Debates of March 7, 2005 (day 50)

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member asked what I would be proposing for the future. I think all Members are aware that in 2001 the RCMP requested an increase in their complement, and in last year's budget, this current year's budget, the one that's before the House right now for next year and the one that I would propose to bring forward for the subsequent year, we will have dealt with all of their requests in that proposal. So I have already advised the standing committee that I will be looking for support for another six positions, to respond to that request in next year's budget.

What have we done to date? As part of the response to that document from 2001, we have increased funding to the RCMP to provide for a number of relief positions, and that has allowed an increase in the number of patrols to communities that don't have resident RCMP. So there has been quite a significant increase in the numbers of times that the RCMP are getting into those communities. We have already committed previously in the House and earlier today to examine with the RCMP what it would cost to build a business plan just to deal with those communities where we don't have detachments now, and bring forward a plan for a phased approach to that. I have no idea what sort of dollars or timing we're going to be looking at there, but it is something that I have committed to work on and to try and do my best to advance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your answer there, Mr. Minister. In regard to the six speculative positions at this time that sort of go back to the report, I can't say they're six firm positions at this time because we're sort of looking into the future, so I hope we don't argue over the number as opposed to the point, which is would this Minister consider options of maybe working with this side of the House in us maybe supporting a supplementary appropriation to help support that injection of those six members? When we have communities that don't have policing, our job here is to reaffirm that the policing agency, as well as every agency, has the support required to do their job. Is that type of discussion open at this time to sort of engage this side of the House? Let's put it on the table. What if this side of the House put a motion forward? How receptive is this Minister? Is he willing to listen to us on dealing with this? This is an important value. I have a piece of document here that says even in a community that has an established policing presence, the RCMP is getting broken into themselves. How does the Minister feel about that, if, on this side of the House, we can muster up support? Are you willing to move forward on an initiative like that, to help ensure that we get some policing in our communities that have no presence? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The six positions I talked about were part of the request from the RCMP to deal with providing a minimum level of service just in the communities that already have detachments. So those six members aren't intended to provide additional services to communities that don't already have services. I have already committed in the House that I will work on a business plan and try to advance the issue of dealing with communities that don't have service. So I don't think that it's an issue that needs a motion in the House; the commitment has already been made.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

I guess really I'm concerned about the places out there that don't have a permanent flag pole of the RCMP in the community. I know, in all fairness, it's probably very difficult to establish a police presence, considering the cost of infrastructure to put a post there. But I guess we have to be more proactive about how we're developing community policing. I know that the Territories does invest money into that initiative, but my concern more is from the enforcement side, as well as the public peace side of communities. How many communities out there do we have without any established policing presence at this time? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have 11.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Out of those 11, how many days of the year do they have some type of presence? Do we have someone there travelling back and forth to establish some type of fiscal presence, be it for one day? We can pick one community. I'll let the Minister pick a community. How often do we have a physical presence from the RCMP in those communities? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the schedule for all communities, but at the table here we can remember one community: Sachs Harbour. Generally the schedule now allows for the RCMP to go in every three weeks for a couple of days, unless there is an incident that requires them to attend in between. But the regular visits would happen every three weeks for a couple of days.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see the clock is winding down, so I won't be too lengthy. I appreciate the Minister mentioning Sachs, because that is a great example; every three weeks we have a presence in the community for two to three days. I know it's unrealistic to establish a post permanently in every community, but I know, for example, in the community of Inuvik we have a highway patrol and we have a camper, and they put a presence on the highway in the summer. I'm just concerned from the area of a regular presence and known presence in the community, because three weeks seems a bit of an absenteeism when it comes to a regular touchy-feely presence in a community. I'm kind of concerned, from that aspect.

What does it take from this side of the House? I know the RCMP work independent of the Department of Justice; however, in consultation with the Department of Justice about their presence. But how do we step up that type of presence in our communities? Again, reaffirming good tools like the police camper where they travel from the community up and down that highway, again to reaffirm its presence. That doesn't mean that they're dishing out or doling out tickets every day, but just showing that they're in the community and there for the people. What mechanisms can we do to help step up some of these patrols and presence, from the ministerial point of view? That will be all at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would take an investment of money by this government to increase the numbers of RCMP so they could be in the communities more often, or so that we could provide detachments in more communities.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have Mr. Braden next. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Hay River remand situation has received a lot of air time in the Assembly in the last few days, to the extent that a lot of the detail, I guess, has really gone over or under or around me. But I have tried to look at this in the sense of what are we doing, what kind of an impact are we having on the delivery of essential justice services to a community and to a region of the Northwest Territories? The arguments that the Minister has made, Mr. Chairman, in favour of the amount of money that could be saved, where the service could be relatively easily and efficiently provided here in Yellowknife, are quite persuasive. I have certainly tried to look for value for taxpayers' money, and even when jobs are involved, to know that the jobs that are being done have value, aren't redundant, are really generally making a contribution I think is important too.

