EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We passed a bill last year on education trying to determine what would be a good pupil-teacher ratio.
We’re not following that. In reality, it’s not possible right now with overcrowded schools and shortage of teachers. So because of that, we keep some of them.
I just had a tour of Pond Inlet just before I came here. Before even Mr. Kusugak came up to make an announcement with our arena, I had a tour and in fact, expressed it there that the ratio is still too high in some classrooms.
The problems are everywhere, including this one. I think that when we were in committee, the explanation was a little different. In the substantiation sheets, it still says, “Replacement Correctional Facility,” in Iqaluit, “Type: Building.”
Although the class is a usual “X,” it doesn’t really identify exactly how much.
We also made a declaration in 1999 that we will not ignore the Kitikmeot any longer. I forget the exact grammar that was used, but something along that line.
Could we have not considered designing at least a dream building, a facility in the Kitikmeot, similar to that of what we are building in the Kivalliq today rather than replacing the old one here?
This old one is something. In a lot of other places, we have nothing.
It is very difficult for me to support the inclusion of $300,000 in a substantiation sheet for the study or at least an initiation, whatever that means, for a replacement of a correctional facility in Iqaluit.
What I also would like to see is the justice department taking different measures in considering, or at least progressively or aggressively looking at, different avenues for the incarceration of inmates. For example, can we be a little bit more aggressively pursuing the potential for on-the-land programs rather than taking them down to Iqaluit and locking them up?
We are saying now that there is no facility that will heal them.
There is no facility to give them recreational activities because the room is used for sleeping space.
I would like to see a more aggressive pursuit of incarcerating the inmates at home. Maybe a more attractive contract can be made and maybe a proper training program can be made in the communities to incorporate into other work that different departments do. Social Services just recently finished a training program in Cambridge Bay.
There are teacher education programs. Maybe a community incarceration program, with healing programs included, can be initiated. Things like that.
So rather than looking for a building all the time to put away those who are not behaving too well in the community, maybe we should take them more seriously and look at them as human beings who need help. Maybe the best help they can get is at home and not give them to foreign people and hope that they will heal.
I would like to see this money being used elsewhere.
We’re going to have to do penny-pinching because the money is very tight. I heard that the money is going to become even tighter from the federal government down the road because they will have to recover that $50 billion or something along that line, a debt that they will have to recoup.
I think we’re going to have to be a lot more careful as to how we spend our money.
With that, I’m going to vote yes with the motion. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any more members wishing to speak to the motion? Mr. Tapardjuaq, go ahead and speak to the motion.
Tapardjuk is my name, not Tapardjuaq.
Yes, with respect to the comments I am hearing, they are understandable and quite disconcerting to hear.
One of my priorities has been to try and decrease the number of incarcerated persons in these facilities. This is an extremely hard matter to deal with.
If a business fails, then it goes down.
We have to run it the same way, even to have them empty in the long run, however we all know that this is not the case.
We know, for example, the issue of recidivism exists amongst our incarcerated populations. They serve their time and they return again. These repeat offenders obviously make up a large portion of the inmates at the correctional centres.
We, as a government has to understand some of the reasons why the Baffin Correctional Centre is overcrowded. Why is that the case? We hear that the building is aging and the number of incarcerated individuals is increasing.
It’s not decreasing.
Some are sent elsewhere to other facilities, as the Minister of Justice indicated earlier, to Yellowknife and federal penitentiaries in southern provinces and those numbers constitute a concern. How do we minimize the number of people being sent down to the federal penitentiaries?
Be that as it may, there are still a fair amount of unresolved issues related to justice and social services. In particular, when we conduct a review of the bill proposed by the Minister of Health and Social Services, it will obviously have an impact on all of these matters and it relates to the number of people incarcerated.
This matter is something that we, as a government and as regular members, have to completely understand what else ought to be done in this area.
This problem will be an ongoing one.
With respect to the numbers, they are not decreasing. Perhaps we can look at the wording as it pertains to the correctional facility assessment review, where the $300,000 is to be used for a replacement study. Perhaps we are stalling over the wording as it is written.
For this side of the House, this $300,000 will be utilized to conduct a comprehensive review of the system, what gaps we have and what else needs planning to resolve this matter in our immediate future.
It is obvious that the residents of Rankin Inlet would benefit if it were completed, along with the women’s correctional facility project. If both projects were to be completed, then it falls in line with what we are trying to review.
