2012-06-21

The Public Safety Committee heard extensive testimony on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in both a correctional setting and an immigration and refugee setting. Unfortunately the majority of the recommendations in the committee report do not accurately reflect that testimony. While Conservative members of the committee want to steam ahead with studies, trials, and expansions of the use of electronic monitoring in both correctional and immigration settings, New Democrats heard a much more limited endorsement from witnesses for the potential uses of this technology.

New Democrats have continued to support corrections and conditional release programming that is proven to be cost-effective and results in reduced recidivism. We do not support wasting taxpayer money on technologies and strategies that are not proven to reduce crime. Therefore, the New Democrat members of the committee support the use of electronic monitoring only on high risk offenders and only when it is paired with adequate programming. This is the option that witnesses consistently told us would have the highest return for dollar invested and make the greatest contribution to public safety. Unfortunately, the report’s recommendations do not reflect the specific testimony we heard — that electronic monitoring is not cost-effective or useful for use with low or medium risk offenders.

The government’s own witnesses made it very clear that electronic monitoring is not effective for low risk offenders. The government’s own Public Safety website states that “as long as EM programs target relatively low risk offenders, and many of them do, they are unlikely to offer a cost-effective alternative to incarceration.” Almost every witness also stressed that electronic monitoring is not effective as a standalone tool. Instead, it needs to be integrated with rehabilitation programming. The committee heard again and again that adequate programming is the key to reducing recidivism and increasing public safety. Again the Public Safety website also offers support for the conclusion reached by New Democrat members of the committee that “Correctional interventions that aim to reduce criminal behaviour are more likely to come from the application of treatment programs rather than intensive monitoring programs.”

While New Democrat members of the committee believe that criminals and offenders should be held accountable, we do not agree with the criminalization of immigrants and refugees. This is not reflective of Canadian values, nor is it reflective of the basic principles of international human rights. Therefore, the New Democratic members of the committee oppose any recommendation to invest resources into monitoring immigrants and refugees who have not committed any criminal acts. Most, though not all, witnesses came to the conclusion that the application of this technology in an immigration enforcement setting would not be an effective use of resources, especially as most rejected immigrants and failed refugees claimants present little or no risk to the public.

The committee heard that technical studies of the effectiveness of the use of electronic monitoring within a corrections and conditional release setting have been inconclusive and that there are serious concerns regarding the effect of substituting electronic monitoring devices for human interaction. New Democrats members of the committee believe that, in a time of constrained resources in our corrections and immigration systems, no further resources should be expended on pilots and/or trials of electronic monitoring at this time, and especially not on trials involving low or medium risk offenders or immigrants and refugees.

New Democrat members of the committees did vote in favour of the two recommendations in the report which we felt accurately reflected witness testimony. The NDP supports recommendation 2, that “electronic monitoring should only be used in the correctional setting when it is a cost effective solution that maximizes public safety.” The NDP also supports recommendation 3, that “if used in a corrections setting, Electronic Monitoring should be paired with adequate programming and not used as a standalone measure but integrated with reintegration and community supervision”.

New Democrats listened to the evidence presented at committee and therefore can support the expansion of the use of electronic monitoring only in the context of working with high risk offenders who are also engaged in rehabilitation programming. Conservatives do not appear to have listened to the witnesses. Instead they appear to have approached the complex issue of electronic monitoring of individuals with a preconceived idea that somehow we can save money in Corrections and Immigration enforcement with the technological fix of electronic monitoring. New Democrats want to see a more balanced approach that is focused on finding real solutions that are evidence-based, cost-effective and actually help keep the public safe.