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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Gentlemen, if for no other reason besides having trouble with the translation, can we try not to talk over top of each other?
Mr. Brison, when you ask a question, leave time for an answer.
Ministers, if possible, please don't talk over when you're being asked a question.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Minister Toews and Minister Nicholson, your government has steadfastly refused to provide the full costs of your legislation to this Parliament. You've taken four months to provide any fulsome information, and we will have to determine in the course of this week whether or not you've done that. Based on your track record, we don't have a lot of confidence.
Over the last four months you've had lots of opportunities to come clean to Parliament and come clean to the Canadian taxpayer. Why have you been so focused on hiding the costs of your U.S.-style prison agenda from Canadians? Why have you been so reluctant to tell the truth to Canadians, and why has it taken this parliamentary committee just to get you to provide any information to Canadian taxpayers?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Brison, your time is up.
Ministers, hopefully under one of the other questions you'll get a chance to answer that.
Mr. Lukiwski, you have seven minutes.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ministers, and thank you to your officials for being here.
Minister Toews, number one, thank you for providing the information. Obviously this information is attempting to support, elaborate, and probably clarify the information that was tabled last month in the House. I know that Mr. Brison and others obviously have their own agenda, but it is, in my view, transparency at work.
[Laughter]
We've heard a lot of numbers. We've heard the number $2.1 billion over five years. That's to put an end to the revolving door of the justice system and put criminals behind bars, where they belong to begin with.
In information that you tabled in the House or the government House leader tabled in the House on your behalf last month, it showed the government's remaining tough on crime legislation costing approximately $650 million. I think Minister Nicholson said it's $631 million--close enough. Canadians obviously are hearing a lot of numbers. I'd like to give you an opportunity to clarify what these numbers mean.
If you take the $2.1 billion that you had said would be the cost over five years and add the $631 million or $650 million, that totals approximately $2.7 billion.
Is the cost information regarding Bill C-25, the $2.1 billion, included in this information? And if not, why not? Secondly, if it's not, would it be accurate to say that, fundamentally, the total cost of the crime legislation has already been disclosed?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Let me say first of all that I'm not aware that any information was requested on Bill C-25.
The $2.1 billion number comes in respect of the construction of new units for prisons. Presently our capacity in prisons is approximately 15,000. Mr. Head, the commissioner, is here. The $2.1 billion is for the construction of approximately 2,700 additional units and for replacing some of the aging infrastructure that is required.
Let me repeat, Mr. Lukiwski, that there are no new prisons. These are 2,700 units in existing prisons. That is the estimate we received from Corrections Canada on what we would need with the increase as a result of the truth-in-sentencing laws.
The estimate last year was that by this month this year there would be approximately 1,300 new prisoners. I received the figures this morning, and there are 500-and-some new prisoners. So even on those kinds of estimates, where the department has diligently tried to estimate what the costs are going to be, the costs will not be as much, given the fact that the estimates made by Corrections Canada are about half of what was originally estimated.
The estimates will change from month to month, but in terms of the information we've provided you, of the $2.1 billion, $800 million relates to construction costs and $1.2 billion or so relates to operating costs over five years.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Specifically, is the $2.1 billion included in this information?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
It's not legislation. The request was for legislation and the cost of legislation.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Okay, you've clarified it. Thank you. I think that was where a lot of the confusion lay. Right?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
So are you suggesting that fundamentally the total cost of the crime legislation has already been disclosed? The criticism is that you haven't been forthcoming and transparent on the cost of our crime legislation. You've given detailed information today, in addition to the information that was tabled last month. Prior to that, are you satisfied and can you assure this committee that the total cost of previous crime legislation has already been disclosed?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
The information that was provided to the House on February 17 is complete, in terms of our estimates of what the costs are for the legislation that Mr. Brison requested. In that sense, we believe we complied fully with the Speaker's ruling.
The Speaker has indicated that there are some deficiencies in the information. The Speaker's ruling doesn't indicate where those deficiencies are, so we have simply provided substance to the disclosure we have already made. This in no way detracts from what has already been made. It's consistent with everything we've already made.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If I'm interpreting your remarks correctly, would it be fair to say that in your estimation the additional information you've tabled today satisfies the request made by the Speaker?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Certainly it was our position that the February 17 information did that, and we did that in good faith. Now we're providing this additional information in good faith, even though the Speaker's ruling itself doesn't specify if there are any specific deficiencies. That's not indicated anywhere in the ruling.
It's a lot like facing a criminal charge and someone saying you've done something wrong, but there's nothing specified. A Criminal Code charge is simply handed to your client that says this is the charge. Well, it's very difficult to respond in that way.
We believe that the information we've provided is fulsome. It was made in good faith, and it honours in every respect the concerns the Speaker may have had.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our two ministers.
My first question is as follows. When the committee made a request to the different departments affected by the motion adopted on November 17, 2010, the government responded this way on December 1:
The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the government's justice bills is a matter of confidence and, as such, the government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.
So, on December 1, there was no question of providing information regarding the justice bills identified in the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance. On February 17, the Government House Leader tabled a document in the House providing a certain amount of information, although that information was obviously incomplete. There was a great deal of detail missing.
What happened between December 1 and February 17 that resulted in information that was considered confidential by your government, because it was a Cabinet confidence, suddenly being released on February 17? It suddenly became possible to release some of those documents. However, they are woefully inadequate.
The proof of that—and you yourself admit this—is that today, you have come here with a document that basically presents the same information that was tabled in the House on February 17, but with additional details.
How do you explain the government's response last December 1?
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Again, we're not providing cabinet documents to you, Monsieur Paquette, but at the same time, the information upon which the decision is made and the cost estimates either are tabled in the estimates or we've gone to the trouble of assembling them here for you in considerable detail. So again, the documents that you received earlier this year with respect to the costs are complete in the sense that you got the amounts in terms of the costs.
That being said, you--and in compliance with the Speaker's ruling--want more information, and we're prepared to provide it. So you have quite a bit of information, but of course you're not getting the advice to cabinet. These are not cabinet documents, which of course are protected in our system.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Yes, and that is pretty much the problem. On February 17, the Government House Leader tabled this document in the House. And basically, this document is the same as the other one, but with additional detail.
The Speaker of the House made his ruling on March 7. That means that the Speaker is of the view that this document or the one before it does not comply with the orders issued by the House and that the fundamental principle is that parliamentarians have the right to receive all the information.
Some means must be found to protect national security and the public interest. We are evidence of that because, with respect to the Afghan documents, we were able to find a mechanism that suited both Liberal and Bloc members.
How is it that for the rest of the documentation that you have not submitted, you are unable to carry out the same kind of process—in other words, to have a special committee or some other body become involved so that we are able to see all the documents and ensure that the information made available is indeed adequate and complies with the request made in the House?
For the time being, I am not satisfied, because these documents are pretty much the same. In both cases, there was the ruling by the Speaker on March 7.
Would you be prepared to consider setting up the same type of mechanism as the one used for the Afghan documents? Actually, I should say that, unfortunately, a member of the panel died Sunday. I want to extend my condolences to his family.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Let me briefly respond to that. That's certainly a decision the House can make; it's certainly not something that we as ministers can determine.
All the officials can do is provide you with information that is not a cabinet confidence. If the House determines that they want the same system that they did with the Afghan documents, there's nothing stopping this House from making that determination if they so wish.
But I want to point out that even in the context of the Afghanistan documents, those are not cabinet confidences that were released to the committee. As I understand it, the process is that jurists determine whether or not the document is a cabinet confidence. If they determine that it's a cabinet confidence, it's not disclosed to the committee members--