Bill C-25 (Historical)

Truth in Sentencing Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify the extent to which a court may take into account time spent in custody by an offender before sentencing.

[Pierre Mallette, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

Good afternoon. My name is Pierre Mallette. I am the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which has over 7,000 members across the country.

Our union's role is well-known, but let's keep in mind that it has the safety, training and working conditions of its members at its heart. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to share with you our point of view on the impact that the freeze on budget envelopes has on correctional officers and on the prison system in general.

Frankly, we need to tell you that we have fears and doubts. Can we get away with a freeze under the circumstances? Does the government have enough money to face the challenges that it is imposing on us? The freeze on budget envelopes means that the Correctional Service of Canada will have to make do with the money available to cover salary increases, in particular. The planned salary increase for 2010-2011 is 1.5%. The money available must also be used to provide training and protect the safety of employees, and to handle the renewal of the collective agreement, which expired on May 31, 2010.

Furthermore, Bill C-2 and Bill C-25 impose new challenges because they will mean an additional 4,478 inmates by 2014 and an additional 4,419 positions, most of which will be CX positions, over the next three years. In short, it's a challenge for recruitment, training and the management of inmate programs and, therefore, there are more risks.

What are these risks? First, you have to put yourself in the correctional environment. Every day, we have to face incidents in that environment that are difficult to foresee. We are not safe from inmates who, one day, decide they've had enough and want to break everything.

The new bills that the government wants to adopt, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-25, will end up increasing the prison population. Those inmates will need to be housed in institutions that will have to make space for them, and we will have a double bunking rate of up to 30%.

Double bunking means increased risks, better control of the prison population and a better assessment of the risks related to the population. On the inside, we have to manage the population. We must find a way to make several types of inmates live together. We have inmates from organized crime, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, Asian gangs and gangs from Russia. When it comes to managing a prison population, the larger the population becomes, the more you need to be equipped for the simple management of the population. Above all, it is important to avoid managing it to the detriment of the inmates, if programs can no longer be provided to help them rehabilitate.

We must never forget that the Correctional Service of Canada has two roles to play. Its primary role is to protect the safety of the public by limiting access and preventing high-risk offenders from escaping from the prisons. The main risk is in managing these populations, but its second mandate is that we must ensure that inmates are returned to the community and see to it that they are no longer a danger to society.

New announcements have been made in the context of Bill C-25. In fact, we hear that there will be new buildings and an increase in the number of correctional officers and employees. We hear that the number of inmates will increase and that we will have more space and more officers. But that doesn't mean that we will have more money for programs to control these populations and to handle uncontrollable day-to-day situations.

We know that Mr. Head came to make a presentation and that he proposed three ways to manage the freeze on envelopes.

The first solution that Mr. Head proposed is this: he believes that better control over work schedules and new deployment standards will help manage the budget allocated for overtime. It's true. We also believe that these two aspects will help to better control the financial aspect of overtime.

But people are being tight-lipped—both in the government announcements about the construction and within the Correctional Service of Canada—about population management and the programs we are going to offer.

It's true that part of the overtime envelope can be managed with schedules and deployment. We can have a better handle on that, but the level of risk is still difficult to calculate.

The warden of a penitentiary receives an overtime envelope that he must distribute over 12 months to ensure that overtime is monitored and that the mandates are fulfilled.

If some inmates decide to stab another inmate and one of them is hospitalized, there aren't necessarily resources set aside for the staffing. This creates a surplus in the budget envelope. If an inmate decides to attack some correctional officers, three correctional officers may be on leave because of an accident on the job. Then there are riots and major incidents. One fine summer evening, the inmates may decide to stay outside for three more hours. This type of incident is difficult to control and difficult to foresee. This is why we believe that the overtime budget envelope must be planned and better invested. It's difficult to say that we will be able to monitor the overtime envelope 100%. We can't claim that.

As you know, there has been a lot of talk about being "tough on crime". We feel that it is important to understand that there are two ways to be "tough on crime".

