Evidence of meeting #64 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was impaired.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you.
Can you please describe how we calibrate the current devices and ensure that the measurements coming out of them are accurate? Is there any data that we collect with respect to inaccuracies or anomalies or false positives, etc., with those that are tested?
Superintendent Gord Jones Superintendent, Traffic Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
I'm sorry, are you referring to the oral fluid devices?
Supt Gord Jones
We don't have any that have been approved. Public Safety Canada looks after that aspect of it.
We're not aware of any, certainly not in Toronto, and I don't believe the OPP or others across the country are.
As far as the devices are concerned, if we don't have them in our hands, then they are not our responsibility.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Harel, you also spoke about training and the expectations we might have with respect to enforcement and implementation of the bill. Can you speak more as to what kinds of supports the federal government can provide to make sure that our police services are ready for implementation and enforcement?
President, Director, Gatineau Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Well, as mentioned in the opening statement, as soon as we get the final provisions of the law, we'll be able to work on our procedures and training and everything. With the announcement of the support of the government with money for training.... The money is an issue, because it's a very costly program on top of all the other training that we have to do. As soon as those resources are allocated to the provinces, which we understand will go through either the provincial or municipal police department, we'll accelerate the training.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Well, those are all the questions I have.
Mr. McKinnon, did you have any?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you and welcome to our witnesses. I appreciate very much your being here.
Chief Harel, I want to build on a question that my colleague Mr. Nicholson asked. You've testified that the oral fluid devices are not yet approved. You've said concerning the money from the provinces to the law enforcement community that the details are not yet clear. You've testified that the “capacity” is not there.
I don't understand how you can be ready by July 1. Could you comment on that?
President, Director, Gatineau Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Well, as I have just said, I know that the money for the training has been announced very recently. We'll work with the provinces and the federal government as quickly as possible to see how this money is going to be allocated.
Concerning the training itself, as I said, for the last year or so most police departments and police academies have been accelerating the availability of the DRE program. In Quebec, in the last year and a half or two years, we have tripled the capacity for DRE training. As I said, as soon as the provisions of the law are adopted in the House and we have a law to work with, we will be able to finalize our training.
It's a massive change in our way of protecting our citizens. There are many provisions and a lot of details in those bills. We'll need to sit our police officers down for overall training and make sure they apply the law effectively.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Wood, thank you for your very troubling testimony today. You have testified that the per se levels approach to cannabis, the two nanograms per millilitre or the five, are, I think in both cases, you've suggested, simply not going to do the job, based on the experience of your research in Colorado. You pointed out that if someone has less than the per se limit, they will no doubt be found innocent, even though someone may have been affected, unless of course they were found impaired through field sobriety or some other measure, because they will not have violated the per se limits.
I'd like, therefore, to explore your recommendations with you further. You talked about tandem per se limits a moment ago. I'd like you to spend a little more time explaining how that might work in practice.
Of course, you distinguished, I think properly, between heavy users and occasional users. Some of the heavy users will have a level of cannabis in their system that will last for a long time. To your question about those who have less than the per se limits in their system, does that mean your ultimate recommendation is that they be banned permanently from driving? Is that the implication of what you're saying?
President, DUID Victim Voices
If they cannot drive safely, they should be banned from driving, yes.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Even though they may have residual amounts? Because your testimony is that per se limits don't make any sense. They may well have a bit in their system, but maybe they won't have impairment. I'd like you to explore that and then also talk about your specific recommendation. Elaborate on the tandem, sir, if you would.
President, DUID Victim Voices
I'll talk first of all about this issue of tolerance between the heavy users and the occasional users, which is the fundamental part of your first question. We know that some studies show that people do develop tolerance to all drugs: alcohol, opioids, THC, and so forth.
The level of tolerance that can be developed with THC is on about the same order of magnitude as what can be developed with alcohol, according to Dr. Harold Kalant, a professor at the University of Toronto, so there is some tolerance for THC. What we find is that those people who are chronic daily users of cannabis develop a level of THC in their body that is there durably, and they are impaired for an extended period of time even when they stop taking cannabis. Studies have shown that these people can remain impaired over a three-week period of total abstinence, even when they show zero THC in their blood.
The issue is impairment. If you have somebody who is an addict, basically, which is what these people are, they develop a tolerance, they will be impaired and, yes, they should be banned from driving.
On your question on the issue of tandem per se, I've put forth a concept that needs to be fleshed out and based upon Canadian laws, norms, and values. It's just a bare-bones concept at this point. It is very similar to the zero tolerance laws that are already in place in many states in the United States.
The difference is that zero tolerance laws typically require reasonable grounds to collect a blood sample, and if a person has any level of these impairing substances, that person is then guilty of a violation. What I'm proposing is not reasonable grounds but rather probable cause, which is a little higher level, and also requiring that the probable cause be based upon behaviour and impairment assessments, not simply on finding some weed in somebody's glove compartment. That would not suffice as probable cause.
