The Work Performed on Behalf of Others has two sides to it: it has an expenditures side and a revenue side. We call it a Vote 4/5. What you’ll see here is that the revenue has to match the expenditures. Ultimately, we received this amount from the Nunavut government to house their offenders. We put expenditures in there to offset that revenue item.
Understood. Can you tell me where the revenue is shown, please?
This is the revenue amount we receive. It’s treated as a Vote 4/5. It’s a different accounting treatment that the government has, where we’re expending dollars on behalf of another organization or another government. This, essentially, is an information item that shows the revenue. There’s an offsetting expenditure, which is one component.
Just a short follow-up. All of these figures, then, on pages 46 through to 49 are all revenue dollars, if I understand Ms. Schofield correctly. That wasn’t clear to me. If I could just get that clarified, I would then understand this is the revenue. The expenses, I presume, are sprinkled throughout the rest of this department’s document.
The expenditures for these items do not show in the appropriation that’s budgeted. It is a confusing exercise, and you’re not alone. I have, on many occasions, had to explain to senior management how it works. What we’re showing here is…. If you would look at it, the net effect would be zero. So there would be expenditures that would happen, and then there would be a revenue, and that effect would be zero in any event. There really is no expenditure component. They’re not seen in the Vote 1 appropriation.
Thank you. I give up. Thank you very much.
We’re on page 7-49, 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 7-49) approved.
We’ll be moving back to page 7-7 to Operations Expenditure Summary. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, I move that this committee defer further consideration of the Department Summary for the Department of Justice, Operations Expenditure Summary at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order.
Motion carried.
We’ll be moving along to Infrastructure, Infrastructure Acquisition, page 6-5 in Volume 2 of the Main Estimates.
We’re on page 6-5, Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Services to Government, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $60,000; Total Activity: $60,000. Agreed?
Department Of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Services To Government, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $60,000; Total Activity: $60,000, approved.
Next page, 6-9, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Department of Justice, Community Justice and Corrections, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $1.46 million; Total Activity: $1.46 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to make a motion.
I move that the 2008–2009 Main Estimates be amended by deleting $320,000 from the activity Community Justice and Corrections, under the Department of Justice, Capital Investment Expenditures, on page 6-9 of the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, for the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre replacement.
The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to speak to the rationale for the deletion of this particular activity. The Social Programs Committee discussed Community Justice and Corrections and facilities at great length during the department presentation, and afterwards when we discussed how we had viewed that presentation. At this point the program committee feels very strongly that this is not the correct time to begin planning a new facility. We don’t know yet whether or not the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik is suitable for a secure facility for corrections. It’s undergoing a review — an engineering review and an analysis, apparently — at this time. That review will be available to us sometime this summer or this fall, from what we’re given to understand.
The Social Programs Committee feels quite strongly that there needs to be an analysis of all the corrections facilities within the NWT; that there should be consideration for changing any or all facilities and how they’re used, how inmates are housed, which inmates are housed where; that all of those things need to be considered.
We feel that it’s quite possible that…. I should back up a bit and say that the committee certainly does agree that the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre in Fort Smith definitely needs to be refurbished. It’s an old building, it’s not a secure facility, and it definitely needs to be revamped. However, that said, we don’t feel that closing Arctic Tern, if it’s suitable as a secure facility, is a good solution. That facility can be used in conjunction with all the other facilities in the NWT to house all of our inmates. Just because a facility currently has, for instance, young male offenders doesn’t mean that it necessarily has to stay that way. Our belief is that we need to do an analysis of all the facilities once we know the status of Arctic Tern, and consider with an open mind what can and cannot be done.
It’s entirely possible that we could house senior female offenders in Inuvik and, if there’s not enough space for them there, that we could build a much smaller facility in Fort Smith to house the overrun of senior female offenders in Fort Smith. This is not the time for us to be doing planning to spend some $20 million on a facility in Fort Smith. We need to wait. This planning money could come forward once we know the results of the analysis that’s going on for Arctic Tern. So this is why I’m making this motion; I don’t feel that this is the time to start this planning, and I think we can delete this item and continue to do the planning at a later date.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Hawkins. No? Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be voting in favour of this motion. Ms. Bisaro touched on a lot of the discussion that went on within Social Programs. We just feel that, at this point, when we’re talking reductions…. I have to justify to 18-plus people at the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik that they’re losing their positions while we’ve got $320,000 on the books to start planning another facility. So it’s hard for me to justify that argument to them: they’re being affected by the budget reductions, and on the other hand we’re planning on spending $320,000 on planning for another facility. It makes it very difficult to go back home and try and justify some of the rationale that we’re given.
