Evidence of meeting #27 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 technology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
Speaking first, it’s Eric Caton. My background is computers, and I came up through a large company that got into the business of monitoring through its justice software division. My background, then, is more of the sales and marketing of technology. This was one of the technologies that came along that I thought had merit, and I thought perhaps we could do a better job in the community.
Michael, do you want to speak to your background?
4:15 p.m.
Project Manager, Jemtec Inc.
Yes. Prior to joining Jemtec, I was a senior policy adviser with the Ontario provincial government in the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. At the time, the government wanted to develop an electronic supervision program that would cover conditional sentence cases as well as some probation and would involve GPS tracking, electronic monitoring—which is radio frequency monitoring—and voice verification.
I was the project manager to get that ESP, or electronic supervision program, running. Because I was a policy adviser working as part of the policy division, that work was done within the context of the province's treatment and rehabilitation program. The ESP program was seen to be a component of a provincial offender's rehabilitation and treatment.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thanks very much. That explains why you have a persuasive presentation: Mr. Caton has a background in marketing.
I want to ask some questions about the reliability of the technology. How reliable would you say the technology is, overall? I think you made a distinction, saying that if it's properly set up it's reliable, and that caused me some concern. Overall, and obviously taking into account the set-up and any problems with the technology, how reliable is the technology that you use?
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
There are a number of technologies that we provide. Radio frequency is the oldest. The first program started in 1987 here in British Columbia, and it's extremely reliable. It is proven technology that has been used for many years on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals in North America.
GPS, I would say, is very reliable, but it's a much more complex set of technologies that require proper training and understanding and feedback, so the training and specific knowledge of the user become key in that reliability. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing with the technology will not see it as reliable. That same technology, that same box, used by someone with a great deal of knowledge and understanding will be seen as extremely reliable. The human factor becomes very strong when dealing with the technology today. It is complex technology.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Does your company assume any liability for negative consequences of any failures of the technology?
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
Certainly we have responsibility to fix the technologies and that type of thing, but we don't take responsibility for the actions of the clients, no.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Well, I'm talking about the technology rather than the actions of clients, so if you're saying the technology is reliable, then in some way there's a connection between that and what clients are able to do because of a failure of technology. To be clear, what you're saying quite clearly is that fixing the physical technology is your responsibility, but that any consequences resulting from those failures would not be the responsibility of your company.
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
I think that's a bit simplistic, but what happens then is that we have responsibility to train and retrain and keep training until we have people at the level they need to be. Certainly at some point we have to hand off to the government officers, and they take responsibility. They feel comfortable and they know what they're doing. We're there to back them up if there are issues.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
We'll now move to Ms. Hoeppner for five minutes. Are you going to split your time?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, I'm going to share my time with Ms. Young.
I want to follow up on something that Mr. Scarpaleggia asked about, or one of the questioners. Could you confirm that you've met with department officials, but not elected officials? Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
That would be correct, and again I want to point out that those are operational folks.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Right.
We heard testimony from the Centre for Security Science at Defence Research and Development Canada. They also told us that the department is looking at the best options—the platform and some of the requirements that may be needed—and I would think that any government department has to look at all the options available.
I congratulate you on your presentation, and there's no shame in being a good salesperson. I think that's a great quality when you have a successful business. There's a reason you're successful, and our job in this study, which I think we're doing very well, is to find out the facts on electronic monitoring. We want to know what it does so that if there are ways that it can be beneficial to public safety, including in immigration cases, we can put those tools to best use in what we're trying to accomplish.
I appreciate the information that you brought forward. I don't think any of us.... We're hearing a lot of different testimony. We want to hear from all sides, and then I think we can go forward and make a productive recommendation to the government in terms of whether electronic monitoring is best for offenders and for immigration monitoring. That's what we need to do. I just wanted to point out that we're glad you've come and made this presentation. I think we are going to be able to make some good determinations based on it.
I think Ms. Young had some questions. Thanks.
March 1st, 2012 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Thank you. I would like to second what Ms. Hoeppner said. Thank you so much for your presentation. I think that the information you provided is quite fascinating.
I am actually from Vancouver, so I welcome the opportunity to perhaps visit your facility and see some of these interesting items that you are talking about.
I wanted to turn your thoughts to page 7 of your presentation. In the first paragraph you say:
...electronic monitoring is a way to document that an offender, or an accused person, or an illegal immigrant is respecting a condition imposed by a Court or an Immigration Adjudicator or some other authority.
You make quite clear in your presentation that basically this is a tool, and a fairly effective tool, based on your presentation, but that the system still has to be in place. For example, officers must be trained on how to do the monitoring, and there must be support programs in the community, etc.
