In a scene that looked more like a
low-production talk show than the launch of an election platform,
the Conservatives revealed their baggie of goodies to Canadians which
included, among other things, money to compensate Québec for their HST
transition: money the Bloc Québecois had unsuccessfully lobbied for in
exchange for their support on the budget just a few short weeks ago.
A
clear sign that this was an election the Conservatives desperately
wanted to avoid. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Like its predecessors in
2006 and
2008, the
2011 edition of the Conservative punishment agenda
(pages 34-37, 45-51, 55-56) is presented as not being tough on
taxpayers.
Below is a list of Conservative proposals with new costs listed in their platform:
• “Support Victims of Crime”, $60 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($240 million over the next 5 years)
• “Drug-Free Prisons”, $10 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($40 million over the next 5 years)
• “Combating Human Trafficking”, $5 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($20 million over the next 5 years)
• “Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Child Pornography and Sex
Offences”, $50 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013
($200 million over the next 5 years)
• “Tackling Contraband
Tobacco”, $10 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013
($40 million over the next 5 years)
• “Helping At-Risk
Youth Avoid Gangs and Criminal Activity”, no new money as $8 million a
year is already earmarked ($40 million over the next 5 years)
While
there are a number of questions that could be asked about each of these
policies, the Conservatives and their rivals need
to be pressed on how they arrive at their figures, in order to allow for a full
debate on the merits of these proposals.
As noted by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a
February 2010 report,
budget projections involving the Correctional Service of Canada ought
to include the following: “analysis, key assumptions, drivers, and
methodologies behind the figures presented.
Further, basic statistics
such as headcounts, annual inflows, unit costs per inmate, per full-time
equivalent (FTE) employee, and per new cell construction have not been
made public.”
This
kind of detail has not historically been included in the platforms of any
political party in Canada, nor should it be as it would probably
discourage many voters from reading the platforms.
Still, all aspiring office holders
should be asked about how they arrived at their numbers and respond with
the details listed above so that Canadians can have as clear of an
understanding as possible about the implications of the policies of
those they vote for.
It also needs to be noted
that a number of Conservative proposals with penal policy implications
do not have new costs listed in their platform, including:
• “Reintroduce Legislation to Combat Terrorism”
• “Combat Human Smuggling”
• “Re-introduction of Law-and-Order Legislation”
• “End the Ineffective Long-Gun Registry”
Gutting a program such as the long-gun registry
should theoretically not result in additional expenditures that would be
immediately visible. However, the reintroduction of significant pieces of
legislation without a price tag is suspect.
The most notable example is the
package of 'law and order' bills that died with the election call; a package of measures that will likely result in an influx of new
prisoners serving longer sentences with fewer chances of release.
Although it
may be possible that the costs of these proposals are already factored
into the fiscal framework of the federal government, two questions need
to be raised:
1) Can the Conservatives point to evidence that
shows that the costs of these initiatives are already included in the
fiscal framework of the Government of Canada?
2) Are the
Conservatives now willing to share the full accounting of the
costs of their punishment agenda to the federal treasury? The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in his
March 2011 report that the Conservatives did not comply with Scott Brison's Question of
Privilege request for such costing estimates.
Why should Canadians place their trust in a government that
doesn't reciprocate in turn and trust them to digest this information
and support this component of their legislative agenda?
The
Conservatives should also be questioned about the costs of their
punishment agenda not included in their election platform. For
instance, the costs were
nowhere to be found for CSC's Long-Term Accommodation Strategy that was
to be submitted last month according to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
Canadians should also ask what the costs of these measures
will be to the provinces and territories. It appears that
Harper's commitment that “
his government would have to work with the provinces to pay for more prison spaces” is now a distant memory with the
Conservatives arguing that their provincial-territorial counterparts
are in support of their measures. The latter claim that the provinces agree also needs to
be probed further.
In an election
triggered by the government's contempt of Parliament, one
has to wonder what it will take for this veil of secrecy to be lifted. The
provision of the costs of flagship punishment initiatives is not enough to
convince the Conservatives to be more transparent.
Perhaps 33 million Canadians screaming “
show me the money” would be more effective. Then again, perhaps not.
(X)
Justin Piché is a PhD
Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University, and Co-managing Editor of the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons. Justin’s blog, Tracking the Politics of ‘Crime’ and Punishment in Canada, is a must-read for anyone
interested in prison justice in Canada.