Evidence of meeting #50 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
On December 1, the minister's response to our motion was as follows:
The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.
Mr. Chair, does the minister believe that to be true, his response on December 1, or was he misleading the committee at that time?
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Again, Mr. Chairman, any time you have a cabinet confidence, advice to the cabinet, we're under an obligation to protect that information. Indeed, as the member would know, as a privy councillor you swear that you will keep information that is cabinet confidences secret and not distribute them.
That being said, though, if you go beyond that and ask on what basis and with what information these are being made, it's ascertainable...and again, this is exactly what we have done. Shortly after that response, the information as to what these bills would cost had been placed before the committee. The committee wanted further evidence and further details, as reflected in the Speaker's ruling. This is what you have.
If the honourable member's concern is the cost of these crime bills, he has considerable information, to the greatest extent possible. Again, you have all the individuals around this table who are joining with us today who have worked very hard to respond to that. It seems to me that's what the issue is. If you're worried about the cost of our crime bills, you have it here.
You have an excellent analysis of this here, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that will please all honourable members.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Chair, I'm kind of shocked this morning at the aggressiveness of the Liberal Party. They kind of remind me of kids at Christmastime who get everything they've asked for on their Christmas list and then complain that they didn't get an extra gift of something they already had.
I'm going to actually ask the ministers some questions, through you, Mr. Chair, because the ministers have taken their time to come here today, and I--like many people across the country, I think--want to hear from the ministers and want to hear what types of activities our government is undertaking to protect people from criminals, to make sure that criminals serve the time they're supposed to serve, that they're assigned. I think you're seeing in polls across the country today that many Canadians, and in fact the majority of Canadians, support our tough on crime agenda.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to Minister Toews, after reviewing the information package we received yesterday that elaborates in the charts the crime bills tabled last month--these provide a great amount of detail and show a lot of work by public servants, many who are here today--do you believe that the information you've provided satisfies the request in Mr. Brison's motion?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate that question.
I do in fact believe that the answers provided on February 17 were in fact made in good faith. They were fulsome answers, and in fact we have now provided this entire binder of information, which deals with that extensively.
I find it curious, Mr. Armstrong, that Mr. Brison keeps on going back to paper over the deficiencies in his own motion.
He asked for information very specifically about 18 different bills, and then, Mr. Chair, raises issues that are on another bill.
For example, on the erroneous facts that Mr. Brison put on the table this morning, he indicated that I had indicated that I'd never said the cost would be $90 million. Of course, Mr. Chair, the costs were $90 million. If he reads the rest of the quote there, which he has neglected to state for the people of Canada, he would have found out that it dealt with the appropriation in one year, in one year of five years. The first year was $90 million. The full cost was $2.1 billion over five years. I haven't changed my mind. What Mr. Brison has done is selectively take quotes to mislead this committee in respect of that issue, and I find that disturbing.
I find that consistent, Mr. Chair, with the issues that we have raised here in full compliance with the subsequent concerns of the Speaker. The Speaker has indicated that there were some deficiencies. He didn't specify what the deficiencies were, so public servants have gone to a great deal of work to in fact find out and guess what those deficiencies might be. But they are all here to answer that. This document is a document of the public servants who are responsible for these figures coming forward.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
Just to help us out a bit with the package that was distributed to us yesterday, could you explain to us, as members of the committee, the formatting of that particular document and how that formatting relates to the very specific information that was requested by Mr. Brison?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Perhaps I'll use one of the bills that I'm responsible for, Bill C-52.
If you look at the response here and look at Mr. Brison's motion, Mr. Chair, there are four separate points in Mr. Brison's motion, the first one being the incremental cost estimates broken down by capital, operations and maintenance, and other categories.
If you look at the breakdown for Bill C-52, you'll see the heading, “What are the incremental cost estimates broken down by Capital, Operations & Maintenance and Other categories?” There is a response to that.
Then in respect of the other three points, specific in respect of Bill C-52 and Mr. Brison's motion, the points of Mr. Brison's motion were put into the material by the public servants, and then the public servants provided the response. So it conforms in a substantive, fulsome way with the ruling of the Speaker.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to Minister Toews, yesterday some committee members questioned, wrongly, some costs that they claimed were missing from the information package that was presented yesterday, for example, the $2.1 billion over five years that has been dedicated to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.
You've been upfront about that cost for months. It is not in the document that was distributed yesterday. Why not? Why is that not contained in that document?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Well, Mr. Chair, I can only state that Mr. Brison made an error and was obviously sloppy and now he's trying to make up for that by covering his mistake.
In the interest of being upfront about this, and if this is the questioning Mr. Brison wants to endeavour, I do have the projections for that. In fact, the 2010-11 estimate, which Mr. Brison referred to, was in fact $88.5 million. In the course of that scrum I indicated $90 million, which in fact would include the previous year's $2 million, hence the approximate $90 million. But you'll see, then, 2011-12, $572.8 million; 2012-13, $765.7 million; 2013-14, $708 million, approximately, for a total of $2.1373 billion.
