Understood. Can you tell me where the revenue is shown, please?

Just a short follow-up. All of these figures, then, on pages 46 through to 49 are all revenue dollars, if I understand Ms. Schofield correctly. That wasn’t clear to me. If I could just get that clarified, I would then understand this is the revenue. The expenses, I presume, are sprinkled throughout the rest of this department’s document.

Thank you. I give up. Thank you very much.

We’re on page 7-49, Department of Justice, information item, Work Performed on Behalf of Others — continued.

Department of Justice, Information Item, Work

Performed on Behalf of Others — Continued, (page 7-49) approved.

We’ll be moving back to page 7-7 to Operations Expenditure Summary. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you,

Mr. Bromley. The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order.

Motion carried.

We’ll be moving along to Infrastructure, Infrastructure Acquisition, page 6-5 in Volume 2 of the Main Estimates.

We’re on page 6-5, Department of Justice, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Services to Government, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $60,000; Total Activity: $60,000. Agreed?

Department of Justice, Infrastructure

Acquisition Plan, Services to Government, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $60,000; Total Activity: $60,000, approved.

Next page, 6-9, Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, Department of Justice, Community Justice and Corrections, Tangible Capital Assets, Total Tangible Capital Assets: $1.46 million; Total Activity: $1.46 million. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to make a motion.

I move that the 2008–2009 Main Estimates be amended by deleting $320,000 from the activity Community Justice and Corrections, under the Department of Justice, Capital Investment Expenditures, on page 6-9 of the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, for the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre replacement.

The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to speak to the rationale for the deletion of this particular activity. The Social Programs Committee discussed Community Justice and Corrections and facilities at great length during the department presentation, and afterwards when we discussed how we had viewed that presentation. At this point the program committee feels very strongly that this is not the correct time to begin planning a new facility. We don’t know yet whether or not the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik is suitable for a secure facility for corrections. It’s undergoing a review — an engineering review and an analysis, apparently — at this time. That review will be available to us sometime this summer or this fall, from what we’re given to understand.

The Social Programs Committee feels quite strongly that there needs to be an analysis of all the corrections facilities within the NWT; that there should be consideration for changing any or all facilities and how they’re used, how inmates are housed, which inmates are housed where; that all of those things need to be considered.

We feel that it’s quite possible that…. I should back up a bit and say that the committee certainly does agree that the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre in Fort Smith definitely needs to be refurbished. It’s an old building, it’s not a secure facility, and it definitely needs to be revamped. However, that said, we don’t feel that closing Arctic Tern, if it’s suitable as a secure facility, is a good solution. That facility can be used in conjunction with all the other facilities in the NWT to house all of our inmates. Just because a facility currently has, for instance, young male offenders doesn’t mean that it necessarily has to stay that way. Our belief is that we need to do an analysis of all the facilities once we know the status of Arctic Tern, and consider with an open mind what can and cannot be done.

It’s entirely possible that we could house senior female offenders in Inuvik and, if there’s not enough space for them there, that we could build a much smaller facility in Fort Smith to house the overrun of senior female offenders in Fort Smith. This is not the time for us to be doing planning to spend some $20 million on a facility in Fort Smith. We need to wait. This planning money could come forward once we know the results of the analysis that’s going on for Arctic Tern. So this is why I’m making this motion; I don’t feel that this is the time to start this planning, and I think we can delete this item and continue to do the planning at a later date.

Thank you,

Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Hawkins. No? Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be voting in favour of this motion. Ms. Bisaro touched on a lot of the discussion that went on within Social Programs. We just feel that, at this point, when we’re talking reductions…. I have to justify to 18-plus people at the Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik that they’re losing their positions while we’ve got $320,000 on the books to start planning another facility. So it’s hard for me to justify that argument to them: they’re being affected by the budget reductions, and on the other hand we’re planning on spending $320,000 on planning for another facility. It makes it very difficult to go back home and try and justify some of the rationale that we’re given.

There is an engineer’s report being worked on. There may be a need for this facility in the future. I understand it’s been on the books for quite a few

years, and I don’t disagree with that. I don’t necessarily disagree with the fact that this may not be a facility that’s needed, but when we’re talking reductions, we can’t be telling people, “We’re reducing your positions” on one hand and on the other hand we’re saying, “Oh, by the way, we’re planning a new facility. Chances are, it may go ahead, and then you’ll have no opportunity to continue to work in a facility.”

Social Programs felt quite strongly about this and, being the Member for Inuvik, I appreciate the support of Social Programs on this particular issue. I will be voting in favour of this motion. I would also request a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion, Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr.

Chair. Mr.

Chair, as the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes has indicated, and also other Members, this has been in the books for a number of years. It’s a 1950s building, and it’s due for replacement.

