Thank you. I will start with the last concerns the Member raised and go back to the first issues he raised. The first one was on the Fort Smith uproar with my designating the correctional facility as a triple designated facility. I always felt it was out of concern for the public and they questioned whether the triple designation was a manageable concept. Others questioned whether triple designation was a legally acceptable way of managing and carrying out our legislative responsibilities. In one instance, the local union representative presented himself to me and in an outburst, said I don't agree with you on the triple designation and there isn't anything you can say that will ever make me change my mind. I had a good look at him and said, that is probably a good reason for not bothering to talk to you about it at all. Generally speaking, people have been concerned and we have conducted a review which I gave you an update on today. It is treated very seriously and I said in a public meeting there that if I am wrong, I will be more than happy to admit that and make the necessary arrangements to correct that. But I don't feel that I am, and if I did even remotely question the decision I made, I would have changed it a long time ago. I feel the decision last year was correct and it is manageable
. It has become a bit politicized, but nevertheless I think it is a manageable concept. The review will certainly help us address that and I will comply with the review, if it is categorical in stating that I was wrong to make the decision I have. I will also expect applause if the review finds that I was right. I would expect the people in Fort Smith to accept that in good grace as well, including the leaders.
There is some work being done with the corrections people in trying to find ways we could use more land-based programming. We are trying to find some ways to do it out at the Yellowknife Correctional Centre. There are currently some discussions going on. I recognize what the Member is saying. We suffer from an insufficient number of staff to do the kinds of things we would like to do, and there is also overcrowding of the facilities. I say with some hesitation about what we can and cannot do under the present legislation that governs us in this area. Nevertheless, we try to comply with that. If there are negative attitudes taken by staff to inmates, then these should be dealt with through private correspondence by Members to me. In all instances, complaints will be investigated to make sure that inmates are not treated adversely by the staff and to make sure staff are not being unduly criticized or painted negatively by allegations in this area.
We will continue to try to find ways to support communities that want to get into discussions on different aspects of community policing. We have been doing extensive work there, as I mentioned earlier, and we will continue to do that. The RCMP have been alerted to the request by Liard for additional RCMP to bring it back to the way it was. The arguments the Member makes have been passed onto the RCMP there.
In Wrigley, I had requested that the community get a permanent RCMP there. Two years ago, that arrangement was made and it needs to be brought back to the attention of the RCMP again and I will do that.
There is a question with legal aid and I will put the question to the staff again, as well. I will try to get some assurance that the people served through legal aid are being served well, and make sure there is proper regard and respect given to the clients and that they not be treated in a way the Member is suggesting. I will be asking about that as well. I think those are the comments the Member raised. Thank you.
Line By Line
Directorate