Evidence of meeting #65 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.
Anne Leonard President, Arrive Alive DRIVE SOBER
It's age before beauty, or something.
It was actually termed “random breath testing” when we discussed it at a general meeting in October 2013. Our membership is Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, Traffic Injury Research Foundation, police services, health units—it's pretty big. In general, they would support it, whether you call it mandatory breath testing or—
President, Arrive Alive DRIVE SOBER
—whatever. I believe they would support it. Their concerns were that it might not survive a charter challenge and would lead to court backlogs.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Did you have a similar conversation about interlock devices? Do your members think that would keep people off the road?
President, Arrive Alive DRIVE SOBER
Yes. Our membership discusses everything. We discussed interlock devices way back when Ontario brought in their original legislation, in 1999 or so. I think it took effect late in 2001 or 2002.
All of those measures—Back On Track, the reinstatement programs—are very expensive, and their burden is mostly on the driver, which we agree with. We have seen them all create more deterrence for drivers. One impaired driving charge, in Ontario specifically, will cost you at least $22,000 or $23,000 dollars, making your high-priced lawyers seem quite reasonable.
We fully supported ignition interlock for repeat offenders and for first-time offenders, and the Back On Track program.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thanks, Anne. I need to stop you there. I have a question for Louis.
Before I get there, Michael, the government two weeks ago announced $274 million for providing the devices for police, capacity-building training, and a robust public awareness campaign. Make sure your organization knows where to apply for that funding through Health Canada so that you can be part of this, because it is important.
Louis, I have questions before I run out of time. Thank you for being here, as a fellow Albertan.
Where would these robust datasets reside?
Please continue to push your advocates to tell the provinces what you told us, which is to make sure that the money goes to the people who need it and to do a better job of what we're not doing already, because that will be a provincial decision in the fed-prov jurisdictional lines.
My question to you is this. In your career of getting people to focus behind the wheel, what works, from a deterrence perspective?
Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
That question is the easiest one. The perception of getting caught changes people's driving behaviour.
Engineering will always give you your greatest returns. Our vehicles today, driven at around 70 or 80 kilometres an hour, can crash, and everyone will pretty well survive in them. Engineering, then, is the first. The threat of enforcement is the next one. Education is the least effective.
Although what you just said sounds like a lot of money, it's not much money in terms of advertising to change a campaign against people who are going to be using probably 60 times that amount of money to get their message across.
If you want to reduce injuries, look for engineering first. The threat of or perception of enforcement is next. The last one is education.
Liberal
Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The robust datasets should reside with groups that have the expertise right now. There are many national organizations across the country that have special interest in this. I would form a consortium for them and have them apply for the funding. The funding would be given out year by year based on performance.
I would not create a new government ministry. That is the last place I would put it, because then you have the wrong people watching what's going on.
The other thing I want to mention, if I may, is to take a look at today's Globe and Mail. There's a whole section on the WE organization, which mobilizes young people across the country. I would definitely have them involved, because those are your youth leaders. Youth listen to youth; they don't listen to us guys.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Your last comment was really interesting, Dr. Francescutti. I'm a bit concerned when you talk about the datasets residing elsewhere than with government. I'm a big believer in your fundamental point, I think, which is that we need to have robust datasets so that we can manage the consequences, if we're going to have an evidence-based approach to all of this.
We have still, if I'm not mistaken, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and the ability for researchers to get, from one vault, all the research evidence they need. I would want to be sure we didn't have it distributed too far afield, but rather held with full access rights for individuals.
Wouldn't that be a model we ought to consider? Would it be something you would recommend we actually put into the statute itself—the need to have a repository somewhere for these datasets that you speak of?
Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The chief mentioned that we have, I think he said, “a wicked problem” in front of us. We're also on the verge of artificial intelligence. We have the capability today to link many different datasets and actually look for answers within those datasets. I'm not married to one model or another—you have more expertise than I in that area—but it has to reside somewhere where it's safe, has timely access, and is capable of feeding the information back to policy-makers, politicians, advocacy groups, and the public as well.
