In regard to this government and the situation we find ourselves in, I think we have to start looking more in line with NGOs and non-government organization institutions that have the infrastructure and the ability to work with clients. I think one area this government could probably save a lot of money in is with travel, transportation, court costs and whatnot, and sending inmates to institutions. We all know the estimated cost to house someone in a correctional facility is up to $85,000 a year.
As a government we have to look at how best to serve inmates, for one thing. The other thing is to integrate them back into our communities with some sort of a program that they have to take. We have to ensure that once they get through the justice system, there is some way of dealing with the core reason that these individuals seem to be in this cycle of continuously going through the justice system.
Regardless of what the issues are — alcohol, drugs or crime in general — these areas are bothering them, and I hate to blame anyone for any particular problem. A lot of this stuff originates from residential schools and values that originate in the home. I think you can go back to a lot of these individuals and you can track their family tree and realize that this is not unique just to them.
I’d like to ask the Minister: is the department looking at trying to integrate justice programs out of large centres, where we’re worried about overcrowding and costs associated with running these larger facilities, and re-profiling some of those costs to programs such as the Tl’oondih Healing Society, and working with non-government organizations to provide the services we aren’t able to develop in-house and use the services of other organizations?
Mr. Chairman, with our department they have done some work in this area. Like I said earlier, one of the important steps was reintegrating inmates into communities, and it is one of our important milestones. We have initiated pilot projects in the communities, such as the Sahtu exploration area, where inmates were taken out on the land for various weeks. We’ve done that a couple of years now. We are looking at other communities as well to do a pilot project there. What the Member is referring to is the NGOs in the community and that possibly programs could be delivered at the community level.
There is one area that we are also exploring: how we can improve our programming in the communities. It all depends on those organizations that deliver the programs, if they have the capacity and so forth. Certainly we’ll continue to work with those communities that are interested in delivering those programs. We will continue to improve our program delivery to the communities.
Mr. Chairman, this is my last question for the Minister. I’d like to ask the Minister: is there a possibility that I can get a copy of the evaluation of the program that was run at the Tl’oondih camp in Fort McPherson. There were, I believe, three programs. There was an evaluation and assessment of that program, but I’ve never seen a copy. The Tl’oondih Healing Society has asked me to get a copy, because they want to know what worked, what didn’t work and what went wrong, so that they can improve the program but also see how they can directly enhance it. I’d like to ask the Minister if it’s possible that I can receive any documentation on that program in light of the pros and cons of what happened with that program.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for Members to be aware of what’s happening within their respective ridings. Certainly our Justice department will share with the Member the documents if there is a report being done. What we have within our department we’re more than willing to share with the Member.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. I wanted to revisit the issue of nursing positions and the reductions in nursing positions. I think we’re clear on what’s been reduced at the North Slave Correctional Centre, but as I mentioned in my question that I didn’t get to ask earlier, the information the social programs received indicated that there was a $22,000 reduction in a nurse position at SMCC. As the Minister stated earlier, there is no reduction in nursing positions at SMCC, but there is a reduction in a maintenance position. Could I get an explanation for this $22,000 reduction, please?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. As in the previous discussion we had earlier, that issue has already been dealt with by motion. I’m going to have to rule that question out of order. Are there any other questions? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you. I’ll try my other one, then. I could challenge it, but I won’t. My other question has to do with the intensive rehabilitative custodies program. It was raised earlier by I think Mr. Bromley and Mr. Abernethy. There was an indication that we received money from the federal government for this particular program. I look at the revenue summary on page 7-10, and I see $150,000 in 2007–2008, but I don’t see any money in 2008–2009 for intensive rehabilitative custody. So if I could get an explanation of how the funding from the federal government is being managed, when was it received. Has it been carried over from last year to this year? How is the program being funded?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Ms. Schofield.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The funding agreement for that program had ended as of March 31, 2007. The agreement from the federal government did not arrive in time for the preparation of the Main Estimates for 2008–2009. The confirmation of net funding for the coming year arrived after the Mains had already been prepared. Therefore it’s not in the Mains at this point. It would require supplementary funding in the department’s budget.
Thanks. These finances are going over my head, so I’ll have to ask for a bit of an explanation. So we’ve received money from the federal government. How much is it? I guess, then, the point is that in order for the federal money to be used in 2008–2009, we would have to have it added back in, in order to actually use the money that we got from the feds in 2008–2009. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
Since we’ve had a bit of a windfall, so to speak, of federal money, I would suggest strongly to the Minister that he consider doing that. We probably would do that on this side of the House, speaking only for myself, of course.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Until the Members make some sort of a recommendation, all I can say at this point is that I will consider it.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I asked questions about the nursing positions before, which I understand has been dealt with by a motion — and I don’t want to ask you about the nursing positions — it precipitated a response from the deputy minister about the maintenance officer position at South Mackenzie Correctional Centre. The deputy minister indicated that position was the one that was targeted as an affected position. I’m looking at some follow-up to the information that was provided, and not for information related to the rest of the motion.