We talk about Arctic Tern facility as well. There have been all kinds of numbers thrown around during our legislation debates. Just for the record, $14 million has been thrown around for Arctic Tern. To set the record straight, it was $6 million when it was built. And also a correction: the closing-down of the programming there is due to the fact that it’s severely underutilized. Last week we had no inmates in the facility; today we have two inmates. So based on that, Mr. Chair, we’re talking about a facility in Fort Smith that we propose to start planning for replacement.

Also, Mr. Chair, I’d just like to highlight that we’ve been going through a lot of motions put forward, and some motions did cost our departments, let’s say — whether it be the Justice Department or other departments that have gone through the committee before — the ten positions that we highlighted earlier. The motion came forward and cut those ten positions. Those ten positions, and there’s one in Inuvik, three in Yellowknife, and one proposed. There are three currently occupied positions affected by the committee-made motion, so really, we just laid off three people from the motion that came forward.

Mr. Chair, I think it’s important to highlight that with this particular motion before us we are in the planning stages. We are looking at options, whether it be at Inuvik or Fort Smith. At Inuvik there are three or four different options we’re working with. We’re not really completely closing down the facility, but it’s based on the actual underutilization. So I just want to make the record straight.

I want to put the options of Arctic Tern on the record. The RCMP detachment is very interested in the area. The municipality of the community of

Inuvik is also interested. The Learning Centre is also interested. So that building will certainly be utilized.

So just to continue to be the effective and efficient government that we stated, we cannot continue operating as it is with Arctic Tern. So we can’t say, “Well, we can’t build in Fort Smith” and have Arctic Tern utilized. The capacity is not really there.

The TWCC, the Territorial Women’s Correctional Centre, has a capacity of 18, and Arctic Tern has 14. So really, when we talk about numbers, there are also inmates down south — female inmates. We want to bring them back to the North. That’s always been our goal. We will continue to do so, Mr. Chair.

So I just want to set the record straight that there’s been a lot of information flowing — inaccurate information and whatnot. We’re just setting the record straight, as indicated earlier, that we are moving forward on planning for the replacement of the correction centre in Fort Smith. And we are dealing with Arctic Tern, as has brought up by Members as part of this motion. So I thought this would be the ideal time to address that as part of the motion as well.

So at this time, Mr. Chair, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this matter. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I just want to make an observation. It’s interesting that a Yellowknife MLA — where the community’s getting a bypass road, dementia centre, École St. Joseph, a new clinic, Stanton upgrades, to a total of many tens of millions of dollars — is making a motion that in effect pits two small communities against each other and stands back to see what happens. Which is fine; we’ll of course live with the will of this Legislature. It’s just an interesting dynamic when all of us who live outside of the big centre will be turning on each other, while the territorial capital, which gets by far the lion’s share of the capital budget, makes the motions to set that process in place.

As we keep open minds to look at all the options, one of the options that hasn’t been considered is we’re talking about repatriating a bunch of adults into a supportive living structure that has yet to be built. Has that been considered as a possibility for Arctic Tern? I don’t know. But clearly it’s a circumstance that strikes me as interesting and somewhat ironic. Of course, we will live with the vote of this Legislature. We’ll all move on past this, but as the Member for Thebacha, it struck me right off the bat that it’s an interesting dynamic as we all talk about the small communities and things in Yellowknife.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion, Mr. Krutko.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe the motion that’s in front of us is clearly there for a reason. We have a lot of facilities that we’ve built in the Northwest Territories — young offenders’ facilities — regardless if it’s in Inuvik or Yellowknife or another place in the Northwest Territories.

We have to, at some point, assess what the use of those facilities are, what alternative uses we can get from these facilities, instead of building facilities for the sake of building facilities and then we find out later, “Well, sorry, you don’t have the numbers we want. We’re going to clean house, get rid of the whole staff, and then we’re basically re-profile it for something after the fact.”

I think as a government we have to determine usage of public facilities. We’re spending millions of dollars on public facilities, and we’re finding out after the fact that we can’t use them. Somba K’e Lodge is a good example. The Arctic Tern facility in Inuvik is one.

There’s no reason that this government should have the ability to re-profile facilities when we realize that we either are forced to by federal legislation or by way of changes, by needs.

I think it’s great to see fewer people in our facilities. This shows that fewer people are in our Justice correctional systems, and if anything, it’s good to see numbers go down.

But again, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s crucial that we as government stop spending money to the tune of, you know, $70 million for a brand-new jail to $12 million for young offenders’ facilities. Yet we have empty facilities that this government has spent tens of millions of dollars on sitting empty, and we’re not using them to the best use of the public funds. That’s the point that we’re talking about under this motion.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I will be supporting the motion.