Justice Committee on June 13th, 2017

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I want to go over the comparison between Canada and Australia. I know, Mr. Yost, that you gave testimony before the public safety committee, and you said that the State of Victoria is hard to compare because in the State of Victoria they do three million breath tests out of a population of six million.

Just following up on what Mr. Cooper was talking about, setting up a police road check where everyone is checked, I have been through one of those in the State of Tasmania. It was a large sporting event. Everyone coming down the highway was made to blow on a device, and then the plastic tip was changed. It was like an assembly line. Everyone was going through really quickly.

Australia is a very large land mass with a small population. It's very easy to compare to Canada. I'm just wondering, when you look at the enforcement resources being put into three million breath tests out of a population of six million, and you look at Canada's rates of drunk driving, which have all been going down, thankfully, due to that increased awareness and more police resources, could you not make an argument that, with putting more resources into selective breath testing, we would see that trend go downward with more education, more enforcement, and perhaps mechanisms where everyone is being treated equally with breath tests. Also, the randomness is gone, so we're not subjecting them to the whims of a police officer anymore.

[Greg Yost]

Well, the State of Victoria is a relatively small state, and the city of Melbourne has about 80% of the population, if not more. They have booze buses they set up that are regularly pulling everybody off the major highways. A situation like that might apply in Toronto or Montreal, perhaps. I don't know.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Or Vancouver.

[Greg Yost]

Possibly, yes.

It's more difficult in many other locations, but that is also the state I was referring to regarding the review of random testing time, which can't be in the same place all the time. Doing those tests over and over, if people are driving around you, is not going to achieve the goal you are seeking.

I would never argue against more enforcement, and it would be wonderful if we could have more enforcement, but police have stretched resources in many ways. We're hoping they'll put more resources into drug-impaired driving and get more DREs trained, etc., but individual police forces and their municipalities will have to decide what resources they want to put into it.

[William F. Pentney]

The reality now with the evidence we have is that under the current approach a significant number of people who are impaired behind the wheel are not being detected by police. We have, as you've said, a very easily available scientific method of determining that, with little intrusion in a regulated environment where they are exercising a privilege.

As Mr. Yost is indicating, our hope is that there's a whole variety of different techniques and tools used by police to try to enhance the deterrents. Some of it may be just as you experienced in Tasmania, but there will be a variety of other circumstances, given the challenges associated with the current situation and notwithstanding the successes.

I think, in looking at drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired driving, that wider perspective is hugely important and, as Ms. Morency said, with the combination of education.... I grew up in a generation when my parents had very different views about it from those of my children. That's a huge success for Canada, but we're looking at what the next step would be to try to improve and reduce the carnage and the human toll that exists on the road now.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Pentney, just on that point, you cited that 50% of people are getting through under current methods. Just for the committee's record, what is that figure based on? Do you have an actual study, and how was it conducted to find that specific—

[William F. Pentney]

I would encourage you to look at the legislative background, and we're certainly happy to provide more in terms of the information.

Mr. Yost can speak to it, if you would like.

[Greg Yost]

The study is a footnote to one of these documents. I will get it to you.

The reality is that people will lie to the police as to whether they have been drinking. On the subject of checking things, I do know that in Quebec, the person I deal with there says that they set up outside such things as rock concerts. They can't make everybody blow, but just the fact that they are there gets people thinking that they aren't sure they want to be one of those suspected of drinking or using drugs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Since we still have the officials here, I just want to make sure we've exhausted the questions. If anybody has some short questions, I'm going to allow them, if it's okay with you and your colleagues, Mr. Pentney.

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

You've done extensive studies on the effect of mandatory sentencing. We all have a stake in doing what we can to reduce the carnage on the road.

What is the result of your study of those jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana? How does that affect the carnage on the road? What have you found in your analysis of that?

[Greg Yost]

The studies we've seen have all shown that there has been a higher percentage of people with marijuana in their system involved in fatal accidents. This is a problem in that we do not have causation studies. We do not have what level they were at, only “presence of”. They are not anywhere near as good as the studies we've had with respect to alcohol.

It is certainly a major concern and one reason we hope this legislation will be in place before the legalization of cannabis. I believe that's the government's aim.

[William F. Pentney]

Mr. Chairman, I'll take this opportunity to say that there's a study that's just been released by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction that we would highly commend to the committee. We'll be happy to provide it to you. The title is “Collisions Attributable to Cannabis: Estimating the Harms and Costs in the Canadian Provinces”. The top line of the report indicates that cannabis-related collisions right now, in terms of death, injuries, and property damage, are amounting to about $1 billion a year. This is a study that has just been released. It's the first, that we're aware of, in Canada. We highly commend it to the committee.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We'll be very interested to see what happens, what's going on in the jurisdictions in the United States, for instance, that have legalized marijuana. As you say, we want to do everything we can to reduce the carnage on the road. We'd like to know just what happens or what we can expect in this country when we legalize marijuana.

Thank you very much

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

Are there any other questions from anybody else?

Would you like to make a final statement, Mr. Yost?

[Greg Yost]

It's hardly a statement. It's that the study “Drinking Drivers Missed at Sobriety Checkpoints” is referred to in footnote 21 on page 18 of the backgrounder. Annex 5 of our backgrounder has about nine studies from around the world on the effectiveness of mandatory alcohol screening. I refer those to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. We'll read them very attentively.

Thank you very much, all three of you, for coming before the committee today.

[William F. Pentney]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I very much appreciate it, and I know my colleagues from all sides do as well.

We're going to take a short recess and come back to an in camera session after the room clears out.

[Proceedings continue in camera]