Debates of March 7, 2005 (day 50)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My point is that if there were infractions of the Criminal Code and there was a serious rise in the statistics related to crimes committed, this government would be obligated to respond to that. If that required more financial resources, they would also be obligated to find those resources to deal with that. You wouldn’t just turn a blind eye to the crime and say, oh, well, we don’t have the money to deal with that.

The point I’m trying to get to, Mr. Chairman, is that when the government wants to do something or wants to find money for something or needs to find money for something, they always do. I want to say with respect to the money required to keep this remand facility in Hay River going, if the government wanted to find the money -- and it isn’t like they don’t have the support of the Members on this side of the House, they certainly do -- can I remind Members, this is a consensus government and there’s more of us than there are of them, Mr. Chairman, and we say leave it there. So will the Minister come back with a supplementary appropriation to finance the continuation, if he cannot find it from within even with 50 vacant positions in his department, will he commit to coming back with a supplementary appropriation to continue to offer these services, which he’s already stated are in good facilities with well-trained, dedicated employees, in a region...This is not the Yukon. We don’t want it to be the Yukon. We want sustainable, viable regions and communities in the Northwest Territories. That has always been the philosophy of this government. This kick we’re on right now with centralization of everything is very dangerous. We have to stop it. Will the Minister come back with a supplementary appropriation to ensure the ongoing services, which have been historically provided in Hay River at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre will continue? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I can’t make that promise because it’s not up to me to determine what goes into a supplementary appropriation. Even if I were to make the request, it’s up to the FMBS to determine whether or not they support that going in and there’s no way that I could make that commitment.

I think it’s important to remember that we got into this situation because all the Members around this table agreed that we wanted to cut $20 million out of this budget. We all agreed that was what we were going to do. We were going to be fiscally prudent. In the last couple of days, I've heard you talk about the need for more RCMP to deal with the issue of drugs in the Northwest Territories. I’ve heard Mr. Pokiak, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Menicoche, talk about the need for more RCMP in small communities. I’ve heard Mr. Yakeleya talk about wanting to see more investment in community justice and wilderness camps. Mr. Braden talks about the need for community justice and supporting that. Ms. Lee talked about the need to support community justice and the COPS program. Mr. Zoe talked about needing more drug education in communities and Mr. R. McLeod talked about the need for improved services to victims. That all costs money. So we have to decide where the money is coming from. If we keep just piling it on, then soon there won’t be any money. There certainly won’t be enough money to put into some of those other important priorities if we keep doing it.

We were challenged to come up with some savings this year so that we would be able to make some investments in future years and if we don’t have any cuts, then what are my chances of being successful with other requests when I go forward to FMBS? I can’t tell the Members in this House that I will be successful going to FMBS and getting support for a supplementary appropriation. If we have to cut $400,000 out of our budget, if that’s the requirement we’re looking at, in terms of all the programs that we have and all the potential other cuts we could have, I’m afraid that this is the one that we would have to proceed with. If we have to choose where the $400,000 comes from, this is the right place to take it from. If there’s lots of money and you never have to make any cuts, then it would be nice not to have to do that. I’m not one that’s been sitting here saying that I want to cut positions, cut staff, cut people. I don’t like doing that, but we were challenged by this whole Assembly to be part of the solution for the $20 million. So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve gone through and found those savings and that’s why these are being presented. We’re going to have to talk about it; what do we do? Is it more important to put $400,000 into this or is it more important to put four more RCMP on the roads? That’s the sort of choice we should be making. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. General comments. I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Well, you know, it’s ironic, Mr. Chairman. We’re going to need more than four RCMP just to keep escorting these people back and forth. We’re going to be taking RCMP out of circulation to do this. So it’s kind of a catch-22 situation. Mr. Chairman, ever since the business plans came forward and the main estimates came forward and standing committees made their recommendations, even since then there has been initiatives discussed with us, I don’t want to get into the detail of them, that indicate new investments on the part of this government for expanding government, for adding positions for various functions which this government considers a priority. So it’s not quite as simple as the fact that there is no money. What the Minister really means is there is no money for this. There’s no money for this remand service, which is offered at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre. That’s what he means because I’m sure as we speak there are things right now in the supplementary appropriation and things that will be coming forward in further supplementary appropriations that will require expenditures to be voted in this House, commitments of finances to be voted in this House to expand on things which this government considers a priority. I’m saying that judging by what you’ve heard from Members here and what you’ve heard from the recommendation of the standing committee, surely the Minister can see that there is fairly solid support for seeing the continuation of this service. What is it going to take? I’m not asking the Minister to promise me that FMBS is going to come back and say yes. I’m asking him if he will go back to FMBS and ask for the $267,000 he needs to continue this service for remand in Hay River. That’s what I’m asking him to do. I’m not asking him to promise what the outcome is, I’m asking him to take it back. Will he make that commitment? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m aware of the recommendation that’s been made by the Standing Committee on Social Programs and I have no doubt that FMBS will consider that recommendation. I can’t say anything else besides that, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not really sure what that meant. I think the Minister knows what I want to hear here, but anyway, we’ll keep going at it then if that’s what we need to do.