Of course, you have to be able to manage and strengthen legislation. But all of that does not simply mean catching a criminal, throwing him in prison, closing the door and forgetting about him for four or five years without giving him a chance to take any programs. This is what we're concerned about right now.

Bill C-10, which was passed in 2009, looked at the freeze on salary increases. A salary increase of 1.5% was approved. In addition, during bargaining talks, the government decided not to give money to the Treasury Board for bargaining. Instead, it was the department that would cover the increases.

The union and the correctional officers need to be able to sit down with the employer and say that it is now time to negotiate the salary increases. In its budget, it must find money to cover the salary increases. Is there a risk that the overtime envelope for being "tough on crime" and bargaining might mix? Yes. I would not want to be in the position of having to dump a working condition for a salary increase. It's unacceptable.

The purpose of our presentation today was to share our concerns with you. Also, we recently learned that there is a discrepancy of $4 billion. We are going to ask questions of the right people and get them to explain to us where this problem came from. Yes, we have concerns about how to monitor and manage our work environment.

Thank you.

[Édison Roy-César, Committee Researcher]

During a previous meeting, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said the Correctional Service had informed him that the cost of Bill C-25, Truth in Sentencing Act was a cabinet secret. You mentioned that as soon as a bill is adopted and the legislation is in force, we can get the information. Therefore, could you...

[Don Head]

If you're referring to Bill C-25, the credit for time served bill, yes. I think the minister has put a number out there of $2 billion over five years, which includes the capital costs associated with building the units we're putting in place.

[Don Head]

As they relate to Bill C-25, the bill regarding credit for time served, and the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which is minimum mandatory penalties for gun crimes, yes. We have the approved numbers in our budget. Yes, we do.

[Michael Spratt]

I haven't looked at it in detail. But over the last number of years we've seen a number of these bills come through--you know, eliminate Bill C-25 and bills of that nature--that all have a common theme. It would have been interesting to see those bills brought as a package, because they do have an interplay with each other.

But I can't comment on that other bill. I haven't looked at it very specifically.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to raise this in the form of a question, but in the wake of the Somali experience, there was obviously concern about the efficiency of the summary trial system. As a result, the amendments made by Bill C-25, which is coming into effect, confidence in that system was restored and summary trials were returned to their place of importance in the whole process. That is one reason for the increase.

The other thing is we have more people in the Canadian Forces and we do much more difficult ops. Afghanistan is a big factor in that. There are more summary trials because of the kinds of things that arise on those kinds of deployments. This is an answer to that question.

The simple fact is the system is not antiquated. The system is still effective. It needs updating and that is what we are doing.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48. I commend the minister and the government for advancing a cause that I know has as much support among victims and Canadians as any bill we will address this session.

For decades, victims of crime have come to this House seeking the justice the Criminal Code has denied them. Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt, Debbie Mahaffy, Theresa McCuaig, and Don Edwards have all been denied too long in their simple struggle for a measure of proportionality in sentencing. They came here bearing the memory of personal tragedy of the most brutal order and bearing witness to a justice system that was no less brutal regarding their right to justice.

The bill today could rightly be called a tribute to the courage and dedication of victims who rose above their personal suffering and sought to prevent others from suffering the same injustice. Regrettably, this bill does not come in time for Gary Rosenfeldt and other family members of victims who have died seeing neither justice for their children nor any change in the justice system that failed them.

Today, the Minister of Justice has renewed their hope.

Volume discounts for rapists and murderers is the law in Canada today. It is called concurrent sentencing. It cheapens life. The life of the second, the third, or the eleventh victim does not count in the sentencing equation. The lowest price is the law every day in our courts.

A family must still watch as courts hand down a conviction for the murder of their child, spouse, or parent, and then reel in the reality that not a single day will be served for that crime. Judges cannot be blamed as they have no latitude to impose consecutive sentences for serial killers. When a multiple murderer walks into court, it is justice that is handcuffed.

