At this time I’d like to ask the Minister if he’s bringing in any witnesses. Mr. Lafferty.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, would you escort the witnesses in?
If we can, maybe we can just take a short break until the witnesses get here. Thank you.
The Committee of the Whole took a short recess.
For the record, Mr. Minister, can you introduce your witnesses?
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have Donald Cooper, my deputy minister of Justice, and also Kim Schofield, director of finance, to my immediate left.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses.
When we left off, we were on page 7-35, Community Justice and Corrections. Mr. Hawkins.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I seek unanimous consent to go back to page 7-29.
Does the committee agree that we go back to page 7-29?
Unanimous consent granted.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday a motion was put on the floor to delete ten additional court services positions. I’m just trying to do some follow-up as to understanding the impact of that motion.
I’ve been led to believe that motion actually deleted some active positions that already exist, as opposed to some brand-new positions. I’m just trying to get some clarity on whether that is or is not the case. Furthermore, if it actually did, can I get the location of where those positions are?
I do not believe that we can debate a motion that’s already been dealt with in this House. We’ve discussed the motion. It was voted on; it was passed. The motion has been dealt with, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to just go over an item that’s already been dealt with.
If you’re asking for a particular position in regard to this item on positions, I think we can ask for clarification from the department, but we’re not going back to something that’s already been dealt with.
Mr. Chairman, there’s no intention to re-debate the motion. I’m just trying to get a sense of what the impact was.
Mr. Hawkins, could you clarify your point and stick to the topic, which is Courts, Operations Expenditure Summary, in regard to that particular page and not in regard to the motion that was dealt with. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to get an understanding as to the overall impact, not to revisit the motion. I’m just trying to get clarity as to what impact that will have. As I understand it, that impact, now that the decision has been made…. Again, I’m not trying to revisit it, but I’m just trying to get a sense of whether there were active positions rolled up in that, and if there were, how many. Again, if there were, where were they located? That’s all. It’s for clarification.
Sorry, Mr. Hawkins. I’ll have to rule your item out of order. It’s already been discussed. We debated it, and basically we’re not going back to an item that’s been debated and voted upon. So I’ll have to rule your question out of order.
We’re on page 7-35, Community Justice and Corrections, Operations Expenditure Summary: $33.826 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are about the elimination of the Sex Offender Relapse Prevention Program and the Family Violence Prevention Program at the North Slave Correctional Centre, programs delivered to men who have been convicted of these offences.
I think it’s common knowledge to most of us that the incidence of sex offences in the Northwest Territories is extremely high, second only to Nunavut. Our rate is averaging well over five times the rate in Canada. In fact, we had 156 offences in 2006, which on a rate per 1,000 people is extremely, extremely high.
This program is a vital component to safer communities, which is supposed to be one of this government’s priorities. The decision was made, really, without any research or consultation on behalf of those that deliver the programs or their supervisors. Now, that sounds fairly astounding to me.
I understand that there is an independent review of the Justice program that’s going on. What if that report comes back and says, “Yeah, this program is essential”? I realize we need to make some cuts, but again, what is this department and what is this Minister going to do if the report of this review comes back and says this is essential programming? I’m already asking the question, given our priorities of prevention and so on: how can this be done?
Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. There’s been some talk about the cutting of the program, the cutting of positions. Just to set the record straight: we’re not cutting programs at the correctional centre. The review the Member’s referring to is an overall review of the programs that’s been undertaken. There are no changes to the programs that we’re delivering today. Mahsi.
Mr. Chair, I’m assuming that means the remaining staff will shoulder the workload of the two staff that are being cut, the two staff that currently deliver these sex offender programs. I highly suspect that other staff that already — I would assume — have lots of other responsibilities won't be able to efficiently deliver these programs — efficiently and effectively. Again, it’s clear that the people of the Northwest Territories — and, certainly, people on this side of the House — believe that more programming is needed rather than less.
I’d like to know how the department has concluded that existing staff can shoulder the responsibilities of the two affected employees who currently deliver this program. What’s the basis of that assumption?
Mr. Chair, within Corrections we are moving into a new, more integrated program delivery model that we’ve initiated, and that is our proposed plan through this Assembly, and with staff at many different levels actively involved. Instead of having only three people delivering the program, many of the employees will deliver them.
We talked about the deletion of positions, but at the same time, there are two vacant positions, and these potentially impacted individuals have the opportunity to take on that role. So that’s an area that we are looking at.
Also, we have a program delivery officer as well who will take on that role. So we do have current positions that can certainly continue to deliver this program delivery at the centre. Mahsi.
Mr. Chair, I’m afraid I’m not comfortable putting a lot of weight to the Minister’s remarks. I’m aware that there is a request for proposal out currently by the department, closing on the 20th of June, for the delivery of healing and learning programs in Corrections. This is clear evidence that there is a recognition, at some level, for the need for more effective programming, and healing programming specifically, which is what we’re talking about here. Can the Minister explain this incongruity to me?
Mr. Chair, the Member is referring to an RFP that went out. It reflects on the North Slave Young Offenders Facility, not the North Slave Correctional Centre. Mahsi.
Thank you to the Minister for that clarification. How is it that we’re putting out contracts when we have affected employees in this very area of concern with expertise and that could easily assume these responsibilities and save the costs associated with contract administration, et cetera? Where is the staff retention policy on this? I know this is not a question for this Minister, but it is certainly a question for this government.
