Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[Anne Cattral]

No. My grandson said to his father when we were leaving, “Daddy, I won't be able to give you a hug.” Just that comment.... My son was devastated. My grandson cried all the way home. We were four hours away, so you can imagine what kind of journey I had that day. My grandson has refused to go back. He said, “Nana, I can't go, because they'll turn us away.” He said, “They're looking for drugs and we don't have any, so I can't go back.” He has not visited his father. That was over a year ago, maybe more, and he has not visited his father since.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Professor Hannem—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, I have to stop you there. Thank you. Your visit here was very brief.

To complete the first round of questioning, we'll go to Mr. Dubé for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is only a three-minute round, Dr. Hannem, and I want to delve more into the lawsuit in the State of New York related to the use there. Could you perhaps elaborate a little on what the experience there has been? Beyond the complaints, has there been anything conclusive there that could be helpful to us?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

The lawsuit that prompted the review of the ion scans in the State of New York, and then subsequently more broadly across the Federal Bureau of Prisons, revolved around the question of access and a family being denied access because of false positives. The court agreed, and they initially did find that there was an issue of false positives there. The Federal Bureau of Prisons decided to stop using them. They used them only for mail and for inmate belongings, and they would swab visiting rooms before and after visits. I'm not sure what the purpose of that was.

They did, surreptitiously and under the radar, reintroduce the use of the ion scans in 2011. Some prisons started scanning people again. I've been monitoring the prison rights groups in the United States. It continues to be an ongoing issue. Again, there's the question of whether this should be a human rights lawsuit.

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

Technically the policy is not to use them, notwithstanding what may or may not be happening?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Yes.

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

Okay.

That's it for me. Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

For the second round of questioning, we'll go to five minutes each, starting with Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you. I'll get my timer going here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You don't trust our time.

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

No, it's just so I know what the witness is answering....

I want to go back again to what you would like to see and perhaps talk about the policies that CSC has. We've heard a lot about the issues with the ion scanners and who they're used for. I asked about this the last time, but could you speak a bit more about some of the other methods, such as drug dogs and full body scanners, weighting those in terms of preference?

I suspect that it's not a question for all of you. I'm not expecting people to be experts in fields where they're not. If you have some suggestions on this, that would be helpful.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

At this point, I haven't studied the technology of the body scanner myself. I'm vaguely aware and have looked at some things, and my sense is that if people were carrying, the body scanner would pick it up. I'm not clear. I need to look into whether it would detect things concealed in a body cavity. I'm not certain. My understanding is that drug dogs generally will pick up what is concealed and will sit.

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

Can you go through what the process is? I read in one of the CSC reports about the procedure that's supposed to be followed. If you have a positive with the ion scanner, there are other things that are supposed to happen. Could you comment on what the current procedure is and whether that's being followed? Also, do you have suggestions on that if the ion scanners are used?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

The process of the threat risk assessment is, first, to do a second scan. If the machine has not been cleaned or if it's picking up trace particles, the purpose of the second scan is less clear to me. If it comes up negative—

[Irene Mathias]

It doesn't matter.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

—it doesn't matter. It doesn't negate the fact that you came up positive the first time. You still go through an interview to discuss where it is and why you might have picked up some drugs.

The outcomes on this are vastly different depending who you are. In 2011, the Honourable Kim Pate—many of you probably know her personally—testified to I believe the Senate committee when they were looking at drug interdiction that she had rung positive on the ion scanner, and they had spent a great deal of time going through what she might have touched or what she might have taken. They decided it was the Dimetapp she had given to her kid the day before that had caused her to ring positive. She was allowed to go in.

If you're a family member, they don't go through all of this rigmarole and try to give you the benefit of the doubt and figure out what exactly it is that might have set the thing off. They just say, “You have set it off and this is a problem.” They will look to see whether you have set it off before. If you have, they will say that this is evidence of a recurring pattern, and you're even more likely to be denied your visit, perhaps even to have your security clearance revoked altogether.

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

If we weren't using ion scanners, what would be the procedure at the corrections institute? If there were a moratorium on them, what would you suggest the procedure be, then, when someone comes in, whether it's a visitor or staff?

[A voice]

The dog.

[Anne Cattral]

Yes, even with the ion scanner, you still have to be searched by the dog.

[Margaret Fitzpatrick]

No, not always.

[Anne Cattral]

Every time I went in, it was—

[Margaret Fitzpatrick]

It's most of the time.

[A voice]

Different institutions, different things.

[Anne Cattral]

There is the dog and, as Stacey has said, if you have an ethical, reliable handler that the dog doesn't react to or take cues from, then the dogs are considered more reliable than the ion scanner. There is the X-ray machine that you put all of your belongings through, your purse, coat, everything; you take your shoes off, and your shoes go through. You go through the metal detector.

There are those three things, and then when you get into the visiting room, there are cameras everywhere for observation by the correctional officers in the bubble. You're under direct observation and prone to audio on the tables, so they listen to conversations. All of these security measures are in place, and if you leave to go to the bathroom, you're searched. You're patted down on the way back.

All of those are already in place without the ion scanner. The only time I've seen a visitor caught for having brought drugs in, it was from the cameras and direct observation by the correctional officers.