Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Decentralization for decentralization should not be considered a mandate or a policy that we should live by. I'm concerned that we're moving this because, first and foremost, we have a facility in Fort Smith already and if it was a matter of establishing a facility in Hay River to make them feel good about their potential loss and maybe move forward for that, then maybe we should be moving the one from Fort Smith there. I don't know. We talk about spreading things around equitably, well, we have one in the South Slave already. Now we're going to have two in the South Slave, none in the centre and none in the North.
The Premier the other day had said, you know, other options could have come up. I think he pointed to 10 or 20, maybe 50 other options that we could have come forward with if we needed to fill that facility. I don't know why we're in such a rush to fill that facility. We've got to fill it at any cost and right now the cost is starting with $3.3 million and a bunch of kids. Can we ever equate that true cost? I don't think so.
I think decentralization for decentralization's sake without a business plan doesn't make any sense. I think our policy should say stuff like when we're creating a new service we should look into the communities and ask how we can establish it there in a reasonable way. That should be what our policy should say. It should say look, let's see if we can establish something wherever necessary and if not, then we'll fall back into the Yellowknife region or the Inuvik region or the Hay River region, in that type of order. But I don't know.
We have to keep in mind this is a cinderblock facility. It's a jail. We're going to be spending a lot of money to convert it to suit children. I think that alone, the stigma that we're now sending the kids from a treatment centre to a jail, I think that's a laughable situation. I don't think that's fair to them at all to give them the fresh start or the fair start that they deserve or the support. I don't want to see us sending these kids to that place. So we have to convert a building with bricks, cinder and mortar, concrete and bars, into a treatment centre. That's just plain old wrong. I don't know why people are having trouble with that.
It's not just to bolster the community. We could have found things and I'm sure if we put a little thought behind it, maybe if there was an engagement on this side of the
House we could have figured out how, if we needed to fill that facility, maybe someone could have called the AOC committee to come up with ideas of what we could put there. But no, there was no discussion on this side of the House. This was a unilateral decision made by Cabinet and it wasn't even used with the proposal of some type of consultant out there consulting the services, the people that would be affected, the families that would be affected.
I don't endorse this because a discussion paper came forward. Well, speaking of a discussion paper, I mean, I got a one-inch piece of paper there last night that came under the cloak of darkness and I have to now become an expert on this thing within a couple of hours. When it hits my table and makes a thud, I haven't had a chance to read this. Here we are, it's before us, this is a decision before Cabinet. We've been asking for a week on details of this. Oh, don't worry, the information's coming. Well, it's almost too late for us to make a decision without getting a chance to get a full briefing on what we're truly deciding on, other than the fact that we're just going to move it. Suck it up, we're going to move it and like it. Oh well, we better decentralize. Well, there's been no business plan and no talking to these families about this.
The reality of the game here we have to ask ourselves is, do we establish every service we have in Yellowknife in every community? I don't know if that's considered reasonable. I don't think we could ever get to that stage. We have to look at a critical mass to help everyone. There was no business case on this.
Is this a fair trade up? I think this is a shell game to make maybe one or two Members go away. Maybe it's to make four or five Members go away. I don't know. It seems like a shell game. I go back to the fact that there was no consultation on our side of the House. It's funny because the executive side of the House tends to play this, well, we're a consensus government when they want, but then it's almost like a government in power when we want. So some days I have difficulty. It's like they want to wear two hats. We're consensus when we want your three votes, but certainly not a consensus government when we can make a Cabinet decision without consulting. I think that speaks to the principle of why I'm against this, is of zero consultation.
The bottom line is I'll be voting in favour of this motion and I'm a little disappointed on how this came about. I think Cabinet when they vote against this or they don't even vote showing their lack of respect for us for putting this motion forward by Mr. Braden, I think maybe they should carry that home and think about that tonight that maybe consultation is an important key, we should try it on this side of the House. I know it's almost like a cliff jumper idea, but it's time that we hear some of these decisions, these big moves, these expensive moves, these paradigm shifting moves, get some air and a little bit of discussion on this side of the House.
For now, Mr. Chairman, I think I've said more than enough, probably too much, but the bottom line is I'll be voting in favour of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.