Mr. Chairman, you want to talk about the way the government spends money. In the case of unanticipated costs for anything, like a bad fire season, we find the money. Wherever there’s a will it seems there’s a way to find the money. That’s why we’re in government. That’s why we make the rules. That’s why we make the laws. That’s why we decide how to spend the money. There’s nobody else in charge. We’re in charge. We decide what the priorities are. We sit through many hours of meetings and lengthy discussions to decide what the priorities of the government are, and 11 Members of this House have put their best work and mind to the issues and priorities and spending of this government and they’re saying leave the remand facility open in Hay River.

Now, I know the Minister can’t wave a magic wand and pull the $300,000 out of a hat tonight, but I’m asking for some kind of a commitment here. I think it’s a good service, I think it’s close to the people it serves, I think it’s running well, I think it’s a mistake to take this thing apart. Sure you can say you’ll put it back together at sometime in the future, but that’s after 5.5 people who are trained and are operating in these positions are gone. It’s kind of like trying to put the egg back together after it has fallen on the floor. It isn’t that easy to put it back together. We have invested in it in developing the service. Sure, maybe you can bring the people over here and reassign them. Like I said, I still have my doubts about those numbers, and the Audit Bureau report bears that out. There wasn’t any historical data analyzed in terms of coming up with those transportation costs of $18,000. So I think the Minister knows what I am looking for here. I would like he and his department to respect the wishes of the Regular Members and the Standing Committee on Social Programs and the recommendations on the floor, and agree to go back to FMB to find the money to reinstate the remand services at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to get a better understanding. Is the Member saying all 11 Members support this $400,000 going back into remand over and above any other investment in Justice? Let’s just pick Justice as the $400,000, or any other investment of $400,000 somewhere else in government. Is that what all 11 Members are saying, that they want this ahead of RCMP in their communities, that they want this ahead of something like full-day kindergarten or something? I guess I haven’t heard that yet. I have heard a request for some more money, but I am not sure that Members have agreed that money is limitless and that this is the most important investment. If I can be convinced of that, I guess that I would have to say, yes, I will prepare the paperwork and see where I get.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Chair, the members of the standing committees went to some great lengths to go over the business plans and put their ideas out there on the table. If the Minister doesn’t support the remand, that is quite another thing. Then he needs to say that he doesn’t support the remand expenditure because he can’t say that the Members here don’t. We have been pretty clear and concise about that. I am really glad that the Minister brought up the issue of all-day kindergarten because, when I started questioning the Minister in the House about this whole issue of reinstating the remand, he wanted to have a sidebar discussion with me. That was one of the things he brought up. I think all-day kindergarten is something he wants to do. But what he has to understand is this isn’t his choice. This is a collective thing. That is why we call it a consensus government. It doesn’t matter what the Minister wants. It matters what the will of the House is and the will of the people we represent. We said that was what we want. So don’t throw it out there like a menu and say, do you want this more than this? That is not the Minister’s job to do that. I know he wants all-day kindergarten more than he wants remand facilities in Hay River, because he told me that. It is not about what he wants. It is about what we want, and we put him there to oversee this. When we say that is what we want, then it is his job to go back to FMB and get that and to make that argument; not to go back there and say I’m not interested in that, I want all-day kindergarten. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t believe that I told Mrs. Groenewegen that I wanted all-day kindergarten funded. I think if you want to check the record though, the Standing Committee on Social Programs brought forward a recommendation to this House, which was voted on and passed by this House, that the government funds all-day kindergarten. So there has been a motion passed. It was presented by the Standing Committee on Social Programs. At this point, there hasn’t been a motion passed on this recommendation on remand, so I'm in a position where the Member is asking me to accept that all 11 Members have taken this position. If the recommendation is brought forward as a motion and if that motion is passed, then I can assure the Member that the FMB will consider the request. But until that motion is dealt with, I can’t make that promise.