The maintenance position was the one that is potentially affected. The deputy minister mentioned that there are a couple of retirements coming up at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre this summer. What’s the process for trying to ensure that that person in the maintenance officer position, who is a fully qualified corrections officer, gets connected into those positions? I mean, you get a letter; you’re an affected employee. There are these vacancies coming up. What’s the process. Does that maintenance officer, who’s been there 15 years, then apply for that? Is that something that’s done internally? How does that process work? I was wondering how we connect that employee with those vacant positions.
Mr. Cooper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The individual is an affected employee and as such has priority status for any job for which he is qualified. Member Groenewegen is correct. This employee is a former CO and will have an opportunity to apply on that, and, given priority status, absent some facts that we’re unaware of, will get the position.
A while back, when the remand facility at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre was closed, there were five positions identified for elimination but only through attrition. I’d like to know: are we still on about that, or has that been taken care of? Have enough people left to accommodate that commitment that was made at that time? I just want to make sure, with these retirements that are coming up or people who are voluntarily leaving or retiring, that those don’t somehow get categorized as those attrition positions that were kind of left over from when the remand operation shut down.
The Member is correct. There were five positions that were to be eliminated through attrition. At the present time there is one remaining unfunded position. I mentioned that we’re anticipating and we’ve been given notice of two employees intending to retire this summer. One of those will clear off the remaining unfunded position, and one of them will become a vacant position that can be accessed by those on priority status.
Just one further clarification. So these two positions will be coming up sometime this summer, but how long are the people who are affected employees…?How long does that priority staff retention policy apply to them? At what point does somebody say, “The date has come and gone. There were no positions, and therefore there are no more options for that”? When an affected employee has been notified, how long does that apply for?
The employee, as I understand it, has eight weeks of priority within the employee’s department and then another 13 weeks on the staff retention policy, another 13 weeks government-wide. So that should last, given that the notices won’t be given until late June or July, until the end of 2008.
Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Next on our list is Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee strongly recommends that government take immediate action to reinstate funding in the amount of $45,000 for the proposed reduction of two program delivery officers at North Slave Correctional Centre under the Department of Justice, under the Community Justice and Corrections Activity.
The motion is on the floor. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve had a great deal of discussion on the program delivery officers at North Slave Correctional Centre. I won’t go over everything again, but suffice it to say, I believe there’s some question on this side of the House whether or not the frequency and the reliability of programming at that centre is going to be impacted as a result of these two program delivery officers being let go. I also wanted to say again for the record, I believe decisions like this fly in the face of the government’s overall goal of having safer communities. Without programming, quality programming, timely programming at North Slave Correctional Centre for the inmates who are there that are going to end up back in our communities…. They need to have that programming, so that when they do go back to our communities, they are rehabilitated to the best of our ability, anyway.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask for a recorded vote on this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have, in this building, probably the lone experience of actually being a former employee of the corrections system. I used to work at the old corrections centre as a guard for a number of years, and I had some experience in many of the areas through administration and whatnot. I know from my experience of working at the centre that a lot of inmates are there due to certain problems, and the reason they’re there a lot of times has to do with alcohol. Then we end up having subsequent problems that fall out of the issue, that continue to go on and spiral.
The point I’m trying to make is that the road to recovery takes a lot of paths. By reducing any programming, I think you take away from the potential for any rehabilitation. That’s my concern. The whole principle there is to give people a fresh start. They’ve made some errors in their ways and move forward on the good step. If we take away an opportunity, I think we don’t just do the inmate a harm, I think we do society as a whole and injustice, because what we’re doing is putting people back out on the streets without that type of support mechanism, when they could be taking something useful to move forward.
I can appreciate why certain reductions come forward and whatnot. At this time I just can’t support how this reduction is being put forward, because of how I understand the program and my experience of seeing it work. I’ll be voting in favour of this motion because I think it’s something that delivers real value.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing, when you have people sitting there 24 hours a day, and while they’re probably only thinking about (a) how to get out and (b) how to make the guards’ lives miserable, we need to give them positive notes and positive things to look forward to and certainly to work towards. Mr. Chairman, I felt it important to make sure that it was said — that this goes deeper than just the centre. I think it has a negative effect on the territorial communities at large.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, Mr. Minister.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I just want to highlight why we’ve proposed. There’s no implication on the program itself. It does not jeopardize the program. The program does continue to be delivered at these corrections. At the same time, Mr. Chair, what we’re proposing here are some changes to the current positions that we have, and there are also vacant positions. These two individuals that are potentially impacted will certainly have the opportunity to move up to another position — case managers. They do have many years of experience. They have a really good chance of fulfilling these positions, and it is the same people who will be delivering that particular program. So really, at the end of the day, you probably won’t see any layoffs due to that fact, once these two positions are filled by current individuals.