As a government, in order to plan for the future, we have to fully understand the issues related to the situation and to identify gaps or challenges that are brought to surface by these attempts to mitigate these concerns.
We too, as a government, want to fully understand what this $300,000 will be utilized for. It is to fund a study to do exactly that.
So I would urge that this be supported so that our preparations for the future will be based on a comprehensive review of our current system. The only way we can proceed from this point is to keep this $300,000 funding so that we can review the findings. One ought not to guess about these matters but to have a fully delineated and comprehensive report on the system which members could peruse at their leisure.
I urge my colleagues to support this funding, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Hunter.
Yesterday was your first day in the Chair of the Committee of the Whole and this is your first time dealing with a motion in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to echo both Minister Peterson’s and Minister Tapardjuk’s comments.
I have been critical in the past, as well as other former regular members here, of the government not keeping the members informed of what they were doing with the money that’s being approved.
I think Minister Peterson pointed out that that is one of the main reasons why it’s in there. It could have very easily been included in a minor capital project.
I think I agree with him and Louis that it could have been a proper wording, maybe just a wording change similar to the wording change that was done in last year’s capital with the fencing on the housing corporation’s budget, where members brought forward a motion for secure storage, and it left different options open for us to be able to address instead of just the fencing.
I think that in this case, Mr. Chairman, “replacement” isn’t the right word either.
A study or an assessment, by the sounds of it, is what’s actually being looked at here.
Similar to what the housing corporation is doing with the needs survey, we need information in order to be able to plan what we need to do.
I say what the Department of Justice is doing is just trying to figure out what exactly needs to be addressed with this current facility.
I think there hasn’t been a lot of dollars put into it over the last number of years. I think that with the new facility in Rankin Inlet opening up, it will alleviate some of the overcrowding issues, but not all of it. Regardless of that, the facility is not going to close; it’s still going to be there.
I think that as a government, we have a responsibility to provide not only a safe work environment for employees but also a safe environment for the individuals who are unfortunate enough to have to be detained in that facility.
I think that by doing this assessment that identifies the deficiencies in the facility… . And the minister used the word “dilapidated.” It is an old facility and like any old facility, stuff needs to be done to it.
That’s what my understanding is of what the minister is saying. That is what they’re looking at trying to identify with this study. In the case of openness and transparency, we put it out there so that members are aware.
I think the concern comes over replacement.
I would encourage members, instead of removing that funding from the budget altogether, just to amend the wording in there to have it say “Correctional Facility Study” or assessment, which is basically what is all that is really happening there, to be able to identify the deficiencies so that the department can put together a plan of what needs to be addressed and those things, as the minister indicated, would be brought forward.
All members will have an opportunity to ask questions on and vote on any future capital budgets that will be brought forward before the House.
I think it’s just a misunderstanding and “miswording.”
It’s unfortunate, but I think it’s quite clear, as the minister indicated, this is just to take a look at the issues that have developed there over time that need to be addressed in order for this government to provide a safe workplace and a safe facility to house the inmates who are there.
I think it would be derelict in our duty if we didn’t do that, if we didn’t say that we need to know what those issues are and we need to address them. I think it would be irresponsible of us to ignore that.
The reason that it’s in the state that it is, is because some of those issues may have been ignored in the past and we can no longer afford to do that.
What the minister was asking for here is that we need to identify exactly what all of the issues are so that we can develop something to bring into the capital planning process in the future.
I’m going to encourage members, instead of deleting it completely from the budget, to look at amending the wording so that it is quite clear that that’s what it is for.
It’s not for replacements; it’s for an assessment or a study of the existing facility to identify deficiencies so that they can develop a plan to move forward to address those deficiencies.
It potentially could be a huge liability for the government and, like I said, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore the situation out there.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask members if they would be interested in amending the motion to change the wording.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
As far back as I can remember, in the NWT, we were looking for ways to reduce potential crimes.
I remember that we had to debate a similar nature in the House and it was then, I believe, that alternatives to incarcerating people, especially young people, came up.
I also heard at the time that there are young people that commit first or second crime who end up in jail with other individuals who have been in incarceration for many years and they are exposed to bad influences from other inmates.
One idea that came up, as I mentioned, was the alternative justice idea, where people in the community could take them out on the land where they are not exposed to bad things. I’m not saying that everything is bad in corrections.
One memo, I believe, was, “Why don’t we try to help these people before they start committing real bad crimes.”
