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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Arthur Lee Community Liaison, Students Against Drinking and Driving of Alberta
Good evening, honourable members of the committee. My name is Arthur Lee. I am pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of the Students Against Drinking and Driving of Alberta.
SADD Alberta, as we're more commonly known, began almost 30 years ago, with a goal to eliminate impaired driving among the youth of our province. With a focus primarily on high schools, SADD has worked with student-led chapters at hundreds of schools across the province since its inception. Through educational resources, workshops, presentations, and conferences, we strive for prevention and to achieve our goal of uniting and motivating the students of the province to stand up against our country's number one criminal cause of death: impaired driving.
Over the years we've learned that changing perceptions, attitudes, and decision-making about impaired driving can be slow, difficult, and at times very discouraging. Our message has not always been well received and is sometimes, to our dismay, met with ambivalence or even resistance.
Bill C-46 proposes several alcohol-impaired driving laws that we believe are long overdue and will make a significant difference in reducing the number of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities on our provincial roadways. There are too many changes and proposals in this bill for me to go into detail about; however, there are a few that I'd like to speak to specifically.
First and foremost is mandatory roadside screening. While we understand that there may or may not be legal challenges facing this proposal, we want to echo the pleas of other witnesses and MPs who have gone into great detail about the effectiveness and evidence of positive results seen by other jurisdictions that have already implemented this measure.
We are are aware that mandatory roadside screening is a very contentious issue and has been widely debated for many years. However, in discussing this idea with licence-holding students from Alberta, we have come to realize that this really is a non-issue for many of today's new drivers. To specifically quote a group of students who we asked about this topic, they said that if you have been pulled over by a police officer, you should follow their instructions, and if you have nothing to hide, why would you refuse a breath sample?
Now, many a lawyer would likely have a rebuttal argument for these students, but we think they have simply highlighted why mandatory roadside screening should be socially acceptable in today's society, Alberta's society, and Canada's society. They do not see how providing a breath sample should be any different from producing a valid licence and registration upon request by law enforcement. It's time to make a change for the better. W e sincerely hope that we see our police officers utilizing mandatory roadside screening in the very near future.
Second, Bill C-46, generally speaking, proposes stricter fines and penalties for individuals convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. Again, we've told our students about these changes, and the responses were unanimous. While some commented that the current fines were already quite substantial from a high school student's perspective, all agreed that increased fines and penalties will aid our mission to discourage all drivers from risking their safety and the safety of others by driving impaired.
These changes are also nothing new. They have been proposed time and time again, yet we are always left with the status quo. It's time to take a strong stand against impaired driving and make the penalties more representative of the crimes that are being committed. I recently spoke with a police officer who shared a brief story with me. He had pulled over a vehicle with two youths in it and asked them if they had been drinking. They emphatically said no, as they knew how bad drinking and driving was. He then asked them if they had been smoking any marijuana, to which one of them replied, “What's wrong with driving high?”
While I was encouraged by their attitude toward drinking and driving, I was shocked at their response to driving under the influence of drugs. This brings me to the second part of Bill C-46 as it relates to drug-impaired driving. With Bill C-46 coinciding with the legalization of marijuana, it is crucial that we recognize the fact that our country is home to a very high number of underage cannabis users. With such high usage rates comes a nonchalant attitude about operating a motor vehicle after doing drugs.
Student feedback we received specifically about drug-impaired driving indicated that students believe the fines and penalties for drug-impaired driving should be similar to those for alcohol-impaired driving. However, they admitted that the general sentiment among their peer groups was that driving under the influence of marijuana was—quote—“better” than being impaired by alcohol.
In just nine short months, Canadians are going to be hit by a tidal wave of new laws, new changes, and most certainly new tragedies as they relate to drugs and drug-impaired driving. As a group that has spent many years working to educate students about the dangers and risks of alcohol-impaired driving, we feel like weary mountain climbers who have almost reached the summit only to peer through the clouds and see another whole range of mountains needing to be scaled just off in the distance.
