I see from my notes here that they have been around since 1994 in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Recognizing the time, I will allow one more. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate the time. Can the Minister's staff let us know whether the John Howard Society has ever delivered a program like this in the past? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.

Perhaps I could have Ms. Gardiner answer that question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Gardiner.

Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleagues for proposing the questions. Every time this is brought up in the House, the Minister states that minor changes were made to this program based on the evaluation report that was done. Right near the beginning of this report, it recommends that consideration should be given to the fact that the program is more than a curriculum, and community outreach should be considered a part of any future program. The community outreach that has been happening at The Tree of Peace includes workshops at the North Slave Correctional Centre, I believe the only program available to those in remand. It has happened in adult education centres, with the YKDFN, the Salvation Army, the Bailey House, and more. In addition, there have been training sessions delivered to nurses in the Stanton Psychiatric Unit which the nurses seem to find quite useful.

However, as I understand it, the RFP states that program facilitators must strictly adhere to the curriculum as set out by the department, which excludes all of this community outreach. The evaluation report also states that some men are not well-suited for group counselling sessions, and future programs should include provisions for individual counselling based on A New Day's curriculum. Yet, as I understand it, in the new RFP, men who are not well-suited will be referred to outside counselling services, in stark contrast to this recommendation. The one recommendation that I did find that was followed was to break the program up into segments so that if you drop out partway through, you can get right back in without having to wait the 20 weeks.

The evaluation also stated that many of the individuals that they interviewed would not change the program the way it operated. Yet, we have a letter from the Coalition Against Family Violence which spent years developing the A New Day program tailored for the North, and this organization was made up of, the Government of the NWT was a part of it, Disabilities Council, Status of Women Council, Tree of Peace, Yellowknife Women's Society, White Ribbon Campaign, Alternatives North, Salvation Army, and the RCMP.

Most of the organizations I just mentioned sent a letter to the Minister on May 10th stating essentially that they have no faith that the program the way the department envisions it is going to be successful. They write, "It remains the position of the coalition that a successful program must be a community-based therapy program. The work with men who abuse must be ongoing while healing and treatment options that are designed to be flexible enough to address the actual needs of those who seek help from this program. As such, the new program design as described in the recently advertised RFP was met with a degree of surprise by members of the coalition. The new program design has some aspects that appear to us to be incompatible with program success and with continued widespread community support."

I ask the Minister: why was the coalition engaged in the first place if now their input is being disregarded? They are begging the department to, well, I will not say "begging," they would like the department to work with them to retool this program into something that they think would be successful. How do they know what is going to be successful? Well, they work with these people every day. They developed the first program. They are the people on the ground. It still boggles my mind that they are being completely ignored and left out of this process. It has been front page news that all the coalition members refused to bid on this RFP, because they felt so strongly that it was such a poor program. These are people who are dedicated to helping end family violence, and yet they were not willing to put their name behind a program that the department says is going to do that.

I do not want to use unparliamentary language, but there is some arrogance from the department on this, I find, and I am at loss. Why will the department not work with these people who have years, decades, hundreds of years between them, of experience in this field? Maybe I will start there with questions. Why did the department flat out refuse to work with the coalition or coalition members to come up with a program design that would be palatable, at the very least, to the coalition? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.

Thank you. I am going to refer that question, if I may, to Martin Goldney, my deputy minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Goldney.

Thank you, Mr. Goldney. The time allowed is up. I will move Mr. Simpson further down. We only had one question, one answer during that time period. We will move on to the next. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to take an opportunity to seek some clarity and understanding and ultimately seek reassurance that the spirit and intent of this program has not been affected. My understanding, with the previous speaker recalling Mr. Simpson, stated very clearly that vision that the groups had in terms of coming together, in terms of trying to address the very big issue of family violence in NWT. The program that was conceived, developed, and established was operating ineffectively and unsuccessfully, from my understanding.

The recent meetings with some of the people who work on the front lines, I was very disappointed that the program had tanked and, in a sense, it is demoralizing that perhaps the initial vision of the program has dramatically changed. I understand the sense for keeping programs and funding resources in the stream of being uncomfortable, but it shouldn't be systemized so much where it becomes very stringent. It discourages people from taking a step to seeking help.

From my understanding, that is what it was and that is what it came to be. After its assessment evaluations, there are some recommendations and changes that were implemented. It went to RFP, and a lot of the groups that could have perhaps put their name forward were discouraged. I was deeply disappointed to see, perhaps, just the diminishing of the program when it was first originally started. What I am seeking from the Minister is if he could explain this question that was asked. I want to understand and seek some reassurances that the original vision of A New Day, with input from, as an example, the Coalition of Family Violence. A lot of the NGO organizations have played a hand in developing the initial vision. They know the philosophy behind that. I wanted to have the Minister explain: are those features still intact as we go forward with entering a new stage with the John Howard Society? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister.

Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear that the A New Day program, the group's therapy model, and the basic curriculum is not changing. That will stay the same. What is changing is some of the administration around the program, the flexibility which has already been mentioned today, so that men might be able to rejoin more easily. Efforts are going to be made to make more facilitators. We also think that, should the program work out well, which we are confident of, that the new slightly changed model will enable us to take it outside of Yellowknife to other communities, where this type of program is also badly needed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I think the Minister answered my second question. It was whether the terms would outline the possibility of building upon the successes of the A New Day program to see if there are opportunities for outreach. It has been pointed out that sometimes people, especially men, can't access the program because they are incarcerated.

There should be some efforts made to try to see if they could have an established program, as an example, the North Slave Correctional Centre and, at the same time, looking within the possibility of maybe, in the long term, seeing if this program could be expanded in one or two communities. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I may have mentioned earlier, this of course is a program for men who are not in custody, but there are certain programs they can access in the custodial setting. However, we are hoping to have better connections with probation services. Perhaps those who have been in custody and are released, in completing their sentence, may be able to access the program more easily. Again, as I mentioned, in the future, should the program work out well, which we are certainly hoping for, we may be able to expand it to communities outside of Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. I see nothing further from Mr. Nadli. Next item, Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister, in his statement this morning, the statement we are discussing right now, seeks cooperation and support of all Members of this Legislative Assembly to move forward. I think that has been a challenging proposition for many of us. The merits of this program are undeniable. I have a few questions. I would like to thank my honourable friends on this side of the House for canvassing well the concerns of both the community and honourable Members on the many questions that they are still waiting on for this program.

The Minister said that all counsellors will be properly trained. We have had a brief discussion about that training, but does this new contract include a training component, and is the John Howard Society charged with delivering that training? What competencies exist around that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. The Minister.