I'll come back to that point of knowing whether or not we are really making an impact in the delivery of an important part of the justice infrastructure, the justice function to the people of the South Slave region. So the question that I would put to the Minister, and it has probably been put several different ways, is with the closure of the remand facility in Hay River, would it really be, in the most objective sense, a disservice for the people of that region by taking the remand facility out of that area? Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There isn’t a simple, quick answer to the question when it is put that way. As Mr. Hawkins pointed out, there is a spin-off effect when you cut jobs in a community, so there is that side of it that does have an impact on employment and the overall economy of the town when you reduce jobs.

In terms of the direct impact on prisoners who are in remand, we have, typically, in the range of, over the last three years, about 66 people who have been placed in that facility from the South Slave per year. So there are about 66 on average that have gone in over the past little while. The warden just advised us that, in his experience, 40 to 50 percent of that group could still be housed in the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre. They wouldn’t necessarily be housed in those separate cells. They would be classified as such little risk that they wouldn’t have to have 24/7 supervision. They would be classified as the same as the balance of the offenders who aren’t watched 24/7, but have occasional supervision as the correctional officers rotate through the building. So we are talking about somewhere between half to 60 percent of that 66 that would wind up coming to Yellowknife for the services of remand.

In terms of what our remand clients receive, they receive significantly less programming usually than inmates in the general population, simply because it is not known how long you are going to have them in there. They don’t tend to get started in programs that may have a longer length of time, but that is true whether they are in North Slave or South Mackenzie. So the difference would be that, for that 50 to 60 percent, they would be out there from Fort Resolution; they would clearly be farther away from their friends and family. If they are from Hay River and were judged to be that 50 to 60 percent that couldn’t stay, they would now come to the North Slave. Obviously, they are farther away from their friends and family as well. So there would be fewer visits with their friends and family.

In terms of services that they would receive, they are pretty much the same in both facilities.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Anticipating the growth in economic activity in the South Mackenzie and the increase of population in the town of Hay River, although it may not be sustained, there will be something over the course of hopefully the next several years…The Minister mentioned that there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 66 people a year who are held over. Thirty-three of them, or about half of them, would actually be, if you will, denied the benefit of remand in their own area. They would be sent to Yellowknife. But given that we really do anticipate an increase in population and activity and, therefore, crime, is there going to be more of a demand for remand services or remand capacity in Hay River? If you follow that, then does it make sense to close that service down at this point, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There may be an increase in crime and, therefore, an increase in numbers of people who are put on remand. But will it be absolutely necessary to use that facility again? It is not likely that the level of crime to reach such dramatic heights, that we would have to or be forced to reopen the remand there as a separate unit. But if we did need to, then it is important to remember that we are not proposing to knock down any walls or make any physical changes other than moving the monitors. So it would not be very expensive to reopen it if it was judged to be a good move to do that. But the unused capacity at North Slave is such that it is impossible to believe that we would reach the level where it would be full any time in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One more question in this area. The Minister mentioned some 66 people or so that has been an historic average over three years. Related to the capacity of the centre, is that number of remand clients…What is the percentage capacity that they would take up over the period of the year? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t have the numbers in that form. But I could tell the Member that our records show that the average occupancy for the unit has been 5.5. It is a six-bed unit, so that indicates that, on clearly most days, the unit has all of the beds occupied.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

I appreciate the information. That has helped me get a sense of sort of the scope and the scale of what we are talking about here. Those are all the questions I have in that area for this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. We have Mrs. Groenewegen next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is hard not to pick up on whatever the last person was talking about. I have been trying to kind of work my way methodically through my issues, and I have a lot of issues. But it is hard not to pick up where another Member has left off. For example, Mr. Braden has raised some very good points. When the Minister says that the unused capacity at North Slave could not, in the foreseeable future, actually be utilized, and yet the six beds in remand in Hay River are historically over the past year, if there are six beds. I think it is actually 5.9, but far be it for me to correct the Minister on anything. I think it is actually 5.9 over the last year. So there is a facility. It is staffed right now. It is at capacity. It is working and yet the Minister refers to the unused capacity in the North Slave Correctional Centre, which goes to my point, Mr. Chair, of the fact that we have overbuilt in the North Slave Correctional Centre. Therefore, that is why the economies of scale come to play, and now this argument is made for consolidation and centralization of provision of these services here in Yellowknife. I want the Minister to speak to that. In fact, is this decision not based on the underutilized beds and facilities that have been built here in Yellowknife? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to speak to the number that the Member said she didn’t want to correct me; when I said 5.5, we have been talking about a three-year average. That is what that works out to, as 5.5 over a three-year average. The Member indicated that she was using a one-year number, so it is entirely possible. I was talking to Mr. Braden about a three-year average.

