[English]
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 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 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 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.
:
Thank you. That's a very good question.
One thing we learned from the pilot was the limitations on the equipment. Learning that allowed us to modify our procedures, our policies, and our protocols. We also learned from it that although there is a drift factor, there is sometimes, even taking that into account, good reason to engage an offender in questions as to why they were getting close to an area for which they may have had conditions requiring them to stay away.
To give you an example, sex offenders out in the community often have conditions that restrict them from places where young children meet, such as playgrounds, swimming pools, or schoolyards. Even though there may be some drift, if they're getting close to those zones and the drift is showing that they're in the zone, whether or not the drift was accurate we still have questions as to why they were coming close to an area such as that. It allows the parole officer to engage the offender in the kinds of discussions that are needed to supervise some of the conditions that are placed on offenders.
:
Sure. I'll just give you a quick example of some of the kinds of conditions that we have for individuals.
We'll often see individuals when there are concerns in relation to victims. We'll have a condition on their release that says to avoid certain places. I will give you a very specific example: they cannot enter the area of Malvern to Steeles to the north, Port Union to the east, McCowan to the west, and Neilson to the south. Obviously, these are streets in the Toronto area. It's a very specific geographic area.
We'll have other cases that will say where we have registered victims and very serious concerns raised by victims, we'll have conditions that say not to come anywhere near the victim's home or place of work. For individuals who have had as part of their crime cycle an issue related to the use of alcohol, we'll have conditions such as not to enter establishments where the primary source of income is derived from the sale or consumption of alcohol.
These are just some examples. Also, for some of the individuals who have significant gambling problems that lead to the crimes they commit, we'll have conditions to avoid gambling establishments.
I think as you can see, Mr. Chair, through these kinds of conditions, without some tools to help the parole supervision staff understand whether individuals are going there, it's almost impossible for them to enforce some of these types of conditions.
:
I would very much, sir.
The more we can have a tool that helps us have the parole officers engage the offenders, the safer we're going to be. The alternative is to carry on doing business the way we're doing, without any kind of tool to assist the parole officers, and we'll never know if that sex offender has been skulking around a playground or a swimming pool until it's too late.
This isn't going to stop the criminal behaviour from happening, but if it does happen, we're going to know more quickly. We're going to know if somebody is starting to show certain behaviours that are leading that person back into a crime cycle, and we can have the parole officer intervene much earlier and make the appropriate case-management decisions.
So my preference, sir, would very much be to have this kind of tool—understanding its limitations and understanding its shortfalls—as opposed to having the approach we have now.
:
Two days ago, the John Howard Society was here, and also the John Howard Society from Manitoba, and they told us about some pilot projects that they've been working on in Manitoba.
One had to do with young offenders, specifically car thieves, who we have had a lot of problems with. The young offenders would literally just rip the bracelets off. Now, what we don't know is, was it because they knew that there was basically no consequence because of their young offender status? Was it because of that? We're not sure.
The other thing they told us about was another pilot project that they're working on, where they're working solely with parole officers and counsellors, and they have a very, very high success rate. It's working very well, and Mr. Hutton—I think that was the gentleman's name—said that it was because of the direct human contact with a parole officer.
My colleague, Mr. Scarpaleggia, referred to that too. An EM can be just a bracelet, an inanimate object that's easy to decide to remove if you don't care, whereas if you're actually meeting with someone, you have some accountability. When it comes to recidivism, there seems to be a real link between the programs and the support, and the bracelet is just a part of it.
Would you agree with that?
:
I do have a couple of questions.
If this is specific to Bill , there are two clauses that bring it out, and you went perfectly...you were right in order, even, on the use of them.
First of all, the bill says:
The Service may demand that an offender wear a monitoring device in order to monitor their compliance with a condition of a temporary absence, work release, parole, statutory release or long-term supervision that restricts their access to a person or a geographical area or requires them to be in a geographical area.
That's exactly as you stated it. The second part says:
An offender who is required to wear a monitoring device is to be given reasonable opportunities to make representations to the prescribed official in relation to the duration of the requirement.
The first question I would have is that it says the service “may demand”, so it's discretionary...?
Mr. Don Head: Yes.
The Chair: Who makes that call? Is it the parole officer, the probation officer, the Corrections Service...? Who?
:
Don't forget where we live.
We will suspend for one moment and welcome our next guests to the table.
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
The Chair: Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for not leaving your spots in between these two hours.
In the second hour, we have appearing before us Mr. Peter Hill, director general of post-border programs. I see that we also have with us Ms. Susan Kramer, director of case management for Canada Border Services. I guess that's the two. I thought that perhaps there would be another one who was going to be here.
Is Glenda Lavergne not...? Is Ms. Kramer taking her place? All right. That's perfect.
We also understand that you have an opening statement.
Mr. Hill, we'll ask you to make that statement and then we'll proceed to a round of questioning.
