Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Ross Toller]

There is a document. It's important to note that the strategic review did not just look at farms.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

What's the name of the document that you're relying upon?

[Ross Toller]

Again, I believe it's the strategic review process that is looked at and examined.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

But is there a document to be read?

[Ross Toller]

Yes, there would be information that would have been considered in all the arenas we looked at for performing more efficiently. I don't know what the name of the document is.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I am moving a motion:

That the committee calls upon the Minister of Public Safety to table forthwith the Strategic Review document referred to by CSC officials on March 25, 2010, during their testimony before the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

That motion will be noted, and in 48 hours there will be an opportunity to deal with it--at the next meeting.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Well, I would imagine it will be in 48 hours.

There will certainly be a French version available after 24 hours.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'd like clarification that the document you've referred to today is the only one you relied upon in terms of making the decision to close down the prison farms. Is that accurate?

[Ross Toller]

Yes. Each department goes through all of its operations that are designed in terms of programs, looks at these from the perspective of effectiveness and efficiency, considers--

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

That's fine. So my question is, other than what we've mentioned—which is the topic of this motion now—if there's anything else that you're aware of, or come to be made aware of, that you relied upon to make this decision, I would like you to advise us in writing of the name and the date of this document, so that if you won't produce it, we can also bring a similar motion for the production of that documentation.

I want whatever there is, in writing, that was relied upon before the decision was made, what you relied upon to make the decision to close down the prison farms.

There was a question that Mr. Davies asked: why not improve the prison farms rather than simply close them down? You're taking this from a financial perspective. You say there's an annual loss to operate these prison farms of how much? What's the number?

[John Sargent]

The number we had quoted was from the final fiscal year prior to the strategic review being carried out. That was fiscal year 2007-08. The figure was $4.1 million.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Okay. So would you agree with me that it would be a better use of public funds to spend that approximate $4 million to keep the prison farms going, as opposed to spending that money on the increase of $5 million that was just made in the budget to further advertise Canada's economic action plan?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, if we're going to be that ridiculous, let's do it right now and let's get it cleared out. This is just ludicrous.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Sorry, talk through the chair, please.

I'm going to rule the question in order. It's a fair question.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

A fair question?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

The question, as I understand it, is whether they feel the expenditures in one area are of more importance or relevance than the other area.

Mr. MacKenzie, that, to my mind—and you're welcome to challenge the chair—is a fair and legitimate question.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

On a point of order—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

I do have a problem where, in a couple of instances, people have inferred motive to people and the questions they asked. The members who are before this committee are good and decent people. We may disagree on the substance of policy matters, but I would ask the committee to refrain from inferring motive to members of the committee. That would be a legitimate point of order. I would have ruled if somebody had raised that, but in terms of asking whether one matter is a priority over another, I rather suspect that this is much ado about nothing, in the sense that I very much doubt Mr. Toller will respond, because it would probably be a question better placed to a minister than to somebody within the bureaucracy. It's going to be more a rhetorical question, I imagine, than anything else. Of course, a member is able to ask a question about relative priority of different government expenditures. I can't find a reason that I would rule that out of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Okay, there has been a challenge to the chair. That's non-debatable. I'll take a vote.

All those who wish to uphold the decision of the chair, please raise your hand. All those opposed?

It's left to the chair to decide if the chair's decision should be upheld. I think my reasoning in this matter is good and sound; therefore, I'll uphold my own decision.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

Mr. Toller, I imagine you don't want to respond, but should you want the opportunity, you're given it.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Mr. Kramp, on a point of order.