Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the Correctional Service of Canada's experience with the use of electronic monitoring, or EM, as we refer to it.
In a correctional setting, EM is a tool used by parole officers to support the supervision of federal offenders released to the community. Today I'd like to provide you with an overview of the electronic monitoring pilot project we recently conducted in the Ontario region. I would then like to address the issues of cost efficiency, program effectiveness, and possible implementation of electronic monitoring, as identified earlier by the committee.
The goal of the electronic monitoring amendments in Bill C-10 is intended to help our parole supervision staff monitor an offender's compliance with a condition of a temporary absence, work release, parole, statutory release, or long-term supervision order. These are conditions that are imposed to restrict an offender's access to a person or a geographical area or that require them to remain in a certain geographical area.
In short, the purpose of electronic monitoring is to equip our staff with a new set of tools to help them with the close supervision of offenders and oversee offenders' safe transition into the community. It strengthens our efforts to promote offender accountability while these individuals are residing in the community and gives us additional information for our ongoing assessment of risk to ensure we are protecting the public.
As I mentioned, the Correctional Service of Canada recently conducted an electronic monitoring pilot project in the Ontario region to evaluate the effectiveness and the feasibility of EM as a supervision tool. The application and the removal of the monitoring devices were performed by federal parole officers. Offenders wore an ankle bracelet with a GPS receiver that reported its position to a monitoring network that was operated by Correctional Service of Canada staff at our national monitoring centre in Ottawa. The centre provided monitoring services seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
Geographical conditions, such as staying away from a certain location, have historically proven difficult for parole officers to monitor. Electronic monitoring has helped to close this gap. By identifying their location, parole officers could assess near real-time information on whether offenders were abiding by geographical conditions imposed on their release.
Since the pilot, CSC has had an opportunity to reflect on the experience, analyze the results, and prepare for the possibility of a national implementation. CSC is currently looking at a procurement process for electronic monitoring equipment that will allow us to utilize the latest available EM systems and technologies.
Mr. Chair, I'd now like to address the issues of the cost efficiency and the effectiveness of EM.
The average daily cost for incarcerating an offender is $312, while the cost of maintaining an offender under supervision in the community is roughly $81 per day. For offenders residing at a community residential facility operated by non-government organizations under contract with CSC, it is approximately $100 per day. For the higher-need cases residing in a community correctional centre operated directly by CSC, it is about $184 per day.
Although electronic monitoring will never replace the direct supervision of offenders by parole supervision staff in our communities, an electronic monitoring device is estimated to cost approximately $15 per day, per unit, depending on the technology.
CSC implemented the electronic monitoring pilot project with the goal of evaluating the effectiveness and feasibility of EM as a supervision tool. An evaluation was completed and published in December 2009. It was determined that all electronic monitoring pilot objectives were successfully met. Further, CSC staff reported that electronic monitoring filled an important gap with respect to managing release conditions, and that the electronic monitoring and response protocols were appropriate.
It should also be noted that, during the pilot, CSC staff embraced EM and effectively integrated the technology into existing supervision practices.
As Bill C-10 is working its way through the parliamentary process, CSC is reviewing the overall results of the EM pilot and preparing for the possible implementation of a national EM service. Should the amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act outlined in Bill C-10 related to electronic monitoring become law, I'm confident that CSC is well positioned to expand electronic monitoring services across the country.
In this regard, CSC would have in place the tools necessary to implement electronic monitoring. These would include policies, operational guidelines, and training.
Mr. Chair, the safe transition of eligible offenders to the community is of the highest priority to the Correctional Service of Canada. The organization routinely seeks out, examines, and evaluates new measures to enhance public safety.
The electronic monitoring service is one example of how CSC is continually looking for ways to improve its public safety results by ensuring that offenders undergo a gradual, structured, and supervised release. The electronic monitoring service will never be used as a stand-alone measure but will be integrated into our other effective correctional programs offered in the community.
I've had experience with electronic monitoring over the course of my correctional career, first while serving as the superintendent of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre in the Yukon and then as the assistant deputy minister responsible for correctional services and probation in the province of Saskatchewan. In these cases, the tools and technology were different, the decision-making process about their use was different, and the responses to alarms were different. However, the one thing that was common was that it was a tool that assisted correctional and probation staff in their supervision and management of offenders in the community.
Let's be clear: the intent of electronic monitoring will not by itself lead to reductions in recidivism. However, equipping staff with the proper tools to assist them with their supervision responsibilities will help with the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community, and this will ultimately contribute to strengthening public safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I welcome any questions you may have of me at this time.
