Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2011

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can indicate that the material was gone through very thoroughly, first of all for the February 17 information that was provided by public servants throughout our respective departments and again in compiling this documentation that was presented here today. If we did a submission a month from now, there would be a variance. That's the nature of this type of documentation, but I am confident, based on my conversations with the public officials, that there are no substantive variances in any respect that would in any way give the committee a false impression of what was submitted on February 17 vis-à-vis what has been submitted today. There will always be variances on a month-to-month basis.

Is all of this material 100% accurate? It's as accurate as my officials could possibly make it. Could there be one mistake in here? I'm not prepared to say there isn't, but I think in overwhelming substance, there is no substantive variance.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Is there anything officials want to add to that, in particular officials from the other departments?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, a lot of work went into this to provide this detail. You can imagine this is as up-to-date and accurate as possible to provide as much detail to the committee members.... As you quite correctly pointed out, we were asked for the details on various bills, and that's exactly what we provided to you. Again, I trust this will be of assistance to the committee. I believe this answers any hesitation there may have been from the Speaker with respect to the estimates.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly. We have a point of order; excuse me.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Chair, the Minister just said there was no variance between the documents provided today and the documents provided on February 17. I draw his attention to the estimates on Bill C-4 provided on February 17. He said there were no incremental costs for Bill C-4, and today's document says there is a $358-million incremental cost as a result of Bill C-4.

Given the fact there is a variance and the Minister didn't know there was a variance between the two documents--those provided on February 17 and those provided today--I would ask on behalf of the committee that the ministers return tomorrow morning for two hours of discussions on these figures. There's a lot of information here; I'm certain they would not mind that scrutiny, since we've already identified variances between the information provided February 17 and the information dumped on us a few minutes ago here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Brison, first off, it's not a point of order. Second, the minister did say “no substantial differences”, and we could argue what that is, I suppose. You have made a request, and when we're done, we'll ask our witnesses and we'll finish your request.

Mr. Reid, you have time left, so I'll carry on with you.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'll go back to inviting the minister to finish his response, or one of his officials.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. Maybe we will do that. I'll ask Catherine Kane address that piece, if you don't mind. I think you misread that, Mr. Brison, and I know you wouldn't want to do that or misunderstand that.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

That's why we could benefit from your returning and elucidating as to your numbers.

[Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Very briefly—and I appreciate that you haven't had time to digest the information that's included—the summary information at tab 4 with respect to Bill C-4 indicates that the current cost of the youth justice corrections system in Canada is $350 million. Those are not the costs that are associated with Bill C-4 in particular; we've included that for context for the committee.

We have attempted in these templates to respond to the very specific questions you had in your motion. In several circumstances it's not possible to respond to incremental costs and baseline costs and so on, but with respect to your request about baseline costs, we have indicated that the current cost to the federal government—because we cost-share those agreements—is $177.3 million. That is right now, at this moment, and it has nothing to do with incremental costs associated with Bill C-4, so there's no variation between the information on the chart and here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, when it's your turn, we will let you ask another question.

Mr. Paquette, you are up.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like you to signal me when I have one minute left, because my colleague would also like to ask a question.

I would like to confirm what Mr. Brison has just said. There are interesting, if not substantial, differences. We cannot be a party to this masquerade. I looked at the document quickly: 90% of what is here are simply copies of bills regarding which the Standing Committee on Finance requested information. And we are still being served up the same excuses. So, they are not complying with the order from the House. If I'm asked what I think, I can tell you that, having quickly reviewed the document, they are still not complying.

I could cite the example of Bill C-48. It allows judges to order that an accused will not be eligible for parole for 25 years for each offence. In the document you tabled on February 17 with respect to Bill C-48, it says: “The Correctional Service of Canada is not expecting a significant financial impact on the Service. Any future impact will be dealt with as part of the usual reference level adjustment process”. So, there is the bill, but it is only two and a quarter pages long. That is the new material. It also says: “Longer sentences could result in increased costs for the Correctional Service of Canada [...]” Before there were no increased costs, but now, there are. I will keep on reading: “[...] but it is not possible to project those costs at this time”.