Fourteen years ago, I introduced a bill calling for an end to this bulk rate for murder. For the next four years, the issue was debated widely in the House, the Senate, and across the country. The effort drew the support of major victims groups, police associations, and eminent lawyers like Scott Newark and Gerry Chipeur. Members from all parties offered support, even attending Senate committee hearings. Among them were Chuck Cadman, John Reynolds and the current ministers of National Defence and Transport.

We learned in that journey that Parliament had what would be called “a democratic deficit”. We learned that average Canadians were a decade ahead of Parliament in their thinking. We learned that too many predators, released because of concurrent sentencing, had found new victims and spawned even more tragedy.

A decade ago in North Bay, Gregory Crick was found guilty of two murders. Mr. Crick had murdered Louis Gauthier back in April, 1996. A witness to that murder went to the police. Gregory Crick proceeded to murder that witness in retaliation. However, when he was finally sentenced, not one day could be added to Mr. Crick's parole ineligibility for the murder of that witness.

In the summer of 1999, there was one particular case where the Crown actually tried to delay sentencing in the hope that the changes I was pursuing in Parliament might be rapidly passed. It was the case of Adrian Kinkead, who was tried and convicted of the brutal murders of Marsha and Tammy Ottey in Scarborough, a process that took three and a half years. Mr. Kinkead was given a mandatory life sentence with no parole for 25 years. However, Mr. Kinkead was already under a life sentence with the same parole ineligibility after being convicted of a completely unrelated murder.

The crown prosecutor in the case, Robert Clark, asked the judged to delay sentencing until a bill similar to the one before you today could be passed.

His stated intent was to permit the judge to extend the period of parole ineligibility to reflect these additional murders. That bill did pass the House of Commons and had the committed support of most of the Senate, but it was stalled in committee. Sixteen months passed without a final vote and an election was called.

There has been a decade of outrage since then. A year ago, on the eve of the first scheduled debate on the government's current bill, the murders of Julie Crocker and Paula Menendez have led to a first degree murder conviction. Then as now, the families would soon realize that only one murder could count in the sentence, that the murder of one of these women would not yield a single day in jail.

This injustice will continue every day that the bill is stalled in this place. Just weeks ago, Russell Williams was able to thank the inertia of Parliament for a future parole hearing. Families of victims were put through a graphic and unnecessary court spectacle so that the Crown and the police could put evidence on the record that could be seen by a parole board 25 years in the future. Those families will have to hope their health permits them to appear decades from now, time and time again, to object and argue against the release of Russell Williams. His case is not unique.

There are no special circumstances that make him different from other multiple murderers. He was a colonel and there are pictures and videos of his crimes that made his situation infamous. But make no mistake: just about every victim of a multiple murderer went through the same horror. It is only that the obscurity of their victimizer is more likely to allow him to be freed.

The statistical fact, as early as 1999, was that multiple murderers are released into the community, on average, just six years after they are eligible for parole, some within a year of their eligibility. So much for the exhausted notion that life is life and that multiple murderers never get out of jail. Most do.

Another absurd crutch is the myth that somehow multiple murderers are rehabilitated in jail, as if they have an addiction that can be easily treated.

Wendy Carroll, a real estate woman, survived having her throat slashed and being left for dead by two paroled multiple murderers just 10 minutes away from my own home. They had both been convicted of two murders. Both were on life sentences. And both were freed in Mississauga and tried to kill again.

Life only means life for the victims of these offenders. Some in the House may still spout the bizarre and unfounded contention that Canadians somehow approve of concurrent sentencing, that they view it as a way to be different from the United States, as if letting multiple murderers back on the street were an act of patriotism or an endorsement of Canadian culture.

In fact, 90% of Canadians polled by Pollara supported mandatory consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers, with none of the judicial discretion currently contained in the bill. So we remain with a system supported by less than 10% of Canadians.

