Justice Committee on Sept. 25th, 2017

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to both our witnesses. It's much appreciated in many ways.

I'll start with you, Dr. Marcotte. It underlines how complicated this situation is, to tell you the truth.

The first thing that surprised me was your indication that people who have been smoking or using cannabis are more likely to recognize the fact that they're impaired. We heard some testimony that there's a substantial portion of people who smoke marijuana who believe it increases their ability to drive. They're not impaired; they get better at it. Is that just a minority? Are there other people who realize that by smoking a few joints they're going to be in trouble?

[Dr. Thomas Marcotte]

I certainly have heard a number of anecdotal comments like that, and I hope they're in the minority because it's unlikely to improve your driving. That said, there are some people who have anxiety and so forth, and maybe at a low dose there may be some benefit, but I certainly would not argue that it is something that would improve your driving.

I think most studies have shown that, when people are high on cannabis, they tend to be much more aware. Unlike with alcohol where you tend to take more risks, etc., you would drive more slowly, etc., but that's not universal. Certainly the report from the DRE has shown data that they've.... In fact, in the study I showed you, a lot of those people were arrested for speeding and so forth. It's not a universal thing. Most studies show that, on average, people are much more aware of their cognitive status than when using alcohol.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's interesting. You said you heard it's anecdotal that some people believe that their ability to drive gets better, but it's only anecdotal. You've seen no evidence of that.

[Dr. Thomas Marcotte]

I just do research, so we just see people in the lab. Perhaps the officer could comment on his own experience, but certainly, talking DREs, etc., the people they stop think they do better.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

One of the things that surprised me as well was that, in one of your charts, you indicated that there are people who could have a level of five nanograms of cannabis in their system after eight to 10 hours. That's pretty amazing. I would think that most people, if they're smoking a few joints one night, just like having a few beers, are sober when they wake up in the morning, but this is an indication that they're not, that it's in their system. Does it also impair them?

[Dr. Thomas Marcotte]

Unfortunately, you really have to separate. The action is not in the blood, so unlike where there's this nice correlation—I'm sure people have said here—with alcohol, it's not the same with cannabis. It gets really complex because chronic users will have chronic levels in their blood. There have been some studies showing some impairments for prolonged times, but really the most significant impairment happens within a few hours or five to six hours, as another one of your witnesses testified. Seeing five nanograms the next day is probably not indicative of cognitive impairment.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Okay. That's fair enough.

Mr. Fryer, thank you for your testimony here today. You gave us a number of statistics about the number of people who get tested. Give us your view of how effective this is. Is this something that has worked in your state in Australia to stop people from taking drugs, or is it just a better recognition that there are people out there taking drugs?

Does it have a preventative effect? That's one of the things we're looking at in terms of mandatory testing. It's not just a question of finding the people who have alcohol or drugs in their systems, but it also hopefully discourages people from taking a chance. What are your views on that?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

It's a good question, sir.

We base our general deterrence model and drug testing regime on that of alcohol. Unfortunately, it's taken 40 years for our community to really understand and find drinking and driving quite repugnant. It's socially unacceptable here, so few people now do it, but that's because of a 40-year testing regime.

We've been testing for drugs for over 15 years. While statistics are that for our 100,000 tests we get one in 11, that is absolutely not saying that one in 11 drivers are using drugs and driving. This is probably relevant to your question to Dr. Marcotte. Our strike rate is so high at one in 11 because we are detecting drivers committing traffic offences because of their impairment, and we pull them over and test them. Whether it's speeding or whether it's swerving all over the road, there is some activity that gets my highway patrol members' interest to pull them over. We certainly don't have one in 11 drivers driving impaired, but we do have that many who are driving in an erratic manner that causes us to pull them over.

Our testing regime is quite expensive, and we're looking at ways to expedite that. Of 9,200 positive tests last year, we forensically analyzed every single one—at significant cost—but only 2% of those people pleaded not guilty. We're trying to bring about a streamlined way of processing so we can do more testing. Our ideal number to bring in general deterrence is 600,000 tests every year, but it's cost-prohibitive at the moment.

Each of the 100,000 of those we do is $30. Of those, 9,200 go positive. We do those. They're $30. Then every single one of those 9,200 gets sent off for forensic testing at about $400 a pop.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Congratulations on the job that you're doing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimonies today. It was very interesting to listen to your perspectives.

