Thank you, Madam Chair. With me today are Bronwyn Watters on my left, the deputy minister of Justice; and on my right, Kim Schofield, who is the director of finance.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Welcome to the witnesses. Committee, we are on page 7-2, Justice, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $702,000. We will defer this summary until we have completed the department. We will now move to page 7-4. Justice, activity summary, services to government, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, zero. We will move on to page 7-6. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I missed the general comments part there, but if I may, I am concerned and I think it has been well established in the past that there is some urgent need to deal with the women’s correctional centres and we have some serious catch-up to do there. There is some serious crowding in existing facilities, very serious. I’m just wondering what the thinking on that is. I would have thought that would have been a priority. I realize we’re in a very strapped situation this time around and decisions are being made, but I’m wondering why it’s not here and where it sits, what the plan is. That’s it for now.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. My apologies for omitting opening comments. Mr. Abernethy, did you wish to respond?
Thank you, Madam Chair. As a Regular Member in the 16th Assembly I had an opportunity to tour the female facility and also participate in a number of briefings on what the government needed to do with respect to the female facility in Fort Smith. It’s certainly something that’s a priority for the department. We need to get it done. It’s already gone through the design phase. We’re pretty much ready to go. It’s a financial issue. As the Minister of Finance has continually said, we’re strapped for cash right now. Until we have some free room, we have to keep trying to get it onto the books and we will keep doing that as a department. We need to get it done.
Just to follow up, have we done any planning? Do we know what we want to build? Do we have land lined up? Where are we? How fast can we move once we do get the resources to be able to put in an actual facility?
A planning study has been completed for the proposed territorial women and girls correctional centre in Fort Smith. Land has been selected and I think we're close. We need money. Basically the plan is done, and the land is selected and we’re working with the department now to find out how to get it done, get the facility built.
I’m wondering if we have a design for the facility, if we’ve actually got that. I want to introduce my last one as the Arctic Tern Facility and our youth facility generally. I’m wondering what the plans are. Is there a budget to deal with that situation this year, that facility? Are we going to get rid of it or tear it down? What’s happening with Arctic Tern and what are we doing with our youth offenders in terms of current and long-term planning?
With respect to the future facility in Fort Smith, the planning study has been done, and it includes a needs analysis and operational plan, a facility program and a schematic design. We’ve already got that done. A rough cost-estimate of Class C. So we’re ready to go. When some money identifies, we’ll be standing in the line, asking for those dollars for that facility.
With respect to the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik, a report came out in the 16th Assembly about the facility and how it’s not suitable as a corrections facility due to security concerns, doors being able to shut and whatnot. The result of that is the facility has been surplused out of the Department of Justice. It is now a Public Works and Services asset and they will dispose of it accordingly. Most recent reports say the foundation is still an issue, the doors still don’t close and whatnot to meet the standards of a secure correctional facility. That has been given to Public Works and Services.
And the people? The young offenders? Have we got a situation figured out for how we’re going to house them? Are we in a holding pattern right now? Are we planning a more permanent facility or program for them?
As per the briefings in the 16th Assembly, we’ve moved the youth female offenders to the North Slave Young Offenders Facility. Currently, there’s only one in there, at the North Slave Young Offenders Facility. One female; sorry. With respect to the future facility in Fort Smith, it will be for both women and female youth.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Are there any other opening comments for the Department of Justice? Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. One particular issue is the investment in the Fort Smith program. I don’t say this in the context of I don’t think the program shouldn’t be expanded or better accommodated. I’m just wondering about the timing of this particular investment with regard to, obviously, the recent passage of Bill C-10. Shouldn’t the department be looking more towards a longer strategy, rather than trying to fix things for the short term? It would make sense, in my view, that the future programming, which is a significant unknown right now, should be addressed first.
I guess the question to the Minister would be: Why wouldn’t the department pause at this second to re-evaluate its plan and see how to accommodate properly for the future? I hate to see money being spent on a useless program that is not needed in about a year or two years, so we’ve wasted the money. That’s the type of evaluation and consideration I’m asking for.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to go to Ms. Bronwyn Watters for some of that answer. To start off with, the planning that is being done for the facility in Fort Smith, the women’s facility does include a significantly larger capacity to deal with future trends that have been predicted within the department. I’ll go to Ms. Bronwyn Watters for a more comprehensive answer.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Watters.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the planning for the proposed female correctional centre includes long-term planning that is intended to serve long term, looking at the potential for an increased number of women and girls in custody, which of course is very likely with the new bill. So we are looking at that.
Our current arrangement with the girls at the North Slave Youth Centre is only temporary. It is good for now. It is fine for now. We have additional staff that were transferred down from Arctic Tern to look after the girls separately, but should the facility become full, then it would obviously create more difficulties. The plan for the new female facility in Fort Smith is intended to meet long-term needs.
Thank you, Ms. Watters. Mr. Hawkins.
