Public Safety Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Phil Lightfoot]

Whenever we're buying new equipment or replacing trace detection units, we put out a request for proposals. We include the technical specifications of how they're supposed to operate and what their performance is expected to be. They are posted freely. Anybody can bid on them. There are several manufacturers that make equipment like this.

Our current instruments are made by Smiths Detection.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Coons, who recalibrates the detection instruments for the prison system where you work?

[Supt Warren Coons]

When you say “recalibrates”...?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Every once in a while you need to recalibrate a scanner. Who does that, and how often is it done?

[Supt Warren Coons]

Smiths Detection is responsible. Again, they're our contractor and our devices are used by them. Our employees are expected to follow the regular maintenance schedule. If there are malfunctions within our devices, we would send them back to the manufacturer or for routine maintenance.

In fact, as part of the review that took place, we are in the process right now of finalizing a contract with Smiths Detection to incrementally take all of our machines that are currently in service and send them to them for a review to ensure that they're all functioning properly. If there are any maintenance issues or what have you to be improved upon, it will be done at that time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Smiths doesn't come in as an independent contractor to routinely test for calibration. It's just, upon review, these machines are sent out and brought back. Is that correct?

[Supt Warren Coons]

That's my understanding, yes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You mentioned earlier, in response to a question, that you don't put the guards through the same level of security because it could cause bottlenecks. At airports, we put in our CATSA workers. I don't know about on the other end, but certainly people going into the airport have to go through that. There are a lot of bottlenecks in airports.

Why would we use that as an excuse in the prison system whereas we find a way to deal with it at the airports?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

In 40 seconds, please.

[Supt Warren Coons]

I think that you have to distinguish among the different environments. Obviously, in the airport environment, the consequences are extraordinary should individuals bring something onboard that could cause aircraft to go down.

It's not to say that we're cavalier about the possibility of narcotics entering our institutions, but it's not necessarily a fair comparison to talk about people bringing things on an airplane compared to into an institution.

Having said all of that, though, there are other security measures, as I said. There's enhanced reliability that all of our correctional officers have to pass in order to become correctional officers, and there's the ongoing supervision. It's not quite the same. We're not dealing with the unknown when we're dealing with visitors who are coming to our institutions.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mr. Fragiskatos, for seven minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I think it's interesting to look at this issue as if ion scanners weren't in place and what that would pose as a consequence from your perspective. The name Professor Hannem has come up already. In the testimony she gave this past fall, she did offer an explanation of ion scanners, it's true, but she's also been a very outspoken critic of the use of ion scanners.

I want to read something to you that she told to The Globe and Mail:

“If we were to stop the use of them [the ion scanners] entirely and go to manual searches and focus efforts on reducing demand inside the prison, focus efforts on harm reduction and drug rehab, I think that would go further than the ION scanner ever has.”

That's her position.

I would like to know this from you, Mr. Coons. If you were to take the ion scanner out of the equation, what should we expect? What would happen? What are the dangers of that happening?

[Supt Warren Coons]

When you're talking about frisk searching, for instance, that still is a superficial search, and it's not the most effective measure to understand whether or not somebody may be in possession of a narcotic, for instance. Under those circumstances, if we're talking about trying to prevent narcotics from entering an institution, it's a far less effective means, from our perspective, in terms of preventing those individuals from getting it in, as opposed to essentially something that's objective and calculates things the same way each time. If we removed the ion scanning, it's not as effective a measure to frisk search somebody as an actual scan through the device.

Ultimately what we can expect is probably increased amounts of narcotics in our institutions, and it also serves as a deterrent to the effect that people are concerned about bringing narcotics in—obviously visitors—when they know they have to defeat that device. If we took that away and it was a device that they didn't have to defeat, then there is the possibility that a number of visitors who come to our institutions would try to smuggle narcotics in.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

You said there that we can expect an increased number of narcotics entering institutions. Is that based on an analysis? Is that a guess?

[Supt Warren Coons]

Absolutely. You're asking me to assess a negative. We haven't removed them, so therefore I don't know what the consequence is of removing them. I'm speculating, because we don't have any scientific evidence to suggest that—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

No, I don't expect that you do. However, there could be a useful comparator here, and that's the United States. As you know, in 2009 the ion scanner was discontinued in the U.S. This is not a loaded question. I'm asking you about what the process is in U.S. prisons. Now that they've taken out the ion scanner, are they simply relying on manual searches of visitors? What is the approach?

[Supt Warren Coons]

I'm not aware that throughout the United States it's been removed. I know there was a study conducted in New York where they talked about New York state removing them from....

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

My understanding is that it's the U.S., period.

[Supt Warren Coons]

That could very well be the case; I'm just not familiar with that. I do know that in the previous testimony that the doctor referenced, they did talk about the fact that a positive hit on an ion scan was the determining factor as to whether or not an individual was allowed in the institution. I think the New York state study talked about how it shouldn't be that determining factor. In the case of Canada, it's not the only determining factor for somebody to get in; it's just part of a larger security apparatus.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

You mentioned at the outset that the opioid crisis and the overdoses that we're seeing across the country, but also in Canadian prisons, are a major problem. It's an objective fact regardless of the party you belong to and regardless of your stance on political issues. I think you've actually been very clear that the ion scanner can help curb that challenge that we're seeing in prisons.

A study was done in Rhode Island, where the ion scanner, as in other U.S. states, was discontinued. The way that they're addressing overdoses in prisons is by offering treatment options to inmates. Do we have anything on par with that in Canadian prisons?

[Supt Warren Coons]

We do have treatment programs.

First of all, each of the individuals is assessed when they come into our institution, based on their individual needs. They are provided programming based on whatever.... Addiction is obviously one of the issues very much considered when they come in. We have methadone programs, and we have a number of other.... We have educational programs, and what have you, that speak to the issues of addiction and use of drugs, and health issues surrounding the use of drugs. So there are programs within our institutions that address these issues as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It is interesting to me that without the ion scanner, they have been able to curb the number of overdose deaths in the United States in recent years by ramping up efforts to provide these treatment options to inmates. My point is that if you were to take away the ion scanner, perhaps you could still deal with overdose deaths and the problem of drug use within prisons, although I do take your point that the ion scanner could play a helpful role here. But I don't think that on balance the testimony we heard today is a clear indication of that. I think there's still a large question mark on their utility, at least from my perspective.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

We will now begin five-minute rounds, and Mr. Calkins will have the floor first.

You have five minutes, Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few more follow-up questions based on where I was going before, and Mr. Fragiskatos has already talked about this.

Can you tell me, Mr. Coons, Mr. Prasad, or whoever, has there ever been an instance when the ion technology led to using more of the tools that were available to officers from your agencies and significant charges being laid?

[Supt Warren Coons]

Yes, there are indications. For instance, I would have to get you the dates, but we do have examples when the ion scan hit positively on an individual, and as a result of the threat risk assessment process that was triggered, the individual discussed narcotics that he had in his vehicle. That led to criminal charges. We do have a number of incidents where individuals who are in possession of narcotics or have narcotics close by have been charged as a result.

I should emphasize, though—and it's important to keep in mind—that the primary focus, especially for Correctional Service Canada, is not necessarily to have criminal charges but rather to prevent the narcotics from entering the institution. When we turn people away based on that assessment, we may not know for certain whether they're in possession of narcotics, but we're happy that we're able to prevent those narcotics from entering our institution—whether or not they would have been in possession of narcotics at that given time.