I'd like to clarify a few points to ensure the committee is well informed.
When we talk about essential programs designed to reduce the recidivism rate, we're not necessarily talking about employment. The employment envelope is different. The $37 million is intended for programs concerning, for example, anger management, sex offence problems, and so on.
I have enormous respect for the employment programs, but you have to be careful. It's not the simple fact of providing a job that will reduce recidivism rates. If offenders continue to have a criminal attitude, if they still have anger management or mental health problems, they will be unable to hold a job. We have to solve those problems and make sure we give them something that is very beneficial to them, like a job that they'll be able to transfer to the community, which will enable them to support themselves appropriately and to be productive. We absolutely have to ensure that they have solved the problems that push them into crime, including substance abuse problems.
The Correctional Service has a role to play with regard to safety, and enormous investments have been made in that, which is a good thing. I agree with other committee members that the investments designed to prevent drugs from entering institutions are very good. However, you have to strike a balance. We can't simply target security problems without ensuring that the Correctional Service is making massive investments in social rehabilitation. I know very well that Quebec is one of the leaders in this area. We have to support young offenders in their efforts to rehabilitate.
It's a question of balance. Ultimately, simply investing in the static and physical security of the institutions won't improve public safety in an optimum manner.