Evidence of meeting #24 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gps.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I can, but you might want to hear from John, who actually works in the field.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba, Inc.
I was looking at the comments from the fellow from England. He said that where electronic monitoring had been successful, they were using it with high-risk youth. It was one of about six or seven different forms of intervention. There may be a case where it is important to know that somebody is on top of some very intensive kinds of intervention as well.
My bias is towards those interventions and towards having the resources available for the interventions. I do get the point that sometimes people who are not released into the community are the people who pose more of a risk; I think that's what you were getting at. But I'm concerned that there is a trend away from community-based sentences, and they can be quite effective, because a lot of the supports are in the community.
For example, some of the people we work with in our bail program are chronic offenders. They're in and out of custody all the time, but they're not necessarily in for murder or for robbing a bank. It's for assault, theft, robbery.... But they're in and out of custody so often that they can't access supports for an addiction. They can't get the educational upgrading or the employment training they may need in the community because they don't spend enough time there.
What we're trying to do with the bail program I mentioned earlier is to actually allow someone to return and be supported in the community while they deal with some of these issues, and do it more effectively.
In terms of programming, if you're looking at releasing someone back into the community or having someone in the community on bail, let's go beyond simply knowing where they are and just tracking them. Let's try to identify some of the issues and the challenges they do pose, and if the safety of the community can be accommodated at the same time, have the person out in the community where they have the greatest access to the fullest range of supports. That's where individuals can make some long-term changes for themselves.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Basically, you would agree that if electronic monitoring were put in place by Corrections Canada, in addition to that, to reduce recidivism, reoffending, you would still need additional programs to go along with parole, with conditional release and all of that.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Last week we heard testimony from witnesses that made it very clear that electronic monitoring is not effective for low-risk offenders. I believe Professor Gendreau also talked about that.
Can you elaborate on that? Why is it not cost-effective? Why is it not effective for low-risk offenders? You talked about the political risk of having a child molester out in society and being monitored. Could you elaborate on that? What has your experience been with regard to the program not being effective for low-risk offenders?
Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick, Visiting Scholar, University of North Carolina, As an Individual
Whether it's an electronic monitoring program, another kind of sanction program, or drug testing, or whether it is a treatment program or a psychological intervention, they are not effective with low-risk offenders. Why? Because low-risk offenders have, relatively, a very small chance of committing crimes in the future. Say you're trying to demonstrate that a low-risk offender has a 6% chance of reoffending. How are you going to have an effective program that's going to drop that from 6% to 2% or 1%? You have what they call a bottoming effect or, in a way, a ceiling effect.
So when you have low-risk offenders, the best thing to do is to leave them alone. You should be checking up on them occasionally, but your attention should be directed to the high-risk offenders. If you're concentrating on low-risk offenders through electronic monitoring or something else, you're diverting attention away from the individuals who pose the most serious risk to Canadian citizens, those who are a medium to higher risk. There, we have considerable data to show that these programs can reduce recidivism. CSC has also generated some programs indicating that they do a good job in that regard.
February 14th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sandhu.
We'll now come back to the government side.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Trottier has a question, but I have a really quick question. I'll share my time with him.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I was just wondering, Dr. Gendreau, with regard to high risks when it comes to immigration cases, do you think it could be useful at all? Say we have individuals who actually already have a removal order placed on them and there are all kinds of indicators that they are high-risk cases; they've done something to have this removal order put on them. We're not talking about low-risk immigration cases, which I know you mentioned in your presentation.
Would there be a use for any kind of electronic monitoring in immigration cases where there's a high risk that an individual is going to take off and find a way to get lost? As you know, in Canada we have a lot of them lost in the country. They have disappeared.
Is there a place for it there?
Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick, Visiting Scholar, University of North Carolina, As an Individual
Quite possibly, but it's not my area of expertise—far from it. In the U.S., there is ICE, the organization that takes the kinds of individuals you're describing—individuals who have tried to get into the country several times, who have committed a serious crime—and immediately puts them in prison. There is no prevaricating on that.
But if you're considering a policy, you have to define what you mean by a high-risk immigration case. If, let's say, you have a good definition of it and it's empirically supported, then electronic monitoring might be quite possible.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think of the cases of some who have come to Canada. They're not citizens. They have committed a very serious crime. They've done their time. Now there is a removal order for them to leave the country, but they disappear.
Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick, Visiting Scholar, University of North Carolina, As an Individual
Well, if they committed a very serious crime, you might—
Conservative
Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick, Visiting Scholar, University of North Carolina, As an Individual
Yes, precisely.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
So there may be some use for that, according to your research.
Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick, Visiting Scholar, University of North Carolina, As an Individual
Quite possibly, yes.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you.
I'll pass the rest of my time to Mr. Trottier.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to touch on a different situation.
Mr. Hutton, you briefly mentioned bail situations.
I have a facility in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore: the Mimico detention centre. There's a new facility being built, and you might be aware of it. It's a much larger facility, to replace the Don Jail.
The typical population in a facility like this is there for two to four weeks awaiting their bail hearings. I'm wondering if electronic monitoring could help.
I guess our desire would be to get people out of detention. If the decisions are that either bail is granted or bail is denied and the choices are incarceration or freedom, would electronic monitoring allow some discretion to the presiding judge to release a person with the condition of electronic monitoring?
You mentioned the cost being electronic monitoring versus human monitoring. But people in bail situations are accused; they're not convicted of anything. There's no program of human monitoring. That's really not one of the alternatives.
Do you see a usefulness for electronic monitoring in bail situations?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba, Inc.
I think it is possible to have a human monitoring program in bail situations when you're using a group such as the John Howard Society. We are not part of the corrections system, so the person could voluntarily agree to be in our supervision.
I think it is possible to create a human monitoring system even where there is bail. We're doing—
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
If I could intervene, what if that person is claiming innocence and does not want to have any human monitoring?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba, Inc.
My experience is limited, but in the Winnipeg example of the young men who were stealing cars, seven of them got their bracelets off very easily. These were teenagers.
I guess the question would be, are you creating a false sense of security by saying if you release the person on bail, at least you'll know where they are and you can always pick them up? Well, you'll know where they are until they don't want you to know.
I'm not an expert, but I've certainly heard that the bracelets can be tampered with. They can be broken, and in some cases they can certainly be removed. I wonder what kind of security you have for the courts in guaranteeing a person—“We'll know where they are, and we can pick them up if they don't come back to court.”—if they can tamper with or remove the bracelet.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Ms. Latimer—and maybe Mr. Gendreau, too, if we have some time—could you talk about bail situations?