Evidence of meeting #82 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was looking at the response to the petition that you put in, which said that CSC is undertaking a review of the use of ion scanners. In fact, when I was looking through the annual report, I saw a commitment to review it with a completion date of January 2018.
Professor Hannem, do you have any sense of how this review is being done and whether you have an opportunity for input into that?
9:55 a.m.
Associate Professor and Department Chair, Department of Criminology, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
They have not consulted me, and I have no knowledge of how they're going about conducting that review.
9:55 a.m.
Representative, Mothers Offering Mutual Support
I was told that when the review started I would be contacted for input. So far, I have not been contacted—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I believe I have one minute left, Ms. Fitzpatrick. It seemed like you were running out of time, and you had a whole pile of studies.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
You have one minute. Can you tell me a little more about what you had in that stack that you wanted to tell us about?
9:55 a.m.
As an Individual
It comes down to a couple of points. The ion scanner itself does not find contraband. These units cost in the range of $50,000 apiece, or about $45,000, but they don't find anything. When they hit, there's no follow-up and search to confirm. If this is about contraband and not about some other possible agenda out there, I don't know what it would be, but it's not obvious. It doesn't seem to be about contraband. Also, there's no evidence. We can't just accuse people in the absence of evidence. It is wrong. It flies in the face of how we do law in this country.
There has to be evidence before you get sanctions put on you, and there's just no evidence. They do one scan, and if you hit, they call in the correctional manager to interview you. They ask you one or two questions. Some of them aren't even interested in what you're saying. They're telling you to “hurry up, hurry up”, that they have to get going. So you get out of there and—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ms. Dabrusin's time is up, but thank you again.
Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I must say that I understand what the problem is. Being subject to screening by a scanner can be a major irritant for you.
Before I go any further, I would like to ask you something. Each of you has made various requests to the department and has received answers. Could you send the committee a copy of those questions and answers so we can have your full testimony today?
We are here today to study the use of spectrometers. From what I understand, the device is very effective, even too effective since it detects Zantac and other similar products. I think the problem relates more to exercising judgment—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I changed it to French. I'm sorry.
9:55 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Give me 30 seconds more.
Let me repeat my question.
From what I understand, the device is very effective. The problem is really how the results are managed. The problem is essentially the human aspect. We cannot object to a device being too effective since the opposite is often the case. The issue here is that the staff must exercise judgment.
Does the main problem involve correctional service employees when there is a positive result? You mentioned several times that there is no search. People are stressed and they have to fill out a form. That is all they have to do.
I am trying to understand. Should we be looking at the device or at the procedure? Do you understand my question?
10 a.m.
Representative, Mothers Offering Mutual Support
It's not only a fault with the individuals in terms of using the actual result. It's a fault in operating the machine.
I've been in a visit room where you queue up and one person after another goes in. People who don't know one another and who have never met before but are in a queue to go in to visit will all hit positive for a combination of the same three drugs. What does that say? It says the machine is not being cleaned.
It's about the operating problems, setting the machine, cleaning the machine, the real attention to it, and then the procedure afterwards. If you do hit positive, there has to be some way to verify what that positive hit means and whether it's false or not, and there isn't a procedure.
10 a.m.
Associate Professor and Department Chair, Department of Criminology, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
May I answer? I would take issue with the idea that a machine that fails to effectively discriminate between illicit and non-illicit substances is actually effective.
Imagine if you were taking fingerprints and our fingerprints were not in fact unique. We would find fingerprints at a crime scene and say that it must be one of these five people, so we'll just convict them all.
We would not find that to be an effective use of that marker. I think we can make the same argument about this machine. It just simply does not discriminate effectively.
November 2nd, 2017 / 10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Consider for instance someone who arrives at the airport with a toy pistol in their carry-on bag. The machine will detect the shape of a pistol and then the object will be checked. They will see that it is a toy and let the person through. Would it not be the same principle for a product such as Zantac, if staff can then see that it is not cocaine?
You have raised various points in your testimony. The feeling of oppression is a concern and relates to the way people are treated at the screening point; the device is another issue. It is important for the committee to make a distinction between the human aspect, as regards managing visitors, mothers, brothers, sisters or friends, and the security aspect, which is important for inmates.
I would like to know how you see the human aspect, aside from the technical considerations.
Ms. Cattral, please go ahead.