Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks so much for being here this morning. It's greatly appreciated. I was certainly happy to table the petition and perhaps less satisfied with the response, but we'll get to that.

We had the corrections investigator table his report this week and once again mentioning the number of false positives being a source of concern and again recommending the review and study of this. Considering that while it's being reviewed and studied these things are still happening, it's certainly worth considering a moratorium.

I wanted to go back to the issue of and the question about what we would call “trusted sources”; staff, professionals, and contractors were mentioned. With your indulgence, I want to read for you something Howard Sapers said a few years ago when he was the correctional investigator. He said: “There's no evidence to show that this spike”—in drugs in prison—“is because people are smuggling things in through an infant's diaper. In fact, just the opposite...”. He also said: “You're less likely to find something coming in through a legitimate visit than you are from other sources—other people coming in to the prison, sometimes even trusted people...staff. So focusing just on visitors is out of balance with where the problem is.”

I want to understand this from your perspective as people offering mutual support to loved ones. The word “deterrent” was used, and I think that's something we haven't gone into detail with and just the impact it has on even the incentives that you have to make these trips out. If you're going to Kingston, say, it might be a three- or four-hour drive for some people, or even more depending on where you live. How does it dis-incentivize wanting to go and visit, knowing that you might actually be causing more harm than good to the loved one by coming to visit?

Go ahead, please.

[Irene Mathias]

It not only deters you from going, but I want to explain to you that it is actually quite a terrifying experience.

The first time I hit positive was at Millhaven, and I hit positive for heroin. I found myself in a state of shock and terror, because I'm in an environment where people are armed, and it's a jail. I know I have done nothing wrong, but I'm terrified all the same. I'm literally shaking and saying to the guard, “Look at me, what is this...?”

I was subjected to standing and a dog coming by. Then I was given just a closed visit over the phone. It was such an unnerving experience that it's very hard for me to recommend to some other family member to run the gauntlet of the ion scanner, that it's no big deal. It's a big deal. You're left in a state of fear for no reason. I think that.... Anyway, I'll leave it there, for a short answer.

[Anne Cattral]

I think CSC hoped that going through the ion scanner would be a deterrent for people smuggling drugs in, but that ship sailed a long time ago. People know that there are so many false positives that they could care less. If they want to smuggle drugs in, they're going to try it.

From my own personal experience, it was a very painful experience. My grandson will not go back after the threat risk assessment that we went through.

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

There's perhaps....

[Margaret Fitzpatrick]

Maybe someone else has something. I don't.

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

I want to go to some of the research that was alluded to, which is on CSC's website.

It's interesting. Their conclusions.... I'm looking to you, Dr. Hannem, just for an academic perspective in terms of, quite frankly, the absurdity of this kind of conclusion being put on a department's website. There was an international study, and they have published it on their website.

The conclusion that the department reaches is this: “Overall, this review indicates that IMS units are useful in detecting most drugs.” You say, okay, that sounds good, but here are the next sentences:

However, these devices are often oversensitive and are limited in their ability to detect certain forms of drugs. Additional research is needed to address gaps in our knowledge such as determining the impact of IMS units on inmate drug use and institutional behaviour, drug smuggling by inmates, staff and visitors, etc.

Just from a value standpoint I want to hear you, as an academic, on that kind of conclusion being reached for research. Is that considered acceptable or not?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

I want to be clear that the research CSC did is what's known as a secondary data analysis. They were doing a meta-analysis of previously published research available from other institutions and academic work. That's fine. It's a perfectly acceptable way of gathering whatever evidence is available.

The conclusion they come to, which is that this is an effective means of detecting drugs, is an interesting one, because essentially they are failing to make the distinction between a false negative and a false positive. This machine does not come up with false negatives. If the drug is there, yes, it will find it, absolutely. In terms of those conclusions, yes, it detects drugs.

The problem is not false negatives. The problem is false positives, where it's saying that, yes, there are drugs here when perhaps there aren't or the amounts are so small that they are negligible.

That's the issue with that sort of conclusion. It's just misleading.

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

Finally, and quickly, with the last 30 seconds I have left, there was an access to information request that revealed that the positive scans from ion scanners are what account for most of the denied visits in prisons in Canada. I'm just wondering about that. The department brags about using other forms of detection as a complement to that, but what does that actually say about the state of things?

[Irene Mathias]

What it says about the state of things is that they accept that this device keeps families away from prison, and it completely contradicts their policy around the importance of maintaining community and family ties for the effective rehabilitation of prisoners.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to thank all of you for the evidence and information you've given us today, because it has been very helpful.

Specifically for Mothers Offering Mutual Support, I really see the value of starting a petition just for raising awareness. I want to give a shout-out to the fact that you've done quite a wonderful job of raising awareness of this issue. I was reading through a number of articles that came out shortly after that petition was raised in the press. It was a great way of getting the story out and getting people to think about it. I am always trying to reach out to my constituents and tell them about the value of petitions, and you have really shown how that works, so I wanted to thank you for that.

One of the articles that came out around this petition was in the Globe, and I believe it quoted you, Professor Hannem. It talked about the official procedure on the ground not being what's followed through on. I was wondering if you could talk a bit more about that. What is your understanding of what the official procedure should be? What's not followed through?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

That difference is exactly what Anne and others at the table have mentioned. When the ion scanner rings, it is supposed to be followed with a threat risk assessment. It is usually followed by some kind of interview, but there is no follow-up search. My understanding from talking to people is that the follow-up search is not conducted. Often they'll ask why it's ringing positive, but people have no idea. They have no good answer. The lack of a good answer is taken as evidence that they must be doing something wrong, and then visits are denied. There is a lack of follow-through, of coming up with what I think is an effective assessment of visitors.

The other problem is the disjunct between what the policy says in terms of how the machine should be operated and the fact that they found themselves, which is that they are not always operating the machines according to the manufacturer's specifications and they are not always following the protocols in terms of cleaning.

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

For better information for me, because I don't know much about this, is there any type of recourse—a complaints or review procedure—to be able to look at the record and say, “hey, there are all these false positives and in fact nothing was done to follow up on that search”?

[Anne Cattral]

As somebody mentioned, after you hit positive, your file goes to the visits review board. As far as I know, no documentation or statistics are kept by CSC about false positives.

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

There is no direct way for you to specifically ask for a review of that?

[Anne Cattral]

No. After you hit positive, you have five days to contact the person on the back of the sheet, which is usually the visitor manager, and give your side of the story, and it's basically the same question: why do you think you hit positive? Actually, all the compulsive behaviours that I developed over time, such as washing coins, etc., came from the visiting manager. That is what she told me to do.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

May I respond as well?

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

Yes, please.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

In my access to information request last year, I asked for CSC documentation of false positives and they responded this way: “Considering that such an occurrence rarely occurs, 'false positives' are not recorded by any institution within CSC. Therefore, it would be difficult to provide [you] with an actual figure”.

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

Would you be able to provide us with that?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Absolutely. I can give you my access to information—

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

It's just for us to be able to have a copy of that.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Yes.

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

All right. As far as you're aware, though, you don't know of successful cases of people being able to clean the record. From what I understand from your story, the more of these positives that collect on the record, the more you are subjected to further searches.

[Irene Mathias]

Not only further searches, but your privilege of visiting will be suspended for three months or six months, and then the review board will meet again, think about it some more, and give another decision. So yes, the sanctions are....