:
Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee for the invitation to be here today.
[Translation]
The members of the committee realize that the agency's mandate is large and complex. Our Border Services officers are peace officers who are bound to enforce any laws respecting customs and immigration, including the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not to mention some 90 other laws and regulations of Parliament.
[English]
Since 2003, the CBSA has played a key role in immigration to Canada. It has assumed the port-of-entry and enforcement mandates formerly held by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
In administering and enforcing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the CBSA's role is very specific. We are responsible for admitting individuals into Canada who meet the requirements under the law and refusing those who do not; referring refugee claims made at ports of entry to the Immigration and Refugee Board; preventing illegally documented people from entering the country; detaining people who pose a security risk or a danger to the public; and removing people who are inadmissible to Canada.
While the role of the border services officer at the physical border may be widely known, what might be lesser known to the committee is the role of our inland enforcement officers.
[Translation]
Our immigration legislation specifies who is prohibited on Canadian territory. That includes people who represent a threat to national security, who are involved in war crimes, who are involved in organized crime, who are criminals, people who are working, studying or living in Canada without permission, and defrauders.
[English]
The CBSA currently employs 409 inland enforcement officers who carry out a broad range of activities. These activities include investigating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals from the country, as well as representing the minister in hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, the system is not a linear one, and I would like to describe first for the committee members how the detention process works in order to present how electronic monitoring fits into that framework.
It's important to differentiate the circumstances whereby individuals would be detained. Unlike detentions in a criminal justice environment, detentions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are not meant to be punitive. Immigration legislation has specific parameters that allow the CBSA to detain someone under very specific circumstances: first, if the individual poses a danger to the public; second, if they are at risk of fleeing to avoid an immigration process, such as removal; and third, if the individual's identity has not been confirmed.
When an individual is detained, the CBSA can grant a release within the first 48 hours and may impose certain terms and conditions that must be adhered to by that individual upon release. If the CBSA releases an individual, there are a number of terms and conditions available to mitigate any risk an individual presents.
However, in those circumstances where those options have been deemed to be insufficient, the CBSA has used electronic monitoring. If, after 48 hours, an individual remains in detention, the reasons for detention must be reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Should the decision to detain be upheld, the Immigration and Refugee Board must conduct additional detention reviews after seven days, and every 30 days thereafter, until such time as a person is released from detention, including for removal from Canada.
At each of these detention reviews, it is the Immigration and Refugee Board that has the sole authority to decide to either continue detention or release the individual, and it must take into account specific considerations as required by the regulations, including the availability of alternatives to detention. The CBSA represents the position of the minister at the Immigration and Refugee Board concerning the grounds for detention during these reviews.
Once it weighs all of these considerations, the Immigration and Refugee Board may decide to release the individual with certain terms and conditions imposed, such as posting cash or performance bonds, reporting requirements, curfews, and living arrangements. Although seldom used, electronic monitoring is also one of these several options.
To date, the CBSA's use of electronic monitoring has been quite limited. It has been primarily used on individuals subject to security certificates, where the Federal Court has ordered its use, as well as for some cases involving serious criminality. In these cases, electronic monitoring was used in conjunction with a range of other measures to mitigate risk.
To describe the technology, the CBSA uses two types of devices: a one-piece unit for the ankle, and a two-piece unit that has an ankle and a hip component. It provides the ability to monitor the individual's location by satellite and cellular signals. That way, if a GPS reading isn't available, then the cellular tracking technology would take over.
The technology is sound, but it is not without its challenges. For example, it provides location information only, and not information such as what the individual is doing or with whom they may be interacting. Large, tall buildings or subways in an urban core affect the GPS monitoring signal, which can be weakened or refracted, interrupting readings of the individual's location. The battery life generally lasts one to two days. The individual is required to recharge the unit, which can take up to two hours.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I can confirm to the committee that the use of monitoring has been effective for meeting our needs in the situations mentioned above.
[English]
Application of this technology by the CBSA has been on a relatively small scale to date.
I would not be in a position to comment at this time with certainty regarding the use of the technology in future on a larger scale. A thorough program review and cost-benefit analysis would first need to be completed before giving any serious consideration to moving in the direction of a broader application.
That being said, the CBSA remains open to the potential use of electronic monitoring on a broader scale.
I thank you once again for this opportunity. We look forward to your questions.
:
We found in our practice that it has been useful in the cases relating to national security. In those cases—there are five—the Immigration and Refugee Board has imposed the use of electronic monitoring. We have used electronic monitoring in the small number of other cases involving criminality.
We have not undertaken a cost-benefit analysis to determine the feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the broader application of electronic monitoring for lower-risk populations. This is, however, an area of interest.
We are considering the potential for undertaking such a study, and we're doing that for a number of reasons. Our detention population is about 400 to 500 on a daily basis, but we do have aging infrastructure. We do have developments across the world that have brought us mass arrivals.