There is an engineer’s report being worked on. There may be a need for this facility in the future. I understand it’s been on the books for quite a few years, and I don’t disagree with that. I don’t necessarily disagree with the fact that this may not be a facility that’s needed, but when we’re talking reductions, we can’t be telling people, “We’re reducing your positions” on one hand and on the other hand we’re saying, “Oh, by the way, we’re planning a new facility. Chances are, it may go ahead, and then you’ll have no opportunity to continue to work in a facility.”
Social Programs felt quite strongly about this and, being the Member for Inuvik, I appreciate the support of Social Programs on this particular issue. I will be voting in favour of this motion. I would also request a recorded vote.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion, Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes has indicated, and also other Members, this has been in the books for a number of years. It’s a 1950s building, and it’s due for replacement.
We talk about Arctic Tern facility as well. There have been all kinds of numbers thrown around during our legislation debates. Just for the record, $14 million has been thrown around for Arctic Tern. To set the record straight, it was $6 million when it was built. And also a correction: the closing-down of the programming there is due to the fact that it’s severely underutilized. Last week we had no inmates in the facility; today we have two inmates. So based on that, Mr. Chair, we’re talking about a facility in Fort Smith that we propose to start planning for replacement.
Also, Mr. Chair, I’d just like to highlight that we’ve been going through a lot of motions put forward, and some motions did cost our departments, let’s say — whether it be the Justice Department or other departments that have gone through the committee before — the ten positions that we highlighted earlier. The motion came forward and cut those ten positions. Those ten positions, and there’s one in Inuvik, three in Yellowknife, and one proposed. There are three currently occupied positions affected by the committee-made motion, so really, we just laid off three people from the motion that came forward.
Mr. Chair, I think it’s important to highlight that with this particular motion before us we are in the planning stages. We are looking at options, whether it be at Inuvik or Fort Smith. At Inuvik there are three or four different options we’re working with. We’re not really completely closing down the facility, but it’s based on the actual underutilization. So I just want to make the record straight.
I want to put the options of Arctic Tern on the record. The RCMP detachment is very interested in the area. The municipality of the community of Inuvik is also interested. The Learning Centre is also interested. So that building will certainly be utilized.
So just to continue to be the effective and efficient government that we stated, we cannot continue operating as it is with Arctic Tern. So we can’t say, “Well, we can’t build in Fort Smith” and have Arctic Tern utilized. The capacity is not really there.
The TWCC, the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre, has a capacity of 18, and Arctic Tern has 14. So really, when we talk about numbers, there are also inmates down south — female inmates. We want to bring them back to the North. That’s always been our goal. We will continue to do so, Mr. Chair.
So I just want to set the record straight that there’s been a lot of information flowing — inaccurate information and whatnot. We’re just setting the record straight, as indicated earlier, that we are moving forward on planning for the replacement of the correction centre in Fort Smith. And we are dealing with Arctic Tern, as has brought up by Members as part of this motion. So I thought this would be the ideal time to address that as part of the motion as well.
So at this time, Mr. Chair, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this matter. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make an observation. It’s interesting that a Yellowknife MLA — where the community’s getting a bypass road, dementia centre, École St. Joseph, a new clinic, Stanton upgrades, to a total of many tens of millions of dollars — is making a motion that in effect pits two small communities against each other and stands back to see what happens. Which is fine; we’ll of course live with the will of this Legislature. It’s just an interesting dynamic when all of us who live outside of the big centre will be turning on each other, while the territorial capital, which gets by far the lion’s share of the capital budget, makes the motions to set that process in place.
As we keep open minds to look at all the options, one of the options that hasn’t been considered is we’re talking about repatriating a bunch of adults into a supportive living structure that has yet to be built. Has that been considered as a possibility for Arctic Tern? I don’t know. But clearly it’s a circumstance that strikes me as interesting and somewhat ironic. Of course, we will live with the vote of this Legislature. We’ll all move on past this, but as the Member for Thebacha, it struck me right off the bat that it’s an interesting dynamic as we all talk about the small communities and things in Yellowknife.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion, Mr. Krutko.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe the motion that’s in front of us is clearly there for a reason. We have a lot of facilities that we’ve built in the Northwest Territories — young offenders’ facilities — regardless if it’s in Inuvik or Yellowknife or another place in the Northwest Territories.
We have to, at some point, assess what the use of those facilities are, what alternative uses we can get from these facilities, instead of building facilities for the sake of building facilities and then we find out later, “Well, sorry, you don’t have the numbers we want. We’re going to clean house, get rid of the whole staff, and then we’re basically re-profile it for something after the fact.”
