Mr. Speaker, it was my impression when the management talked with the staff at River Ridge that there was some initial concern, but that they have since come to view it as a challenge and are taking a positive approach to meeting the challenge. For instance, they have asked that we arrange for the staff of River Ridge to attend a young offenders' facility in Strathmore, Alberta that is considered a triple designated facility, to meet with the staff and to see how a facility which has a triple designation operates. They would actually see one that is working. It is my view that the union member who attended the meeting in the presence of my staff

and the staff at River Ridge was of the view that this was the proper course to go to ensure there is stability for the employees at River Ridge, that there is good utilization of the staff there and that the government's attempt to maximize the use of the facility and staff there is a good objective. That was the impression I had, but people, in taking a public stance, at times do not always say what they say privately. So, it is my view that if the members carried on a good discussion with the staff and the union that many of these letters would take on a different tone altogether. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I need to correct the Member again for now moving the facility from one type of facility to another. We are giving it a triple designation which allows us the flexibility to use it, in large part, either as a secure facility or as an open custody facility.

The letters she mentioned, for instance one that was signed by the president of the Fort Smith Metis local and the Fort Smith native band, contain some inaccurate information. For instance, they say, "We are told that because the facility in Hay River requires some upgrading, and since there is no need for two facilities in the South Slave region, the department proposed to spend thousands of dollars by taking out all the secure facilities at River Ridge in Fort Smith and converting it into an open facility. It would then spend much more taxpayer's dollars and convert a semi-secure facility in Hay River into a secure facility." Again, I say there is no such thing as a semi-secure facility and there is no statement by this government that suggests we are going to spend thousands of dollars converting facilities. Somebody told these people that, and based on that information -- and if I was told that I would also be concerned.

My point simply is that I do not think these people have had the benefit of accurate information, at least if they have they have chosen to ignore it and would rather get on the bandwagon and raise concerns which are not based on factual information. They suggest that as a government we are not trying to spend taxpayer's money wisely, and that we have no interest in using the staff wisely.

I submit that we are very concerned about the number of empty beds in our facilities. With respect to the taxpayers, we have said to maximize the use of the facilities, we are concerned that the staff, which number 19 at the River Ridge facility, are not being taxed to the level they should because of the low number of inmates. That is not their fault, but we have an obligation to have staff working as fully and efficiently as possible and this initiative we have taken addresses both those things exactly in the interests of the taxpayer. We are not spending any money on renovations. We are taking existing staff and giving them some security by making sure all of them are going to be working to the full capacity which I am sure they are interested in doing, and that the facility is being used to the full capacity in which it should. Those are the interests of the taxpayer. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have said we are not going to spend money. The Member continues to interrupt and I think her constituents would probably ask her to be polite and listen when she asks a question so she can get a good response. I would suggest that she try to pick up a good habit. It is a good habit to pick up, she should practice it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind answering questions. However, I do not like to be interrupted and hassled by the Member for Thebacha. She asks me a question and then she does not listen.

In response to the question, the department has no intention to spend money to take those physical characteristics of the River Ridge facility which make it a closed custody facility and convert it to an open custody facility. The government has designated River Ridge as a facility which can also be used as an open custody facility. We also keep the designation as a closed custody facility with River Ridge. So, in response to the Member's concerns and those of her chief and Metis leader in Fort Smith, there is no intention to do away with the secure facility in River Ridge. We are simply saying that along with being an open custody facility there is a secure facility, and we will also use it as an open custody facility. The facility can be used as an open custody facility. The staff have and will have the training capabilities of giving us that flexibility. There is no intention on my part to spend money to diminish the capabilities of that facility or the one in Hay River. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot determine what my needs are going to be over the course of the next year. She is asking me to make a commitment not to do something when I have no intentions of making such a suggestion in the first place. It is kind of an awkward question. As I have said, I have no intention of spending capital money to make the secure facility in Fort Smith, to take the physical characteristics and change them so that it could be then seen, at least visually, as an open custody facility. It is still a secure facility. It will stay a secure facility. We have also designated it as a facility which can be used for open custody. That is the point I think the Member is missing. Because of that, the question becomes irrelevant.