There are two tracks here, and they’re completely missing each other. Why did the Minister not put this together, connect these dots, and avoid the trauma of these two affected employees, when there are clear opportunities for them to be used, and used effectively, in the system with a job that’s clearly part of their expertise?
Mr. Chair, we’ll certainly utilize those impacted employees once they qualify as the case managers. We do have a program delivery officer as well.
The Member is referring to an RFP. The project is funded by the federal government and incorporates traditional aboriginal knowledge that he is referring to. It will enhance the programming already offered at the facility. It is a program funded by the federal government. Mahsi.
Mr. Chair, just a question on that, then: are these yet again new federal dollars, but we’ve developed this budget assuming that there would be no new federal dollars? Are these dollars that were not expected?
Ms. Schofield.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The federal government funds a program called the IRCS Program, which is an intensive rehabilitation program. This pot of money is associated with a special projects fund, where proposals are submitted to the federal government to provide services for clients that meet the qualifications under the intensive rehabilitation program.
This program will provide additional training to staff at the young offenders facilities — similar to a train the trainer program — as well as do some initial program training with the young offenders at those facilities. It is a one-year project. It’s shortterm, in the hopes that the staff at that facility, through the development of this program, will be able to carry out that work with young offenders.
When did we learn about these dollars? Did I hear that this was not a contract, that in fact they’re expecting staff we already have on board to do this work?
Mr. Chair, the funding was identified in early April, so it was after the development of the Main Estimates document.
The services that are being asked for are for a contractor to develop the program and train the staff to deliver that program to the young offenders on an ongoing basis. It is only one-year funding to get the staff trained up in delivering that type of program to our young offenders.
Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually wanted to deal with a different topic on this particular page, and I have a motion to go with the issue that I wanted to discuss. So if there are other Members who still want to partake in a discussion on this matter, I’ll defer.
Mr. Abernethy.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Bromley’s questions.
I hear what the Minister is saying: that you’re not cutting programs, that you’re cutting positions. But when it comes to the sex offender and the family violence programs, it’s my belief and my understanding that in order for those programs to be delivered, you basically need two people to do it: one male, one female. In cutting these positions, you’re not necessarily going to have those bodies around to deliver those programs, which means, basically, the programs won’t be delivered. I believe that goes against what you’re saying. In fact, if the programs can’t be delivered, we’re not working towards the rehabilitation of the inmates within the facility.
I’m going to try to ask a question that’s clear, that we can actually get an answer to, which would be good, a change, great. Can you tell me exactly how — by eliminating these positions and eliminating the two persons, the male and the female, who can deliver these sex offender and family violence programs — the department intends to ensure that these programs continue to be delivered as effectively as they have been? I’ll stop there. I won't want to muddy it any more.
Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Chair, there were three positions. There’s been a competition. One of the incumbents was successful. There are two vacancies as case officers. The other two incumbents, to my knowledge, have applied for those jobs and are expected to get them as priority status employees.
These programs are delivered, I’m told, two to three times a year. They take six weeks each, so they’re not delivered constantly.
The case managers — the same people — will stop doing case management for six weeks, be backfilled by experienced corrections officers and deliver the program. That’s my understanding of how it will work: essentially, the same people delivering the program but under the name of case officer as opposed to a PDO.
I might add that this model is the one that is used in all of our smaller facilities for delivering programs. We were asked to find efficiencies within the system. We’ve tried to do that. We’re satisfied that the programs will not be adversely affected, and actually, this particular reduction won’t result in any layoffs.
Mr. Abernethy.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. A slightly different topic but still in the same area: can you tell me exactly how many female young offenders are housed in Arctic Tern?
The Minister of Justice.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. To date we have two inmates at Arctic Tern.
Can you tell me how many female young offenders are currently housed at the North Slave Young Offenders Facility?
Currently we have none at that corrections facility. Mahsi.
Has the department housed female young offenders at the North Slave Young Offenders Facility in the recent past — one, two years?
Deputy Minister Cooper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On a short-term basis that has been done when a female has been arrested here, prior to being taken to Inuvik. For short periods of time that has been done.
Next on the list I have Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to cover a lot of the ground. I agree with what my colleagues Mr. Bromley and Mr. Abernethy are saying.
I’ve been here for just over four years, and I’ve seen the North Slave Correctional Centre go into the new building. I’ve had many discussions with the former Minister about the new approach to corrections: how it was going to be holistic, more healing, and how they were going to do some good things there.
I share the concerns of my colleagues that the program delivery officers are being taken out of the sexual offender and family violence programming. That causes me some concern. I listened to the deputy minister’s rationale and how the programs will be delivered, but you just have to question whether the frequency, the reliability, will still be there if the programming gets left to case workers and the psychologists, or whoever is going to be delivering the program.
I think there is going to be an impact on the frequency and reliability of the delivery of those programs. I’m not sure why we would, in our largest correctional facility in the territory, want to go to a model that’s followed by some of our smaller facilities.
Again, I know the department was up against the wall in terms of reductions. If you look at the reductions, they’re obviously not going to touch the security side of things in corrections. It would be almost impossible to look for reductions there, so programming is the obvious soft spot, I could say, and an area where they could look at reductions. I don’t agree with the reductions on the program delivery officers. I think it’s a step backwards.
I’d like to find out a little bit more about the program Ms. Schofield talked about — the federal funding — and where it looks like we’ve applied for federal funding for the YO facility. I’m wondering if we’ve applied for federal funding under that same program for the adult facility.
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that the federal funding is only provided to the young offenders, not the adults.
