Public Safety Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Johny Prasad]

I could add to that from my transborder perspective, or from CBSA.

We do over four million traveller examinations, 17.3 million commercial releases, 96,000 commercial examinations, and multiple modes. The ion scan device has helped us significantly in intercepting concealed narcotics, whether coupled with the X-ray or detector dogs. It helps with the progressive examination. When officers have an indication with the ion scan that a deeper examination is needed, we have found those narcotics. Quite often, it does lead to charges.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

In the suite of tools in your basket, how costly is this tool compared with the other tools you're using?

[Johny Prasad]

I could start with the CBSA.

It varies. Detector dogs are a different type of tool. You have a human coupled with a dog. That's an asset as well. The dog sleeps. The dog eats. Machines don't. But the machines on the other hand do go down. They need maintenance and such. Trying to compare that piece is apples and oranges.

In addition, there is X-ray technology, which is also helpful, and about the same price range, depending on the type of X-ray technology you get, but it's a different tool to do something different.

An X-ray will tell you if something is concealed within, let's say, baggage or parcels. The ion scan will tell you if there's a residue of something. The detector dog will tell you if there's an odour of some type of concealed narcotic.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

In any of the cases where charges were laid as a result of the finding of narcotics, how have the courts dealt with this ion technology? Have they readily accepted it as reliable?

[Phil Lightfoot]

The ion scanner is used as what we call a presumptive test, so if it looks like cocaine, it would lead to an enforcement action where the drugs are seized. Then typically, that sample will be sent to the Health Canada laboratory for verification that it is indeed cocaine. We don't rely on the ion scan uniquely, Mr. Chair, to determine what a material is.

[Supt Warren Coons]

This raises a particular issue, and I want to be clear on the point. We're talking about ion scans in the context of visitors, but let's not forget that ion scans are used in the institution for other purposes as well. As I said, when we're searching cells and what have you, particularly when we're talking about the opioid crisis that's upon us right now, when there are unknown substances found in a cell, it's important for us and for the safety of our staff to find out what the substance is as quickly as possible. The ion scans provide the only tool we're aware of right now that allows us to do that rapid analysis to at least presumptively understand whether or not we're dealing with something like a fentanyl. As a result of that, our staff take different measures to protect themselves when they're handling these substances.

I just want to make sure it's on the record that it's not just in terms of visitors when we're talking about ion scans.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you.

We now move to Ms. Damoff for five minutes, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We all agree we don't want to have drugs in prison. That's a given. In the report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, he said:

...the introduction of ion scanners has failed to have any significant impact on the rate of positive random urinalysis drug testing results. The rate has remained stable despite significant investments in new detection...and surveillance technologies designed to stop drugs from entering federal institutions.

I don't know if you have any other statistics that bear that out, but that's what he was saying, that these haven't worked to reduce drug use in prison. I wanted to get that on the record.

Why does CBSA not use the ion scanners on people? You said you used them on luggage and items, why not on people?

[Johny Prasad]

CBSA has set a policy to not scan the people—body parts, hands, etc. Usually we're looking for the goods that are being concealed, and that's where the indicators come from.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay, but they could be concealed on a person, couldn't they?

[Johny Prasad]

They could, but as I mentioned, we're building the multiplicity of indicators. In cases where the person is, let's say, using a body pack, or it's in their pockets or wherever else, or concealed within their clothes, as we go from nonintrusive to more intrusive—being cognizant of the traveller and their privacy rights as well—we don't start off by swabbing at that level. We'll go through the baggage, see if we have enough indicators, do the questioning, and then escalate to a personal search.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

That's obviously the difference between you two, though. They're scanning the people, and you're not.

You scan people, right?

[Supt Warren Coons]

We scan items on people.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I was scanned, and they scanned my body.

We had the MOMS organization here, as well as some other witnesses, and they were talking about some of the things that could provide false positives or set off the ion detector, for example, Clorox wipes, perfume, and as you mentioned already, touching money. If you're coming to visit and you've used Clorox wipes, for example, it could cause a false positive. Is there a way to calibrate the machine so that it's not going to show positive if someone has come in contact with things that are not what you're looking for?

I'll start with CBSA.

[Phil Lightfoot]

If there is a material that is an interferent with a particular narcotic, then there's really no way of modifying the machine to not react to it. When you're looking at the little graphs that the machine produces, if the wipes appear at the same place as cocaine, then there's always going to be that problem.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

This is if someone has used a Clorox wipe to clean something, and then they have the material on their body—or perfume, for example. That's what's causing the ion scanner to detect drugs, when in fact, it's something innocuous.

[Phil Lightfoot]

It could be a false positive in that case. We would not use that as an indication that somebody is positively carrying drugs.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

What about at CSC?

[Supt Warren Coons]

That is entirely possible, and we do know that there are some substances that could potentially cause false positives. That's why it's not meant as a determining factor as to whether somebody is denied a visit. It's part of a package of strategies or techniques to determine whether the individual gets in. That could be one factor that's considered, but there may or may not be intelligence on that. If there's no intelligence to indicate that the visitor or the inmate is involved in the drug subculture.... All of these factors are taken together to determine how that visit will take place, whether there are going to be restrictions placed on the visit, whether the visit is going to be an open visit, or whether the visit will be denied. It's merely one factor.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I first wanted to go back to get some clarification, because I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this difference in statistics.

At one point you had talked about different thresholds—above the threshold and below the threshold. When you're talking about below the threshold, what are you talking about? There's still something that gets triggered within the ion scanner below the threshold; is that correct? I need a word.

[Rob Campney]

To maybe make it a bit simpler, there are thresholds, but when you read the ion scan results, it's either a pass or a fail. If the item being swabbed falls below the threshold of the variety of substances we're testing for, then it's a pass.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

So that wouldn't factor in, then, to what we're looking at as the stats from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, because he was talking about people actually getting a positive. Below the threshold isn't a positive; is that correct?

[Rob Campney]

Below the threshold?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Below the threshold.