Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my motion today calls for an independent review of the Minister's decision to designate the young offenders' facility in Fort Smith as a triple designated facility. The sole motivation, Mr. Speaker, that I have in bringing on this motion is my concern for the safety of my constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address, however, one issue up front. Mr. Speaker, there have been some comments which I believe to be unfair comments that my motivation on this issue is affected by the fact that my sister is the manager of the River Ridge Facility. Mr. Speaker, my sister does work at the facility, in fact, she worked for the department for many years before I became an MLA, and she'll undoubtedly work there for many years after I'm finished my political life. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to all the Members of the Assembly that the fact that my sister works at the River Ridge Facility has no bearing whatsoever on my concerns about this situation. If anything, I feel I've been tougher on this issue and my sister, than I might otherwise have been because of my relationship.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I've also sought legal advice as to whether I am in a conflict of interest and have been advised that I am not. Nonetheless, I wish to state clearly for the record, the relationship to the manager of the facility and the fact that this relationship has no impact on the position that I'm taking here today.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated on numerous occasions in this House, I am concerned that the decision of the River Ridge facility as a triple designated facility, poses a safety risk to my constituents. The facility is now designated to hold three types of young offenders. Those sentenced to a term of open custody, those sentenced to a term of secure custody and those young offenders who are held on remand, pending a trial.
These young offenders have committed very different offences. Mr. Speaker, those offenders, who are sentenced to secure custody, have committed the most serious of offences under the federal Criminal Code. The federal Young Offenders' Act provides, in section 24(1)(3), "A young offender shall only be sentenced to secure custody, if the offence is one for which an adult could be imprisoned for five years or more, or the young offender has already breached a probation order, or the young offender has been convicted of escaping from prison, or the young offender has a previous criminal record." The category of secure custody is the most serious custodial decision that can be made by a sentencing court.
By contrast, those offenders who are first-time offenders, or commit relatively minor crimes under the Criminal Code or our territorial laws, may be sentenced to open custody. The federal Young Offenders' Act defines open custody as custody in community residential centres, group homes or child care institutions, or a forest or wilderness camp -- such as my honourable colleague for Iqaluit has mentioned -- or any other place or facility.
The definition of open custody suggests that a facility is quite different from the type of facility where you would keep young offenders convicted of the most serious crimes. This is my concern, Mr. Speaker. The fact that a relatively innocent young offender, convicted of a minor criminal or territorial offence and sentenced to open custody, might be influenced in a negative way by a young offender with a much more criminal record, who has been sentenced to a term of secure custody.
Since the facility was designated as a triple designated facility, there have been serious incidents, which cast doubt on the Minister's decision. There has been a hostage taking, where one of my constituents was held hostage at gunpoint by two young offenders. There have been staff members at the facility beaten up and held captive by young offenders, who then escaped from the facility.
The Minister's response to this was tabling a report where he called the triple designation of the facility, "A remarkable success." Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that a hostage taking and assault on staff constitutes a success.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to also make it very clear that I am not alone in my concerns. My constituents are concerned. I have talked with many of my constituents, who have expressed their concerns over their safety and the safety of all residents of Fort Smith. I have tabled letters in this House expressing the concerns of the Fort Smith Metis Local and the NWT Metis Nation. Everyone I have talked to on this issue is concerned and I want the Minister to know, and I don't appreciate his remarks, that it is only the concern of the Member for Thebacha. It is the concern of my constituents in Thebacha.
I believe that the recent incident at the River Ridge facility calls for an independent review conducted by an official from outside the Northwest Territories. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice and his staff, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the report tabled by the Minister is objective or is impartial.
Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the Minister of Justice stated, and I quote from Hansard on page 1366, "I will be very pleased to provide a written report in October, to show the Members that things are going very well and will continue to go very well, as planned." How can any report provided to this House, be viewed as an objective, impartial report on a situation where the Minister has previously stated that the report will continue to go very well?
Mr. Speaker, this motion is not calling for a change in the Minister's decision to designate the facility as a triple designated facility. All I, and my constituents, are asking for is to call for an independent review of his decision, so we may all be assured that the issues pertaining to public safety have been fairly, objectively and thoroughly addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members for their support on this motion that will attempt to address, particularly, the area of safety. Thank you.