Agreed.
Thank you. Page 54, court services, infrastructure investments, $867,000. Does committee agree? Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask a question about the sheriff’s vehicle. What kind of a vehicle is it that is required? This says a suburban or similar full-size to transport court party. I guess, how big is the court party? How big does this vehicle need to be? Are we looking at a fairly expensive vehicle or is it, you know, similar price to something you or I would buy off the lot that isn’t going to break the bank? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The sheriff’s vehicle is an eight-person vehicle. It’s required to be that size and it transports court parties. Here in Yellowknife it would transport the court party to Behchoko, so it has to be of a certain size. The cost on a vehicle of that nature is somewhere in the area of $65,000. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, that seems like a heck of a lot of money for a vehicle. I guess the $65,000, is that sort of a standard price for a vehicle this size, or is this a speciality vehicle, apart from the size of it that will carry eight people? Is it speciality in that it has extra security measures or extra safety measures? Is it bulletproof, says my colleague.
It just seems like that’s an awful lot of money. I would have presumed we could get a vehicle of that size and that capability for, I don’t know, 10 or 20 thousand dollars less. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, that is the going price for a vehicle of that nature. In fact, it might be a little bit on the low side when you look at vehicles in that class that have to carry up to eight people. Also, the court party would have their documents and other necessary equipment with them when they travel, so it is necessary to have a vehicle of this size.
As far as whether the vehicle would be specially outfitted, no, it wouldn’t. It would need to have towing capacity for potential seizures and also a radio would be installed in the vehicle. But other than that, there are no special adjustments to that vehicle that will be made. Thank you.
I think I may have forgotten my question. Oh, we have two vehicles, as I understand it, in Yellowknife, two sheriff’s vehicles in Yellowknife. So I understand that this one that is being replaced is the one that is used to transport the court party. Does the other vehicle need to be of the same size and the same expense, or is it a bit more of a light-duty vehicle for travel in and around Yellowknife? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the other vehicle will be sent to Hay River to replace a sheriff’s vehicle in Hay River. So, yes, it will need to be of a similar class with the seating capacity, equipment, storage capacity, towing capacity, and that vehicle, when the new one comes on line, the existing vehicle will be put and utilized in the community of Hay River. Again, the ability to transport the court party is paramount in this. We’ll have one in Hay River and one here in Yellowknife. Thank you.
So now I’m confused. I think the background information we got said that there are three vehicles: one in Hay River, two in Yellowknife. I hope you don’t send the vehicle that we are replacing to Hay River, because I understand that it’s beyond repair. But then Hay River can deal with that.
I’m talking about the second vehicle here in Yellowknife. Does it need to be as much of a heavy-duty vehicle as this one that we’re currently buying?
Mr. Chairman, sorry for the confusion. There are two vehicles here in Yellowknife and one in Hay River. The one that’s in Hay River currently is going to be surplused. One of the vehicles is going to move from Yellowknife to Hay River and a new vehicle will be purchased to replace that vehicle in Yellowknife, so there still will be two vehicles in Yellowknife. As I mentioned in my previous comment, if the vehicle is used to have the court party in, say, Behchoko, it’s very important that the sheriff’s office have a vehicle here in Yellowknife. There is definitely a requirement to have two of these vehicles on hand to carry out the duties of the sheriff’s office. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. I appreciate that, that we need two vehicles. But it would seem to me that we’re not sending two vehicles to Behchoko every day, so can the second vehicle that is here not be a bit more of a light-duty vehicle? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that other vehicle, if the one vehicle is in Behchoko, would still be required to transport a court party to the airport or pick up a court party from the airport, their equipment and the court party itself. So there is a requirement to have vehicles of a similar nature located here in Yellowknife to carry out the duties of the sheriff’s office. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Continuing on with questions on the court services activity, I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me thank my good colleague Ms. Bisaro. I was worried I was the only one who had an issue with this particular vehicle and I thought her questions were well thought out to the issue.
I’ve had grave concerns about a $65,000 vehicle just to drive a judge around in luxury, because we want to make sure that they don’t feel the bumps on the way to Behchoko. I don’t think there’s any vehicle you could drive to Behchoko without feeling the bumps, but in all seriousness, the ultimate answer here is so they can ride in comfort.
Let’s start off with not the hypothetical of the eight-person vehicle. How many people actually go to Behchoko on the court process? I mean, we don’t put the prisoners in there with the judge. I mean, for shame we wouldn’t want that. So, let’s be very clear on this. How many people in that actual vehicle would be driving to Behchoko in a normal circumstance? Not the one time we max out all eight seats, but the normal circumstance. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The court party is required to travel to communities to hear court matters, and in some cases road travel is the most economical and logistical way to travel. All circuits range from three to five days in duration and, in the case of Behchoko, the vehicle accumulates between 600 and 1,000 kilometres per week. There are between five and eight staff who travel on these circuits and are required to bring all items required to conduct court, such as files for court, hard of hearing equipment, interpretation equipment, CCTV equipment, laptops with portable printers, portable defibrillators, personal items for staff for the day and also winter clothing during the winter months, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it sounds like we should buy them a moving van, not a luxury leather Denali Suburban, who knows? I mean, let’s be honest. Maybe the Minister can explain why a Ford Escape that holds four or five people in there, or even a four-door pickup couldn’t do this. It would certainly come at half the price for the occasion of driving to Behchoko. We’re not even getting into this yet about the fancy $65,000 vehicle sitting at the courthouse probably doing nothing during the day while one is on its adventure on its way to Behchoko. I’m curious what the Minister has to say about that. Thank you.