So that’s part of the reason why we proposed this, Mr. Chair. We were given a target — being cost-effective and also effective program delivery — so we felt the need to reduce those two positions but at the same time to fill another two positions, possibly with the two same individuals.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I just want to remark that as part of our mandate as Justice, we’ll be moving forward on this, just for the record. We’re not impacting on a program delivered at these corrections. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Chairman, before we go to the vote on this, I did want to close out the discussion. I think what you see in this motion runs through this entire discussion that we’re having on the ’08–09 budget. It’s no fault of the Justice Minister; it’s no fault of the departmental staff. The reductions that are proposed to take place have not been well thought out, have not been well planned, have not been well communicated, and that is the fundamental issue that I have. Some of the other Regular Members share those concerns, Mr. Chairman.
It’s all nice and good for the Minister to say that there is a possibility that the two impacted employees in this program area are going to move up to case management or they’re going to get other positions. That’s all fine and good. Once that decision is made, will that actually happen? I don’t know. Who’s communicating that to the employees? I don’t think anybody’s communicating that to the employees. I don’t think the management at the facility is communicating that. It’s the first I’ve heard of that.
I think this is just a systemic problem of poor planning and poor communication on the budget in its entirety. This motion is just a microcosm of that. Again, in practice, will it impact the frequency and the reliability of program delivery at that centre? I think it will, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion.
Question.
The question has been called. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.
Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Menicoche.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Members, the results of the recorded vote are in: ten in favour, zero opposed, six abstaining.
Motion carried.
We’re still on page 7-35, Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Community Justice and Corrections, Operations Expenditure Summary: $33.826 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to make a motion.
I move that this committee strongly recommends that the government take immediate action to reinstate funding in the amount of $83,000 for the proposed elimination of the program/projects coordinator position under the Department of Justice under the Community Justice and Corrections activity.
The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This $83,000 references a coordinator position for the Community Justice program within the Department of Justice. I feel quite strongly that the explanation the department gave us during our briefing wasn’t quite adequate.
One of the goals of the department is stated as, to increase the capacity and the role of communities to address Justice issues. And I think the department, along with this particular position as well as funding for various and sundry Community Justice projects, is pretty much gutting anything that Community Justice committees can do in our various communities.
Within the last Assembly, there were a number of gains that were made in relation to Community Justice, where programs were set up. This position of a coordinator was established. It was unfortunately never filled. The department has advised us that certainly the funding for Community Justice projects wasn’t fully subscribed to.
I think most of the reason for that lack of subscription to the Community Justice funding was the fact that there wasn’t a coordinator to assist the various communities in the work that they want to do as a Community Justice committee.
My understanding is that where Community Justice committees exist, they’re really quite effective. They do good work within the communities, and I think they’re really a positive influence on justice issues within the communities and difficulties with criminal activities and so on. So I really feel that removing this position at this point, even though it’s vacant, is not going to assist communities who currently don’t have a Community Justice committee; it certainly is going to be of no assistance to them in establishing Community Justice committees.
I think that it’s something that certainly needs to be there. We could perhaps cut some of the project funding, but without a coordinator to manage and to assist communities in their Community Justice activities, I think it’s just not going to succeed.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The program delivery that we’re talking about, the motion that’s before us, the $83,000…. Part of the reason why we’re moving forward on this is that there is also additional funding, as we indicated earlier, from the federal government, that does all sit in these areas. We will continue to work with our federal counterparts in that particular area. Part of the reason why our department came down on these items is that we are moving in that direction, where the money’s allocated from the feds. One of these areas that we’re talking about — that’s also a vacant position.
So, Mr. Chair, I think we are, as a Justice Department, moving at the right direction, to be an efficient government where, as a department, we’re highlighting where we need to improve in the spending to the communities. And we’ll fully utilize the funding that we’re receiving from the feds on to the communities. We will continue to do that. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you. Just to wrap up before we go to the question, I appreciate the Minister’s response. But I feel very strongly that giving money to a community without any resource for them to assist them in properly applying that money is pretty much throwing good money after bad.
I think that this coordinator is necessary to assist communities that currently don’t have Community Justice committees — to get them established and to also assist those that do have those committees to be more efficient and to operate better.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion.