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The discussion today is on justice. So committee will address the department. Mrs. Groenewegen, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is a good point. Actually, it was the Minister who started listing off the menu of what you might like more than my remand facility in Hay River, so that is how we got off on that little tangent. I guess, Mr. Chair, when there is will and direction in this House, things happen, money gets invested, money gets reinstated, and new initiatives are backed and supported. I know that when there was an $850,000 investment back in early childhood development, how did that happen? The Minister said he could do it and see the support of the House, so I guess I will wait until we get to the page where the motion is. I will be happy to move the motion that the remand services be reinstated. We will see what the numbers look like on the floor of the House. I guess there will be a chance to debate this again when we get to that page and that line item in the Justice budget. So I am not conceding that this is over. I am just saying that, probably for general comments, that is it for me for now. We will wait until the line item comes up in detail. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I give in. I just wanted to ask a few questions again, with regard to the new courthouse, the actual cost. I know that the studies come around here this fiscal year. What was the estimated cost again, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The estimated cost from Public Works was $41 million.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we completed capital expenditures of that much within the next couple of years, does that really mean that we will be freeing up some capital dollars for the regions? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that the capital costs will be spread out over nearly five years, so it wouldn’t be $41 million over a couple of years. There was nothing that was cut from the capital plan in order to put this in this year. In fact, there was a significant increase to the capital plan. A lot of it went to education facilities but, because we are running a surplus in this budget of nearly $49 million, that allows us to increase our investment in capital, because we typically finance 50 percent of our capital from borrowings and 50 percent from money that we have in the surplus.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

With respect to the courthouse again, what is actually going to happen this fiscal year with that $1 million?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is about $1.5 million, I believe. Sorry, it is $1.092 million. It is almost $1.1 million. It would be basically the plans. We would hope to be ready to the point where we would be very close to going out to tender on the project.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. Can the Minister repeat what the plans were for the $1 million? I dropped my earpiece when he was talking about it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would anticipate completing the plans for the facility and hopefully be ready to go to tender.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

That’s good.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Detail. Detail.

Thank you. Does the committee agree? Detail?

Agreed.

Agreed. Can we go to page 7-13? I am sorry. Can we turn to page 7-10? Department summary, information item, revenue summary. Are there any questions? Page 7-10. We will just take a minute. People are pulling out their binders. Page 10. Agreed? Revenue summary. Can we please turn to 7-10? Does everyone agree with revenue summary?

Agreed.

Go to 7-13, activity summary, services to government, operations expenditure summary, $9.034 million.

Agreed.

Page 7-14, activity summary, services to government, grants and contributions, grants, $79,000. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification on this national justice issues, $9,000. Is that from the federal government? Can I get a little explanation on working towards improving the Canadian justice system?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a number of small grants to organizations of $1,000 or $2,000 to a number of different organizations or judges to go to conferences. There is not one group that gets it, but it is spread out.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you. The other one is $30,000 for law and bursaries. These are for indigenous aboriginal students to pursue a law degree. Is that for several students or one student, five students at the most? Is there a limit on it? Has this funding exceeded or are we under-funded on this portion here? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Dent.