In order to conduct the work of the sheriff’s office, it’s vitally important that they have vehicles to ensure that they can carry out their duties and in this case they need a vehicle of this size and of the nature, and as I mentioned earlier, if the one vehicle is in Behchoko, the sheriff’s office here in Yellowknife could utilize the vehicle for transport to the airport, picking up from the airport and also the execution of seizures and the ability for the vehicle to tow a boat or other pieces of equipment and that is why it’s important that it’s a vehicle of this type.
As I mentioned to Ms. Bisaro, and I know the Member mentioned Denali, it’s not a luxury vehicle. It doesn’t have all the bells and whistles on, and it won’t. It’s a vehicle that’s a good size and with capabilities to ensure that the sheriff’s office can conduct its business in a safe manner. Thank you.
How many times did the court party go to Behchoko last year?
I’m starting to wonder how this is germane to the question about a vehicle, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, if he’s saying they need this vehicle, this luxury vehicle to sit in the fleet at the courthouse or can go to Behchoko, I am curious how often it’s used. But keep in mind, it’s not just one vehicle, it’s two that they have in their fleet. We’re going to get to the second one in a second that sits on standby so they can travel in great comfort. So, how many times did the court party go to Behchoko last year? It’s a good question.
I’m not sure if the Member was listening earlier when I said it accumulates between 600 and 1,000 kilometres per week. I will get the number of times the vehicle travelled out to Behchoko, and we also have to remember, Mr. Chairman, that these vehicles are utilized also to transport juries when needed, and again, it’s very important that the sheriff’s office have this type of equipment to carry out their jobs. Thank you.
Well, it’s a shame that the Minister is so ill-prepared to answer this question because I think it’s germane to the problem, which is if it’s only travelling once or twice a week in 52 weeks, that tells you that maybe – again I wish I had the number before me; he doesn’t seem to want to share it or he doesn’t have it – that if it even goes twice a week, that means it’s sitting in Yellowknife three days a week. I not only mention that, I spent a lot of time talking about the second vehicle. So, the second vehicle has to be so large to tow a boat, for example. So you’re telling me that that seizure, call it a boat or whatever the case may be, couldn’t wait a day or until the evening to be done, which could probably be done by a smaller vehicle. I have yet to find something that, say, a small Ford Escape or a small four-door pickup truck that could carry people, and the final point is it’s also to travel juries. Well, it’s been my experience that juries aren’t made up of eight people, so I don’t know how you’d have an eight-person vehicle, luxury vehicle by the way, plus five to eight people in it, plus the jury. The math doesn’t add up; the story doesn’t add up. So, can we get some facts on how many times it went to Behchoko last year, because I think it’s important.
The next question will about the other vehicle. Thank you.
When that vehicle transports the court party, and there’s a court circuit in the community of Behchoko, its occupants are in the community usually between three and five days. They require transportation while they’re in the community, and the vehicle is a very important part of the sheriff’s office and their ability to carry out their work. The sheriff’s office conducts seizures of assets across the Northwest Territories and they are required to transport them to secure storage. This can occur in any community within the Northwest Territories and the sheriff’s officers travel via roadway whenever they can to keep the costs of travel down, and a heated cargo area is required if some items can’t be exposed to the elements. The vehicle must have a towing capacity to move items that could be seized which, as I mentioned, could include a boat, snowmobiles, trailers or personal watercraft. You can’t tow those with a smaller vehicle. Thank you.
Well, I hate to call the Minister wrong, but he’s wrong because I did it last week. I towed a big boat with my vehicle and it’s a small vehicle. It’s not as fancy as the $65,000 luxury vehicle they want for the sheriff’s office to drive the judges around and it doesn’t ride as smooth as an Audi, but I’ll tell you my vehicle did it.
So, I still haven’t got to the answer of how many times did the vehicle go to Behchoko last year and the Minister doesn’t have it, he just wants to cite platitudes, saying, well, it goes three to five times. But we don’t really have a real answer, because I think that’s important when going to the next question, which is: How often is that vehicle used, the one that’s left behind. I think Ms. Bisaro very astutely picked it out, which is: Is that busy running to Tim Horton’s? Is that busy maybe serving a summons which only is a piece of paper and a cup of coffee, really? I mean, it’s not driving court parties around town so we need a full-sized vehicle, a $65,000 vehicle sitting at the courthouse just in case we might need it to run someone to the airport. Why not make two runs to the airport?
