Justice Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Certainly, making something legal as opposed to illegal has to expand the consumption, and obviously, the availability of that. It will be very interesting to see that.

One of the things too, and you make the point, is that it's more difficult to get a conviction for people in the drug-impaired driving area as opposed to alcohol, but hopefully we'll be able to remedy that.

Mr. Therrien, thank you very much for all the work that you do. You made a very interesting point that I am sure others will follow up, which was that the use of the disclosure of this information currently is restricted to the Criminal Code, the Aeronautics Act, or the Railway Safety Act. This bill widens the potential to basically unlimited legislation. I guess one of the things I will ask when the department comes here to answer questions is what other pieces of legislation are necessary. I can understand the three that are covered now. Those only make sense, but I'd like to know from them if they were given any other pieces of legislation, or named them, that might require this information, or whether it is just in general.

[Daniel Therrien]

We were not given an explanation as to what other statutes would need to be covered. The current law already authorizes disclosure for the purpose of the administration of provincial laws, and there are certain provincial laws that are very closely related, the Highway Traffic Act being a case in point.

Interestingly, the current provision which authorizes disclosure for the administration of provincial laws is not limited to transportation legislation or regulations. I would start from the premise that if these laws, whether federal or provincial, are related to transportation safety, it makes sense. Otherwise, why is this required?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm going to ask that question. I appreciate your raising it here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to everyone for being here today and for the presentations you have made.

Mr. Clermont, let me start with you.

You have provided statistics on driving impaired by alcohol and by drugs, but are there statistics specifically on impairment by cannabis? Do you know whether there are statistics on the convictions and the various cases involving that drug specifically?

[Yvan Clermont]

We can make a distinction using self-reported information from sample surveys. However, police statistics deal only with drugs as a whole. There is no way to distinguish whether cases involve cannabis or another drug like cocaine. We cannot make that distinction.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Medication prescribed by a doctor can also affect one's faculties.

[Yvan Clermont]

Yes, that is a possibility.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

So I gather that all those substances are in the same category.

Is there any correlation between the conviction rate and the reduction in impaired driving?

[Yvan Clermont]

That is an excellent question.

We have made no direct link between the clearance rate and the rate of impaired driving. The prevalence of impaired driving cases is influenced by a number of factors. More detailed analysis would allow us to determine the impact of police intervention, but we have not done a study of that kind.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I know that statistics by province exist, but are there also statistics that compare rural and urban areas? Is there a difference between conviction rates or frequency between the communities of those two types? I know that, yesterday, we heard testimony that the frequency is higher in rural areas.

[Yvan Clermont]

We have statistics of that kind and we can send them to the committee analysts.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Can you do that, please?

[Yvan Clermont]

For example, they show the differences between metropolitan census areas and the others.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

You talk about zero tolerance being one of the reasons there is a rate of sharp decline, especially amongst youth in the provinces that have implemented administrative zero tolerance.

Do you know if that's also coupled with education programs in those provinces and other measures that would assist and perhaps be part of the reason why we see a reduction in the incidence of impaired driving amongst youth?

[Yvan Clermont]

This is an observation, true, that we made, looking at where there was a sharp decline in cases of impaired driving by province. It was where there was a prevention campaign and also a zero tolerance program being implemented that we noticed the biggest decline. We could only make the association. We cannot say whether it is because of the prevention campaign, or because of the zero tolerance about novice drivers or youth. There is a coincidence, but we cannot disentangle for sure if it's related to either one.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I am assuming, based on the previous answer you gave me about tracking cannabis specifically, that there may not be additional statistics on mixed alcohol and drug use, or tracking of people who are charged because they are impaired from consuming both products.

[Yvan Clermont]

You're right. It is a difficult thing to do because, when the police are coming into contact with a person who could have been intoxicated by both alcohol and drugs, they will be reporting by the substance they think is impacting the impairedness of the driving of the individual the most. There is a likelihood that many of these cases will be reported as alcohol-impaired. That's a police practice that they are using. It might be related because it's easier to prove than drug-related impaired driving.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Monsieur Therrien, maybe this falls outside of what you're able to comment on, but yesterday in the testimony we talked about the difference between a checkpoint for mandatory alcohol screening, like what we would see around the holidays, for example, and any traffic stop.

Are there privacy concerns that you would like to comment on as a result of the difference between those two ways of doing mandatory alcohol screening?

[Daniel Therrien]

To the extent that the bill before you authorizes roadside testing without suspicion, and there is a link to the methods you just mentioned, this certainly raises privacy issues. In other words, submitting someone to roadside testing without any grounds for suspicion clearly does raise privacy issues. The question then becomes, is it necessary to achieve the compelling state objective to do that, and is it proportional?

We've seen the arguments made by the government in their charter assessment, and although we might quibble on some of the details, we think, on the whole, that the answers given to these questions are appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stetski, go ahead.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today.

My riding of Kootenay—Columbia is located in southeastern British Columbia, and my constituents are very interested in and concerned about both Bill C-45, trying to ensure that economic opportunities continue for small business, and Bill C-46, in terms of keeping us all safe.

I would start with a question for Mr. Therrien. In the material prepared by the committee, you are specifically mentioned as having raised concerns regarding random breath testing, provisions from Bill C-226, particularly concerning racial bias in the application of this law.

What sorts of conditions could you recommend to the committee to prevent arbitrariness and racial profiling in random breath testing?

[Daniel Therrien]

We did raise these issues with respect to the private member's bill that was before Parliament last year, but our focus, of course, is primarily privacy, according to the grid of analysis that I've just outlined. Is the stated objective compelling? We think it is. Are these measures, including automatic roadside testing without grounds, necessary and proportional? We think that on the whole the government has made a reasonable case for the necessity and the proportionality of that particular measure.

There's no question that there is a risk that in the implementation of these provisions, if they are adopted, they will be implemented in a way that would disproportionately affect certain minority groups or other groups. It's a risk. The question I would put to you is whether it is a risk that is sufficient to address in the Criminal Code federally, or is that something that should be addressed either in provincial laws or provincial or municipal practices as to how the Criminal Code is actually being implemented?

For instance—and I'll just conclude on this point—there was a police practice in Toronto called “carding”, whereby people were stopped by police officers randomly, and allegedly arbitrarily, with a view to collecting information about them and then taking adverse measures against them. That practice was criticized by a number of people—provincial privacy commissioners—and the Ontario government took action in issuing certain directives. Also, a bill is before the Ontario legislature.

That's a long answer to say, yes, there is a risk of discrimination. Is the best way to address this to have provisions in the Criminal Code to dictate how the law will be administered locally? Or should we rely on provincial and municipal authorities to do the right thing to ensure the law is administered properly?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Clermont, slide 11 shows how it takes twice as long to deal with drug cases in the courts than it does alcohol-related cases. Why is that? Is that related to the lack of oral fluid testing? Do you know why?

[Yvan Clermont]

In the survey, we don't ask. This is based on administrative data. We look at the date of the initiation of each case in front of the tribunals. We don't have detailed information about the reasons why it took so long. We only know that it takes that long. It takes 245 days. Half of the cases would take that, less or more than 245 days, which is more than twice the time it takes for alcohol-related cases.