Then there are the skewed parole statistics. Through some digging years ago, I discovered that Francis Roy was in those statistics as a successful parolee. He had murdered Alison Parrott while on parole after receiving a discounted concurrent sentence for raping two girls. But since he was not returned to custody until after his parole expired, he was just another statistical success story and an example of low levels of repeat offenders.

While criminal lawyers and a few senators still support concurrent sentencing, even our most notorious serial killers mock it. I had occasion to witness the obscene spectacle of Clifford Olson's section 745 hearing. It was a 1997 summer day in B.C., not far from where Olson had victimized 11 children. There Olson read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. This way, the lawyer indicated, Olson could take full advantage of concurrent sentencing. Olson mocked the court, saying, “They can't do nothing. They can only give me a concurrent sentence”.

To this day, Olson is right. The obstruction of Bill C-25 in the Senate in 2000 has allowed a decade of multiple murderers to similarly mock their victims and mock justice.

I encourage members to look past the usual opposition from the predator protection industry and pass this legislation without delay or obstruction. Perhaps then we can finally put an end to volume discounts that deny justice to victims, deny peace to their families and deny safety and security to Canadians.

Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I only have one minute to respond, because the member invited me to talk about all of the bills that our government has promoted to promote safe streets and safe communities, but I will talk about at least one.

The hon. member will no doubt recall Bill C-25, which is now law and which ended two for one credit for individuals on remand while awaiting trial. The member no doubt would agree with me that led to all sorts of perversions with respect to accused individuals delaying their pretrial process and therefore taking credit for the very generous two for one and sometimes three for one credit.

This government, as does that member and as do I, believes in the protection of society. Society benefits from legislation such as Bill C-25 and Bill C-39, which puts the rights of victims at the forefront and makes the protection of society the permanent goal.

Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the bill. Other speakers have commented on the repetitive nature of the speeches given by the government and by the minister. I imagine they are putting the photocopier in overdrive, given the essential sameness to these speeches and the vacuous content to them.

Pretty well everyone in this chamber, including my party, will support sending the bill to committee for further study. I do not propose to get into much in the way of the details about this study, but I would have preferred that the minister, when supporting and advocating the bill, would have come forward to the House with some costing of the anticipated increase in the prison population by virtue of a bill, which has both minimum mandatories and also increases the number offences. It stands to reason that the courts will be busier.

I note in the stakeholder reaction, the Insurance Bureau of Canada supports that. Why would it not support that? I support it, as a person who pays insurance on a regular basis for my vehicles and had my car stolen a number of years ago and returned intact five or six days later. This seems to be a particular problem to Winnipeg and to Montreal. I noticed that the Manitoba justice minister and the Winnipeg mayor, Sam Katz, support this bill, as do the Winnipeg police and, I dare say, as do most police forces.

I thought, however, that Rick Linden, a professor at the University of Manitoba, made an interesting observation. He noted that the bill was a good step forward and hoped that it would reduce crime. However, he makes note that it will only occur if we invest significant resources in police tactics, numbers and in implementing evidence-based prevention programs.

The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers is opposed to the bill because of issues of judicial discretion. They think, rightly in my judgment, that a judge should be given maximum discretion as to the allocation of sentencing.

The Crown Counsel Association is opposed to the bill. It thinks it will add to the workload of an already overwrought system, without any mention or apparent mention of adding resources to support the legislation.

Hence my concern with the way in which these bills come forward to the House with, frankly, no costing of any kind whatsoever. There is no costing on police resources, on prison facilities, on custodial facilities, no costing whatsoever. We are supposed to simply take this on faith that this is a good thing, that our streets will be safer and that this will be, in effect, a cost-free exercise.

I hear various Conservative members say “what price justice?” There is always a price.

I want to spend some time talking about the evidence given by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page, before the government operations committee yesterday with respect to the bill, truth in sentencing, which passed through the House. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has tried to establish the costs to the system if the bill is fully implemented. He is receiving no co-operation whatsoever from the government.

