Mr. Speaker, the staff at River Ridge when initially informed of this triple designation had expressed some concern about this initiative. We have since sent some of the staff from River Ridge to a facility in Alberta to have them see first hand how similar facilities operate with the same type of demands. It is interesting to note the staff have come back from the visit with a much better idea of how they can provide young offenders in an open custody setting with effective programs that reflect the nature of their needs. The staff are of the view that they can take on this challenge. In fact, they have said so. They feel, because of the visit, they have a better understanding of the type of programming and needs of young offenders sentenced to open custody. They believe they are now in a position to alleviate the fears of the rest of the staff at River Ridge about this change. The senior people who travelled to the facility in Alberta have all concluded that the difference between open and secure custody in the same facility can in many ways be subtle and definitely manageable by a staff, such as the staff in River Ridge. They have said, at least many of them, they view this change as a challenge and look forward to working with all young offenders in the future.

I think the point of it, aside from all the detail which I thought the Member was indicating she was going to avoid since she recognized neither of us are lawyers, is the main difference between secure custody young offenders and open custody in the area of programming and the level of supervision and security which is provided to the closed custody young offenders, and the increased training that the staff who are responsible for closed custody young offenders require. As I have said earlier in this House, we felt because of the increased training which River Ridge staff have, it is not a great demand to ask them to broaden their base of experience and to use their expertise to also take on the responsibility of taking care of young offenders. It is my understanding that, in fact, while they are going to take on mostly young offenders as of a week or so from now, it has been the staff of River Ridge who have requested to keep at least two young offenders who were sentenced to secure custody. I think in their view they can do the job which is required of them, meet all the legal requirements stipulated by legislation and still meet the interests of the young offenders. I think there is definitely some movement towards seeing this as a challenge, something which is definitely manageable and one that is going to be in the interest of the young offenders, the government and the staff at River Ridge.

Mr. Speaker, the operating procedures of a number of facilities in Alberta and Ontario, as well as policies for open custody facilities in the Northwest Territories, have been sent to the manager of River Ridge for reference to make the adjustment from secure programming to open. It should be recognized all the programming is done in the facilities, such as the young offenders' facilities, operate on a program that is done on a case by case basis. Each individual young offender has developed an individualized program, since the needs of each young offender is different. This is recognized. Some of the things that will be done, of course, are all of the cell doors at River Ridge will remain unlocked and the young offenders will have more movement and less supervision within the facility. There will still be some restricted areas which will be out of bounds to the young offenders, such as offices and staff rooms.

There will be more community involvement which will take place with less supervision, with more temporary releases for such things as attending the local school, Arctic College, or work release programs and community work. Those who cannot attend local schools because of special needs or short sentences will be able to attend classes within the facility. The manager will also make sure there is increased access to recreation. They will have increased access to facilities such as gymnasiums and will have easier or more access to local festivities such as the spring carnival. Young offenders in open custody will also have more access to on the land programs because the security procedures are less stringent, as you know. On the land programs for secure custody young offenders are difficult because of the higher level of supervision and security required. This makes is difficult for on the land projects. So, presently, the operation procedures in River Ridge are being rewritten by the staff to accommodate the change. There are ongoing staff meetings taking place, the director of corrections has travelled again down to Fort Smith today to make sure that the staff are given adequate support and leeway to have as much involvement as possible in the transfer process.

Mr. Speaker, River Ridge is a new facility. In the opinion of many people who have toured it, it looks like a miniature, modernized Alcatraz. It is a very secure, perhaps overly secure, facility. I say that because both the federal legislation which governs incarceration of adults and especially young offenders, both the federal Young Offenders Act and the territorial Young Offenders Act, states as one of their up-front principles, that the least amount of restriction should be exercised on each young offender, keeping in mind the safety for the public and the person themselves. You do not go on the principle that you have to lock all the doors three times and bar all the windows. You go on the principle that less is better. You do the minimum to restrict the movement and the freedom of these people who are sentenced. When you look at River Ridge as a facility, it is new, it has very secure cell doors, but these rooms are private rooms. There is one bed in each little room.

My own perception, and the perception of other people I have talked to, is who should have private rooms? Should it be children who are sentenced to secure custody, or less serious offenders, such as young offenders who are sentenced to open custody? We take the view, perhaps, those in open custody would appreciate having their own room and this is what River Ridge is providing. It is not a leading factor, but I raise it because many Members may not be aware of the physical outline of the facility. In Hay River at the secure facility, it is a dormitory and there are a number of beds in each room. The light in the facilities is also very different. In the River Ridge facility there is much more daylight and natural light coming in, it has a high ceiling in the main living quarters plus a great panoramic view from the end of the building. With some subtle changes, I think the facility can be made to feel much more homey and open. The fact that doors will not be locked is going to make a tremendous change, Mr. Speaker.

I have been through the facility, and I must admit, it is incredibly claustrophobic for someone like myself. I have been through many institutions over the years, all through my own choosing mostly.

---Applause

There is a view, again I bring to the Member's attention, River Ridge is not going to stay only as a facility for young offenders sentenced to open custody. It is triple designated. We are taking this measure because we need the space and this is the best utilization of the space at this time, and it gives us the flexibility we need. As I said earlier, if we do not take this course of action it would have meant opening another facility for well in excess of $300,000 to meet the demands we have. I must say while I appreciate the anxiety of the River Ridge staff when this was first announced, I can also tell you I appreciate the attitude they have taken to it and the statement which at least one of them has made is that they feel they can do the job and rise to the challenge this government has called on

them to face. I think it will be very workable. There is no difficulty in meeting the spirit and intent of the legislation which the Member referred to. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice does not go out with a plan on breaching any legislation. The government, the Department of Justice and corrections are all expected to and it is their work to ensure they operate within the full parameters of the law and prevailing legislation which governs the work. I did not answer the question because I am not sure if it is a proper question to ask. We do not go out to try to breach legislation and try to find ways to skim the purpose of carrying out work which is not legal and not within the parameters of legislation. The Department of Justice and corrections assures me that what they are doing is fully within legislation and it meets the spirit and intent of all legislation. I do not need to develop a strategy which would get me to be convinced of that. I believe the staff and that is what they have said. Thank you.

Thank you. My question is directed to my friend from that side of the House, the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the Minister on a number of occasions repeatedly promised to have the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' recommendation pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of the deputy minister of Finance and Comptroller General implemented by the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, he has indicated on a number of occasions that it was going to be met on that particular date. It has been over nine months now, Mr. Speaker, and I was just reading yesterday's Hansard and my colleague for Natilikmiot raised that same issue. Now, the government is requiring more time to implement our recommendation. I would like to ask the Minister, could he provide us with rationale why more time is required after he made a promise that it would be implemented by the end of this fiscal year?

Mr. Speaker, currently these two positions are within one specific department. I do not understand what the Minister is saying with regard to it affecting other departments. Could he explain what he means by it affecting other departments, in what manner?