I am afraid that I can’t agree with the way that the Member has put it. It is not that we are closing it because of one thing or another. Clearly, if we didn’t have room at the North Slave facility, we couldn’t propose to close it. But it is not because we have more room that we are proposing it. The department was tasked with finding areas to reduce expenditures and looked at areas. This was one of those areas where it was possible to reduce expenditures and still provide the service to people on remand.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My point is it is only possible because of the investment that was made in the North Slave Correctional Centre. What was the investment in the North Slave Correctional Centre, one more time, for the record, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The number was, I think, about $49.7 million. It was just under $50 million to build the facility. This facility, when it was presented to Members, was presented as a 40 to 50-year investment in the facility. It was not something that was necessary to have just at that moment to accommodate just the existing prisoners. Hopefully, we are not spending that kind of money on something that is going to be full right off the bat. So did we have to move people here? No, we didn’t have to, but it was one way in which we could save money. That is one of the things we could do, just as we didn’t have to move all the young offenders to Dene K'onia for the last year, but we did because we could save some money. So when there are opportunities to save money and we are tasked with saving money, then we examine them all.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Chair, I hope people can see this for what it is. Did the Minister envision, when this government spent $50 million on a new North Slave Correctional Centre, that you would be sucking the services out of the communities and bringing the inmates from all corners of the Northwest Territories in order to justify this $50 million expenditure? We talk about an expenditure of $400,000. Isn’t it ironic that we had to spend $50 million to save $400,000 here and $1 million there? I hope people can see the irony in this picture. Did the Minister or his department envision having to relocate and take services away from the regions and the communities in order to justify this $50 million expenditure? I want to put $50 million on the record. I have heard some Members around the table today here referring to it as $40 million, but let’s just be clear. We need to call it what it is. It was $50 million. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly can’t speak for I think it was Minister Kakfwi at the time who proposed the facility at first. I can’t speak for what his expectations were, nor for Minister Antoine who followed him, or Minister Allen, but the facility was built by the time I got the position. I don’t think that anybody thought that there was going to be a moving of things around to justify the facility. I don’t think that is what is happening. The South Mackenzie Correctional Centre is a good facility. It is well used. There has been no suggestion that we move the clients from that facility to any other facility to reduce costs or anything. We are talking about just changing the function of one small part of that facility that would, in fact, increase its capacity to hold general population clients in the future. It is not a situation where we are looking to, as a department, firmly move ahead and centralize the provision of correction services.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you for that characterization of that being one small part in one small place. That one small part and that one small change is costing my community 5.5 indeterminate positions and probably nine casual positions in the process. If the Minister thinks that is a small impact on a small community, well, then I guess I have my work cut out for me here to talk about this, because that is a huge impact. It may be a small change in the overall operations of Justice and part of this government, but it is a huge impact on the community of Hay River.

Mr. Chair, I am just going to talk for a few minutes about the references made by several of my colleagues to the complement of staffing of RCMP in communities. It ties in with my concern. That is whether we are talking about Hay River or any other community south of the lake; we have talked about the somewhat unquantifiable costs of transporting remand inmates from communities to Yellowknife. I think that this will impact on the presence of RCMP officers in communities. Now, granted, a lot of the small communities need more policing services. I would say that Hay River has needed more policing services. Through this new initiative investment, we will be realizing some of that increase. But I don’t think that it is a wise and prudent use of our RCMP manpower to be using that for transporting prisoners around, remand inmates, any more than we absolutely have to. If it takes them right out of the community, it poses a problem. It is not like it is just one other thing on their daily schedule of activities to do in the community. It actually removes them from the community. That is why it is so important that we think about this very carefully when we think about how we want to deploy our RCMP, because human resources are scarce in that area.

Hay River, I will speak for, cannot afford to have our RCMP members on the road transporting prisoners back and forth not just once, but in some cases, up to five times for reappearances when they need to come back to their communities where the witnesses and lawyers are. I would like to ask the Minister if he can elaborate a little bit on who is responsible for the transport of prisoners. Is it always the RCMP? Is it sometimes corrections officers? The way the schedule is set up; does it require that the RCMP is out of the community overnight? Do they have to be paid overtime? Are there per diems? Are there hotel costs? I want him to elaborate on that, because I don’t think it is the highest and best use of our RCMP resources, to be out of the communities transporting inmates. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Northwest Territories, the RCMP is responsible for transporting prisoners on remand. They often tell you that they try and do it in the most economic way possible. What they will typically do is if they have a member who is going to be traveling, for instance, to Yellowknife for training or administrative purposes, they will have that member accompany the person who is being transported, or to another community. They may come to and from that community. The six-person relief units that we have funded over the course of the last year are to help ensure that prisoner transport can happen without reducing the complement in a community when they can’t be spared from a community. So the RCMP, right now, has taken on the responsibility for this function. They tell us that they do it in the most economic way possible. There are times that I have no doubt they wind up paying overtime on occasion. They will, on occasion, have to pay per diems. So, yes, there are some times those extra costs that have to take place. That happens now. The RCMP looked at the proposal and has advised us that it doesn’t see the changes as increasing its cost to provide the service. That is basically what we have gone on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to thank you for your indulgence thus far, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Schofield. We are going to continue after a short recess. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Thank you committee. Welcome back. We are on general comments, Department of Justice, and I have Mrs. Groenewegen. Mrs. Groenewegen.