I think as a government we have to determine usage of public facilities. We’re spending millions of dollars on public facilities, and we’re finding out after the fact that we can’t use them. Somba K’e Lodge is a good example. The Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik is one.
There’s no reason that this government should have the ability to re-profile facilities when we realize that we either are forced to by federal legislation or by way of changes, by needs.
I think it’s great to see fewer people in our facilities. This shows that fewer people are in our Justice correctional systems, and if anything, it’s good to see numbers go down.
But again, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s crucial that we as government stop spending money to the tune of, you know, $70 million for a brand-new jail to $12 million for young offenders’ facilities. Yet we have empty facilities that this government has spent tens of millions of dollars on sitting empty, and we’re not using them to the best use of the public funds. That’s the point that we’re talking about under this motion.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I will be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion, Mrs. Groenewegen.
I’m going to be supporting the motion. And as usual, I’ll be very brief here.
I’m going to be checking the unedited Hansard for Mr. Miltenberger’s comments. He brought up a capital project in my community, referred to as the supported assisted living facility — as yet to be built — wondering if it should be profiled. Mr. Chairman, when I read the unedited Hansard, if I consider that a threat to a capital project from a Minister in my riding, I’ll be raising a point of order.
I’ll be supporting this motion. Thank you.
To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you. I’d like to close debate here. I need to respond to some of the comments that have been made by some of the other Members.
I think the Social Programs Committee agrees that the Arctic Tern facility cannot continue in its current state, with the number of inmates compared to the number of staff members. It’s totally inefficient.
However, the Minister, to me, seems to continue to see only one option for that facility, and that’s to close it. As was mentioned by my colleague Mr. Krutko, there’s a definite opportunity to re-profile that facility. I want to emphasize that I don’t believe that people are keeping an open mind in regard to this particular issue
Secondly, the time is not right to plan at this point. We don’t know the status of the Arctic Tern facility from an engineering perspective. I don’t believe we should be planning for a new facility until we know whether or not that one is usable.
I believe there’s an opportunity to use both facilities in Inuvik and Fort Smith; we can probably end up with two facilities. But we don’t know yet what’s required in Fort Smith because we haven’t done an analysis of all our corrections facilities. That needs to be done.
It’s interesting that the statement was made that we should consider the supported living facility possibly. So on the one hand, we have somebody who seems to not have an open mind and somebody else who does have a more open mind. I guess that’s a good thing.
I have to take some exception to the remarks by Mr. Miltenberger, presuming that I’m pitting two smaller communities against each other. That certainly is not the intent. The motion is put forward not only by myself but with support from Members on this side of the House.
I do believe that I am looking at the large picture for the NWT. I recognize that Yellowknife is a large community and that I live here. But Yellowknife also has 50 per cent of the population of this territory. I have yet to study the numbers, but I would presume that the capital infrastructure that’s been designated for Yellowknife in this budget is probably in and around, or less than, 50 per cent.
I have to take some exception to the fact that it’s being suggested that I personally am trying to start fights between communities. Absolutely not. That’s not the way I work; that’s not the way I want this government to work; that’s not the way I want this House to work. I’m here for the betterment of the whole territory.
That said, to the motion, Mr. Chair. I believe firmly that now is not the time to spend this money. I believe we should pass this motion.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro.
Question.
The question is being called. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. Bisaro.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bob McLeod.
All those abstaining, please stand.
Members, the results of the recorded vote are in. We have ten in favour, six opposed and zero abstaining. The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
We’re on page 6-9, Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Community Justice and Corrections, Tangible Capital Assets. Total Tangible Capital Assets are now $1.140 million; Total Activity: $1.140 million. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to seek clarification. Under Inuvik Young Offenders Foundation Issues we have $191,000. I was just trying to get clarification. If the government is proposing to shut that down, I’m curious why they’re spending money on it.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, part of the funding that’s been allocated is remediation work — the soil and the groundwork the facility sits on
Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to now move a committee motion. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Justice immediately undertake a facility review that will outline the present condition of the existing correctional facilities and future space requirements for the correctional system.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called.
Motion carried.
Still on page 6-9, Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Community Justice and Corrections, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets of $1.140 million, Total Activity: $1.140 million. Page 6-9. Agreed?
Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Community Justice and Corrections, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $1.140 million; Total Activity: $1.140 million, approved.
Moving along to page 6-11, Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Services to the Public, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $170,000; Total Activity: $170,000; Total Department…. Okay. Now that I’ve got the totals, I’ll do that again. Page 6-11, Department of Justice. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move a motion that we report progress, please.
A motion is on the floor. The motion is not debatable.
Motion defeated.