While we support the penalties and fines proposed in Bill C-46 for drug impairment, we believe they are only a beginning. We anticipate that roadside saliva and drug testing will face contentious legal battles for years to come. We urge the government to invest in technology and research so as to provide enforcement officers with the best tools, training, and resources they need to combat drug-impaired driving and make our roads safer.
Other jurisdictions that have legalized the use of marijuana have seen spikes in drug-impaired driving offences, and we feel that these policies should be given careful consideration in order to provide safeguards for all Canadians. SADD's focus in the future will almost certainly have major drug-impaired driving education and prevention components. The initial education effort surrounding the new laws will be one of the biggest challenges we have ever faced. There is already confusion, misinformation, and a lack of knowledge among students, teachers, and parents about cannabis and drug-impaired driving. How the different levels of government communicate these new laws and changes to Canadians will be crucial to our campaign of keeping our roads safe. We need to draw as many parallels between drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired driving as we can. Otherwise, we will be starting at square one when it comes to changing perceptions and attitudes towards drug-impaired driving.
In closing, I would like to thank the honourable members of this committee and have them ask themselves: is this enough? Is this enough time to properly educate people, train officers, and implement new drug-impaired driving laws? Are these laws tough enough to effectively change driving behaviours? What else can be done? Where is the mandatory education component? Where are the mandatory fines and penalties for passengers in a vehicle when a driver blows over the legal limit? What other safeguards can we put in place? Again, is Bill C-46 enough?
The mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers of this country are begging you to help protect their children and make our roads a safer place for all. For decades families, friends, and communities have been devastated by the destruction that impaired driving has caused. A new generation of drivers are pulling onto our roadways, and we have an opportunity and a responsibility to get it right this time.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
We're now going to questions, beginning with Mr. Cooper for the Conservatives.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, I'll be splitting my time with Madam Boucher.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Lee, my first question is for you.
You stated in your testimony that you were encouraged by what you characterized as tougher penalties in Bill C-46, and that is true with regard to the current existing law. However, when we compare Bill C-46 with Bill C-73, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government, we actually see a step back when it comes to penalties for, really, the most serious offences involving impaired driving, the most serious of course being impaired driving causing death.
You may be familiar with Sheri Arsenault from Edmonton, whose son along with two others was killed in a motor vehicle accident by an impaired driver who was driving more than 200 kilometres an hour at the time and who admitted to repeatedly drinking and driving. She implored this committee to amend Bill C-46 to provide for a five-year mandatory minimum, which is actually one year less than in Bill C-73. Do you have any thoughts on that?
5:55 p.m.
Community Liaison, Students Against Drinking and Driving of Alberta
That's a great question. As I asked at the end of my presentation, is this enough? Is this bill enough? Does it do enough?
We are definitely in favour of stronger penalties and fines. We think this bill does introduce some stronger fines but, ultimately, we would like to see stronger fines down the road. If that's a possibility, we are definitely in support of those stronger fines and penalties.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Just to clarify, you're not just in favour of stronger fines. You're in favour of stronger minimum sentences.
6 p.m.
Community Liaison, Students Against Drinking and Driving of Alberta
That's correct.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you everyone. I am new to the committee, but this debate interests me a lot.
We know that some states, like Colorado, have legalized cannabis, that, since then, deaths on the roads have increased by 22%, and that this increase can be attributed to cannabis. A number of police force officials have confirmed to us that, three or four years ago, they were not correctly equipped to adequately check for young people driving under the influence of the drug.
Do you think that these intoxicated drivers are going to create an increase in traffic accidents, especially if they know that no one is in a position to stop them?
6 p.m.
Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada
I can answer that.
We certainly have serious concerns about drugs behind the wheel, precisely because science is not at that level yet. In one of the previous groups of witnesses, someone pointed out that it is not yet possible to determine intoxication scientifically and to specify from what level impairments can arise. It is more and more likely that people are going to drive under the influence of the drug. In addition, when cannabis and alcohol are mixed, the risk factors are multiplied.
