Thank you. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but currently, SMCC meets the needs of minimum security inmates. Again, these numbers are available, I just don't happen to have them available in front of me. I don't know how near capacity the facility is. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess that is really concerning, that we are looking at modifying or using this facility, and they don't even know what the capacity is and how it is being utilized and that.
I guess my next question is: the Minister talked about how it is low security inmates in there presently. By building this fence, 15 feet, are we going to see more higher-end inmates in this facility, more at risk, more violent inmates in this community? Can the Minister answer that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert.
Yes, certainly, as the security enhancements take place, we could house inmates that are higher security. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
I guess the next question is because this is going away from the Guthrie House model. We were talking about dealing with addictions and treatment and that, now we're talking about putting maximum security or going higher than minimum security into this community. So has the department actually reached out to the community and said this is what's going to be happening? Because this is not really a Guthrie model concept. The Guthrie model concept is to segregate the prisoners so they're on their addiction treatment area. I understand we're talking about family violence and working with that, but that puts the inmate in a different category; instead of minimum security, it's up to maximum security. So has the department talked to the community about this potential? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what communications there have been with the community, generally, but I know there have been discussions which are going to be ongoing as soon as a week or two from now, again, with the staff. My understanding -- and it's second-hand, of course -- is that the staff is quite enthused about this change in the facility. And just to point out, Guthrie House is not minimum security. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister is correct, and it's great that the staff are excited about it, but has he talked to the community of the town of Hay River? Those are the people that are going to see it go from minimum security, to medium, to maximum security inmates in this community now. So has the Minister, as part of the plan that has been worked out, has he talked to the community about this? Because this is a large chunk of money that we're investing in this community, and if there are some concerns and we're not actually doing a Guthrie House model, I'm concerned that we're not actually doing what we said we are trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. While not exactly like Guthrie House, it really is based on the Guthrie model. As I mentioned, my understanding is the staff, who are, of course, all, I would assume, from the community, have seemingly bought into this concept of changing the facility over. No, I don't think I've received any direct communications from the town one way are the other on this, but I would imagine the town would be aware of it since all of the staff or virtually all of the staff that works there would be from the community. I think this issue has been raised in the House before, so it's not as though this should come as a surprise to the community. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, here we go, government expecting other people to get that information out to it. I'm asking the Minister will you make a commitment now to tell the town of Hay River this is what we're trying to do and how we're changing it? And it's not a Guthrie House, it's a model and some of the concepts to it. So let's be honest, it's not a Guthrie House model, we are not segregating the inmates, we are looking at putting this facility in there and doing different programming. And my understanding, you'll have minimum to maximum security people in this facility. So, again, the model or the facility that was used there was for minimum security people. Now they're going to see more individuals in there for medium security. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert, to the question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we implement and move forward with this, I certainly would be prepared to communicate with a town council, send them a letter as to our plans and targets. Guthrie House is not a minimum-security facility. It simply isn't. As I say - this will not exactly be like Guthrie House, but one of the things that impressed me there, and I'm doubtless it would have impressed others, is that those that end up at Guthrie House have to be highly motivated before they're accepted into the program, and hopefully that would be the same here. So we would have people, admittedly inmates, perhaps some of them as a higher security level, that would be motivated to make changes in their lives. That seems to be an excellent idea to me. I mean, we always talk about how much recidivism, and so on, we have in the system, and this is a way to reduce that on a model that has proven to be successful in British Columbia. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Time is up there, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the issue here is that there's a capital ask, and we don't really know details of a plan. So would the Minister commit to providing the details of this plan with timelines for implementation for some substantiation for its proposed effectiveness? And could he make this document publicly available? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.
Yes, we'd be prepared to do that, and also, to appear in front of committee if requested. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, and last question just so I get a better idea of the costs because it seems like this fence is the lynchpin, and once this goes then everything else starts. So I assume that because we're moving to a therapeutic model, we will need more staff that are trained, either psychologists, counsellors, and those type of individuals. So is there going to be an additional staff compliment that will also further increase these costs? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.
