I have a comment and then a question.
In the testimony we've heard, we have certainly heard from people who have been pro electronic monitoring, but none of them have suggested that it's some magic bullet that will reduce recidivism or crime or help offenders be rehabilitated, unless it is coupled with good, strong programs. I think we've heard that overwhelmingly. Among those who have been critical of electronic monitoring, most of their emphasis has been on their belief that personal programming is vitally important when it comes to rehabilitation.
We have heard, even from those who have been critical, that electronic monitoring has been positive in the context you talked about, which is its use as a supervision tool to monitor individuals and actually see if they are compliant. If we step back and look at that testimony as a whole, it has actually been very consistent. I think what we're hearing over and over again is that this is not a magic bullet. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution. It's part of a package and part of something government can help with to do a better job in corrections.
This is my quick question, if I have one more moment. We heard that in Manitoba, electronic monitoring was used for young offenders who were involved in car thefts. I don't even know if it was an official pilot project. The challenge there was that they just ripped them off. They actually took off the monitors, and there appeared to be no consequence. I'm not sure if conditional release for young offenders is different than it is for adult offenders.
In the literature you looked at, was there any problem with adult offenders actually taking off their bracelets? Or did they not do it because of the consequence?