We’ll have to start calling you Mr. Bisaro, I think.
I thank you for the answer. I guess, since it is my understanding that the government at this point can add funds into the budget, or can add items to the budget, I am wondering why the Minister wouldn’t consider a motion to amend the Mains to add those federal dollars into this ’08–09 budget.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. That is something we need to look at. It is part of the process of going through the Main Estimates. Certainly we’ll take that into account.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The request by MLA Krutko on the distribution of the money for Community Justice committees and then the response from Minister Lafferty on the federal funding…. I was wondering if it would be possible to indicate that, also in addition to the request from Mr. Krutko, if the federal money, once they have determined where it is going to go…. I am assuming they already know, since they made the cut. In accordance with that, I would like to have the federal funds incorporated into Mr. Krutko’s request also.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I believe that we can certainly provide that information that we have at our disposal.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Bromley.
Page 7-37, Community Justice and Corrections, Activity Summary, Grants and Contributions. Agreed?
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Community Justice and Corrections, Grants and Contributions, Contributions: $2.061 million approved.
Page 7-38, information item, Department of Justice, Community Justice and Corrections, Active Positions. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The same line of questioning on this from me, as I am still not clear on how the positions, the PYs, are being reported. I just want clarification on why there are only nine positions in headquarters Yellowknife, and 136 positions in the region, and also 69 positions in the Fort Smith region. I am trying to determine if the department is counting these positions by where the individual is located or if it is a question of function.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. These positions that are highlighted here are based on each region’s…. The corrections or programs that are being delivered. It is not necessarily a headquarters position, but those are positions like Hay River, the South Slave Corrections. Those are the positions that are in that riding.
My understanding of reporting PYs is that it is supposed to be by function. I am just trying to determine if all of government reports PYs the same way, or if some departments choose to report PYs in different manners. My understanding is that the North Slave region just happens to be where the location of the corrections facilty is. Also, the Fort Smith region happens to be the location of the other corrections facility, which is based in Hay River. But that is not exclusively responsible for working in the South Slave region or the Forth Smith region only. The North Slave Correctional Centre is not only servicing North Slave.
My understanding is that a regional position works in the region and for the region, but if these positions are providing services to the whole territory, it should be recorded as a headquarters position. It skews the way we view whether or not cuts are being done in the region or headquarters, or whatnot. Again, going back to the comment made by the Minister yesterday that 80 per cent of their positions are in the region…. They may actually be located in them, but I think that it is a headquarters function. I am just trying to get more of an explanation on why these are considered regional positions.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Cooper.
Perhaps the easiest way to respond to this is to say that if you have employees in the courthouse building who are providing functions for the delivery of corrections services throughout the Territories — be they River Ridge, or the Women’s Correctional Centre in Smith, or the South Mackenzie in Hay River, or Arctic Tern, or any of our probation officers. And the same is true of Community Justice; those are going to be headquarters positions.
For those who are front-line, as well as service delivery people that are running our institutions, the young offenders’ facilities and so forth, they show up in the regional breakdown. For instance, North Slave would be mostly probation officers and staff at the North Slave Correctional Centre and the young offender facility.
With Fort Smith, the two institutions there, and a probation officer….
Interjection.
Three institutions? Yes, of course. Three institutions there. So those who are in the courthouse building providing executive function for the entire system are headquarters positions. All others are regional.
I would like to see if the Minister could provide this request, to myself or to the committee in writing, for how they count their headquarters and regional positions. I don’t believe that everybody in all of the departments is reporting regional and headquarter positions in the same manner. This, I think, downloads a lot of headquarter positions into the regions that are actually headquarter functions. There are headquarters positions in other communities. That’s fairly well understood. But every opportunity that the government gets to report them as a regional position, it seems to happen.
I actually want to know…. I guess the simple question is: are they reporting it by the function or what the role is, for them to determine whether or not they’re a regional position or a headquarters position? My understanding is that it really has little to do with function but rather where individuals are located. Even a corrections officer that’s located in Hay River is providing the service to the whole territory, not just the South Slave. So I would like to get that in writing.
Certainly for our Justice Department we can give a breakdown of how these positions are located and where they’re located, the regions versus the headquarters. We will be more than happy to give a breakdown in writing to the Members.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to go back to 7-37, please.
Unanimous consent granted.
Mr. Chair, the information that’s been distributed from the Minister…. I notice the money is distributed based on per capita. We’re always pounding on Ottawa’s door and saying that per capita doesn’t work for us in the Northwest Territories and we have to change that system. I’m wondering: have you ever looked at base-plus funding for these programs? Everybody realizes that any program, no matter what it is, always has up-front costs — administration costs, overhead costs — that we have to look at. In this case I’d just like to know: has it ever been looked at to have some sort of base-plus funding for these types of funds? We’re contributing to community organizations in the area of Justice. We realize that there is an administration cost associated with these organizations. I’d just like to ask: has that been thought of or considered — how these dollars are evaluated?
Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chair, that is certainly highlighted. We’ve already initiated with other departments and also with the federal government, so I think we are slowly moving in that direction. When we talk about per capita funding, that’s before us. So certainly the Member’s comments are taken into consideration. I think that’s an avenue that we need to explore with our Justice department and with other departments as well.
Interjection.
I’ve just been informed that we do have base funding as well. But certainly, Mr. Chair, we will explore that area. It’s all based on the needs of the communities, so we’ll do what we can as a department to work with the Members and figure out what are the best options, what we’ve been providing for the past few years and how we can improve in that area. Certainly we’ll be open to discussion in that area. Mahsi.
