Government Operations Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I regret that you have to come to us to seek that help. It's very disconcerting. I hope we can help you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

For the final two minutes, Mr. Warkentin.

[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?

[Kevin Page]

We could actually probably go on a fairly long disposition as to what's behind the 3,800 inmates.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Did you do the analysis?

[Kevin Page]

We basically assumed no behavioural changes as a result of the Truth in Sentencing Act.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So you said that even though these people are in prison, you didn't calculate the fact that many of the people are coming back into the system again?

[Ashutosh Rajekar, Financial Advisor, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

I think I'll take that.

In our assumptions we don't change the inflow rate assumptions. So, for example, when we say that in the year 2015 the Truth in Sentencing Act would have such an effect, it is based on an inflow rate assumption. That inflow rate assumption is not subject to change. So that will include all the shared effects of recidivism and what not.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that. That's a no, then.

What I also want to know is that in your infrastructure analysis, how many cells were you bringing into the calculation for construction? I see written in one of my pieces of material an estimate for the infrastructure you're proposing of an additional 4,189 cells constructed. Is that correct?

[Kevin Page]

That is correct.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So you are proposing, then, construction of more cells than there are human beings in your proposal and analysis? So now you're proposing that we build more cells than there are human beings, even though many of these human beings would just have been retained in the system anyway. That seems like a very interesting analysis.

[Kevin Page]

Sir, in our costing estimates we assume the continuation of a 90% occupancy rate in the current system. We could have adjusted the occupancy rate to deal with that. So, basically, 3,800 translates into roughly 4,100 cells.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So you're proposing to build cells that will never be used?

[Kevin Page]

If I may add, sir, just one point?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So you're proposing that you'll build cells that will never be used?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

[Kevin Page]

Again, sir, these are estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Page, briefly, if you could finish this.

Mr. Warkentin, you've gone well over your two minutes.

I'll just leave the last word to Mr. Page to respond to the inquiries that have been raised.

[Ashutosh Rajekar]

Thank you, I can take that.

We assumed the historical 90% occupancy ratio at the Correctional Service of Canada. So when we continue that assumption, we are assuming that the Correctional Service of Canada will continue to function the way they were functioning. In that sense, we are assuming no policy change from our perspective. It's the continuation of the status quo that exists at the Correctional Service of Canada right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Page, I appreciate your contributions and those of your colleagues to our discussions.

I'm going to suspend for a moment while Mr. Page and his colleagues leave the table and then I will ask Madame Bourgeois to formally present her motion and for that we will allocate our time until the end of the session.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, we call the meeting back to order.

Madame Bourgeois, would you present your motion, please?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to tell you that my motion follows on Kevin Page's request from when he appeared before our committee last April 12. I am going back to it since it is obvious that Mr. Page does not have the tools he needs to accomplish his work and, therefore, I ask that my colleagues provide him with those tools.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Is there any debate on this motion?

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just as a point of order first, Mr. Chair, I am, of course, new to this committee today, and I don't know what the rules are about proper notice or placing items on the agenda, but the agenda that I have today suggests that we are talking about a freeze on departmental budget envelopes and government operations. And we are talking about the economic stimulus package; we are not talking about the further enhancement of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's ability to obtain information.

The motion seems to go into every department and into service-level standards, and so on, which makes it very broad, and seems to me to go way beyond the scope of the orders of the day, without even notice. So I just propose to you, Mr. Chair, that this motion is not in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Woodworth, thank you for that intervention.

In my judgment, the motion is in order because it does deal with what was raised in today's discussions. Therefore, it does not need a 48-hour period of notice, which it would in the usual course of events. You're perfectly proper to raise that issue, but it is within the actual discussion that we had with Mr. Page and his colleagues, so in my judgment the motion is in order and it does not require 48 hours' notice.

So if there is no debate, can I call the vote?