Mr. Fryer, as our police services prepare now to use these new devices on the roads, what lessons can they use from your experience in this? How frequently do your police officers get trained? How frequently does equipment get updated or calibrated? What kinds of measures do you take in staying up to date with technology?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

We are trying to look at technology now that will streamline our drug testing to mirror drink testing. We would like devices that will do both. At the moment, they're completely separate activities. The legislation is completely separate.

I mentioned before that my police force is quite large. While it's 19,000, we have about 14,000 sworn members. It's only my staff, the highway patrol staff, of which there are 1,100, who are qualified to do the drug testing. Our general police are really keen to get the drug testing as well, but at the moment, it's just cost-prohibitive. It's a bit of kit that our members right across the board really like because it is so easy. It's a six-minute test. If they get a positive, then we go through a process.

I suppose the challenge is how to inculcate a general deterrence model rather than just targeted testing. How do you get all of your community to know that they run a chance of being drug tested? If they get that into their hearts and minds, it's around their learning that they just need to separate their behaviours. If they want to have a joint or a bong, they can do it at home but they can't get behind the wheel.

There was a question asked a moment ago. We are still detecting people, sometimes up to 18 hours after they admit using, with either cannabis or other drugs in their system. Most people that we detect think that it will already be out of their system when they get behind the wheel.

For me, in this state—indeed, in all of Australia—it's the general deterrence model that works. People don't know if they're going to be tested. They may go through a testing station just on the side of a highway, and there's nothing that's drawn their attention as to why police have pulled them over. I'm not sure that Canada has that general deterrence model.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

How are officers trained on roadside testing?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

We run our internal courses. All of our members have gone through a one-day training course. It's a very basic saliva test: swab the tongue, leave it flat for six minutes, and the bars will come up. It's very similar to a pregnancy test. Depending on what drugs.... We test for methamphetamine, ecstasy, and cannabis on the test that I've just shown you. If we detect impairment, we will take blood from them, and we test for 110 different types of drugs, both licit and illicit. All of the hired patrol officers, of whom there are 1,100, have done formal training, which is done internally.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

You mentioned that of the people you charged with impairment, only 2% plead not guilty. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

That's correct.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Would you, then, extrapolate that there is a 2% error margin with the device that you are using to detect impairment?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

No, that's 2% who plead not guilty, not because they are challenging the test. They have a right to plead not guilty, for a variety of reasons. It's not to do with the accuracy of the testing. They've just invoked their right to have the matter heard at court. The benefit we have in this state, compared with other states in Australia, is that our first offence for drug driving is an infringement, a penalty notice, so they don't have to go to court, and it's an immediate suspension of their licence for three months. That happens 9,200 times. Only 2% of those, when they get the infringement, elect to go to court and have it heard before a judge.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Is there any process that you use to detect the accuracy of the tests or the equipment that you are using?

[A/Commr Doug Fryer]

No, they calibrate it to detect.... Our legislation has allowed us, and it's tried and tested at the higher courts.... If there is any detectable level of illicit drugs, whether it be amphetamine or cannabis, our legislation advises that there is impairment in that driving.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Marcotte, I have a question for you. In your statement earlier, you said that equipment is not enough to detect impairment, that there have to be behavioural indicators as well. How would you propose to provide that training to officers or those who are doing the detection in the first place? What kinds of indicators would they be looking for? Is there a way to have that concrete training for officers?

[Dr. Thomas Marcotte]

One thing we're trying to do—again, we have close collaboration with the DREs in California—is take the measures they think have the best possibility for being accurate detectors of cannabis-related impairment and doing further validation. There are some good studies out there in the field looking at how they relate to impaired drivers, one of which I showed, but there aren't really any blind clinical trials to say, if you don't give someone cannabis and you do these tests, how well do they do, and how well do the officers detect those people who are impaired or not? In our study, we relate it to actual driving performance.

The first thing is to see if we can help improve the validation for the current measures. We are also in the process of trying to do additional measures—again, these are some iPad-based tests—to really get a cognitive task. That might be complicated to implement, but it would probably be worthwhile, because there is so much complication when it comes to testing for other drugs, like prescription medications. On those tests, we are looking at the ability to divide attention and the ability to track objects in real time. We're also doing a measure of time estimation and working with the DREs—on some of the measures, they look at balance and sway—to see if we can give them some more objective outcomes rather than having to sort of eyeball how well the person is doing.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Cannings, go ahead.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, both, for your enlightening talks.

I'm going to start with Dr. Marcotte. You mentioned briefly that there was perhaps some hope to use metabolites to look at a better way of detecting impairment, through chemicals rather than behaviourally.