This was in response to a request from the member for Ajax—Pickering, where he tried to meet with the corrections officials. As he said in his testimony:

Over the course of this project, PBO encountered a number of challenges. Other than the initial communication between PBO and Correctional Service Canada, which is available on PBO's website, the PBO was unable to secure a single meeting with CSC officials in spite of repeated requests. Moreover, the PBO was unable to verify the government's own estimates, assumptions, or methodology for the various figures presented publicly. Much of the data used for the PBO report was sourced from the annual surveys by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, and from provincial and territorial correctional departments themselves.

In other words, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is our officer. He is the person who is charged by Parliament to cost the various initiatives put forward by the government and to fully inform members of Parliament as to the real cost of any initiative whatsoever.

In my judgment, we are looking at something similar here. In response to a question, the previous speaker said that there may be no cost whatsoever. He may well be right. I hope he is right. On the other hand, there may be significant costs.

In my view, if there is a minimum mandatory initiative put forward, the prison population is going to be increased. The prison population may well be increased significantly with no real impact on the actual rate of crime. It is not as if the people who are stealing these cars are the sharpest knives in the drawer. In fact, if they heard the phrase “minimum mandatory”, I dare say that pretty well 10 out of 10 would ask what we were talking about. I dare say that most of the population in Canada would have no idea what a minimum mandatory sentence is.

For those of us who do pay some attention to justice issues, a minimum mandatory is simply an elimination of a discretion on the part of a judge to make an appropriate sentence under all of the circumstances. It circumscribes his or her ability to fashion a sentence that he or she thinks is appropriate having heard all the evidence.

The more minimum mandatories there are, the more realistic it is to assume that this person will end up spending custodial time. Over a period of time, with the pileup of these bills, one after another after another, circumscribing and further circumscribing the discretion of judges, we will end up with an increased prison population.

What does that actually mean in terms of an increased prison population? The first thing it means is that there may or may not be any reduction in crime. The rate of crime generally goes up and down independent of whether there is an increase or decrease in the prison population.

Frankly, crime is, in and of itself, something where people who are committing crimes do not think they are ever going to get caught. They think that somehow or another they will be exempt from the possibility that if they steal this particular car or this particular vehicle, regardless of whether it is a Honda or a Dodge, they are not going to get caught.

The police are efficient in this country and they do catch a significant number of people. Therefore, those people end up in the justice system, having convictions, and frequently in a custodial situation.

This is a not a cost-free exercise. To wit, my point is that if a prisoner is incarcerated in a provincial system, the rough cost is about $85,000, and if a prisoner is incarcerated in a federal system, the rough cost is about $147,000 per person per year. That is a lot of money.

So even if the number of people who find themselves in a custodial situation is bumped by 1%, 2%, or 10%, the cost is actually bumped up rather significantly with no provable reduction in the actual rate of crime. That was the Parliamentary Budget Officer's core piece of testimony yesterday.

The truth in sentencing bill, like this bill, was not costed. We really have no idea as to how many more people will end up in jail. It seems reasonable to assume that more people will end up in jail. It seems reasonable to assume that more people will be bumped from the provincial system into the federal system. That was the point that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was making.

Since the Parliamentary Budget Officer could not actually get a meeting with Correctional Service of Canada, he could not get a meeting with the minister, he could not get a meeting with the departmental officials or the minister's officials, he therefore had to take documentation and material that was in the public realm. Based upon that information, he said that at a very minimum, that one bill alone, Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing bill, would cost $620 million on an annual basis.

Madam Speaker, $620 million is a lot of money. It is half a photo op, for goodness' sake. That is just on the basis of an increase. That is with no capital increase whatsoever. It is $620 million, give or take, increasing year after year, based on the assumption that the increase in the prison population is double-bunked. More people will have to be jammed into less space. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was working on the current occupancy rate of 90%, which are public figures put forward by Correctional Service of Canada.