What I'm suggesting is a concept. It is very similar to an extension of the zero tolerance laws that are already in place and have been working for many years in many states in the U.S.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Last, what is very interesting is the edibles question. I think you've indicated that if you consume edibles you wouldn't be prosecuted under Bill C-46. What is your solution to that problem?
September 20th, 2017 / 4:10 p.m.
President, DUID Victim Voices
Don't adopt the per se limits of Bill C-46. Instead, put in the tandem per se. I think that would fix it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. Blair, welcome to your first questions on the committee.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to begin by thanking all the witnesses for appearing before us today.
In particular, if I may, I'd like to acknowledge the very collaborative and collegial work that has gone on with the CACP, particularly with their traffic committee. Their expertise, their advice, and their advocacy for public safety have been very influential, and I want to commend them for their work.
I want to assure you of our commitment to continue to work with you and learn from your experience on the street. We're very grateful for your attendance here today.
I want to ask you about a couple of things. In your resolution in 2014, which was brought forward by your law amendments committee, the CACP urged the Government of Canada “to improve the safety of Canada's roadways by approving a drug screening tool”. In that resolution, you acknowledge that “advances in technology drug screening tools are readily available” and that, although Canada doesn't currently have a tool, they are widely “used effectively in other countries, including Australia”, as you've noted.
Because you urged us to do this in 2014, could I ask you why you felt a sense of urgency to make that tool available to law enforcement to keep our roadways safe?
President, Director, Gatineau Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
The DRE program for drugs and driving has been a reality for several years. We have had DRE officers trained since back in 2004 or 2002. With our experience in detecting these drivers and knowing that those tools were available in other countries and wanting to enhance the safety of the public on the roads, that resolution is asking for tools to help us have better safety on the roads.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Chief Harel. I want to assure you that this government is listening to the advice and the sense of urgency conveyed by the CACP in that resolution.
I'd also like to take you back and canvas your experience. I know that there are people who've spent much of their professional careers in road safety and traffic enforcement. In 2008, the Government of Canada, in the second session of the 39th Parliament, passed Bill C-2, which authorized the use of drug recognition experts and the conducting of standardized field sobriety testing. That law went into effect on July 2, 2008.
About a month later, the CACP, again by resolution, noted that they had received $2 million in allocated funding for the training of DREs and standardized field sobriety testing. They also indicated in 2008 that they felt they were short by about 27,000 officers trained in standardized field sobriety testing and by about 2,600 officers trained as drug recognition experts.
My question is, in the nine years that have followed, what progress have you made with that allocated funding in ensuring that those officers were trained? I would ask you to contrast that with what we hope will be a very positive experience with the $161 million that has been allocated for the training of police officers and also to provide access to the technology you urged us to provide, to ensure that police services across Canada have the training, the technology, the authority, and the resources they need to keep our roadways safe.
Could you could tell me about your experience from 2008 to the present and perhaps talk about how we might more effectively address the priorities you've identified?
Supt Gord Jones
Thank you, Mr. Blair.
The drug recognition evaluator program is administered by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Within that, it directs the national police service of whatever country is responsible for a DRE program. In Canada, that falls to the RCMP, of course.
The funding Mr. Blair speaks of would have gone to the RCMP in order to support and look after the training for the DRE program. I believe the RCMP is speaking before this committee next week. At that time, in 2008, the DRE program across the country was in its infancy. We were just starting it and were three or four years into it. There were some struggles in getting it started. It was very intense training. We were able to finally get things headed in the right direction.
As a result, we have trained upwards of close to 600 individual officers as DRE evaluators. We do have some issues with attrition of officers, as any organization does, but we have not sat dormant on either the DRE training or the SFST training. Individually, our organizations across the country recognized that the incidence of drug-impaired driving was increasing and that we had an ability through the SFST and the DRE to do this.
From an SFST perspective, since the announcement of the legislation in November 2015, in Toronto and elsewhere across the country we've done seven SFST courses and have another three planned. That's put 107 Toronto officers and 40 other officers from other jurisdictions on the road for the SFST.
The Ontario Police College has taken this under their wing. Between now and July 2018 they've committed to 63 SFST courses for training to be provided to the officers in the province of Ontario, with an additional 32 courses between July of 2018 and the end of 2019. That's close to 100 courses, with roughly 20 students on each course. The goal is to have approximately 2,000 additional SFST-trained officers.
Personally, my experience has been that when we send out a whole group of brand-new SFST officers, there's an uptake in the number of arrests for drug-related impaired driving. I see that on my morning reports every day, so it is working. We haven't sat idle. We are continuing with our ongoing training and, as Directeur Harel says, very aggressively, recognizing that we need this.
Having said that, we're ready. We have a capacity now. Will it meet the demand? I would hazard a guess not, but we are not starting from zero with this legislation. Depending on the day of the week, we have 500 or 600 fully trained DREs across the country. When someone makes a bad decision to get behind the wheel of a car when they've been using drugs, we have that ability to hold them accountable and to keep our roads safe.
With regard to the DRE, Mr. Blair, this year there are two more courses planned. At the moment, between April of next year through February 2019, there are six additional DRE courses that are being planned and are being coordinated by the RCMP.