Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2012

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

Thank you.

Continuing in that vein, could you, as an expert in this area, explain to us how the mechanics or the synergies of using electronic monitoring with a counselling or rehabilitative program for someone on conditional release works to potentially reduce recidivism? What's the process?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

If we're using correctional programs, most of them are based on cognitive behavioural treatment. That is a form of programming whereby you work with the offenders to try to change the way they think about issues in their lives and their approach to life. You try to teach skills for planning and avoiding high-risk situations.

Think of the person who has a substance abuse problem. The first thing is that you don't go into a bar, but maybe before you don't go into a bar, you don't think about going to a bar. Maybe if your friend, who you usually go to a bar with, calls you up, the first thing you do is say that you don't think you want to talk to him or her now. That's part of cognitive behavioural treatment. It is to get people thinking about what the issues are. If you can get them thinking ahead of time, they can prevent the behaviour that comes further down the road. That's what effective correctional programming is trying to do.

I'll go to a study Jim Bonta did on electronic monitoring in Newfoundland. He was able to show, in the Newfoundland program, that where they had some cognitive behavioural treatment programs, they actually got a slight reduction in recidivism. One of the things they couldn't do in that analysis--

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

It was with the use of electronic--

[Dr. Brian Grant]

Well, that was the problem. The combination of the two produced a reduction. What they were unable to do, and what other studies have been unable to do, was separate those two pieces in the same study and say whether it was the electronic monitoring or the programming that resulted in the effect. What we have, though, is a lot of other research that clearly demonstrates that those treatment programs have a strong positive effect.

We know that, at a minimum, the programming had an effect. What we can't determine from the research that's been done is the incremental benefit of the electronic monitoring. That's the challenge.

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

Then we need to have more studies, I suppose. Would you say that's the next step?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

Unfortunately, that's the normal response from a researcher, but that's where we are today. If you look at the conclusion of all the research studies that have been done, they all end up with the statement that the proper studies have not been done yet.

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

Do you feel you'll be getting more resources, more funding, to do those kinds of studies? Is it part of your vision or your department's plan for the future to do more studies and to get the resources to do more studies?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

If electronic monitoring were implemented, our department would be involved in conducting research and evaluation studies to determine its effectiveness.

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

Now, do you expect that the use of electronic monitoring at CSC will expand? Are you getting signs that the government wants to use it more? Do you think it will be used more as a result of Bill C-10?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

Well, I think Bill C-10 authorizes us to use it. It doesn't give us direction on how much to use it.

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

Right.

[Dr. Brian Grant]

That will be a direction that will come after the legislation permits it.

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

I see.

I think that pretty much—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two minutes left.

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

—covers my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. We'll now move back to Madam Morin.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Grant for making this trip today. We really appreciate your testimony.

I would actually like to continue along the same lines as Mr. Scarpaleggia. We were talking about how a rehabilitative program works; you were talking about studies and research.

Could you give us more details about that? Where are we at right now? Is the technology sufficiently developed to be an efficient tool for adequate rehabilitation?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

The research we have doesn't indicate that it adds to the rehabilitative component of our interventions. It does ensure compliance with a curfew or with a location requirement, but there's no evidence to show that it will add to the rehabilitative component of our work.

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

Let's say you get results and the studies are conclusive. How could electronic monitoring really help parole officers with their professional objectives for the people they are working with? Could that hinder their efforts instead?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

It would help them by ensuring they know exactly where the offender is or was at a particular time. The system that was tested in the pilot study was a GPS, so we had the ability in real time to know exactly where the offender was. For example, if they, as a result of a condition, were required to remain at their house and the GPS monitoring showed the person leaving that location and going somewhere else, we would know immediately and would be able either to use a parole officer or, if it was a very high risk situation, to contact the police to intervene.

The other area where it can help is if there appears to be a minor breach of the location requirement. That's an opportunity for the parole officer to sit down with the offender and say, “Look, the record indicates that you walked next door and visited your friend over there, and you're not allowed to do that, so let's talk about why you're not supposed to do that and what the consequences for you could be.”

One of the things it gives, as our commissioner mentioned a number of times, is this ability to engage in a conversation over working within the confines of their conditional release, but you have firm information that there was a minor breach of the condition.

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

By going over the studies, we have also noticed that the bracelet can create stress on families in some cases. We know that some families might be uncomfortable with that type of technology, which is sort of unfamiliar.

We know that family members and friends who have a positive influence play a major role in the rehabilitation and reintegration of a person into society. So would the bracelet not become an obstacle not only for the person in question, but also for the officers working with that person?

[Dr. Brian Grant]

There is that possibility, although most of the time when electronic monitoring is used, it actually gives the offender a greater opportunity to be with his family, so the trade-off in most cases—not all, but in most cases—is an option of being in prison or of being out a little bit earlier and being with your family.

In a really interesting study out of New Zealand, I believe, they spoke to the offenders and to their families. While there was that tension—and it certainly was a challenge that had to be dealt with—for the family, the benefit of having the person there outweighed their being back in prison.

However, there are quite a number of things. There are additional costs for the family; they have to pay for the monitoring devices and they have to pay for an additional person to feed, and that person may not be able to work because of the other conditions that they're facing. There are those issues, and those are things our parole officers would work with when talking to the families.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Morin, I gave you an extra 40 seconds there.

We'll go to Mr. Leef, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Grant.

I have a couple of things here.

There's one thing that perplexes me a little bit, and I do respect the fact that probably more study is needed to really get to the end of it. We heard Commissioner Head's testimony—and we've heard you allude to it a bit, if not directly say it—that this provides a better opportunity for parole officers to interact with the people on electronic monitoring.

I read in the report that one of the findings of the evaluation indicates that:

The frequency of contact between offenders on SRR and their parole officers was not reduced as a result of their participation in the EMPP.

It doesn't say that there was any finding that it actually increased, but if I remember the direct testimony of the commissioner correctly, he said that if this provides greater opportunity for his staff to interact, and that's what it encourages, then he's fully in support of it.

My point is that I know we're saying there's no evidence of this leading to recidivism, but if we're acknowledging that it does increase interaction between parole officers and offenders and it does encourage participation in programs—and I think in your brief you mentioned that it “strengthens efforts to promote offender accountability” and that it allows the Correctional Service “to compile pertinent information for various ongoing risk assessments and analyses”—then all those things should naturally lend weight to rehabilitative efforts or to a decrease in recidivism. Naturally, you would think that would occur.

I'm perplexed that we wouldn't draw that conclusion, while respecting that we haven't done enough study to do so. I would think that if an offender interacts more with his or her parole officer, and you're promoting accountability and you're able to compile information, you're going to see some rehabilitative efforts that you wouldn't see if those interactions aren't occurring because staff can't track them on electronic monitoring.