We can expose those people to the land, to nature, to the wind, to all of the elements. In essence, they are helping their community to obtain food for the people who don’t have anyone to hunt for them; perhaps working with social services; working for elders; getting some ice in the winter for the people who don’t have any way of getting ice from the clean freshwater lake.
So I think there are times when… . Instead of putting people in jail, people who are not dangerous offenders, people who are more likely to repeat crimes in the future begin to appreciate what the land, nature, and the community have to offer for them.
So having said those things, I will support the motion.
If worse comes to worst, we can always find $300,000 from within the public purse.
Are there any other members wishing to speak to the motion?
Oh, I can remain seated?
We require a study in order to improve any facility and study the needs and gaps, especially for facilities, because we need to know where to make improvements, along with the breadth of these changes.
Although the initial funding is for the review of an existing facility, it will be beneficial to ensure which areas require improvements or replacements.
I truly believe that we need to reduce the number of incarcerated people.
We are working on improving the situation of families in our communities.
I believe that we need to lay a foundation so as not to increase the number of inmates.
However, in looking at the situation today, that unfortunately is not the case.
As the Minister of Justice stated, we often send inmates outside of the territory and down south.
Also, the Baffin Correctional Centre is always overcrowded and the facility is aging and becoming dilapidated.
It is quite obvious that the facility needs renovation or at the very least a plan to make improvement due to the age of that facility.
However, prior to any work being conducted on the correctional facility, we need to find out what requires repair or renovation in that facility.
If we leave it just to degrade and age or we proceed without a review of its needs, then it will be much more expensive to mitigate these problems and maintain the correctional facility.
So therefore, I am in support of the study.
I regret that the wording speaking to the study of a correctional facility replacement is incorrect or insufficient, as we should replace it with “study” in English.
So therefore, I am urging all members to retain the funding for the study of the facility’s need and to keep the funding.
I discussed this issue with Minister Peterson, which he may recall, when he made a presentation to the standing committee.
We did not even understand the reasoning behind the construction of the facility in Rankin Inlet, including a separate women’s correctional facility.
I believe that we are getting ahead of ourselves in trying to get additional correctional facilities without a proper plan.
The reason is exactly as the Premier stated. I believe that we should be developing a future for our residents so that we have productive citizens who do not require incarceration.
Healing, in its simplest form, should be used to heal people. People who have problems need to resolve their issues in their lives.
I was deliberating about the correctional facility in Rankin Inlet, including the women’s correctional facility here, which will probably take on the overflow of the inmates that we have now. It’s going to reduce the number of inmates in one facility.
In my opinion, we should conduct a review after these facilities are operational, as we would have the information available whether we need a correctional facility replacement or a brand-new facility.
Even before those two correctional facilities are completed, we are looking at whether we need to get a new correctional facility.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we are jumping the gun in this situation.
As I stated to Minister Peterson in the past, which I am sure he remembers, once we have decreased the numbers of inmates and when we have no overflow at BCC, we would get more space.
I believe that with renovations, they would use BCC for healing and take on healing programs. I have heard in the past that they offered a program in the facility to do exactly that.
Once we start finding out what the real situation is, we should do an assessment. Even before we start operating the two correctional facilities, we’re already trying to make a decision that we want to do a study on a correctional facility.
Even though we state that we want to provide a future for our people, we seem to instead be looking at incarceration as a solution.
I believe that we ought to instead be looking at using Inuit societal values. In my opinion, there would be fewer crimes committed.
If we do not use the Inuit way and values, these hardships will continue to surface.
Mr. Chairman, due to that reason, the issue of renovating the BCC was brought up because of its age and overcrowding issues with inmates.
Not too long ago, in January, the women’s correctional facility was to become operational and in the short-term future, they will complete the correctional facility in Rankin Inlet.
I believe it would be better for the future if we start making healing programs available to our communities. Some individuals end up committing crimes because they have no guidance or services available in their home communities.
As I stated in an earlier statement, we have individuals and communities that require help. The communities are trying to make brighter futures so that they can realize that they need a good community as a whole.
For those reasons, I will be in support of the motion to delete the $300,000 for the planned study.
Chairman: Thank you, Johnny, Member for Nanulik.
Thank you for pronouncing my name correctly.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I understand that for every kind of infrastructure for Nunavut, we do need to take a study/assessment and evaluate. This $300,000 is for a study, as the minister has indicated.
The topic of discussion seems to be that there’s alternative justice out there, like on-the-land programs and other various community-driven issues.
