 of the act. It already states very explicitly that child protection has to, it must, it shall consider cultural implications. It must. It’s as explicit as we can get.

I think there’s a philosophical debate about how much force and power do you put into legislation. Our government’s position is we understand what the committee is saying. We agree with what you’re saying. We were there when the committee met with the people. We’re suggesting different ways in which we can do that. Legislating and making it explicit in legislation is only one way. But you know, laws can only go so far. I think what they’re asking us to do is do things differently. Our suggestion is that we can do that.

I’m encouraged by what the Member said. We have a common ground. We want to work together. We should look at the report as water being half full rather than being half empty. I think there’s a lot of ground for us to move on. I think we may have a difference of opinion about whether we should do it by mandated legislation or by policy change or attitude change, but I am definitely willing and prepared to work with the committee and Members.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For just a point of clarity, this question, this example that I gave was about prevention and promotion. The response that she gave me when she quoted section 7, if you actually look at their response, their response only refers to sections 2, 5 and 6 and there’s no reference to section 7. I think she’s talking about a completely different area than I am.

The other thing I want to point out with respect to that example is after they say it’s implicit in the act, they also go further to say basically no amendment is required so no action is required. So they’re not planning on actually doing anything. This is the problem. Implicit is fine if it’s being acted on. Unfortunately, a lot of these things are not being acted on which is why it needs to be explicit.

Going back to the other part about the commitment to meet with us, great, fantastic, thanks. We hope, and I was wondering if I could get the Minister to commit to having the strategic plan done before the life of this government comes to an end.

The section 7 I believe is the interpretation clause which helps us within the legislation to interpret the other clauses. Anyway, we could have this discussion.

The other example that the Member mentioned, it is true. I just want to make sure that I put it on record and that I just want to express to the Members

again, which is what we spoke about yesterday, yes, I would like to work with the committee. I am committed to work with the committee. We need to find a common ground. We have to work it on the basis of mutual respect and understanding. I need the committee to know that we are approaching this in a very proactive, positive way.

When the committee suggests that a legislation should be amended to get to the result that they would like, I need the committee to entertain possible options of other options as well. Amendment and legislation and law making is just one option. It’s a very blunt tool and there are other things that we should be able to consider. I just wanted to confirm again.

The strategic plan, yes, we hope to get that done within the life of this Assembly and we will work with the committee to get that done.