Also in regard to the amount of the contribution, it’s $700,000. But I know under the budget item it’s $1.3 million, so we’re short roughly $600,000. I’m just wondering where the other $600,000 is expended. More importantly, I notice that the John Howard Society received the most money from among everyone. Is that the group that’s been contributed to in Yellowknife? Yellowknife’s not on the list either.
Ms. Schofield.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are correct. That is only a portion of the funding that’s available. There is funding provided, which the Minister alluded to — core funding — where each community gets an amount of money to fund a coordinator to assist the Community Justice committees in their activities. So there is that funding, as well, that is part of this. So each community receives that funding whether they have an active Community Justice committee or not. Those funds go toward assisting them in developing their committees.
But again, on a similar argument of base-plus funding, I think they should have coordinators. If you want to have a program to run, you have to have someone overseeing it. It shouldn’t be simply given to them on the basis that if they don’t have a coordinator, they still get it. I think it comes back to the argument of having someone overseeing this program but also having it coordinated so that it’s functional and we’re seeing results.
I’d just like to again ask in regard to the base-plus funding…. I believe that in order for any program to function, you do have to realize that there are costs that you will incur that may not be part of your budgetary process, such as your rental costs, your utility costs, your overhead costs. We have to realize that you can’t have group funding based on per capita. Someone who manages a program in Tsiigehtchic is an individual who has costs that they have to bear too, in regard to their cost of living and whatnot. They’ve used per capita; it doesn’t really…. You’re not able to track a lot of these people, and that’s probably why you’re not able to find coordinators in a lot of these communities.
Again, it comes back to my argument on base-plus. I mean, if you’re going to pay coordinators, you should have a universal scale right across the board. You can’t have one group in one community paying more for a coordinator versus a community that’s paying less. Again, are those salaries for those individuals universal, right across the board, or does it fluctuate?
Mr. Chair, we do make contributions to the community. It’s at the discretion of the community to employ a coordinator out of their funding that they receive from the GNWT. In one community a coordinator may be making more than the other one. We give the money to the community, and it’s at their discretion to decide where the money should be going within the criteria of the proposal. Mahsi.
Quick question, Mr. Chair. Again, can we get the information on the total amount of the $2.061 million for Community Justice, Corrections, and break it down so we can see what all these activities are for?
The first distribution of $700,000 — we’re making copies available. Certainly we’ll provide that information once we have that package available. Mahsi.
If there are no further questions on 7-37, we’ll return to 7-39, information item, Community Justice and Corrections, Active Positions. Agreed?
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Community Justice and Corrections, Active Positions, information item, approved.
Page 7-41, Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Operations Expenditure Summary: $3,920,000. Agreed?
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Operations Expenditure Summary: $3.920 million, approved.
Page 7-43, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Grants and Contributions. Ms. Bisaro.
Sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought we were going to 7-42. I have a question relative to numbers on page 7-42.
All right, page 7-42. Department of Justice, Service to the Public. Ms. Bisaro.
On page 7-42, the Protection Against Family Violence program figures: the ’08–09 estimates are some $30,000 less than the ’07–08 Revised Estimates and the Main Estimates. I’m just wondering if I could get an explanation as to why that particular activity or program has been reduced by $30,000. It’s a major focus of this government. It was a focus of our priorities when we set them in October. I’d appreciate some rationale for this reduction.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Ms. Schofield.
The $30,000 was transferred from Protection Against Family Violence to the Justice of the Peace Program. It’s still going toward the Protection Against Family Violence program; it just puts the funding in the area for the Justice of the Peace, which provides the service under that Protection Against Family Violence. So the work they do in the communities, when they’re taking orders…. It’s operating costs associated with carrying out that act.
Thank you, Ms. Schofield. Page 7-42, Justice, information item.
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Program Delivery Details, information item, approved.
Page 7-43, Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Grants and Contributions. Agreed?
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Grants and Contributions: $105,000, approved.
Moving along to page 7-44, Department of Justice, information item, Services to the Public, Active Positions.
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Active Positions, information item, (page 7-44) approved.
7-45, Department of Justice, information item, Services to the Public, Active Positions.
Department of Justice, Activity Summary, Services to the Public, Active Positions, information item, (page 7-45) approved.
Page 7-46, Department of Justice, information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others.
Department of Justice, Information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others, (page 7-46) approved.
7-47, Department of Justice, information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued.
Department of Justice, Information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued, (page 7-47) approved.
7-48, Department of Justice, information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued.
Department of Justice, Information Item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued, (page 7-48) approved.
Department of Justice, page 7-49, information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued. Ms. Bisaro.
The last item on this particular page talks about funds we expend on behalf of Nunavut. In the Revenue Summary there’s an item, Exchange of Services, for $2.686 million. This particular item in terms of expenses is $3.210 million. I wonder if I could get an explanation as to whether or not we are not receiving as much revenue as we spend, and if not, why not?
This revenue item is our exchange of services agreement with the Nunavut government to house their offenders. In the Revenue Summary, that’s the revenue we receive from the federal government for housing federal offenders. So there’s different utilization numbers that are used in those, as well as different rates.
Thanks for the explanation, but I think I’m even more confused now. These dollars in Work Performed on Behalf of Others — are they an expense or a revenue?
