Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister Responsible for the Housing Corporation.
Why is the lodge not currently operational?
Can it be refurbished to be operational?
What costs are incurred annually by the GNWT for the upkeep and operation of the building?
What are the total annual costs for this building?
Since the closure of the facility in 2003 and up to today’s date, what is the total dollar amount spent by the GNWT for this facility?
What are the future plans for this facility?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Monday, June 2, 2008, I will move the following motion.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that the Speaker be authorized to set such sitting days and hours as the Speaker, after consultation, deems fit to assist with the business before the House.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Notices of motion. The honourable Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, June 2, 2008, I will move the following motion.
Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories call on the federal government to extend the housing programs due to expire on March 31, 2009; and further, that the Legislative Assembly strongly urges the Government of Canada to commit to discussing a long-term funding strategy with the provinces and territories; and further, that a copy of this motion be sent to the House of Commons.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 17, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 18, motions. Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, with Bill 8, Tabled Document 37-16(2), Committee Report 6-16(2), Committee Report 7-16(2), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order.
In consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters is Bill 8, Committee Report 2-16(2), Committee Report 3-16(2), Committee Report 4-16(2), Committee Report 5-16(2), Committee Report 6-16(2), Committee Report 7-16(2), Tabled Document 37-16(2).
What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the wish of the committee today is to proceed with the Main Estimates for the Department of Justice.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
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.