Also, of course, as part of our own evaluation, and as part of evaluations that have been conducted by the Auditor General in recent years, we are constantly looking for ways to strengthen the program performance and its effectiveness. In an environment of increasing fiscal constraint, the possibility of the application of EM is something that we're starting to look at with a bit more focus.
:
I'll start off and then invite my colleague to add to this.
As I mentioned, there are three reasons for detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: the individual represents a danger to the country; the individual represents a flight risk, so they won't show up for a proceeding; or, their identity hasn't been established.
So the terms and conditions and the measures that CBSA uses, which, on a selective basis, include EM, are to mitigate the risk that the individual represents to the safety and security of Canadians and to mitigate the risk that their absconding presents to the integrity of the immigration and refugee system. We use terms and conditions, such as reporting, curfews, and, on a selective basis, EM, to mitigate those risks.
That's essentially how our officers would find the tools helpful. Certainly, to the extent that studies would show this, it would be helpful in terms of investment value-for-dollar and ensuring that our programs are as efficient and effective as possible.
No, what I'm trying to say is that there are two criteria that trigger mandatory detention under Bill : the arrival of numbers that overwhelm CBSA's capacity to conduct the necessary examinations to determine identity or to determine admissibility, or the arrival being associated with the suspicion that there's a link to smuggling, organized crime, or terrorism.
If either of those conditions are present, then the may designate—
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Right.
Mr. Peter Hill: —and then they are subject to mandatory detention for a period of 12 months after a negative determination by the IRB.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Right.
Mr. Peter Hill: Or if they're determined by the IRB to be refugees, they'll be released from detention.
:
The reason I ask this is that if it's going to be a lower number.... I can see the application towards some of your conditions, although you're the expert and I am not, so we'd have to acquiesce to your best judgment.... But if I may be so bold as to suggest this, should you be looking at this from a cost-effective perspective? Might I also be so bold as to suggest that you perhaps would want to work in conjunction with Corrections and pool your resources?
In other words, you could have a joint contract to reduce costs, etc., because the government is just one big operation, and if we operate in silos, sometimes it's more expensive; however, when we have similarities.... That's just a suggestion.
Another suggestion would be this. On the defence committee, we just recently—as a matter of fact, on Monday—took a tour of the defence research facility in Downsview. They have some world-class scientists there who know what they're doing and are able, as Mr. Head previously witnessed, to do things.
These are just suggestions. Please, I'm not telling you how to do your jobs: these are just suggestions from looking at things. To the average Canadian, 44,000 people, and we don't know where they are....
In your experience—because I'm sure both of you have been with CBSA for some time—would some of these people be collecting provincial benefits or those types of things? Also, do you have formalized contacts with provincial agencies, or even with municipal agencies, because in the province of Ontario, municipalities handle social services, that would enable you to ferret out who might be one or more or many of these 44,000 people? I guess the basic question is this: how vigorously do you try to track these people?
:
Thank you for that. Let me make a few comments about the warrant inventory.
The first comment I'd like to make and to be clear on is that we consider the warrant inventory to be a cornerstone mechanism for the effective management of our inland enforcement program, and in particular, removal, and we've been working to ensure that the policy framework around that inventory is modern and up to date.
For example, we have issued a policy framework setting out the requirements before an officer may issue a warrant. We've also established a fairly robust risk management framework to ensure that warrants are cancelled on an appropriate basis when there's no risk to the safety and security of Canadians. We continue to evaluate that policy framework.
In addition, we have been very fortunate, through the refugee reform initiative, to secure funding for our systems, and in particular, for our national case management system, which, several years ago, the Auditor General noted needed enhancements, also noting that we didn't have the resources at that time. So we're now beginning to see some of the benefits of the investment to enhance our system to manage the inventory.
Last and importantly—and of course this is by no means an exhaustive list of things that we're doing—the Beyond the Border action plan envisages an entry-exit system for Canada to work with the U.S., and then in the future with other countries, so that for the first time we'll be able to know who and which foreign nationals have left the country. We believe that this will be very helpful in terms of allowing us to ensure that our warrant inventory is the most up-to-date inventory possible. The number itself, I would say, sounds large and significant—and it is—but it is also, as I mentioned, a very effective enforcement tool that law enforcement across the country uses, because those warrants are in the CPIC inventory.
I appreciate your earlier comments. We and CSC are partners within the public safety portfolio. We have initiated discussions with CSC. They have more experience in the use of electronic monitoring than we do, having run the pilots, and they're open to sharing that information with us.
Lastly, I am very familiar with DRDC, having worked with that community before I joined the Border Services Agency, and it was interesting to hear Mr. Head talk about the possibility that the DRDC would help them in establishing their requirements for requests for proposals. It's an interesting idea that could be beneficial to CBSA.