Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you. I will interrupt you here. We have to interrupt people sometimes because we have so little time.

My question is for the two other witnesses, Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. LeSarge.

You were part of the system and say that the technology does not work. Apparently, a lot of drugs are getting into penitentiaries and are coming in through the front door, as you pointed out.

In your opinion, how are drugs getting into those institutions? Since this problem was identified, have any recommendations been made to stop illicit drugs from getting in?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Be very brief, please.

[Margaret Fitzpatrick]

I have never witnessed staff bringing drugs in, for example, but when 10% or less of the people who get in there are scanned and 90% are not scanned, and when most of that 90% who enter an institution every day are staff, contractors, or people employed by the institution in some capacity, there needs to be a really close look at it.

I think the policies need to be redirected away from the visitors. Certainly, they have to scan the visitors, and there are visitors who have brought drugs in. We know that. We recognize that this has happened in the past, but the ion scanner is not instrumental in picking that up. It's found by other means. They find it through intelligence. They get calls from somebody reporting that somebody has it on them. The security intelligence officer may have information given to them by—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm going to have to leave the response to Mr. Picard's question there, ma'am.

[Margaret Fitzpatrick]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Ms. Leitch, you have seven minutes.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thanks to all of you taking some time to come and speak with us today. We greatly appreciate it.

I'll start by asking you a couple of questions, Dr. Hannem.

The government has been very focused on talking about evidence-based research. This morning I was reading the CSC website, which talks specifically about ion spectrometry. It states specifically that there is a paucity of research and a need for additional research. From your experience, what type of research—and how—do you think is needed to be able to answer this question of the balance between making sure drugs don't end up in these institutions and making sure families have opportunities to see their loved ones?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

It's an excellent question. I would love to see a third party blind review study of the efficacy of the machines. I would like to see controlled experiments using the machines. It's very difficult to do because the technology of course is patented and owned, and a single company has a monopoly on the machines used in Canadian prisons. Like other manufacturers of technology, they are, I think, reluctant to subject their technology to third party review.

CSC will quote that the manufacturer says that the incidence of false positives is less than 0.1%, but when I asked them last year in an access to information request about the reliability factor, they said that CSC does not possess documentation concerning the reliability of the IONSCAN machines. They quoted me the manufacturer's response, and it appears that they have collected no independent data on the machines.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Along those lines, I know that all of you have experience with these institutions, and I think we all have experience going through an airport. Would you suggest that there is other technology available that might be more constructive?

By way of example, DrugWipes are now being designed. They're fast, efficient, and not that expensive, probably less expensive than an ion spectrometer. Are there other technologies that we should be putting in place or other processes, similar to what Madam Cattral was talking about? Should we be looking at a different part of the process? What are your best recommendations for the government on what the technology should be—maybe it shouldn't be this technology at all—and what the process should be? I'm happy to take answers from anyone.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Anything that relies on the presence of trace particles is not a sufficient determiner of threat—or guilt, in this case—such that people should be denied entrance. I think the way the airport uses it, as has been said, is that if you get a hit, you are subjected to a search. They're looking for contraband. The fact that this is not followed through at CSC is really problematic.

The full body scanners, which would find things concealed under clothing and such, would be far more useful, I would think. Again, the wipes may be, but they may be subject to the same sorts of false positives, depending upon how much it takes to cause an alert.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Does anyone else have a comment?

[Irene Mathias]

I'd like to comment that I think CSC continues to use the ion scanner even though it is unreliable because they consider it an effective deterrent. I think that's something you should understand.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Right. It's a deterrent for individuals who are coming in—

[Irene Mathias]

It's so they'll be scared.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

—and decide that they won't even present themselves because of it.

To go back to the ion scanner itself, we talk a lot about the sensitivity, i.e., the false positives. Obviously there's another side to that: the specificity. I've read a fair amount about this and what it can or cannot detect. Do any of you have comments with regard to the specificity that has to also I think be addressed with respect to this technology?

[Anne Cattral]

On the specificity, I have hit positive I don't know how many times at this point for everything on their sheet except methamphetamines. I've hit for opiates, cocaine, morphine—

[Irene Mathias]

Ecstasy.

[Anne Cattral]

Yes, ecstasy, marijuana.... For whatever else is on their sheet, I've tested positive.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I have another question for each of you. Any of you can respond.

Have you had the opportunity to meet face to face and speak with public servants from CSC, individuals from this committee, or the minister himself with respect to this issue? If you had the opportunity—I'm pretty confident in saying that none of you has met with the minister face to face—what exactly would you say is the best process to follow? More specifically, what should be the timeline for the implementation of what you think should happen?

We often talk in generalities here about what things could be considered, but what I do find is that we often forget that there should be an associated timeline, so that there is actually some action taken. What do you think that timeline should be if you had the opportunity to speak to the minister or directly to the government about this issue?

[Anne Cattral]

MOMS as a group has spoken with the senior policy adviser in Minister Goodale's office, Justine Villeneuve, about several issues, this being a major one.

MOMS as a group has spoken with many high-level members of CSC. They keep repeating the same dogma that they have on their website and in their policy. They repeat the policy: the ion scanner is only one aspect of the TRA, we have to keep the prison safe, etc.

They're reluctant, but they have shared with me that they have been talking about body scanners, one big problem being the cost. The ion scanners have already been paid for. It's the cost of the body scanners....

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Do you have a comment with regard to the time frame for implementation?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Given the lack of demonstrated efficacy of ion scanners in keeping drugs out of prison, I would say that an immediate moratorium on their use would be very much in order and that the government should proceed with looking for alternative technologies as quickly as possible.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Do you think that implementation should be done over the course of six months or 12 months? What do you think would be an appropriate time frame?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

I'm not an expert in implementing policy. I sometimes dabble in designing it, but I do think that whatever they're going to choose in terms of technology, there's always going to be a delay in terms of getting it ordered and getting it put in, and there has to be very good training for staff on how to use the technology effectively. If you're going to bring in full body scanners, rapidly implementing those and getting the training in place over the course of a year to 18 months I think would not be unreasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you, Ms. Leitch.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes, please.