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. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have one female youth in custody in the North at the youth facility here in Yellowknife. We have 11 female adults in custody as well. With respect to the cost for Nunavut to house somebody in one of our facilities, I’m going to go to Ms. Watters for that.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Watters.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly have the invitation to Nunavut to send their female offenders. To date we do receive a few female adult offenders. We tend to receive many more men. Our current count from Nunavut is 16 men who were sentenced and nine men in remand; a total of 25 adult males from Nunavut in custody. We do not currently have any youth from Nunavut. This has been a fairly typical pattern. We do not receive a lot of youth. They don’t have the need to send their youth out.
I don’t know whether that addresses the Member’s question or if you want further information.
Thank you, Ms. Watters. I think the question was: What would it cost for us to send somebody to Nunavut to be housed? Ms. Watters. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would maybe appreciate if I could probably take a second stab at it, rather than interpretation. I’d like to know the cost Nunavut would pay us to house one inmate. If they want to provide that, I’d like to start with that particular fee.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. Watters.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The cost for housing a Nunavut offender or the amount that we receive is $266.74 per day.
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?
The costs that we charge Nunavut are actually based on actual costs. It’s important, though, to realize that the cost that I just gave you is an average. There is certainly very much variation between facilities, because the larger facilities with the greater capacity have greater economies of scale, so the cost is lower. The average is as I gave you and that is calculated based on what it really costs us to house an inmate. So, effectively, a charge to Nunavut is simply cost recovery.
I’m sure with…Yeah. Okay. What I’m getting at is housing one inmate, even if I take your fee of $266 per day as just a rough estimate, even if I round it up to $300 per day, we’re still talking about the cost of about $120,000 a year to run a facility for that specific person on the basis of what they bring in for cost. Now, I ask you what is the cost to run that facility when we have to staff it. In other words, are the costs coming in justifying the expense to keep the doors open? I wonder, if we’re keeping the facility open for one person, would it not make economic sense to transfer this person to a southern facility rather than to keep the full facility open for one person.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The question that was asked earlier was how many youth female offenders we have in custody. We have one. That female offender is at the youth facility here in Yellowknife which also contains male youth. So there isn’t one person in that facility; there are a larger number of individuals. There are seven individuals in that facility here in Yellowknife, not one. I’m not sure if that clarity changes the question.
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 point is, what type of cost-benefit analysis do you do and how do you identify our breakeven point?
Having a jail in a community, be it Yellowknife or any other smaller community, yes, recognizes economic development, it keeps people employed, it provides services, it draws in business, et cetera, but when our ship has to be running on tight margins, does no one ever consider value for money? As I pointed out, there will be a breakeven point where we say to ourselves it’s more efficient to run it in this particular manner.
I don’t need to remind the House at length, obviously, about Arctic Tern, about the efficiencies of how that facility was run and built under the circumstances when the federal act was changed, but yet it was rammed through many Assemblies ago that that facility was needed even though the act changed and then it was out of date by the time it was built. I just wonder is that analysis taking place. We could be spending money more efficiently and more appropriately, although this is the Justice department not the Health department. I mean, we could be diverting money appropriately to prevention. You know, when somebody says where’s the money coming from. You know, here are examples of gaps that should be taken into consideration. To the point, and certainly the question: Does the department do a cost-benefit analysis on these types of matters, and if they do, will they be willing to provide it to Members? Thank you.
We haven’t done necessarily a cost-benefit analysis, but the department has a mandate to keep its offenders in the Northwest Territories close to their homes and close to their family, close to their culture where their family can get to them and visit them. There are other things that we have to factor in, as well, as in will other jurisdictions take our offenders.
Most jurisdictions are faced with exactly the same challenges we’re faced with, which is overcrowding. For us to try to go to other jurisdictions and stick some of our offenders there can prove to be quite complicated. But the main reason we haven’t done the cost-benefit analysis like the Member is talking about is our mandate, is let’s keep our Northerners close to home; let’s keep them in programs that are culturally relevant; let’s keep them in programs that are specific to the Northwest Territories geared for residents of the Northwest Territories. Those are important aspects of our mandate and we want to maintain that, recognizing, as well, like I said earlier, will other facilities in other jurisdictions be willing to even take our people when they’ve got the same issues we do, which is overcrowding.
The facilities that we have, the youth facility here in Yellowknife has greater capacity than we currently are utilizing, and if Bill C-10 comes, we imagine that some of those spots will disappear, so that facility will likely be used to a greater extent, which is another motivation for building the facility in Fort Smith, which is to help us get the youth female offenders out of our facility here in Yellowknife and back to Fort Smith.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Next on my list is Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is obviously for the delegation here for Justice here, to maybe give some clarity to some of the expenses regarding to IT here. More specifically, from what I see here and have done some research and have been provided, we have I believe it was called a courts information system and an offender management system. One of the notes of question, I notice that I’m not sure if any of these are being hosted within our TSC environment, and if so, why, and is it done cheaper outside that environment?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not actually sure I understand the question 100 percent. We do have internal systems in the Government of the Northwest Territories within the Department of Justice both in courts and corrections and we do maintain those programs in house. Those programs are getting quite old and we are going to need to look at upgrading those programs shortly. But I’m not sure I fully understood your question.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Mr. Dolynny, I’m not quite sure where you are. We’re on general comments, so if you’re on a specific page, if you could wait until we get to the specific page. Mr. Dolynny.