Those are the cost estimates that public servants have put together. I'm prepared, Mr. Chair, to have Mr. Baker, or Mr. Head, the commissioner, respond in full detail to those.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm sure we'll get questions on that one.
Mr. Armstrong, thank you very much. That went much smoother.
Madame DeBellefeuille, are you up?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, ministers.
We went through the massive pile of documentation last night, and we realized that, overall, the documents and the total amounts were pretty much identical, give or take a few things. There were a few extra details, but a number of questions remained unanswered. Among other things, I had a good look at Bill C-4, which you called Sébastien's Law.
In your document, you said that the bill would likely lead to increased costs for Quebec, the territories and the provinces, but you could not say how much more, because young offenders are usually incarcerated in provincial and territorial institutions.
You are introducing a bill you want us to support, but you have no idea what it will cost. You do not say how much it will cost Quebec. You also say you are going to negotiate an agreement and that if the other governments need funding, you will look into that and perhaps give them some.
What's more, you have absolutely no idea what will be required of your department or the government, especially in terms of how much money the federal government will have to hand over to the provinces. That doesn't look very good, Mr. Minister. You are telling us we have all the documents we need, even though we do not have any of that information for one bill in particular. We do not know what it will cost because, according to you, you do not have that data since it is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
Frankly, I think that shows contempt. It shows contempt for me, as a parliamentarian, when you ask me to put my confidence in you and you cannot even provide us with a single figure for Bill C-4.
And that comment stands for Bill C-16 as well. There again, you are telling us that the provinces will have to incur increased costs once the bill is passed, but you say you are not responsible for providing an estimate of those costs because it is an area of provincial and territorial responsibility.
It is pretty shocking that you can make legislative changes that have financial repercussions for the provinces and territories, yet you do not provide any information on what those figures will be.
How do you explain that, Mr. Minister? How can we possibly take you seriously? You say that we have everything we need to answer our questions and to make good decisions and that you have complied with the Speaker's ruling, when you are not providing us with any information on what these two bills will end up costing the provinces.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Again, we don't just say it's the provinces' responsibility; these costs are in fact incurred by the provinces.
I can say with respect to youth justice, as I indicated in response to the Liberals, that approximately $350 million is for the total youth justice system. I mean, these are programs that help prevent youth getting involved with the system and help those who already are. So it cannot be attributable to this particular bill...certainly not; I mean, that's the cost, and it is incurred by the provinces.
With respect to the Bill C-16 that the member just mentioned, that deals with conditional sentences. Now, there have been two changes to that, the Bill C-9 that several years ago....
We have not received any costing from the provinces on that. We've been looking to see if there's any information on that. We have not received that from them. So if we haven't received it from the first time we changed conditional sentencing, then I think you'll believe me when I tell you that we haven't received it for the most recent bill.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we don't bring forward these bills in a vacuum. On a regular basis I meet with my provincial counterparts, and very often I am encouraged to move forward on these. They are suggested by the provinces. Yes, there is a cost to the provinces, and again, I don't try to....
In answer to the question of the honourable member concerning conditional sentences, I won't speculate on what it costs the provinces. If they give us that information, or if they are able to determine...but again, I appreciate the challenges they have in trying to determine these.
That being said, with respect to federal costing, you have considerable information before you. We've been giving it to you over the last couple of months. As I say, I hope this is of great help to the committee, Mr. Chair, because these are the federal costs. I appreciate that the province has an important role in this--
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Nicholson, forgive me for interrupting, but as you know, I have only seven minutes.
You said you knew what the two bills would cost the federal government, but I did not see those figures in the document. You also said you were waiting for estimates from the provinces. I find that a bit strange. You said you consulted with the provinces, so surely, you must have some cost estimates from them. I do not know whether Quebec gave you its support on Bill C-4 or whether it told you how much of a financial burden it would have to bear as a result of the bill. That financial burden will end up falling on the shoulders of Quebec taxpayers.
Ministers, you were asked several times by parliamentarians in the House about the costs associated with your law and order agenda. But not once did you give a clear or accurate answer. A motion was necessary in order to debate the matter in the House. And on February 17, you tabled a basic outline with a few details. It was inadequate, and it took a ruling by the Speaker to compel you to come here today with that binder full of documents, which, from where we sit, fails to meet the requirements of Mr. Brison's motion.
Let's take Bill C-52, for example. You said that the binder contained a few more details than the outline. How is it that the only information you gave us on February 17 was a one-line explanation on Bill C-52? And now, because of the Speaker's ruling, here you are, giving us further details on the bill.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
It is pretty strange that here you are today, giving us further details after being forced to do so. You could have given us that information on February 17.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I will remind members again, if you ask seven-minute questions, there will be no time to get answers. The ministers are here to try to provide us with answers.
We'll move on to Monsieur Godin. Maybe he'll ask the same question.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Point of order. I am not sure whether you are being impartial today, as chair, but you cannot prejudge what I will ask. I would appreciate it if you were respectful to the members.