Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to talk about addictions. Last month when Members set our collective priorities for the 17th Legislative Assembly, we included enhancing our addictions treatment programs, and for good reason. If we could only solve some of the problems of addictions with some action, by taking action, so many other issues would become less of a problem than what we have here before us today. We would have less crime, less violence, fewer people on income support. We would have healthier families, fewer babies born who are sick, who are with illnesses, better...

It does in this particular case, not realizing they were in a mixed situation. Then it would go to the point of does the department provide an evaluation of where becomes the breakeven point where we choose to house our own inmates at a significant cost or can we consider sending them to another particular facility, if need be, outside the territory and we pay that direct cost. In some cases it may be cheaper for us to pay – by way of a simple example, if I may – $120,000 to house an inmate in Alberta where it costs us $3 million to keep the facility open for that one inmate per year. The...

Now, on that note, when we house one offender in a particular facility, what would it cost per day to house that particular offender per day in our facility? In other words, we would have to have security, somebody at the gate, somebody at the door, somebody to cook, somebody to clean. We would have to have the full costing of that particular facility, because we can’t run them empty. That said, would the department be able to provide that detail?

Thank you, Madam Chair. On a separate issue, I think I heard the Minister say that there was one female inmate at this particular time within the custody services under the GNWT. Does the department have an estimate as to what one inmate costs the system in the context of full costing? At the same time I’d like to know to what Nunavut would pay the Northwest Territories for us to house one inmate in our facility. If I could get that breakdown between the two numbers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support my colleagues in this particular motion. I understand very well, and in some respects I acknowledge the need for a conservative agenda where it is a law and order type of government.

There are issues of crime that need to be tackled, and tackled harder, but it’s very difficult out there who believes on a typical process, everyday process, that more jail time, longer jail time really solves the root causes of crime. Very few people would argue that particular situation.

I agree with colleagues that have said serious crime needs to be addressed differently...

Maybe the Minister could explain to the House how Nats’ejee K’eh treats people who have pill problems, who have crack problems, who have meth problems under the present, or I should say under the current design and focus that Nats’ejee K’eh provides as the only treatment centre in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had heard the same words spoken in the House yesterday and it, too, did draw my attention to the concern of using the phrase “crimes against humanity.” At the time I actually reached for my trusty green book of Beauchesne’s Rules of Order to think is this proper language in this type of conduct.

I think Mrs. Groenewegen described the circumstances quite right: The everyday person would define crimes against humanity in the context of genocide and other types of horrific crimes that have happened in places like Rwanda that are terribly shameful and are a stain on...

Clearly, the point is being missed or, rather, it’s being avoided. The issue is about the person who the EPO is issued against. That person has been accused falsely in this circumstance. The Minister knows very well of this example. The issue is it’s not about the person who lied. The person who lied, the process is correct, as he’s highlighted. How does the person who has been accused, who has now become the victim of the circumstance, get the EPO removed? They have to take it to court and it costs $5,000 in this particular example. There is no relief mechanism built into the process when it...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about emergency protection orders and some concerns highlighted in them. The Minister is well aware of some of the concerns as of late that have had an emergency protection order being issued incorrectly under false information. I’d like to ask the Department of Justice if they are going to review these particular circumstances to see if amendments are required to the emergency protection order process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said they had reviewed. Now he says they’re reviewing. I’d like to be clear on the record. Are they reviewing it at this particular time and are they taking the example I provided to the House as consideration for this review?