Public Safety Committee on May 15th, 2012

[Steve Chapin]

The purpose of his study was to determine whether electronic monitoring was effective or not effective. Efficacy was measured by outcomes. He wanted to determine whether there was recidivism—whether they successfully completed the program, committed another crime, or committed violations of their terms of probation.

He did a lot of statistical analysis that I can't, unfortunately, quote off the top of my head, but the end result was, he said, that there was a dramatic benefit, when electronic monitoring and specifically GPS was used, in reducing recidivism.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have another minute or two.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Great. Thank you.

A previous witness testified to us that sometimes this electronic monitoring had a tendency to make an offender's home a jail, and that this could have negative consequences, etc.

Based on the study and what you know about this whole issue, can you shed any light on that perspective?

[Steve Chapin]

I don't think I really know what he means by a jail, but electronic monitoring is intended to communicate the whereabouts of an offender. If it means that when an offender leaves his home when he is not supposed to leave home, his officer finds out about it immediately, then I suppose it could be construed somehow as a jail. But there are no bars. The offender can simply walk away and suffer the consequences from his probation officer.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Given that he has probationary orders, which this device is going to be technologically supporting, really he shouldn't be leaving his home anyway. Is that your point?

[Steve Chapin]

Yes. Typically the offenders on house arrest are allowed to be at home, go to work, go to treatment, and some period of time to handle personal affairs like grocery stores, things like that. Some of them aren't even afforded that.

House arrest is house arrest. They're supposed to stay at home unless they're allowed to be outside the home. The beauty of GPS is that when they're outside the home, you know where they're going.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

What you're saying basically is that one cannot ascribe an offender's view on the GPS. It's simply a technological implement to help us monitor where they are and to support their conditions of house arrest.

[Steve Chapin]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your testimony, Mr. Chapin.

I sat through all the testimony here, and I believe we should have had you here earlier. It's been the most articulate explanation of the technology we've had, and maybe that explains why 3M bought your company, or why 3M is the most dominant.

I have two questions I want to ask you, not in any way to challenge your integrity or your company, but they're important questions for us.

Have you ever been compelled to appear in court to testify about the use of electronic monitoring devices, you or your company?

[Steve Chapin]

Yes. I have personally been in court defending the technology, if you will, and members of my staff routinely go to court to interpret points, if you will, most often in the case of a violation of parole hearing.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

In terms of the questions you're asked in court, was the evidence upheld in all the cases you know of?

[Steve Chapin]

In all cases it has been upheld. In fact, on several occasions we've met the Daubert standard.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay.

My second question, have you or your company ever been sued in relation to malfunctioning, inefficiency, or bad reporting as a result of these devices?

[Steve Chapin]

In the roughly 15 years I have been involved with Pro Tech, now 3M, we had not been sued up until one year ago. This was the first case. It's an open case so I'm reluctant to talk too much about it, but we don't see it has much merit after reviewing the plaintiff's case.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Can you tell us who the plaintiff is, not name but category?

[Steve Chapin]

That part's public information. We had an offender who was wearing a passive tracking device—which is next-day reporting of his location—and he was out one night and he shot and killed the plaintiff. The plaintiff's point is that we should have prevented that crime.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That's useful information for us for our study, so thank you very much.

[Steve Chapin]

That's why I stated—and I state it all the time—that GPS will not prevent a crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for appearing. As already stated, we very much appreciated your testimony. We would welcome that report, even if you send it electronically to the Chair. There might be an issue with translation, so send it to the clerk. We would appreciate it.

We will suspend momentarily to allow you to take your exit, and then we will go to committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order.

Before we really get into the meeting...yes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'd like to move that we go in camera as we are dealing with future business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. There are a couple of things that may not be future business, little budgetary things.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I think budgetary things also would be in camera. I'm moving that we move in camera.