As I say, the current staff has, I've heard, bought into this change, but perhaps I could defer the question to Mr. Goldney and he could expand on my answer. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Deputy minister Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that intrigued us a lot about the Guthrie House model was our ability to transfer that model with the resources we have already at the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre, where there has been investment in counsellors and training and programming specific to addictions and a psychologist on staff. So as the implementation work continues, there will be some further program design and training of existing staff, but at this point, we don't anticipate additional hiring of staff. We anticipate retraining the existing staff to deliver programs under this model. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy minister Goldney. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, what I saw at Guthrie House and what the Minister's been describing are not the same thing. And so, it's resulted in considerable confusion for me. I want to just break it down into pieces. So piece number one is that Guthrie House is a separate entity, a fenced entity within a medium security correctional facility called the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. So it's separate. It is its own entity. Is that the concept for this therapeutic community in the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that is the concept. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Ms. Green.
Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Another key point about Guthrie House is that it is run in partnership with the John Howard Society. Who will be the partner in the South Mackenzie Therapeutic Community? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The plan today is to have the programming delivered by the existing staff. We do recognize that the John Howard Society in British Columbia plays a key role in both the programming and the after-care. We do have, as it happens, staff visiting officials with the John Howard Society next week to talk about some of the training opportunities that might be available to support our own transition and to support some of the challenges or help address some of the challenges that we foresee in the after-care component of the programming. Some of those partners, we recognize, it may take time to find and build that capacity, but that is certainly an area of focus right now so we can be able to deliver the program as quickly as we can. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In order to be part of the Guthrie House community, the people have to -- the men, it is all men. The men have to have at least four months left in their sentence. They have to undergo drug testing and be committed to their sobriety using an abstinence model, an AA model. They also have to be assessed by their peers. The residents of Guthrie House have a lot of say over who comes in to Guthrie House and whether they end up staying there. Their job is really to ensure the fidelity of the community, that it lives up to its principles. Is that going to be the model used in the South Mackenzie? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Yes. We may have some differences from that exact model, but generally speaking, it will be the same type of model. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The really important point about that model is that the inmates, or they prefer to be called residents, hold one another accountable for their behaviour and for their progress through treatment towards discharge, to finishing their sentences and being discharged. Is that the parallel that is being considered for the South Mackenzie where inmates hold one another responsible for their behaviour? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister.
Absolutely. That is a key part of the therapeutic community that we are envisioning, so yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Green.
Okay. That is good news. Now, the other part that really impressed me when I was there is that the people in the Guthrie House were planning for the end of their sentence and their discharge back into the community pretty much from the time they arrived. Their most important piece to organize was accommodation, that they needed to find somewhere to live. That is where John Howard was very helpful to the inmates or residents, as I understand. How will that portion of reintegrating people who have achieved sobriety into stable housing and a stable situation, how will that part work? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Yes. I think all of us who had the opportunity of visiting Guthrie House were impressed by the after-care element in that there were organizations that were assisting and also graduates, if I can put it that way. Of course, initially, we won’t have the support of graduates because, well, there won’t be any graduates until we have our first class through, if I can put it that way.
Accommodation, yes. That is going to be an issue that we have thought about and do have concerns about, particularly those who are returning to some of the smaller communities where housing is a real issue. Perhaps Mr. Goldney can give his thoughts with respect to some of these after-care issues. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to recognize that that is one of the challenges that we have identified. That is, frankly, a challenge we face now. We do work with all the inmates now to plan for reintegration almost immediately up their intake. We do work to try and set up inmates upon their release for the best prospects of success. You know, it often is a very difficult challenge. We do anticipate that there might be a greater receptiveness among community members and family for assisting these folks as they are coming out because they have demonstrated that personal commitment to seek those types of improvements.
I think it is a reasonable expectation that some of those challenges, at least one of those key challenges of successfully reintegrating inmates, is, you know, there is often a reluctance to find accommodations. We think, by demonstrating that personal commitment to complete a program like this, that hopefully will address some of the barriers. We do recognize, though, that this will continue to be a challenge and something that we will continue to have to work on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