And because those costs cannot be projected, there is no answer being provided to the following questions either: “What is the estimate of marginal costs, broken down by category (capital costs) [...]” and so on. The answer is: “This does not apply. See section ‘Explanation for failure to answer questions’.” And the explanation is simply: “[...] it is not possible to project costs at this time.” And a little further on, it says: “[...] If CSC requires additional resources as a result of this bill, supplementary funding will be requested.”

It is fairly normal, for parliamentarians who are looking at bills that have passed, to at least have an idea of what they will cost. I cannot believe that the Department of Public Safety is not in a position to provide a rough estimate of the cost of Bill C-48 over time. In my opinion, they are hiding figures from parliamentarians that the latter have every right to receive. The Speaker was very clear on that point.

I would just like to remind you, once again, that this document was tabled on February 17 and that, after it was tabled, the Speaker handed down his ruling, saying that this was potentially a case of contempt of Parliament. It also raised a question of privilege.

My question is simple: how could the committee's finding possibly be anything other than that the government is guilty of contempt of Parliament? What are your arguments? That certainly is not one.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Monsieur Paquette, you mentioned Bill C-48. That is the bill that is directed against multiple murderers, meaning individuals who kill more than one person. Instead of their being eligible for parole after 25 years, regardless of the number of people they have murdered, we are now giving judges the discretion to increase that to 50 or 75 years if there's a second or a third murder.

When you ask what the cost is, the public servants, whom I'm sure you respect, have come to the conclusion that no detailed cost information is available because the provision is discretionary. It only applies to multiple murderers, and any impact would only be apparent in future years. That means there will be no apparent cost to this for 25 years, because the individual who was convicted of first-degree murder will be there for 25 years. They're saying that since it's discretionary, it is impossible to guess what the incremental costs will be in 25 or 50 years. That's all I'm asking you to do.

You may disagree and say we shouldn't be coming down hard on multiple murderers. That's your business. You can do that, and we can have these points of disagreement, but if you're asking what costs there will be 25 or 50 years from now, the public servants who have helped put these together say it is virtually impossible to determine. You're talking about something discretionary and something that won't happen for 25 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame DeBellefeuille, you have about three-quarters of a minute.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to give my time to my colleague.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My colleague wanted to point out that in your document, you say that you are concerned about the safety of Canadians. She wanted to point out that, in the Estrie region, you are currently shutting down border crossings or reducing staff hours, and that this will have an effect on the safety of area residents. I'm talking about border crossings.

You may be tough on crime, but you are not smart on crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Godin for five minutes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we look at the motion itself, on October 6, 2010, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion requesting certain financial information from the government within 10 days. Specifically, FINA requested the Department of Finance Canada to provide it with the adjustments to the fiscal framework to incorporate the costs of Bill C-4, Bill C-5, etc.

When we look at what you gave us here, it says: No detailed cost estimates are available because any impact of the amendments would be on the provincial and the territorial corrections costs. The Bill should not result in cost impacts for the Correctional Service of Canada because young persons are rarely held in these facilities.

Are you saying there will be no cost to the federal government, but there will be a cost to the provincial government?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With respect to the Young Criminal Justice Act, there is a cost-sharing agreement. This is where perhaps Mr. Brison misunderstood. The cost of detaining young people is a little over $300 million. There is an agreement between the provinces and the Canadian government, so if there are any increases with respect to that, they will be negotiated between the provinces and the federal government. You'll see from the information exactly how much money is being given by the Canadian government to the provinces on that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

When we're talking about the adjustment of the fiscal costs, you're saying no details of the cost estimates are available.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

These individuals aren't being detained at federal expense, but at provincial expense. When we get information from them--

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

They're dumped on the provinces, then.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No. The provinces asked for these amendments, so it's not like.... We have meetings and we move forward on these things. Any additional costs are negotiated between the provinces and the Government of Canada.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The provinces asked you at the same time to put money into the communities to make sure our kids don't go to jail.