It is sad to say that no matter what, our population is going up and there’s more requirement for space. It’s a known fact and it’s a sad fact that we do need more safe places for inmates in Nunavut.
Not only that, safety is a huge concern for the employees or staff who run these facilities.
This $300,000, as the minister indicated, is for a study.
We do that for every infrastructure in Nunavut. Without that, nothing really happens. We promised, as a government, that we were going to look at these issues and we want to be proactive rather than reactive.
With this line item there of a new facility, it doesn’t really indicate that there is going to be a new facility built.
You’ve got to remember that there are a lot of our people down south in various other provinces.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that with the cost of transportation and the fees that are charged by these other facilities to our government, we’re actually paying for some other facility to be built down in other provinces.
I think we have to take responsibility and deal with our own issues up here in Nunavut.
It’s quite sad, but for the most part, we do have to keep in mind that we have to have a safe environment for our employees out there.
This study, although it is worded incorrectly as a replacement, doesn’t necessarily mean that there is going to be a new facility built. That still has to go through the proper channels and proper procedures.
For every kind of infrastructure, we do need a study.
As indicated before, we have to be proactive rather than reactive.
It is a point here where safety is a huge factor in this type of occupation.
Without facilities to rehabilitate our inmates, there is really nothing that is going to be happening.
We all know for a fact that it’s great to have community justice and outpost camps, but at this current situation, it doesn’t address what is needed right now in Nunavut.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be standing and voting against the motion.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taptuna.
Are there any more members?
Mr. Hunter.
I would like to make a motion to amend the motion. I would like to move to amend the motion to read or maybe take a break to type up the motion in both languages so that everybody could see it.
The amendment would read that I move that that $300,000 in proposed funding for the “Correctional Facility Replacement” project be renamed to the “Correctional Facility Assessment” project.
So take a few minutes break if we could get that typed up.
We will take a short recess.
We can’t entertain that motion because he had already spoken to the motion and he can’t do it twice. It’s out of order.
I wish to inform the committee that I have no more names on my list.
Does the mover, Okalik, have the last reply?
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We’re not saying no to try to address the overcrowding in the current facility.
In this budget, we are actually approving $16.2 million to build and hopefully complete in the very near future the Rankin Inlet facility so that the overcrowding situation in Nunavut will be addressed in the near future.
The minister also announced that there will be a women’s facility opened next year. So with that news, the issue of overcrowding hopefully will be reduced.
In the last session of our last government, we also passed the Family Abuse Intervention Act to try and keep people out of jail, to try and practice more of our traditional ways of healing. So those measures are underway. As my colleague for Nanulik explained, we would like to see these projects completed first before we study for any more jails.
There are far more pressing issues, in my opinion, to address.
Here in Iqaluit, for example, we don’t have a community learning centre, something that I have been pressing this government to address. I look to the capital plan projects for a community learning centre and it’s not scheduled to be studied until 2012.
A lot of my constituents could use that help so that they can have more productive lives and perhaps stay out of jail if they get a job. So I would rather focus on that than look at more jail time.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion.
We’re not saying no to a study in the future. Once these projects are completed, perhaps we will be in a better position to assess our situation and judge it accordingly. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The debate is now closed. We will now vote on the motion.
Mr. Peterson, you already spoke.
Do you want a recorded vote?
Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Peterson.
You’re having a busy sort of first day on the job. Welcome to politics.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote.
Chairman: A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour, please stand and then sit down when I call your name.
As there’s a tie vote, as the Chair, I will need to break the tie vote. I’ll have to go as to the way the motion is presented to me and I’ll have to vote in favour of the motion.
We will get Minister Peterson back to his seat up there on the witness stand.
We will go to page C-5. Justice. Corrections.
Total Capital Expenditures, as amended. $16,200,000.
Chairman: Thank you. We will go to C-2. Justice.
Department Summary. Justice.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures, as amended. $16,600,000. Agreed?
Chairman: Are you agreed that we have concluded the Department of Justice?
It certainly has been an interesting hour for all of us. I appreciate that this is what democracy is all about. I appreciate the support of my cabinet colleagues for this facility study.
I appreciate the comments and concerns expressed by the MLAs; they were all very good comments.
I think we all want to work together to improve our justice system in Nunavut at all levels: the community level, the territorial and even the federal level.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to the people who do work in the justice system to look after our offenders and try to provide a safe environment.