Mr. Speaker, the policy of the genocide intentions by the federal government was to take the children away from the family and do that. We’re no different than doing this with this program here, taking people away and looking at treating them in this manner. I think what we’re looking for is a family treatment program. That’s the power and the strength of the people here. I ask the Minister, would he look at this as one possibility, one solution of family treatment programs on the land as a starting point where they start doing the true healing and reconciliation of the suffering that was done of the residential schools.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the action plan and as part of the Ministers’ forum, we want to look at all aspects of treatment and if family treatment is something that’s proposed by many of the communities, then it’s something that we will try to work into our action plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister for Education, Culture and Employment. I highlighted in my statement an unfair situation, I believe, which exists within the Department of Education relative to students being able to challenge a French second language exam.

I’d like to initially ask the Minister what the rationale is for this particular policy change. Our curriculum is allied with that of Alberta, and Alberta made the change and changed it back to the original. We’ve maintained this change in policy, and as I’ve said, I think it’s unfair, and I’d like to ask the Minister why we’re doing this. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister responsible for of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. There has been no policy change in the senior secondary school administrative handbook on this particular subject. The core French 30 does not exist anymore in Alberta. French 30 did not have a former exam from Alberta, as well; Alberta education. In no other subject do we or Alberta permit the students to challenge a course in which outcomes have been covered in previous level courses.

This is a particular issue that was discussed with the French coordinators at the divisional education council and the district education authority in June 2011, and they also agree with the rationale. We’re following with what the discussion that was agreed upon. Mahsi.

I appreciate the response from the Minister. I’m having great difficulty because I have looked at a policy for secondary high school education from Alberta and from NWT and they do seem to be definitely different in that Alberta both policies state that any student can challenge any course. I need to obviously have a better explanation from the Minister as to why what I’m reading doesn’t obviously jibe with what he’s reading.

I guess I need to ask the Minister again why, when I read the policy, I see that French immersion students may not challenge a French first language exam, and yet it appears to me that the Alberta high school policy does allow it.

This is this information that we received from the Department of Education in Alberta. We follow their curriculum, as well, and the examinations. They’ve also provided some information and also within our department working with the French coordinators that there were some concerns raised where some groups, if the French immersion students increased their average with a course where the outcome is already credited, how fairly are they competing against other students that are applying for the same post-secondary institution. There could be an unfair practice as well. All those are taken into consideration. We are following what the divisional education council has recommended and we continue to work with that.

I have to disagree with the Minister. I mean, what I’m hearing the Minister say is that we have students with special skills and we have students who are very proficient in French, and we are penalizing them. We’re not allowing them to get an extra course. For some of these students it’s the one credit that they need to get them into the particular course that they need and we’re saying, no, I’m sorry, but you can’t do that. Go back and take the whole course and then maybe you’ll get the credit.

I really feel that the Minister is suggesting that students who already have these skills shouldn’t be able to challenge an exam and get an extra credit. It is unfair and I really have to wonder if the Minister considers, and I ask the Minister if he considers it’s an acceptable way to run a department, to penalize students with special skills over those that don’t have those special skills. Thank you.

All I can say at this point is that I can bring this information back to the French coordinators at the divisional education council and work with our colleagues in Alberta, as well, on this particular subject, and I can get back to the Member on the outcome of that.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for his commitment. I guess I would like to ask the Minister, if he’s going to consult with French coordinators, I would ask him that he also consult with parents. There has been little, to my understanding, consultation with parents whose students are involved in this particular situation. It’s one thing for a French coordinator to say that this is the way it should be, but I would ask the Minister to consult with parents and to consult with students as well. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to reach out to the parents, as well, along with the French coordinators and the divisional education council. We will do that. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Member’s interest and comments about alternative energy and his interest in hydro.

I would point out that we have done a significant amount of retrofits, for example, and we are saving many hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot of rice. It should be appreciated for the value that it brings. I know that the Member supports that approach.

In terms of the hydro project and in Taltson, we spent over the last probably two Assemblies about $13 million doing technical assessments both on the project at the Taltson site and the other piece was the initial plan to put a transmission line up to East Arm straight to the diamond mines. That project did not go ahead. The technical work was all done, the geophysical work, the engineering work, all the environmental approvals were there to do the project.

