Public Safety Committee on March 8th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have one more minute.

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

To satisfy my own curiosity, I have one last technical question.

How is the device's battery recharged? Does the person have to take it off to recharge the battery? How does that work? I am curious.

[Robert Aloisio]

I kind of thought this would come up, so I brought one of our chargers. I'm going to hold this up and briefly show you what the offender has to do.

This device is really unique. We usually recommend that the offender charge it for 90 minutes a day. If it is charged for 90 minutes a day, it's going to last over 36 hours, which is fantastic battery life.

There is a small port on the front. They plug this into the AC outlet. The person actually attaches this to the bracelet while it's still on his or her leg. There is a green LED flashing light that will basically let the offender know once this is charged. It's very simple, and we built that into the program as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That was a great question. Thank you, Madam Morin.

We'll now move back to Mr. Aspin. Mr. Aspin, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you both for appearing before the committee.

My question is to Mr. Clover. We've heard from several witnesses that electronic monitoring is useful as a tool for community supervision, as opposed to being useful for reducing recidivism. Could you give us your views in this regard?

[Det James Clover]

If I understand the question, sir, you want to know if we think the technology helps to reduce crime.

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

Yes. Could you give us your views on it?

[Det James Clover]

From a policing perspective, our unit tries to adopt a holistic approach to monitoring an offender. When we're talking about recidivism, we're talking about several things. Most important to me is that I don't want a sex offender to commit another sex offence. If I can use this technology and complement it with supervision strategies, whether that's having a residence for him to live in, employment, family support, programming, having him abstain from alcohol and drugs, or having him attend additional programming, it all comes together.

There are certain times when the GPS EM will have direct leverage. For example, if we have a stalking case, and we don't want the offender to see or make contact with the victim, the bracelet provides a virtual barrier that allows me to intervene before those two come together.

In a roundabout way, I'm not comfortable saying that the bracelet, per se, reduces crime. It simply helps me manage the risk the person may pose to the community.

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

In a nutshell, could you summarize the benefits and drawbacks that electronic monitoring has in aiding or hampering you in your daily duties as a police officer in charge of the high-risk offender unit?

[Det James Clover]

Probably one of the immediate benefits we noted was with something like a house curfew. For me to have two patrolmen deployed to a house to ensure that an offender is at home at 10 o'clock takes time, money, resources, and two patrolmen off the street. Electronic monitoring does that virtually instantaneously. So I know the offender is in his house when he's supposed to be there.

There are other things like assessment of risk. Part of my job is to assess the risk that an offender poses. That risk will change in time as they migrate through their crime cycles. I can look at the data produced from GPS. It's another tool for me to assess that lifestyle and where they are in their crime cycle. Is this gentleman travelling to where the sex trade workers are? Is he in an area known for drug trafficking? Or is he going to work as he says he is and living a lawful life?

There are several shortcomings from the perspective of my unit and my policing. One is sustainable funding. We're all strapped for cash and there are lots of offenders to supervise. I have to be very particular about who I put the bracelets on. There's a responsibility. Once there's a bracelet on somebody, I'm responsible and my unit is responsible to ensure we're observing that data. That data is plotted on a map. It doesn't tell me he's not going to rape somebody; it will simply tell me where he may have raped somebody.

A complication from a policing perspective is the use of it in pretrial custody. I am not advocating the use of EM bracelets as a replacement for incarceration. If a person needs to be incarcerated, they need to remain incarcerated. From a policing perspective, we can't replace that. It's the court's decision whether the person stays in or out. Law enforcement is not traditionally responsible for bail supervision. That generally falls on the province. In Alberta we're very sensitive about using this technology in pretrial cases, at least from the police perspective.

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

Thank you.

Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of issues. When we were talking about benefits, at one point you said it doesn't reduce workload, but then you said it actually does in a way. And different provinces have different ways. You said in Alberta you're not responsible for bail supervision, but in Ontario the police are responsible for breaches of recognizance, pretrial or beforehand.

I guess I'll ask you the plain and simple question from a policing perspective, having been a police officer for 30 years. Let's say electronic monitoring is like breathalyzers. It's approved across the board and there's funding for it. Would you rather have it or not? Would it create more problems for you than it solves? I think you've already mentioned some of the benefits. I guess you have to get those scales out and utilize them.

