Site of proposed facility for parolees stirring concern

And the proximity of this site to the nearby school led Mayor Greg Dionne to ask administration to send out letters to residents in an area larger than 75 metres surrounding the facility during Monday’s executive committee meeting. He also asked for two letters from the Salvation Army’s Major Glenn Patey be included with the notices.

“I am shocked [at] how many calls I’ve already received on this subject. And we’re just at this point now, we haven’t even – it’s come off the agenda,” the mayor said of the interest he has already received from the public about the proposed facility.

Executive committee members voted to have council consider a zoning bylaw amendment application that would add ‘custodial care facilities’ as a discretionary use in institutional zones. But a vote by council to allow this would only allow for such a facility at the MacArthur Drive location.

A custodial care facility is defined by a 1987 bylaw as a “facility for the temporary detention or open custody of persons pursuant to the provisions of the

i) Young Offenders Act
ii) Summary Offences Act
iii) Corrections and Conditional Release Act
iv) Community training residence as defined in the corrections act.”

Since the use of custodial care facilities was established in 2000, all applications considered were opposed by residents and denied by council.

If the bylaw were to pass its first reading in council, the permit application for the facility would be considered by city planners. The application is currently pending.

The proposed facility would be in Coun. Charlene Miller’s ward. She asked administration to widen the zone for the public notices it will send out to 300 metres to cover most of her ward.

“Especially with the school. There’s two schools, and I’m pretty sure they’re 75 metres away. But I would like the whole entire Westview to be included in that.”

Miller said she fielded about 10 calls over the weekend, all not in favour of the facility.

And seeing public opposition to the proposed facility on the horizon, Coun. Don Cody suggested that the committee quash the request during the meeting.

“We know the public’s going to say no to this. We know that. That’s not going to happen, I can tell you that right now. And we’re going to go through a lot of work and expense doing this and I don’t think it’ll ever come about.”

But other councillors, while aware of the public sentiment, called on the committee to let the matter be dealt with in council.

Coun. Rick Orr said he would like to hear the Salvation Army explain exactly what’s being proposed.

“We’re guessing right now, and I think it’s important that we know that. And I know that whether we like it or not, you could look around your community, there are halfway houses all over the community. They got here not because of this council, but other councils. So, I think it’s important that we hear both sides.”

He said this is so the public can understand what is on the table.

When contacted ahead of the executive committee meeting, Salvation Army’s Maj. Glenn Patey said men coming out of the federal penitentiary in Prince Albert who are from the North have no such facility to serve them.

“There was one here for years. But there presently isn’t one to serve that population. That’s one of the main reasons why we’ve looked at it.”

Patey had submitted two letters to the city’s planning department regarding the proposed community residential facility.

He said the facility would be no different than one operated by The Salvation Army and other groups and organizations found in other regions in Canada, but the program would be discussed at the next council meeting. “All questions will be answered there.”

In his March 26 letter to planner Craig Guidinger, Patey said the facility will have a 24-hour supervisor and two staff on-site during the day and one staff member from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m.

He said the facility already has video cameras installed, but it will install another camera at the immediate entrance. Only the residents will be allowed into the facility – no unsupervised visits will be allowed.

“Every man staying at the proposed facility will be on day parole and thus subject to the stringent rules that have to be strictly adhered to according to CSC standards,” Patey said in his letter.

In an earlier letter to the planning department, sent Nov. 20, 2012, Patey said the Prince Albert Salvation Army was given a three-year contract to provide community residential facility services in the city. The organization chose the site owned by the Prince Albert Apostolic Church on MacArthur Drive.

“The Salvation Army and the Apostolic Church have already entered into an agreeable lease agreement for this section of their facility,” Patey said.

During the meeting, Coun. Mark Tweidt said his ward has two similar facilities and there have been no problems “at all.”

“And I know it’s a sticky subject and all that. But you know what, we got a pen here. And somebody has to help these people and help them transition. And if we’re not going to look at that, I’m not sure how we go after another pen.”

In his state of the city address in January, Dionne said he wanted Ottawa to know Prince Albert is open to having a new penitentiary built in the city.

But during the executive committee meeting, Dionne acknowledged that the city is home to a federal prison, but suggested other communities share those “side effects” with Prince Albert.

“It doesn’t mean we have to have every part of a correctional system in our city,” he said. “And this is totally different when you’re putting it in a neighbourhood. And having a federal pen is totally different than having a halfway house…”

Council will vote to approve or deny the bylaw on its first reading in an upcoming meeting.

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames

by paNOW Staff

Site of proposed facility for parolees stirring concern

Thia James

paNOW Staff

What's Trending