Sorry, Madam Chair. I couldn’t hear that. To clarify my question here for just opening comments here, is the in-house cost of doing IT services more cost effective than doing it in a TSC environment?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For many of the IT programs that are being supported within the GNWT, we are part of the IT whole system, supported by the TSC, our general, sort of, normal programs. The programs where we’re not supported by them in the same way would be our courts program and our correction programs. Those are specific, similar to many programs that exist in Education and similar to many programs that exist in Health and Social Services that are administered by the department. We do the same with our court program and our corrections program.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask the Department of Justice if there is any reason why they wouldn’t create a cost-benefit analysis to ask themselves where they’re getting good value for money when considering balancing the costs of carrying offenders and the costs of findings alternative options. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Abernethy.
Madam Chair, over the last four years I’ve heard many Members in this House talk about the programming that they’d like to see in corrections facilities and they talked a lot about culturally specific programs. To consider moving inmates outside of the Northwest Territories means that those inmates will not have culturally relevant programming.
I believe the mandate of this department is a good mandate and keeping our offenders in the North to benefit from our programs, including our cultural programs, is the way to go. I’m not sure that there would be much support for actually sending our inmates south when they’re not federal inmates. They’re territorial inmates with sentences of two years less a day. It would require a mandate change on the department to consider housing our inmates in the South.
Well, I’ll ask it this way: Is there anything to prohibit the Department of Justice from providing an alternative solution such as a southern institution if it was seen as that was considered a relevant option to send an inmate to? Is there anything to prohibit that? Thank you.
There’s nothing to prohibit, but it would cost money to do that analysis and I think our money could be better spent on programming for the residents of the Northwest Territories and the facilities that we do have.
Okay. Then on one hand you’ll say that it’s better to have local programming even though it may be a lot of money, but we don’t know this for sure, of course. Yet, on the other hand, you’d say we’d like to see our money spent specifically to help people. I mean, quite often I’ve heard calls for on-the-land programs, but yet the first answer is we don’t have any money. What I’m asking for is what harm has it done to do an analysis to ask ourselves the cost of running – and I’m talking about the smaller type of facilities where we only have a couple of inmates potentially, be it now or certainly in the short term – to ask ourselves the question, which is why would we allow a facility to run in a manner that we’re not spending our money efficiently. I mean, many times I’ve heard my colleague from the Sahtu say, look, all we need is a couple hundred thousand dollars. We can put a camp in some community. We can get people out on the land. He talks about a better way that they could connect with both their culture, their spirit, get away from some of the troubles and refocus in on the important values of life. I couldn’t agree with him more. But yet, every year, time after time the answer always is we do not have any money. We like your concept but never have any money.
Here I’m providing an option and providing a suggestion that an analysis could ask ourselves are we running our facilities efficiently. On one hand, we’ll hear, well, we have a mandate but there’s no, you know, culture programs. It’s like you’re using that as the wedge item. There are a lot of things to consider and I recognize that. I think that a cost-benefit analysis would ask ourselves what makes sense. When we have one colleague will say this is a better way to connect with our constituents in a culture-based way, you know, you can’t use it against us one day and then use it for us the next. I’m asking what would stop the department from asking themselves, through a cost-benefit analysis how do we evaluate good use of money. We often heard from this Member many times on this side of the House about efficient use of money. Has that changed now that he’s a Minister? Thank you.
The Member must not be aware of some of the programming that we do offer, and we do offer a number of on-the-land programs. There’s a program in Fort Good Hope that we utilize to place inmates over the last couple of years and there are other programs that we utilize as well.
As far as changing my stripes, I don’t believe that’s the case. I am still interested in prudently managing finances in a responsible way and that’s what we’re talking about here. We know we’ve got facilities where the count goes up and down. We’ve got high count, we’ve got low count. Mostly we’ve got high count. Most of our facilities are full to capacity, often overcapacity. We’ve got a youth facility that has one female offender in it, but it’s got a number of male offenders in it and that number changes in our youth facility on a fairly regular basis. In fact, our count changes daily.
Spending money to do a cost analysis as to whether or not sending some of our inmates south doesn’t seem like a prudent use of our money here in the Northwest Territories. I would rather spend that money on more of our community programming. I would rather spend the money on some of the lands programming than do a cost analysis about sending somebody south. If we were to send, say, our one female offender south when we do have a place to put her here, she would not benefit from the programming that is designed for Northerners that the male offenders in the same facility have access to. So we would be actually doing that person a disadvantage.
I think our mandate is a good mandate for supporting Northerners in our northern facilities. I am not particularly interested at this time spending a whole lot of money to do a cost-benefit analysis as to whether or not sending our people south is in the best interest of the people, the department or our bank account.