When I had invited the mayor, the old mayor of Edmonton, to Yellowknife, I made a comment in saying, “Yes, Yellowknife suffers from rush minute,” and he laughed for about 20 minutes. “Because we’re so small,” I said, “everywhere is about five minutes away.” So, we don’t need the second super-sized vehicle just to drive a sheriff around so they can serve a summons. I mean, it just seems like poor management and a little bit on the gluttony side of ourselves. I mean, we only really, from the sounds of it, could barely justify one, Mr. Chairman.
So, perhaps the Minister could go back and answer the honest question, which is: How many times did it go to Behchoko last year? I don’t know why they haven’t answered this question and how do we go forward without knowing this. I don’t know why they’re asking for $65,000 without being able to answer that question. Thank you.
A safe assumption would be, and it would vary from month to month, depending on what month of the year you’re talking about, but an average of at least twice a month the court party travels from Yellowknife to the community of Behchoko. They’re there for three to five days, at least twice a month, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Committee, we’re on court services, infrastructure investments, $867,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Mr. Hawkins, I’ll allow another question on this activity as long as it’s nothing to do with the sheriff’s vehicle. We’ve exhausted all information on that one. Go ahead, Mr. Hawkins.
Well, debate is being stifled very quickly then. I’d like to know how many times the other vehicle is used and what type of services the other sheriff’s vehicle is using. So I’m staying away from the specific on the $65,000, but it’s important to understand what it’s being used for.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I will give you some latitude on the other vehicle. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will get the Member the detailed information on what the other vehicle is used for. I will just mention again the cost of the vehicle at $65,000 is not excessive for this type of vehicle and it is not certainly a luxury vehicle, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I’m not sure it’s worth questioning anymore. The information will come. We all know… What do we have? We have five days left in the Assembly. I’m sure it will show up on my desk on October 9th. It’s really disappointing. To say that it travels to Behchoko now from three to five days a week to at least twice a month, that tells me… It just doesn’t tell me it’s needed. I think I’d like to move a motion to delete it. I think that this is a super-sized vehicle this department and this section doesn’t need. If they need one, keep one in your fleet but you don’t need two super-sized suburbans sitting there most of the time gathering dust. They are some of the most expensive vehicles to drive anyway. Anybody who’s got one will tell you that you get almost zero gas mileage out of that thing, so we’re not only buying a super-sized vehicle, we are buying an inefficient one. If it’s that important, we should be driving them in a big bus. I’m not suggesting buying a school bus, but I am suggesting we find a different way to do this business. It wouldn’t be unrealistic, Mr. Chairman. That’s the fact.
I’ll leave it at this: I think it’s a terrible waste. I would prefer a policy that forces us down to at least one vehicle and a small Escape. I can tell you that even delivering summons, little pieces of paper, they don’t need something more than a Toyota eco car or something like that to do those particular jobs. This is just a terrible expense. The reason it continues is because it’s continued. People got used to a big vehicle and the enjoyment of it. That’s where I will leave it. They like the big car because they want to be important, I guess.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I will allow Minister Ramsay to have a final comment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a duty and an obligation to ensure that our staff and the duties that they carry out on behalf of the residents of the Northwest Territories each and every day are done and conducted in a safe manner. These vehicles are required to ensure that the sheriff’s office can conduct its business in a safe manner. I don’t think we should be underscoring the important work the sheriff’s office does on behalf of all residents here in the NWT. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Hawkins, you’ve got some time left. Okay, thank you. Committee, we are on pages 54 and 55, court services, infrastructure investment $867,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 57, services to public, infrastructure investments, $365,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is one item under this particular section. It’s to retrofit some office space. It seems like a huge amount of money to me to retrofit what seems to be a small office.
How big is this office and what kind of renovations are being done that are going to cost us $360,000 or so? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’ll go to Ms. Hannah.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The rental office is located on the third floor of YK Centre East and currently it is staffed by a full-time admin coordinator and two contract rental officers. The contractors may or may not be in the office at any given time. They are contractors that are there as required to perform their duties. So, quite often one admin rental officer is there on their own in that position. So this office retrofit is to bring that office up to safety requirements for a single FTE office as that person is there quite often on their own. The amount is based on a quote that we came to in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Services. This is the quote we put forward in the infrastructure planning.
Thank you, Ms. Hannah. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the explanation. I understand, from a security perspective, that we need to make sure that our staff are secure no matter where they’re working, but could I get a sense of the scope of this renovation, because $360,000, I could buy a house for that. I am just trying to understand. Is it just within this office that we’re doing renos or do we have to blast through a brick wall to put another door in or something? I’m not sure. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can try to get the Members more detailed information on the scope. We are going to be combining the MEP and the rental office. It is a costly venture to be combining these two spaces and putting in the requisite security requirements into the space.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t need any more information. By the time I get the information, we’ll be done with the budget. That’s all I have, Mr. Chair. Thanks.
