Mr. Speaker, there is an extensive list of different types of programs which are provided to the institutions across the territories. They vary from region to region and from institution to institution. We will provide the Member with that list.

I missed a couple of elements to the Member's question earlier. She was referring to a group of elders which was set up some time ago to provide themselves as a resource group to the Yellowknife Correctional Centre. That group of elders still exists and they still do some work at the Yellowknife Correctional Centre. The Yellowknife Correctional Centre, as far as I know, is still over populated. To what extent at this time, I am not certain.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Corrections. Mr. Pudlat.

Thank you, Mr. Pudlat. Mr. Minister, did you wish to respond?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we talked with the Solicitor General, the general expression we gave him was we want to bring back inmates from the north who are serving time in the south. We want, as a government, to be able to provide facilities here if the federal government will cost-share it with us so we can design the facility, operate it and provide the kind of programming we feel is adequate and beneficial to our people. We specifically said to the federal government that we are not interested in talking about a federal penitentiary, which would be an institution, and programs designed and run by the federal government. That was not the answer. We wanted to have the federal government share the cost with us to build an adequate facility in the Northwest Territories and look at bringing all federal inmates to the north, who are not high risk or people who may be a danger to themselves or other inmates. The majority of people who are serving time down south from the north, can be provided with more than adequate facilities and programming in the territories.

The Minister had no difficulty with that proposition. In fact, he agreed to work with us on this issue. He took particular note of the fact that at least 60 per cent of all inmates from the north who are serving time down south are Inuit.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are many things that go on in the Northwest Territories which raise questions in people's minds, particularly of aboriginal people. The way the justice system operates has always has raised questions about why the system works the way it does. In a nutshell, the system is foreign and is not one that northern or aboriginal people readily identify with. I know there are sentences made which often raise questions. I know there is no answer to it and I will not try to explain it. It is not my place to explain the goings on of the courts and the way in which sentences are passed. The increasing involvement of community leaders and people in the administration of justice, in the passing of sentences in the courts, has been increasingly encouraged and welcomed. It is not only welcomed by the Department of Justice but also by the Crown prosecutors across the territories, by the judges and by the RCMP. People know the way the system works, the system where a law is used, interpreted and administered by a judge, defence lawyers, prosecutors, with and without juries, is not something which is working. The corrections system needs massive work done in order to make it something which is relevant and useful for the majority of people who get into the system.

I am of the view that until we begin this work and there is some substantive movement to get people involved in the sentencing, to provide adequate resources to communities so that they can take increasing responsibility for the incarceration of young and adult offenders, both in open and closed custody, these types of questions will continue to be in the minds of many people in the north.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the Member points out a problem which arises when people commit offences which are usually committed against another person. For instance, in cases of spousal assault or assault against members of the family or the community, it has been practised for many years that if a person should beat up his common-law wife or his wife, that the wife and the children are taken by Social Services out of the community to ensure their safety and well being. Women have complained about this for many years, wondering why they become further victims of the system. In cases where there is support from the communities and sometimes from the perpetrator, if the offender agrees the best recourse at the time could be an order placed prohibiting that particular offender from being anywhere near the person or the community where they committed that offence, so the community or the persons they have committed an offence against can have some peace and security. In many aboriginal societies, banishment was a common practice, you were no longer welcome in your family or community if you committed crimes of a serious nature, crimes against your own people. Banishment was usually almost fatal because the individual was left out on the land with absolutely no support or contact with people. Banishment is now being revisited by many communities. We have not worked out all the kinks yet. For instance, we expect that many communities will make the

suggestion that they may use the idea of banishment, but provide their own support, facility or program to those people who are banished from the community, so these individuals are not, as in the case of the Deh Cho, unwittingly placed on the streets of Fort Simpson. Communities should be supported when they accept the idea of banishment. Also, we need some support for resources to take care of those people who are banished, before sentencing, if their sentencing included banishment, to help carrying out that sentence. I know the Member is correct, it does create some problems. It bring about problems when we do not carry out this sentence because it creates undeserved hardship on the individuals who become afraid and intimidated as the individual who has committed these crimes is still wandering the streets, sometimes too close for personal comfort and security.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is, where people commit crimes or are charged with spousal assault, traditionally, we often take the victims and the children out of the community. We fly them out to other communities that have programs or facilities available to them. Social assistance is provided to these victims. There are some cases where it is the offender, the person who is charged or has been sentenced, who is prohibited from being present in the community where they committed the offence.

We can check into the specific cases that the Member is referring to and make sure that there are provisions made to these individuals. For instance, when they should be given social assistance, if that is what they are eligible for, but we would also be interested to see what we could do with communities. For instance, the Deh Cho region, if they should propose, we could sit down immediately to have a talk about any interest they may have in providing facilities and support systems for people like this. I would be very interested if the Member would suggest a meeting with some leaders in his community to discuss this, because courts and agencies are starting to move this way. The number of people who may end up going to larger regional centres, such as Fort Simpson, are not going to diminish. It may increase. It may be a very good time now to do something, at least start discussing this development with a view to come up with something that would address the situation.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Are there any further comments on corrections? Mr. Pudluk.

Thank you, Mr. Pudluk. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the correctional centres that I have visited are all learning facilities, particularly the young offender's facilities and the adult correctional facilities are ones that have programs where the offenders have schedules from the time they rise in the morning until they retire in the evenings. The facilities all encourage contact with families and communities, but they do not encourage calls to be made in or out of the facilities by inmates or by families at any time of the day or week. It does cause problems with the scheduling and staff making sure that people are not running back and forth to phones all day. I do not want to over-exaggerate it, but just to keep it simple, inmates and families are encouraged to phone only during certain times so inmates are available and phones are made available to them for their use only at certain times of the day and week. That has been the practice for some time. I know it creates difficulties when people in small communities do not have ready access to phones or the only available times are certain hours of the day, but this is the current practice and that is why some of the people in the small communities have difficulties. That is the way those facilities are run.

We have received requests from time to time, to look at ways in which we can help families of young and adult offenders visit to provide support to the inmates. These types of suggestions are made, but we know there are not adequate resources to entertain these suggestions, so we have not responded to them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pudluk.

Thank you, Mr. Pudluk. Mr. Minister.