Now we are revisiting the issues that the Member is wisely talking about, the benefit of linking the Taltson and the Snare grid, the ability to be able to power and provide energy to places like Avalon, Nechalacho, Thor Lake, the NICO mines. There are going to be some energy requirements at Giant. There is over $100 million heating market here in Yellowknife. There is also eventually a long-term benefit if we not only had those grid connections but a southern grid connection so that we could move power north and south. There is tremendous opportunity.

Minister Ramsay’s economic plan and his Mining Strategy are going to be contingent upon us being able to deal with that energy issue, so this is a big issue for the government, for this Legislature collectively to be looking at in the coming months. Thank you.

I do agree with the Minister that there is great economic opportunity and I’m not disagreeing with the fact that a lot of money has been spent on the project and enhancing it especially for our diamond or mineral sector. The problem we have here is that the residents

themselves are suffering greatly. We are seeing some increases in power consumption and rates that will probably push the cost of affordability in this territory to probably one of the highest in the country.

I am really concerned that we need a long-term strategy. We need a legacy project to push power and energy costs at the forefront so that we can put this to the people of the Northwest Territories to make it more affordable.

When can we see these economic opportunities in print? When can we see them on paper? When can they be debated in the House? When can we see a business case statement that we can actually debate here? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are three key components to a broad territorial-wide Energy Strategy that I believe in the coming life of this Assembly. One of them is the one the Member has talked about, which is the Hydro Strategy. We are visiting that. There are also significant opportunities, for example in places like Deline to put in power in a very environmentally sustainable, friendly way. The Solar Strategy will help us address the crushing diesel costs in the thermal communities. Then we have the broader issue and the pressing issue of sorting out the Inuvik long-term energy needs.

All of these pieces are being looked at. There’s work being done internally here as we talk about the way forward in these critical areas that have implicated that were coming forward with the Solar Strategy, for example, and I would suggest within the next five months or so we should have our thinking clear enough that we’d be able to put things on the table.

There’s been a tremendous amount of work done on the hydro piece and it’s a question of looking at some of the very specific issues like the Member has mentioned, which is going to focus on not the technical work on the actual dam expansion but the transmission lines and what route would we go and how would we pay for it. Thank you.

Today, for the first time, we’re hearing a move forward from this government that sounds like it’s putting hydro in the front seat of their decision-making rather than the backseat. I think that’s a very clear message that I’m hoping we can earmark further.

The Minister indicated within the next five months, but yet we’ve already talked about the budget address here. Is there any possibility that the Minister can make a firm commitment that this policy, moving towards a stronger hydro commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories, will be done sooner than later? Five months is a long time from now. Thank you.

I will commit to take the Member’s request under advisement. I’ll report back and we’ll have a discussion in the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee to see how fast we can move on this.

There’s a lot of work that’s been done, but there’s more required, and as I indicated, there’s also some important related work like the Mineral Strategy and the Economic Development Strategy. So there are a lot of pieces at play here and that are linked. We want to move those along as quickly as we can, I agree with the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny. The Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I dare say that occasionally Members on this side of the House have a really good idea, and there are many small things in our communities that this government could fund, which would make a huge difference, but we can’t be told no, we have no money, and if you do want that money, find out where you can cut something. We do not have the resources at our disposal to identify where those funds are.

Let me just give you a couple of examples. In Hay River, recently in just talking with people, the youth centre needs a piece of land, the youth treatment in a seed group that wants it going, we have people who just need shelter at nights in existing accommodation, we have a soup kitchen that needs a container to store the extra stuff donated to them. These are small things, but these harness the passion and volunteerism of people in the community that make a huge difference. The Persons with Disabilities Council was just told in Hay River no, you can’t have an increase from your $33,000 a year because we don’t have any money. So you go out and fundraise harder. You know, this is a difficult message to deliver for us.

Could I ask the Premier is there any possibility that he could go to his deputies and go to his Ministers and go to his departments and say could they identify some place, some savings within the departments that are low impact, that are not going to upset the progress of government that could come up with some kind of fund that would allow us to take some wins back to our communities on behalf of our constituents for some low budget stuff? I’m talking about things under $50,000 that in smaller communities would have a huge impact, but we don’t have access to anything like that. I’m not asking to sit around with a multi-million dollar capital budget and we’re going to divvy it up from this side of the House. I’m talking about some small

wins or some small things for some communities and regions outside of Yellowknife. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.