In my opinion, education must play a role, so that the situation is considered socially unacceptable. Today, more and more people consider it unacceptable to drive under the influence of alcohol. That principle has to be applied to drugs in general. We are talking about cannabis here, but many other drugs are also involved.
I cannot wait to see whether it will be possible to implement this legally. We are clearly concerned by the possibility that people at fault, while they may be arrested and charged, get out of it in court because the law contains too many loopholes.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
The timelines are very short. We surely all agree that 2018 is almost tomorrow. We are hearing more and more testimony to that effect. In my constituency of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, I asked people whether they were in favour of legalizing cannabis. Eighty one per cent of them replied no. The provinces now have to deal with the problems implicit in this bill. There has been no discussion with those representing all the police forces, and medical advice has not been listened to.
In your opinion, is it logically possible, with so little time, to establish legislation that will hold up and that will not go off the rails?
That is actually what we can expect, given that there are no set criteria.
6 p.m.
Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada
Personally, I believe that the provisions must be made as harsh as possible. That can still be done. The time is right.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada
First of all, by making these provisions as harsh as possible, it will not be hard to loosen them a little afterwards if they turn out to be too strict. Conversely, if they are too weak and we try to tighten them up, it will not be easy to go backwards.
Secondly, unfortunately, the ship has sailed. The announcement has been made and people are waiting for it to happen. So we are in a gray area now. We have to recognize that there are already more cases of drug-impaired driving than those involving alcohol. It means that we already have a problem. That is why I always go back to education. If we do not educate people, their attitudes towards drugs and cannabis will not change. They think it is a harmless substance, but that is not the case at all.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you both for your testimony. I have to confess it's been a bit of a break from our constitutional wrangling so I appreciate your focus on public education and the long-standing work of SADD. I did work with SADD 20-some years ago as a student government president. You weren't around then, but thank you for keeping the flame going.
Mr. Paris, I'm going to ask you five quick questions. I'll do something similar with you, Mr. Lee.
I'll give a little preamble. My nephew, Ethan, turns 16 tomorrow. He's going to be driving within weeks. Uncle Randy and him have had this conversation and we're going to continue to have this conversation. His sister is 14 and the littlest one is nine. We have this conversation as a family about staying safe on the road and making sure that friends are safe. I'm trying to play with a little “If you're high, bye-bye. I'm not getting in the car with you.” What's the next slogan?
If you're at health committee you know that the legislation is very restrictive. That's the whole point. We're legalizing it because what we've done for 40 years hasn't worked and it's extremely strict legislation. If Bill Blair were here, he might tell you that's what we learned from looking at other jurisdictions.
Mr. Paris, I didn't hear anything about our actual pieces of impaired driving in this legislation. Is it your opinion that mandatory roadside testing will keep people who are offending while behind the wheel off the roads because the police will catch them? Do you think it's an effective tool?
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada
I think it is. We've seen the RIDE programs as a very effective tool, and I don't see why because there might be some serious concern by some legal people that it infringes upon the rights.... I think, as Arthur just said, if somebody's asked for their driver's licence, they hand it out. I don't see it as a problem. We have to scare people into thinking that if they get caught, it's going to be a bad scene for them.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay, I'll get to that.
My second question for you is, in your opinion is it helpful and will it be productive to remove defences that are currently available to people who have offended so that they can't be convicted? Is it helpful for us as government to remove those legal defences?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Is it helpful, in your opinion, that interlock devices keep repeat offenders from actually being able to use their vehicles?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Are you aware that our government last week committed $274 million to police to pay for the new tools, to make sure they have the training, and to make sure that the capacity building exists in the system?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay, great.
In your expert opinion, do public awareness campaigns and educational campaigns change behaviours and are they among the most effective tools to change behaviours?