If, however, the prison population is literally bursting at the seams by virtue of not only the Truth in Sentencing Act, but possibly this bill and other bills that the government wishes to put forward, we therefore are going to have to start building new prisons.

On building new prisons, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a building program at something in the order of $300 million or $400 million a year. His estimate on what is currently passed, the truth in sentencing bill, is that the cost to the taxpayers of Canada would be increased by a minimum of $1 billion a year.

It actually gets worse than that. It is $1 billion a year for the federal government. However, the prison population would actually be increased on the provincial side of the equation as well, and the rough figure again is another $1 billion for the provincial authorities. So what do we have? We have an increase in the cost to the taxpayer of roughly $2 billion a year to put away more folks in prison, and that is on one bill alone.

That may or may not be true. I am perfectly prepared to accept my learned friend's argument here that this may not increase the prison population. However, both he and I, and everyone in this chamber, have not been told by this government what the actual cost might be. We have no costing. We have no figure as to how much more this will cost.

I want to emphasize again the point that this is an increase in a custodial population. More people would be put in jail. For some people, that is greatly satisfying, but the crime rate is not necessarily being reduced and we may or may not be achieving any form of justice.

Inevitably, with Winnipeg being a unique case, and certainly Regina as well, the populations represented in prison are the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable. There are aboriginals, minority groups of some kind or another, and frequently people with disabilities, whether those are learning disabilities, behavioural issues, mental issues, or things of that nature. We would be housing more of these kinds of people.

Again, that is a gross generalization. Certainly it is subject to challenge, but the government is not prepared to put forward the basic data that parliamentarians need in order to be able to assess the validity and viability of the bill.

The question was asked, why should we be concerned about this? In respect to the Truth in Sentencing Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it will have significant impact on the correctional system, which is one reason we should be concerned about it. Parliamentarians should be concerned about how this will impact the fiscal framework and whether the budget actually reflects the cost pressures arising out of the bill.

The taxpayer is not an unlimited tap. We cannot just keeping going to this well. The taxpayer has limits. So if there is a limit and if this is the limit, we are going to have to start shifting resources. Where is the money coming from in order to increase Correctional Service of Canada's budget?

It is increasing the budget. It is one of five departments that are actually increasing the amount of money available for staffing resources and for facilities improvement. So where is it coming out of the fiscal framework? That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask and I encourage my colleagues on the justice committee to ask that very question.

Parliamentarians should be concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament in the cost and by the Government of Canada. Parliamentarians should be concerned about the operational cost on the provincial-territorial issue.

During the Parliamentary Budget Officer's speech, his point was that at this stage it is roughly 50:50. If we are spending $1 billion in extra costs on truth and sentencing from the federal fiscal framework, we are going to be spending another $1 billion under the provincial framework. There is no indication we know of that the provinces are going to get an extra $1 billion in order to be able to house the inevitable increase in prison population.

However, it actually gets worse than that, because over time the federal share of the cost of this initiative reduces to roughly 44% and the corollary is that the provincial share increases to about 56%. If I am a provincial premier and I am looking for every dollar that I can find and I am trying to contain costs on health, education and the other appropriate responsibilities of provinces, I am going to be a little upset that I have to take a pro-rated share of $1 billion and find it for an increase in the prison population for which I had no say whatsoever.

In the case of my province, Ontario, if the number is an increase of $1 billion because of the increase in prison population, I am stuck with roughly 40% of that. So that is $400 million that the Premier of Ontario has to find, that he has no resources for, and he is receiving nothing from the federal government.

I thought the Parliamentary Budget Officer did us all a great service yesterday when he made a very sincere attempt to try to cost a previous piece of legislation, and I would draw a parallel between that legislation and this legislation. Whether it is greater than Bill C-25 or less, and I suspect that it is less, the principle still applies that members of Parliament should be given a fully costed analysis before they are asked to vote on the legislation.

