Evidence of meeting #56 for Public Safety and National Security 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.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Can we assume that there would be a great chance that it would increase costs?
9:30 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Actually, we're neutral on that aspect. If there's evidence that's out there, if parliamentarians want us to look at the model implications, we could adjust our estimates. Again, it's important for us to be clear in our assumptions.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I think it's a very important point that Mr. Lobb made. His assumption was that if rates of recidivism were lower, the costs would be lower. But we've heard from the correctional investigator and from countless witnesses that these policies lead to higher rates of recidivism. The correctional Iivestigator, who is an independent officer of Parliament, has said that the overcrowding, the double-bunking, is going to lead to much higher rates of recidivism.
Would it be correct to assume that the costs you've given to Parliament, which I think are illustrative of the caution we have to exercise with all bills, could be significantly higher if we started seeing much higher rates of recidivism?
9:35 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
We could adjust a model up or down based on whether or not there's sufficient evidence to say recidivism is going up or down. We had access to these experts on our panel. I think as budget officers we feel more comfortable, in terms of the fiscal framework, just holding the concepts constant. But we have built these models and we can adjust those recidivism rates.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I understand that, and I think it's a prudent thing to do. If you were to assume as a hypothetical that the correctional investigator is correct and that other witnesses are correct and that the experience of every jurisdiction in the world that has tried this thing is correct and that we're going to see higher rates of recidivism, if you were to plug into your model higher rates of recidivism, would that result in a significantly higher cost figure?
9:35 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Yes, we would get higher inflow, higher head counts, and so you'd be dealing with higher costs, if you assume recidivism is moving in that direction.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
February 17th, 2011 / 9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
My thanks to the witnesses for appearing. It's always good to have these ebbs and flows and cut and thrusts, because there are many opinions, and you deal with dollars and cents. I think what we have here is a combination of many things. We're dealing with some socio-economic issues. So there are costs that are sometimes hidden. You make assumptions. The Prime Minister is an economist, and you know the old economist joke about the can and developing a new can opener. The engineer looks at the mechanics of a can opener. They go to the economist and the economist says, “Well, that's assuming we have a can”.
What I'm trying to get at here is that we need people like you. We need economists. We need people to do estimates. But there are also other costs that are borne, and there cannot be a dollar value placed on them, and that's the cost to victims, the pain and suffering they go through when a crime is committed, and the lifelong need for both medical and psychological help, which, although it isn't attributed to prisons, is part of the cost of crime.
So governments have to look at that. There is a cost to society, and sometimes you have to put bad people in jail. For most people in our society, there's an assumption that if you commit certain kinds of crimes, you're going to jail. If people don't have a system that metes out justice, then they lose faith in that system. I think that's what the government is trying to do, and there is a cost to it.
Did any of you read the report commissioned by former Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety”? That panel, because of the time constraints and some of the issues they dealt with, hired Deloitte & Touche to do a study very close to some of the questions Mr. Lobb was asking. This caused a lot of consternation in my riding, because they made some assumptions, as economists do. Without even going to an institution, they talked about closing down institutions, building new institutions, the costs involved, and the pros and cons.
Mr. Rajekar, did you in your analysis use the Deloitte & Touche study for some of your assumptions in your estimates?
9:35 a.m.
Financial Advisor, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sir, as I mentioned before, we used it as a verification check for the numbers that had been provided to us by the Senate committee and were sourced back to the commissioner of CSC. But we have not used any statistics from that report.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Did you use any Deloitte Touche statistics? You looked at it. Deloitte Touche, being a world-class organization, with its many economists and auditors, is used quite extensively in our society, both by government and private industry. What was it about their information that you were not able to use it?
9:40 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I am glad to hear about Deloitte Touche. That's my former employer. I worked for their New York office.
Given that we had the figures sourced directly to the commissioner, and that was through testimony to a parliamentary committee, our sense was that we could treat that as authoritative costing. So the Deloitte Touche material was then a way to check on the reasonableness of that statement, but we did not have any reason to doubt Mr. Head in his testimony to the committee.
9:40 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
When we look at the type of analysis, while we didn't draw specifically from their statistics, I think there were aspects that were raised in the report, like recapitalization in the prison system and whether enough money had been set aside to deal with this. Those facts threw flags up for us in respect of our model-building.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
We appreciate the work you do for Parliament. It keeps people on their toes. I think the public is aware that it is our government that created your position, with the realization that from time to time there might be some disagreement over the accuracy, one way or the other, from your side or our side.
I think it's necessary to reiterate that there's a cost. I'm thinking of the California model, where they've opened their doors and let people out because they can't afford to keep them in jail. I guess we're not in that position in this country.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Norlock. That sounds like a good place to end.
Madam Mourani, please.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Page, earlier on, in regard to a question on Bill C-59, you said that you had not done a cost assessment.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
However, in response to a question by my colleague Mr. Davies, you said that there would be an effect. What do you base that statement on?
9:40 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
He was asking a hypothetical question.
9:40 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
He was asking whether it was possible for there to be additional costs. I believe there certainly is a risk of additional costs.