If things aren't working, then you have to course-correct. Usually, nimble organizations are not referred to as government organizations. That's why we're saying it should be linked somewhere outside, so that you have the ability to be more nimble.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Perhaps it could be co-managed, with university research teams and a government agency that has the statutory responsibility for maintaining it.
Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, As an Individual
That's an excellent idea.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think you make an excellent point there.
I want to go back to Ms. Latimer of the John Howard Society and build on something that my colleague Mr. Boissonnault was asking you about.
It's pretty obvious that if there's going to be mandatory alcohol screening, we're going to have charter challenges. I'm playing devil's advocate here. If the benefits are so significant, as we've seen in getting people off the road and in fact reducing the number of people who are charged because of the deterrence effect, which we heard is the Irish experience—Mothers against Drunk Drivers told us that—so what if there's a charter challenge or two or three?
That's what happens all the time with criminal justice reform. Once we have those challenges under our belt, then we'll have an understanding of what the law is and we move on and save lives. What's wrong with that?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think there's nothing wrong with the challenge per se. I think there would be something unfortunate if the challenge were successful and it was found out that the framework and all the education of the enforcement officers was premised on something that didn't hold up against the constitutional challenge.
If you have something that looks like a prima facie breach of a guaranteed right, you have to justify it under section 1, which means that's where you would bring forward your evidence about the social benefits you would expect to see flow, and what other countries have done, and one thing or another.
You could try to make a section 1 case, but I think it's important to do it and to tend to the evidence and really address some of these charter issues before you pass the legislation.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
The evidence we received from Professor Hogg was that yes, we would have a section 1 balancing test, but it was his evidence and his prediction that the courts would be sympathetic to the societal benefits we would be achieving. Even though there would be some impairment of rights, it would be justified.
That's the way the test works. That's what his prediction was. I take your point that it may not be what actually occurs. Isn't the benefit, however, significantly bigger than the burden, the benefit much better than the risk that you're talking about, to take a chance for the safety of Canadians?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think you could certainly advance your section 1 argument. If you're asking me what my personal opinion is, I'd like to take a look at the section 1 evidence that's being tendered. I'm not aware of it. When you start to go down a slippery slope to say that the social objective justifies the erosion of people's rights.... This is a big issue for us. This is a—
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It's nothing new. It happens in every charter case that arises.
I just want to ask you about what you seem to be suggesting, that because you have a resistance to breath tests and blood tests, if I'm understanding you properly, you challenge the notion of a drug blood-based impairment test, and you talked about field sobriety tests and so forth.
Is it the very fact of the breath or blood test that causes you concern, or is it the fact that maybe we don't catch enough or we catch too many people? I wonder whether you could speak a little bit more about your concerns, because I think this is the first time I've heard that set of concerns expressed before this committee.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
What I understand is that among people who are acclimatized and use a lot of marijuana, the level of impairment is considerably less than that of people who are occasional users. People whose bodies have not adjusted to this use of marijuana would be more impaired with a lesser density of the drug in their system.
You're getting, then, a bit of a perverse kind of result, if you're solely relying on the amount of this drug in your bloodstream. Sure, maybe people should not be driving after they've been smoking at all, but the issue is whether they're driving impaired, and the blood test per se may not give you a fair testing of whether or not they're impaired. I think you need a better test to test whether or not they're impaired.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Do you mean to say, then, that you would like a test, if the technology isn't adequate and it may be that we're catching people who aren't in fact impaired...? Is there a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to use that horrible expression here? Isn't the objective to protect society from people who are going to cause death?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Absolutely, and I'm not saying there should be no test. I'm saying that there should be a test that is an accurate test of impairment—something that tests perception, reflexes, things such as that.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It may be a poor proxy, but it's better than nothing. The evidence we've heard is that the field sobriety tests are also, particularly for cannabis, not particularly effective. We have to do something. Maybe it's a poor proxy, but isn't it far better than nothing? What's the alternative? Is it on field sobriety tests that we would land as the only thing we would do?
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think the world of technology is such that you could have a program that tests how quickly people respond to stimulus, how quickly they...just by hitting a computer screen. How long does it take you to hit the button after something flashes yellow? If you're impaired with marijuana, is there a delayed reaction? Then you're talking about real impairment, not just levels of substance in the bloodstream.
