How much?
Evidence of meeting #49 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was costs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #49 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was costs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
March 16th, 2011 / 2:10 p.m.
Don Head Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
As the minister pointed out, the cost for Bill C-25 is $2.1 billion over five years, of which $1.2 billion is staff costs. Our ongoing operating costs for Bill C-25 are $448 million a year. That encompasses, Mr. Martin, the staff costs that you've been talking about.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This book doesn't tell us the whole cost of your crime agenda, even though you can hardly lift the damn thing.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Martin, these costs have been set out in the estimates. If you had taken the time to read the estimates--
2:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Martin. I won't tell you what to read, but I'll tell you that your time is up.
Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty, for five minutes. We'll try to do a five-minute round here.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ministers, for being here.
If I could, Ministers, I'd just like to begin by, on behalf of the official opposition, apologizing to the senior public servants who are here today and to the 480,000-odd Canadian public servants for the slander they received last week at the hands of the deputy House leader, who basically laid blame at the feet of the public servants for not delivering--
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, look, I know that the opposition is going to play fast and loose with their political accusations, but that is an inaccurate statement. In fact, when asked directly by a radio interviewer--
2:10 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
When asked directly by a radio host whether I thought that public servants who were compiling this information had not done their job or had screwed up, I said absolutely not. That is part of the record, so to suggest that I was putting the blame on public servants is absolutely false, absolutely inaccurate, and I'd like an apology from Mr. McGuinty.
2:10 p.m.
A voice
Hear, hear!
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Mr. McGuinty, let's stick to the point of why we're here today and keep going that way.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Absolutely. That's why I began by apologizing to 480,000 public servants on behalf of the official opposition. Canadians will make up their own minds, Mr. Chair, when they read the clippings and see the quotes. Trust me, they will, and they already have.
Ministers, I'd like to read for you this definition. This is the definition in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary of the word “contempt”, because this is what we're here to deal with today and tomorrow and Friday.
For the first time in Canadian history, your government—the first of 13 minority governments to do so in this country's history—is now on a slippery slope to potentially being found in contempt by this committee, so let me just read for you the definition of “contempt”: “a feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration or worthless, or deserving scorn or extreme reproach”.
Ministers, I want to ask this. In the context of the definition of the word “contempt”, why is it that it took a gun to the head of your government to force you to appear here today and do a document dump? For more than four months, reasonable Canadians have been watching this drama unfold, not knowing why your government refused to comply with motion after motion after motion and only complied after you were brought to heel by the Speaker in a ruling with respect to Afghan documents, and then subsequently brought to heel two more times: one with respect to your colleague, the Minister of International Cooperation, and another with respect to actually telling the truth to Canadians about the costs.
It's their money, Ministers. We're asking them to eat these costs. I'm sure we have our differences, Ministers, on your approach to law and order. I'm sure we have our differences with respect to Newt Gingrich's views on where we should be going with Republican law and order stuff. I'm sure we do, but I'm sure we would also agree—at least I thought we could agree—that from an accountability perspective, you wouldn't have waited four months to be dragged in here and drop—what is it?—1,000 pages of material on Canadians just 18 minutes before this committee starts, Mr. Chair--18 minutes.
I mean, what is it with this regime, Ministers, that each and every time...? Now, for the first time in Canadian history, you are on the slippery slope to being found in contempt by the people of Canada, through the people who represent them in the House of Commons.
Just before you comment, I'd like to read for you the actual quote from Mr. Harper, when he said:
Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions, and...
—here's the kicker—
...incompetent or corrupt governance can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.
In the context of the definition of the word “contempt”, in the context of the comments made by your leader, Mr. Harper, and in the context of your conduct for the past four months, how is it possible Canadians are expected to believe that you are playing here in good faith, and how can they possibly trust the numbers that are forthcoming in this budget?
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Mr. Chair, Canadians will trust us because we're doing exactly what we promised Canadians with respect to our crime agenda. The bills we have before Parliament.... You'll see that when we went to the people in 2004, 2006, and 2008, we made it very clear that we would be reforming the criminal justice system, and we have delivered on that.
One of the things I definitely agree with Mr. McGuinty on is that we have a very different approach on this. Again, it's always for the Canadian people to decide who's got the right approach when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system and standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians.
We have a record that I--and I know you, Mr. Chair, and my colleagues--are very, very proud of. This is consistent with what Canadians have told us. It's certainly consistent with what victims told me across this country, Mr. Chairman. When we get rid of things like the faint hope clause or we make sure that people who commit multiple murders serve the time that is appropriate for the crime they have committed, Canadians support us. They realize there's a cost to detaining some of these dangerous individuals. Canadians support us on that.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
We have that different approach, but you and I will agree on that one, Mr. McGuinty.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Sure.
There are parliamentarians, Ministers, who want empty jails. Get real. Get real. Stop the nonsense rhetoric and level with Canadians. They're catching up. They're catching up after five years, Ministers. Mark my words, they're catching up.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. McGuinty, you've passed your time. Thank you.
Mr. Reid, you're up.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a technical question to ask, but before I do that, to help folks along who are trying to follow this on TV, I thought I might point out that these hearings are being held in response to a motion that was tabled by Mr. Brison requesting the costs of a series of 18 pieces of government legislation. However, not included among those 18 pieces was Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, so I'm a bit perplexed that there are references from the other side, complaints about the fact that costing relating to that bill is not included.
They didn't ask for it. Mr. Brison didn't ask for it; he's free to do so at a future date. I am perplexed at his frustration at not finding cost estimates for a bill he forgot to include in his package being included in the response to the documents he did get.
I didn't want a comment from the Minister. I wanted to have a comment on the question that follows, because we have limited time here.
The chart that was originally submitted in response to Mr. Brison's question in the House back in February contains information. Of course, today we received this very substantial binder of material. Are there any variances between the costs in the chart tabled February 17 and the additional material tabled today?
While answering that question, I'd appreciate it if you could also elaborate on the planning assumptions used both for the document tabled in February and for today's additional information.