Public Safety Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Supt Warren Coons]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

From CBSA's perspective, Dr. Lightfoot, you're the scientist, and do you have any general concerns with the use of ion scanners?

[Phil Lightfoot, Acting Director General, Science and Engineering Directorate, Information, Science and Technology Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

Not in general. We've been using this equipment for many years now. As a tool as part of the tool kit, no piece of equipment is perfect. For most cases, ion scans are very reliable. We find them extremely useful, but again, we're using them as part of a series of layers to try to establish whether we have a problem. In general, I would say no, but there are always details that we need to work out.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

Getting back to Corrections, we do know that one of the roles you play is to ensure that visitors who attend your institutions do not bring in contraband. Besides the ion scanner—and you touched on this briefly—what does a threat assessment of risk...? What are the other alternative procedures that you use to ensure drugs do stay out or to limit their availability in institutions? How do you do that?

[Supt Warren Coons]

Within the threat risk assessment process, first of all, the individual is subjected to the X-ray scanner, as we were today when we were coming in here, for example, as well as the metal detector scan. A detector dog is also part of that process, so a detector dog will likely be in the area when the visitors are coming through. As well, if somebody does hit positively for the ion scan or through the detector dog and that threat risk assessment process is triggered, there will be a review of the past history of this particular visitor and, as well, the inmate himself. Then, and also extremely important, there is intelligence, any intelligence that may exist to indicate that this visitor and/or this inmate might be seeking to introduce narcotics into the institution.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We do know that drugs continue to be a major issue in our facilities across the country. Are you looking at implementing or enhancing any other methods that are maybe more effective than what you're currently doing to keep drugs out of the system?

[Supt Warren Coons]

We're not aware of anything available right now that would be more effective than cameras, barriers, behavioural observations, X-rays, metal scanners, ion scanners, and the sharing of intelligence. Ultimately, urinalysis is a part of that downstream, in the sense that it represents a part of the history of the inmate who is being visited, so that could help us with information as it relates to the potential for narcotics coming into the institution. Beyond that, we're not aware of anything that is more effective than the package that we have at our institutions.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

In previous testimony before this committee, there was a request that a moratorium be placed on the use of IMS devices in all penitentiaries. I'm not going to get into the full quote on that, but what are your thoughts on that suggestion?

[Supt Warren Coons]

I believe it would not serve the purpose of decreasing the amount of narcotics in the institution and could obviously serve to create a worse environment in terms of the safety and security of inmates and staff in these institutions.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, go ahead for for seven minutes, please.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The review that was recently completed was completed in January. Is that correct, Mr. Coons?

[Supt Warren Coons]

A letter was sent to the OCI in January, yes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Is it possible for members of the committee to obtain that report? I asked about it last time and we received only the security bulletin. Is there any way we can get an undertaking to have that available to us?

[Supt Warren Coons]

We conducted a number of different elements of our review, but we can certainly put together a document that will demonstrate the elements that we looked at when we considered our review, yes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That would be appreciated, because in your comments you mentioned how the review seemed to satisfy you on the use of the technology, but some of the details perhaps would be of interest to members of the committee, those being separate, of course, from the security bulletin.

I want to ask what the risk assessment process entails beyond the ion scanners. Certainly, anecdotal evidence is not always the best way to go when developing policy, but at the same time, there are clear situations that have been raised by families, as you know, involving people not being allowed to see loved ones because of what they say are false positives. Is there a process around that involving not just the ion scanner, and if so, can you elaborate a little more on what is entailed if someone is ringing positive on the ion scanner? What would be the next steps, for example?

[Rob Campney]

Just to reiterate, 99% of all of our visits coming into the institution are approved and allowed, and that may or may not involve the use of the ion scan. In terms of conducting a threat risk assessment, there's a series of checks and balances in the document that need to be followed through. Again, as Mr. Coons has said, we use the ion scan as a possible detection tool, as well as the drug dog, X-ray machine, or metal detector. Also, for those coming in for family visits, we physically go through their suitcases to check to see if there's anything in there that would represent contraband.

In addition to that, we also review the information contained in our visitor review board, for prior visits of the offender by the particular visitor who is coming in for a day visit, whether there were any hits on the ion scan or any hits by the detector dog or metal detector.

As well, we review the case management file to ensure that the offender is in compliance with his or her correctional plan and is adhering to the drug interdiction programs that are in place or whatever the programming requirements for the offender may entail.

In addition, and very fundamental to the TRA process, is the security intelligence officer information. They're our eyes and ears on the ground in an institution and they're in tune with what is going on in terms of our inmate sources and providing us with information to assess in terms of drugs coming in, who may be involved, who may not be involved, and that sort of thing.

In addition, we review our offender management file for prior urinalysis test results. If we have an offender who has had a random urinalysis test and the result has been negative versus positive for cocaine or another substance, that's a factor in the threat risk assessment in terms of the current application or the current visitor at the gate waiting to come in.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I appreciate that it's a long answer, and I don't want to cut you off before you finish, but my time is limited. I'm wondering if you could tell me how many denials that 1% entails. Do you have that number? If you don't, could you provide it to the committee?

[Supt Warren Coons]

I do have it, yes. In over 128,000 visits—128,000 to 141,000—there were approximately 1,250 positive results. Of those, approximately 875 of the visits were facilitated through alternative measures, as we spoke of, and of that total, approximately 320 were denied. So out of the more than 128,000 visits, approximately 320 people ultimately were denied a visit into the institution.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

In a situation like those 875, where you're facilitating a visit by other means, that's part of the risk assessment process. There's obviously also a file on the inmate. I imagine that the facilitated visit will pop up in a different way on the inmate's file. Does it play into issues related to parole, for example, or issues related to future visits, that the person required a facilitated visit due to the fact that certain red flags went up through part of your process?

[Rob Campney]

A positive test on an ion scan or a positive urinalysis is captured in our offender management system. That forms part of the inmate's file. It needs to in terms of our assessing that offender's compliance with his programming and his risk to reoffend in the community once released.

So it does factor in. However, every situation is rated differently. If we have an offender whose mother came in and they were provided with assigned seating following a positive ion test, it's a factor. It existed. It happened. But does it mean that the offender will not be eligible for conditional release or that it will have an impact on that? That's just information that is documented and then shared with the Parole Board of Canada, which then makes the final determination on—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

What about for future visits? For a future visit, would that play into a decision that's made if there were another reaction by the ion scanner?

[Rob Campney]

Let's say a visitor comes in and they're provided with assigned seating based on a test. The next visit, if the visitor comes in and the ion scan indicates negative, they will proceed in and have a regular visit. In subsequent visits, if the visitor comes in and there's another positive ion test, in the threat risk assessment process the manager, who is assessing past behaviour and past factors, including inmate behaviour, security intelligence information, and past visits by that particular visitor, determines the next course of action.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

With the 30 seconds I have left, I have one last quick question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Very quickly.