[Det James Clover]

Right, a scale of benefiting cost.

Regarding the workload, you're absolutely right, having two patrol members check does reduce workload for patrol. But there's the cost of looking at the monitoring, the installation, the being attached to that device, and having the response. So I do agree that there is some workload that benefits, but I also think we need to be aware that there's a workload demand.

Regarding bail supervision, I concur with you as well, sir, that police will, let's say, investigate breaches of recognizance. But it's the supervision per se. Which agency is responsible for monitoring a defender prior to trial? My concern is that we could have—and we had on our program—an individual on a bracelet prior to trial, and this is a non-convicted person, who has not spoken in court. The courts could take two or three years, so that gentleman—or that person—could be on a bracelet for, conceivably, two to three years. Who's paying for it, and who's watching that data? From a policing perspective, from a three-man unit, I have some significant concerns that it would fall onto me.

To your ultimate question, do I feel it has a benefit or not and would I use it, absolutely, I believe there's a benefit. In the policing world, I think it's very, very specific. Those cases, such as the detained offenders, where the police have now adopted the responsibility, the sole and primary responsibility, of monitoring this high-risk offender...I also concur that this use of technology is a very appropriate tool for Corrections. Whether that's provincial or federal, it suits their mandate, it suits their needs, and it's appropriate to the mission that we expect them to do.

It has a benefit from a policing perspective, absolutely, but in very, very specific cases, probably not something I would roll out en masse.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

Just so that I understand, the offenders you're monitoring, who have done their time, these are long-term offenders, dangerous offenders?

[Det James Clover]

Not necessarily. Under what's called an 810 recognizance, you can apply in court to form reasonable belief in the judge that this offender, who has served their entire sentence, still poses a risk to the community. One of the conditions you can ask for, with provincial support, is the use of electronic monitoring.

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

How do you determine it? As I understand it, unlike the long-term offender designation or the dangerous offender designation, this is not established at the beginning of the person's sentence; it's after. Is that correct?

[Det James Clover]

It's absolutely correct, sir. It's post-sentence.

Again, we'll use the same scenario. An offender is sentenced to five years for sexual assault. During his incarceration he's not afforded an opportunity for gradual and safe transition to the community, because both the Correctional Services of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada have said he's likely to commit a serious offence after his release. He serves his entire five years and now he has to be released. He has to be released; the law demands that he be released. So now that I know he's coming to Edmonton, it's my unit's job to make an assessment and decide whether we feel this offender still poses a significant risk to the community, and whether I think conditions will allow us and the offender to secure his good conduct upon his release.

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

I can't remember which of you said this, but someone said that electronic monitoring is a motivator and stimulator of changes in behaviour, if I quoted you properly. Is that what you said? Somebody said that. I forget which one of you, I'm sorry.

[Det James Clover]

Yes, sir, it was me.

What I mean by that is that when we draft conditions, whether it's a probation officer, a parole officer, or a policeman, what is the purpose of the conditions? The conditions are to help keep this offender on a lawful path, to stay out of crime, to not do the bad things they've done before. If one of those things is, for example, not to go to places where children are likely to be, the bracelet helps to motivate the offender to remember that he cannot go to a park or a playground because he has the condition and a bracelet that's going to advise immediately.

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

But this is, really, in some ways, one of the central aspects of this issue, that this motivation is temporary. Or is it something that is conditioning the offender in such a way that they may change their behaviour in the long term? If that's what you're saying, it goes against what we've heard, which is that monitoring in and of itself does not reduce recidivism. I guess it's just a temporary motivator, unless it's paired with some kind of program. But, in and of itself, it's just a temporary motivator and enhancer that temporarily changes behaviour.

Are there any long-term effects, in your view?

[Det James Clover]

Absolutely. As I said about EM, this bracelet has to be in collaboration with other conditions. Programming, conditions to abstain—those are all temporary as well. That condition eventually lapses as well, so they're all temporary if there's no supervision.

Absolutely, I totally agree, as a stand-alone it makes no sense.

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

Mr. Aloisio, how many companies like yours are operating in Canada? We've heard the CBSA has six people on these bracelets. We're told that it's only at the pilot stage, really, when it comes to law enforcement. How many companies like yours are there across Canada? There can't be too many. It must be a very small market.