Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was technology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
Just to address a point at the end there, I should say that it's not that our staff are not interacting with the offenders.
Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
A high-risk offender will be met with frequently by a parole officer in the community. Somebody who is on statutory release with residency will be living in a halfway house, so they'll be interacting constantly with our staff. That interaction is going on all the time.
I think what you raise is a really important empirical question. If we do increase that interaction, could we get an effect? The problem is that most of the studies that have been done in the past haven't used the GPS technology we're talking about. It was used mainly for house arrest, conditional sentencing, and things like that. The increase in opportunities for positive interaction, those interventions, was not really part of those studies. There is a possibility that in the future we will see a positive impact.
One of the things you have to understand about electronic monitoring is that it doesn't last for a long time. In a number of studies I looked at, the period of electronic monitoring ran for 13 or 14 weeks, so it's not a permanent disposition. There are longer ones that may range up to three years, but the average is 13 to 14 weeks. You actually wouldn't expect an intervention that lasts such a short period of time to have a major impact.
If someone has had a crime lifestyle lasting 10 to 15 years and you put him on electronic monitoring for three months, you're not going to change his behaviour, but it's one piece in the package and it gives us one opportunity for some additional interaction with the offender.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Leef and Mr. Grant.
We'll now go to the last question of the day. We have committee business coming up. We'll go to Mr. Sandhu for five minutes, please.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
I'll be very brief.
The first question is on investment. Whether we're investing in electronic monitoring or programming, which would be most beneficial to Canadian society?
Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
It's hard to get a handle on what the cost-benefit ratio is for electronic monitoring, because the full cost-benefit analyses haven't been done. The federal government receives 3:1 benefit from correctional programs that we offer in our correctional institutions. That's a result from a study that was done by the Conference Board of Canada for us, looking at our core correctional programs. That's only looking at the benefit to the federal government; that's not looking at the cost for pain and suffering or anything like that. It's very focused.
We know that correctional programs have that kind of benefit. There are no data to suggest that electronic monitoring has that same cost-benefit level. Those studies just haven't been done.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
I think we'll probably leave it at that.
Thank you, Mr. Grant, for coming here today and bringing your expertise with you. We certainly look forward to hearing more someday. If more pilot projects are undertaken, you will evaluate the success of them. Thank you for being here today and helping us as a committee in the decisions we are deliberating.
Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Although it is not on the agenda, we had agreement earlier that we would proceed to committee business.
We have been given indication that Mr. Scarpaleggia would like to move his motion. You have a copy of this motion, which was tabled on Monday, February 13, 2012:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee invite the Minister of Public Safety and senior officials to discuss the government's new anti-terrorism strategy, Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada's First Counter-terrorism Strategy, for a maximum of four hours at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, I'll let you speak to your motion, please.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
It's very straightforward.
This document, released a couple of weeks ago, is fairly important. It strikes at the heart of what we're doing here as a public safety committee. I find it's a little odd that we wouldn't at least hear from officials to have it explained to us and to tell us what the salient points of this strategy are, because it seems as if it's the overarching vision wrapped around a lot of what we're doing through individual pieces of legislation and maybe even this study.
The idea is to hear about the strategy from experts. Quite frankly, I don't necessarily think the minister has to appear. I know that's in the motion, but I think we might get more substantive information from the officials. That's what the heart of this motion is all about.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. It sounds to me as if you're open to some kind of an amendment. We do have a motion that we have to deal with, and named in that motion is a four-hour appearance by the minister.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I'd asked for a four-hour maximum. I didn't mean to suggest four hours for the minister.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's a maximum of four hours. Okay, I got you.
Go ahead, Ms. Hoeppner.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We would totally support the intent of this motion. We agree that it's something that is important for us to look at. We were going to introduce an amendment so that we would have a time parameter. Could I present my amendment at this time, or do you want me to just...?
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Instead of saying "for a maximum of four hours", we'd like to say "for one meeting" and we'd like to say "at the minister's and officials' earliest availability".
Francis mentioned that he's willing to have just the officials.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The object here is to find out what this is about so we can comment on it individually at some point. It's not to have a media show around the minister, to be honest.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
If I understand your amendment here correctly, Ms. Hoeppner, you're saying that the minister would then appear for the first hour.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We'd have one meeting at the minister's and officials' first availability. The mover invited the Minister of Public Safety and senior officials to discuss. I don't think that motion laid out whether it would be the minister and officials together or apart, but we wanted to say we don't think the minister would necessarily be able to come for four hours.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Right. That's why we want to be clear that it would be for one meeting.
Liberal
