Public Safety Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Don Head]

In this case, we were referring, again, to the issues of understanding the limitations and capacities of the tool. So if we have individuals who have these kinds of geographic conditions, can the tool be used in such a way that it will give us the information to monitor an individual in that way?

From that perspective, we understood the capacities of the tool. We also understood the limitations as that relates to the comments around drift. We know that there is some drift, but it's not a 60-mile drift, at least not with the equipment we were dealing with. So we understood that. But again, the purpose of the pilot was to test out the test equipment.

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

Good: so you know the technical limitations of the products. Did you use various products—in other words, products from various suppliers—to evaluate which are better and which are not, which met your...? I guess “better or not” is not a good term for governments to use. “Which met your needs better” is a good term to use. If so, did you receive any indication that there would be continual improvement to their products should you enter into a contract?

[Don Head]

We used one specific product that was being used in Nova Scotia at the time, so again, in terms of being informed of how that specific product could be used, we gained information, but we know that the technology for electronic monitoring is evolving on a day-to-day basis.

We are engaging with the Defence Research and Development Canada group based on what we learned in terms of limitations as to how to properly shape a future request for proposals—again if the bill is passed and we're able to implement the electronic monitoring provisions. Having learned all of that information, we know what kind of equipment to ask for, and we'll continue to refine that as the technology improves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner and Mr. Norlock.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome back, Commissioner.

Just remind me of the clauses of Bill C-10 that pertain to the use of this technology. Bill C-10 will allow it to be used on a broad scale...?

[Don Head]

It will actually allow us to use it specifically for temporary absences, work releases, conditional releases, and parole into the community, and for long-term supervision orders, those cases that follow after warrant expiry. But the limitations will be in relation to restrictions to geographic areas or people staying within a specific geographic area, so it won't be a broad use that we could just slap on any offender regardless of the conditions they have.

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

Could you go over that list again? You'll be able to use it in which cases? House arrest, parole...?

[Don Head]

Yes, and temporary absence, work releases—offenders who go out on a work release—day parole, full parole, statutory release, and for long-term supervision orders.

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

Okay.

So you are saying that essentially the benefit comes from the interaction this technology allows between the parole officer and the offender, because unless the offender is wearing a bracelet, if he or she steps into a zone they're not supposed to be in, no one will know, and the parole officer won't be able to intervene. So this is really about strengthening that bond between the parole officer and the offender. Is that what it is?

[Don Head]

That's very much the case. The more that I can find tools that allow my staff to engage offenders in the community more often, more frequently, and with a focus on those risk elements that lead them back into the criminal lifestyle, the better off I'm going to be and the better off Canadians are going to be.

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

In some way, I guess, you could look at it as a case of the offender having less personal responsibility, because there's less of an honour system, if you will. The person doesn't really have to take responsibility for abiding by the rules of the parole order. Offenders don't seem to have to take that responsibility as much anymore. Would you say that's correct?

[Don Head]

I would actually say the opposite, sir. The fact is that they're aware now that we're going to be aware in relation to those specific kinds of conditions. We're going to be aware that they've gone near a school's grounds, or they've gone into a gambling establishment, or they've gone into a liquor establishment, so they're going to be much more cognizant.

One of the accountability elements that comes out of the use of electronic monitoring is having an incentive approach or an incentive process built into it, and one of the elements that is proposed in Bill C-10 is to give offenders the opportunity to come back and make arguments about how long they would have to use this kind of equipment. So if individuals show through their behaviour that they're respecting it, that would allow us to engage them in an accountability discussion about removing the device.

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

So even if it's not perfect, even if there are problems with drift and there are technical problems, could you still see it as being useful?

[Don Head]

I would very much, sir.

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

It has to be perfect with high-risk dangerous offenders. You can't take the chance that they'll step out of their zone. Then you could argue that it has to be perfect.

But if you're dealing with low-risk offenders who are not such a danger, then, even if it's imperfect, you're still creating a stronger bond with the parole officer. You're still allowing offenders to progressively argue that they need it less and less.

So would you say that even if it's not perfect, it may still be useful?

[Don Head]

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.

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

We've tested the reliability of the technology, but we don't really know. Intuition and experience would tell us that what you're saying makes sense and that there's a good probability it will reduce recidivism through the greater interaction with the parole officer and so on, but that's not what we were testing here. We weren't testing that. We weren't testing recidivism.

You said before that it would allow us to know if someone who has a drinking problem was going to a bar or if someone who has a gambling problem was going to a casino. Is it that precise? Is the technology that precise? It seems to my mind that it would tell you the general area the person was in, but the person could be at the barbershop or at the bar next door—you just wouldn't know.

[Don Head]

You're absolutely right. As we've indicated, there are some drift issues. Depending on the piece of equipment, that drift could be small or it could be large, but again, it allows our staff to have the discussion with the offender.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you—

[Don Head]

You know what—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm sorry.

Thanks, Francis.

We'll now go back to the opposition.

Mr. Chicoine, you have five minutes.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to speak to us, Mr. Head.

I would like to come back for a minute to your pilot project. You said that you had tested this technology on low-risk offenders. But a number of witnesses have told us that the use of electronic monitoring was not really useful for this type of offender.

What type of offender would you like to use electronic surveillance with?

[Don Head]

The types of offenders we would be targeting would be individuals that we would classify as moderate to high risk. The only reason we went with low offenders is that it was easier to get volunteers. Again, the intent was not to measure issues related to the offenders themselves; it was in relation to the equipment. So moderate- to high-risk offenders are the right target group for this type of technology.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It seems to me I saw that the technology used in this pilot project was radio frequency. Is that right?

[Don Head]

No, we were using GPS technology. I have had experience with RF in the other jurisdictions. Again, each type of equipment, whether it be RF or GPS, active or passive, all have their limitations. They all have their benefits. There are certain circumstances in which you would use one versus another.