Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012

[Catherine Latimer]

I just want to mention that if the grounds for detention are that the person is a flight risk and you could compensate for that risk with the bracelet, that might be one of the cases in which you'd want to have an evaluated project. You're not using it as part of the corrections system; you're using it in the same way I think you were mentioning, to carry out a judicial process.

It's a little bit different in that you're not trying to rehabilitate. You're not reaching out. All you're wanting to do is to make sure they're not absconding from the jurisdiction. I think electronic monitoring might be able to help you with that.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Right. Obviously the problem of being incarcerated, even if it's for two to four weeks, is that people lose their apartments; they can lose their jobs. We'd like to get people out into society, even in bail situations.

Even if it's only a small segment of that population that would benefit from the program, there might be a use in terms of managing risk, and also, I guess, reflecting some concerns of the larger community about people being released.

[Catherine Latimer]

I think you'd need to watch the widening of the net. I mean, you're talking about a very narrow subset of people who are detained in custody. It might be very interesting to see if that actually does reduce your pre-trial detention numbers.

I'm a strong advocate of trying to reduce our pre-trial detention numbers. They're way too high.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, and there are strains on the facilities, obviously, given these very short-term kinds of durations. A big city like Toronto has a lot of people going through the system on a daily basis, so if we can reduce the numbers of people in custody, that would be of benefit to everybody.

I think that's all I have for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have one minute left.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I just want to follow up on something Ms. Latimer said.

If I'm hearing you correctly, where the concerns and where the evidence seem to lie is that electronic monitoring doesn't help in correcting individuals who are out of the correctional system, or still part of it but not actually in a facility, whereas actually using it to monitor someone who needs to be at a certain location but not because of correctional issues...that could work. I would tend to agree with you, but I'm just wondering if you can articulate why that is—a little bit better than I am.

[Catherine Latimer]

I would think it's worth testing. I don't know whether it would work or not, but it isn't burdened with the corrections problems that we see with an overreliance on electronic monitoring in the corrections area. You're trying to get people to a deportation hearing and you don't want them to disappear into the Canadian populace. So you're not, basically, trying to rehabilitate; you're trying to keep tabs on where they are. I think that's what electronic monitoring does. I don't think it rehabilitates. I think it does allow you to know where people are. So I think it might well be worth testing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to the opposition and to Ms. Murray.

Welcome to our committee.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much. As a visitor to the committee I haven't been party to any of the previous testimony, so that means I get to ask anything.

Regarding first nations, Mr. Hutton, you were talking about the results of your experience with the John Howard Society in Manitoba. Is there any difference between first nations and non-first nations clients in terms of the effectiveness of electronic monitoring or the lack of effectiveness thereof?

[John Hutton]

About 70% of the incarcerated population in Manitoba is aboriginal. Seventy per cent of the clients my agency works with are aboriginal, and aboriginal people are about 15% of the total population. So there certainly are some real issues.

I was a little floored by Mr. Trottier when he said two to four weeks for bail hearings. In Winnipeg it's about a year. Our remand times are huge, and probably the program I'm talking about wouldn't be useful in Toronto because it doesn't have that same kind of problem. People may sit in the Winnipeg Remand Centre—and primarily they are aboriginal people sitting in the Winnipeg Remand Centre or another jail—for a year awaiting trial, with a 50% chance they won't even be convicted at the end of it. There certainly are some issues.

In terms of your question, it's a little general for me. There are some issues that particularly first nations people face in terms of being able to get bail—some difficulties around residence requirements and surety and things—so there's probably a slightly higher preponderance of aboriginal people on remand status than there should be because of some of those things.

I don't know about electronic monitoring. I'm not sure I could see where it could be effectively used in terms of the remand population. Those who aren't a flight risk are likely to get bail. Those who aren't getting bail are usually those chronic offenders with some history, and simply knowing where they are isn't going to make a difference. In terms of people coming out of custody—perhaps on parole or on temporary release from the provincial system—once again I think the reintegration of that group of ex-offenders is going to need some kind of human support, interaction, some programming, particularly with aboriginal clients. They do present with more needs for rehabilitation.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that. I'd like to hear more, but time is short and I'd like to ask just a couple of other questions.

