Yes. For example, and this is something the Surrey Chamber of Commerce pointed out to me, the average cocaine addict steals $1,000 worth of product a day--admittedly, this isn't a gun crime--so the direct economic cost to businesses is $365,000 a year, because cocaine addicts don't take a day off. They need to do their work every single day. So if you actually look at the direct economic cost to a business, the cost is much more expensive than incarcerating that individual.
Now, I'm not talking about the indirect costs of victimization and the deterioration of neighbourhoods, the deterioration of property values. If you do that, the cost is much, much more staggering. Again, when you deal with the issue of incapacitation and separation, apart from deterrents, I think it's a modest thing to say that for every individual you're putting away for one year, twelve other serious offences are not committed. So what is the benefit there?
An interesting argument I heard the other day in question period with respect to the gun registry was that even if the gun registry saved one life, the money was well spent. Quite frankly, there is a much better way to spend that billion dollars, other than on a gun registry, that would save much more than one life. I think while any loss of life is regrettable—any loss of life is regrettable—because we don't have unlimited funds, what's the most effective way in terms of considering all the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, including rehabilitation, all those? What's the most effective way with a person who's been convicted, for example, in the rare situation of three of these serious offences, where he's now facing ten years? I would submit, in that case, from a purely cost-effective point of view, that is the most cost-effective part.