Public Safety Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Could I interrupt just for one more question, because I don't have much time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You don't. You have three seconds. Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

We'll now move back to Madam Morin.

You have five minutes.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank Mr. Motiuk for being here today.

Here is my first question. You spoke a while ago about the accountability of offenders in your pilot project. We must not forget that all the offenders who participated in this pilot project were volunteers. Suppose we put electronic monitoring bracelets on every parolee, do you think those offenders would show as much accountability and as much cooperation as those who participated in the pilot project?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

I'll respond to that question in two parts. First is the notion that all offenders would be required, on conditional release, to be monitored this way. I do not believe so. I think specific criteria would be established for the selection of those who would benefit from augmented supervision in this regard, to ensure compliance with geographic restrictions, curfews, whereabouts, and whatnot. In that regard, I would answer the question that no, you wouldn't want to incorporate it for everybody.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

You also said that this method had been adopted in other countries. I understood from your remarks that it had been done in other countries before being done in Canada. It has also been said that governments have stated they did not save any money. So we know that it may not be the ideal way to save money. Nevertheless, are there other comparative studies involving Canada and other similar countries that have used electronic monitoring?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

My answer to that question is that it's always difficult to draw perfect comparisons between our jurisdiction and perhaps another jurisdiction in another country, in terms of what they're trying to achieve using various technologies.

Some jurisdictions have seen its utility for certain kinds of cases on which we have not yet tested it out. A classic example would be people under supervision who are convicted for sex offences, for example, who may be deemed to be a somewhat higher risk than others are for compliance with geographic restrictions or exclusion zones regarding their whereabouts.

We have not had experience with that, even in terms of our pilot. Nevertheless, for the most part, other jurisdictions have tested out the technology, because they're seeking solutions to some very common problems, such as rising costs associated with incarceration, finding alternatives to providing supervision, and preventing individuals from returning so soon. Maybe there are other options and they're exploring those.

If we look at where most jurisdictions are going, they're faced with the same challenges. These include increased costs, increased populations to manage, as well as complex offender populations to manage.

We add in features of geographic limitations. Some places do not have the same kinds of challenges, because they're fairly small, geographically. For us, it's a different matter.

There are some views regarding how we could probably provide better public protection to society by embracing all technologies and trying them out and seeing how they could improve our results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 30 seconds.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I will be brief.

The results of the pilot project are not conclusive, so why go further? Will they be more conclusive if we go further?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

The pilot project had a number of objectives that provided us with some important information. The primary purpose of the electronic monitoring pilot project was to test the capacity to use that technology, first and foremost.

We needed to test whether or not we could have the capacity to receive information from these devices and to utilize that information to have a better understanding of the offender, in terms of how they were doing under supervision.

That objective was fully met by the piloting of that. Prior to that pilot, the only experience we had was in our area. In our first phase, we asked 15 staff to wear the bracelets in our national headquarters and out in the field. We tested them out that way. That was our experience in our first phase.

In our second phase, we did it with offenders who voluntarily participated and were already out under community supervision. Then we expanded that to those who were about to be released but had conditions of residency or curfew restrictions, and they did so voluntarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to the government side.

Mr. Aspin, go ahead, please.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Motiuk, for appearing before the committee and sharing your expertise.

I'm interested in the broader perspective, and I'm just wondering if you think there are technologies that are more effective worldwide than those that are used in Canada.

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

In terms of more effective technologies for monitoring compliance to conditions while under supervision in the community, I'm not aware of any more effective or better ones.

What I am aware of is that the field is evolving. There are better technologies that are looking at better battery life, dealing with signal drift, dealing with reducing tampering and removal and the alerts around that.

Whatever is out there, in terms of the best technology, I'm sure those who would look at moving forward with another pilot would use the best that's available out there.

I'm not acutely aware of anything that's better, but I think adding to our supervision tool kit is a worthwhile pursuit.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I wondered if you felt it would be beneficial to look at this technology in terms of a further corrective setting.

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

Are you implying within correctional environments themselves, like institutions?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Yes.

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

That has been explored in other areas, like open settings, custodial settings. We haven't looked at that as yet. If there's a potential for it, perhaps that will be examined in future.

I know technology is always looking at whether or not somebody is present where they are. Other jurisdictions are probably exploring that as well.

As yet I'm not aware of any better technology or the experiences with doing that inside institutional custodial settings.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Has that type of thing been suggested?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

Not necessarily. I haven't heard of it having been suggested. It's been envisioned or entertained or thought about as a potential to be explored in the future, but in terms of any operational consideration to do it at the moment, no.

The primary focus was in the area of greatest risk to the organization. Those are the people on conditional release who may pose a risk to society and are non-compliant with their conditions. That's what we wanted to be very clear about.

Those who are incapacitated behind our security settings, we know where they are.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I wondered as well if you are aware of any other pilot projects anywhere that may be taking place with regard to electronic monitoring.

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

I don't have the full details on the only one I am somewhat aware of, but I understand the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the United States is looking into this technology, or using it and testing it as well. That's the only one I can say to the committee that I'm aware of at the moment.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We'll go to Mr. Sandhu, please, for five minutes.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you for being here today.

We've heard testimony that the pilot project had a lot of difficulties, a lot of issues with technology. Many things were going wrong with regard to wrong signals, disappearances, drifting. There were quite a few issues. One of the experts we had here was quoted in the paper as saying it was a disaster.

You've pointed this out already, and I would like to think that any savings from this pilot project are yet to be realized. We haven't done any sort of cost-benefit analysis on the benefits in pure dollars.

I'm a little troubled, and maybe you can answer this. As you pointed out, it appears that Correctional Service Canada wants to move forward to implement this Canada-wide, yet we don't know what it is going to cost and we don't know of any benefits. Being a member of Parliament, I think one of my primary responsibilities is to look after the tax dollars of Canadians, yet I haven't seen any evidence that indicates we are going to be saving money. You're asking us to throw money...yet that technology hasn't been proven or there hasn't been any clear benefit.

Could you comment?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

Again, I think the cost savings from using EM technology have yet to be realized. That won't be realized until you go beyond one pilot in terms of a broader application of the technology to the offender population and then conduct such an examination.

You had mentioned a number of technical challenges with the EM experience for us in the early days. That was part of the pilot, to test that capacity. We looked at that technology and learned much during our pilot experience.

If you look at whether or not the goal was to have a direct impact on recidivism, it was not intended to. We don't see EM as having a direct impact on recidivism per se, but more as a supervisory tool, in addition to our ability to integrate this with other things we do that we know work well for those who require it.

Again, it will be an issue of selection, matching the appropriate strategy for managing that offender in the community and providing what we are ultimately looking for, the reintegration or the public safety dividend, shall we say.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

A colleague asked this question earlier. I want you to be direct about this.

Government has a limited amount of money. I think it's a limited amount of money. We've seen studies that show that if you spend a dollar, there's x amount of return. If we spend a dollar on rehabilitation, there's x amount of money that benefits the government or benefits society. Can you quantify electronic monitoring and how much it would benefit us?