Mr. Gendreau, you were talking about 500,000 people in the various studies that you've been involved with or have reviewed.

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

That's the sample size.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm just curious. Is there something that makes it tempting to try to figure out an electronic mechanism and get around it that is different if there is human interaction? Is there any kind of psychological thing like that, that research has put its finger on?

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

Any evidence there would be strictly anecdotal. There is probably a subset of any offender group that tries to think of ways to fool with the system.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In some of the states, like the state of California with their ruling on overcrowding and release of prisoners into the community from their tough on crime approach, or Texas, has there been a major use of electronic monitoring to deal with the fact they're having to release prisoners?

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

Yes. As you know, there are tremendous fiscal restraints, and the crunch...and unless you live in various parts of the U.S.A., you cannot appreciate how serious it is. You just need to read Paul Krugman's articles in the New York Times to get a sense of how serious the matter is. Many states are desperately looking at ways to get rid of their offenders from prison.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So the comparison would be the cost of jail versus the cost-effectiveness of bracelets.

My last question, if I have time, is for Mr. Hutton.

You were asking why we wouldn't just do the other community-based.... What's the answer to the question? What constraints would there be to having more community-based, contact-based supervision? Is there a reason to use electronic monitoring because there are constraints on what, according to research, appears to work better?

[John Hutton]

I think there are probably lots of good opportunities. I think this committee has an opportunity to look at electronic monitoring not just in the context of having it versus not having it, but in the context of having it along with other programs and other ways of monitoring people in the community. Monitoring is the way people want to go, for many reasons, and electronic monitoring may have some role or purpose in some cases. It's good for the committee to think broadly about other kinds of monitoring as well. I don't see that there are restrictions or problems that would prevent that from happening. There certainly are professionals within the justice community, as well as groups in the community like ourselves, who would be happy to partner with different levels of government to provide support and supervision for monitoring in the community.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So if monitoring is a better alternative than imprisoning, let's look at what's effective in monitoring, rather than focusing in on one particular kind that hasn't been shown to be more cost-effective or more effective than the other kinds.

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

But please realize that there's no evidence out there indicating that electronic monitoring reduces criminal behaviour. Of course, who's on electronic monitoring? It's low-risk offenders.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

There was a discussion of one kind of situation. It's not clients of the correction system. Are there other situations in which you think electronic monitoring is a good application?

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

I'm just repeating myself. Try it with high-risk offenders who need treatment in the community. That is a worthwhile goal to pursue and evaluate. Then you have to have a system that has the applicable wherewithal to stand by and deal with the issues that come when there's a serious mistake.

The honourable member down at the end mentioned a useful circumstance, quite likely high-risk immigration cases.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I took that as a comment on why we should not do it for those at high risk, just because of the political fallout, but I misunderstood that then.

According your research, are there other countries that are using this in a way that is effective?

[Dr. Paul Gendreau]

There are none that I know of. There could be a study coming up some time down the road that indicates that, but it would be an outlier. There's just an overwhelming amount of data so far indicating that these are the results, and they're not likely to be overturned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

On that point, it was interesting that in our first comment, when we listened to a professor from Glasgow via teleconference, he said that some were not as effective as others, but he really recommended the Swedish example. We haven't done a comparison of Sweden's to others. I know that some on this committee would like to go a little more in depth into the Swedish one—perhaps so that the committee could travel, but I don't think that's happening in these tougher times here on the Hill.

I want to thank you for coming and for giving us your perspective and your expertise on this. You've been involved in jurisdictions in the United States, Mr. Gendreau, where this is used more.

We also appreciate the work of the John Howard Society and their experience with programming, offenders, and the rehabilitation of some of those offenders.

Thank you for being here.

I see the time at 5:30. We will adjourn. Have a good evening.