Can you describe in more detail your experiences with the equipment on the immigration side? You've applied your product to the immigration situation. I'd like you to explain how it works from the beginning to the end.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
We have very few immigration clients.
Specifically, we would be contacted that technology would be required for a given client. Typically—and again it seems there are many flavours—we would offer the technology for the officers to use on the client. They might ask us to tag along to ensure they got it right because they don't do it very often. They would also ask for training on the software so that if the alerts and alarms came through, typically on a BlackBerry or some other smart phone, they would be able to interpret them properly, quickly, and efficiently. If not, they would ask if they could contact us or the monitoring centre to get support in the wee hours or during the day, and that type of thing.
We would typically provide the technology, the support, the training, support again, and then ongoing regular updates of what's happening with regard to the clients.
That said, I want to mention again that we haven't had a lot of immigration cases.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
I understand your equipment is very technical, or there appears to be a variety of different equipment for different circumstances. Would you say that's true? I'm intrigued by the notion--sorry, how is my time?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
You shouldn't have asked the question, as I might have given you a little more.
We want to thank you for being with us via video conference today and for the information you've given to us.
We're going to move on to our next guest.
The other thing I should say is that if you think back over some of the answers you gave and would like to supplement those answers, please feel free to provide that information to our committee, even in writing.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Jemtec Inc.
Thank you. It was great to talk.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We'll take 30 seconds to close off this video conference. I guess that's cleared now.
We'll move to our next guest.
In our second hour we're going to continue the study of electronic monitoring. Our witness, Dr. Brian Grant, is director general of the research branch at the Correctional Service of Canada. Our committee wants to thank you for responding to the call for further information and for bringing testimony from your department before our committee.
I understand you have an opening statement. I think you were here earlier, but we're probably going to close off this segment at about 5:15, if that's all right. We may cut it a little short. We have some committee business to discuss.
Dr. Grant, welcome.
4:30 p.m.
Dr. Brian Grant Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee. It's a pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to talk to you about some of the issues around electronic monitoring as it relates to the Correctional Service of Canada.
I'll give you a bit of background on my experience and knowledge. I have a Ph.D. in psychology from Queen's University. I have been a social science researcher with the federal government for 30 years, 20 of them with the Correctional Service of Canada. As the director general of research, I am responsible for developing and implementing an annual research plan that contributes to the effective management and operation of the Correctional Service and also serves to contribute to the public safety of all Canadians by helping develop and assess rehabilitative programs for offenders.
I've worked on a number of projects over the many years I've been with the service, one of which was the overview of electronic monitoring in corrections issues and its implications, authored by Ms. Bottos. I was the director general at the time this report was prepared and I reviewed it numerous times in my capacity as the director general.
This report summarizes the results of a review of the literature related to electronic monitoring up to 2006. I would be pleased to respond to your questions about this research in just a moment; however, before taking questions, I'd like to reinforce some of the comments made by Commissioner Head following his appearance before this committee this past month.
As you know, the intent of electronic monitoring is not that it be used as a mechanism for reducing recidivism. The research demonstrates that it does not have that ability. It is a tool to assist our staff with the supervision of offenders who have been granted a form of conditional release. Electronic monitoring contributes to our mandate by overseeing the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community. Essentially it provides staff with the ability to monitor an offender's compliance with the conditions of his or her release as stipulated by the Parole Board of Canada.
Further, it strengthens efforts to promote offender accountability while these individuals are residing in the community. It also enables the service to compile pertinent information for various ongoing risk assessments and analyses to monitor and mitigate any concerns that may arise with the offender and ultimately, therefore, to protect public safety.
The safe transition of eligible offenders into the community is a priority for the service, and we feel that the use of EM could be an effective tool to assist our parole officers to meet that objective.
Thank you for your time. Mr. Chair, I welcome any questions that members have.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Thank you, Dr. Grant. I apologize for not having “Dr.” showing as the title in front of your name on your name card.
We'll move to Ms. Hoeppner, please, for seven minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Grant, for being with us.
I want to give you the opportunity to explain to the committee how the report was drafted. Can you please explain the role that Ms. Shauna Bottos played in publishing this report? Did she gather the literature? Can you tell us where the literature came from?
Just give us some context, if you would, of the report.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
She would have searched through various electronic databases that contain research information. She would have contacted people in other countries to find out what they've been doing in electronic monitoring. Bringing in all that information and reviewing the content of these articles, she would have then prepared her report summarizing, basically, what others have said about electronic monitoring in studies that have been published in either the peer-reviewed literature or in what we call the grey literature, which would be government publications and other sources of information.