At this point, we are all being asked to take things on faith. We are being asked to believe that this bill would make things safer and better for Canadians. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. On the other hand, it would be appropriate that members of Parliament, whether they are from government or opposition, actually know what the cost might be.

Is there something wrong with asking the question and expecting the minister and his department to be fully transparent on these kinds of initiatives?

As I say, our party will support the bill. This is potentially good legislation but it would be nice to know the cost.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Mr. Page, I understand that in your estimates of the implementation of Bill C-25, you estimate there would be an additional 3,800 inmates per year who would extend their stay as a result of this legislation. Did you calculate statistically the chances of their reoccurrence or their re-entering the prison system anyway? What I know is that the stats show that many of these people reoffend, so these are the same people. So if their stay were just extended, these aren't in fact new people; these are just people who are staying a little bit longer and are not being brought through the system again.

Did you do any analysis as to this reoccurrence, or the people who re-commit crimes that bring them back to prison?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I've been somewhat concerned. I'm hearing the opposition talk about the costs, but there's very rarely talk about the benefits of keeping criminals off the streets.

I'm also a bit concerned about the notion--and I could be wrong on this--you seem to be suggesting that the public servants, who are in the department and who are assisting in the estimates of what Bill C-25 is going to cost, somehow don't measure up, and that they don't have the ability to plan and aren't providing the appropriate information with respect to the cost of this.

Is there something that you know that maybe parliamentarians should be made aware of with respect to the public service in the department? Are they not capable of giving us the appropriate costs of this? Are you or your department somehow superior to them with respect to costing of this? I'm not understanding the difference here. We have a competent public service in the department and we have you. Can you give me a reason why there might be a difference there?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to focus too much on the stimulus because obviously the report is just so dated and there's additional information that is going to be coming soon. We all understand it was a very busy construction season. I know in my riding the projects are almost done, and of course my riding represents more people than the entire island of P.E.I. So when projects are running well in my riding, it's a good thing.

On Bill C-25, the last time Stats Canada reported on the cost of crime--this could be some dated information, it may not be exactly correct--I think it reported that it cost Canadians and the economy about $70 billion a year, and this is some time ago. It's probably considerably more than that. I'm finding it difficult that somehow we can't analyze within the costing of this, how an investment in helping to keep the streets safe and keep people who have committed crimes off the streets, and can't somehow factor that into your analysis. We all know, in communities across the country, the impact of crime. I know you referenced Stats Canada earlier, but the last time it reported it was about $70 billion to the Canadian economy. Is there not a way that we can factor that into your analysis as well?

[Kevin Page]

Actually, there's nothing really in the document that would suggest, notwithstanding the fact that we see this almost 13% annual increase in planned reference levels, that the increase reflects Bill C-25. In fact I could read you this, but it would take time. It's basically covered under risks, that it may create additional cost.

We do not get the sense that it was costed, even though we see that Bill C-25 was built into the rapid growth in planned reference levels. I should highlight as well that there's nothing in budget 2010 that sets aside any additional resources for Bill C-25 or the Truth in Sentencing Act that we're aware of.

[Kevin Page]

It is hard for us to indicate the level of consultations before Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, is passed.

Since we produced our report, we have been in contact with the provinces. They've asked specifics about our data. When we prepared our data, we had consultations with all the provinces in the country to prepare our report.

I'm not really in a position to talk about the level of consultations. I was actually surprised that the provinces weren't greatly aware of the fiscal impacts.

[Kevin Page]

Sir, we were working with the commissioner of Correctional Services Canada.

But more generally speaking, in terms of when we were told--in response to your first point, sir, about helping this committee look at issues of fiscal risk and service-level risk--on two different occasions we dealt with the Treasury Board Secretariat. One was at the ministerial level, the final result of which was our being told that to get five-year reference levels, to get this information and to analyze it for parliamentarians, would be a cabinet confidence. That's effectively what we were hearing from Correctional Services Canada, that the cost of Bill C-25 was a cabinet confidence.