Justice Committee on Sept. 27th, 2017

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Ms. Gentile, I wanted to make sure you didn't escape. You talked about the disproportionate effect on racialized groups, and their fear about that in this bill. That is presumably to do with randomized tests at the whim of a police officer going after somebody. Would you react the same way if there were roadblocks, and only at roadblocks would people be able to administer tests? Would this fear of discrimination be as strong?

[Savannah Gentile]

Not necessarily, but even at roadblocks the way a racialized minority is treated may differ from the way a majority member is treated. Actually, what it might do is serve to just diminish the appearance of discrimination, but not actually the discrimination, so that's a concern. We know in our jails and in our prisons that indigenous peoples are over-represented, so the result is clear, that they are criminalized disproportionately. Therefore, creating practices that seem neutral on their face will not necessarily alleviate discrimination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will start with Ms. Gentile. Thank you for coming, and for such a brief and succinct presentation.

Just quickly to check in, were you aware that our government committed $1.9 billion over the next 10 years to increase funding to the health system of Ontario for mental health interventions?

[Savannah Gentile]

I'm very happy to hear that, yes, and I hope those resources are being diverted away from the prisons.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, I understand that comment.

The other point I would like to raise with you is that we've committed $274 million to pay for the devices that Mr. Comeau was showing for roadside testing. That's helping the police to pay for the devices and to train police officers—new DRE officers—as well as funding a public awareness campaign targeting exactly the kind of people you want us to make sure we get the message to.

Do you think there is wisdom in making sure we have additional sensitivity training when we're going out and doing drug-related testing, so we don't have this over-sampling among racialized or minority populations?

[Savannah Gentile]

I want to say yes. It's always important to have sensitivity training. The actual impact, in reality, of that sensitivity training though.... We've yet to really see results from that, so there's the policy and the law, and then the practice. In certain situations where you have huge power differentials, that training doesn't necessarily come out.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Could we ask the Elizabeth Fry Society for an official memo to this committee as it pertains to making sure we can protect these vulnerable communities as we're heading down the path of looking at the actual legislation for Bill C-46?

[Savannah Gentile]

I will look into that, yes.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Comeau, you made a comment that the science supports the devices, and the secondary device. What has the experience been in the criminal justice system in Australia, starting at the ability of the police to charge more people because of the evidence presented by these devices? How has it worked its way through the court system? Is the secondary test considered at an evidentiary standard that's actually making a difference in the court system?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes, it is. There are several scientific reports that review the success of the Australian story, and it's one, if not the only one, that is using mandatory testing and a two-step oral screening process for both the screening and the collection of an evidentiary sample. So, yes, the prosecution is working well in Australia.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Paquette, the federal government regulates the rail system in Canada.

This may be beyond your scope, but I think it is important to highlight what the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) does.

Since 2010, the TTC has been doing random drug and alcohol testing. Now, they did it; the federal government didn't put in any laws saying they should do it. Why do we need to...? I mean I understand the prima facie reason to do it as a federal government, but what is stopping rail companies from implementing something similar to what the TTC has done?

[Simon-Pierre Paquette]

Regarding the TTC, it did roll out its policy in 2010, and it was immediately challenged by the union. It actually only formally rolled it out in the field this year. The very first two tests that it did were actually positive, one for alcohol and one for drugs.

In terms of what's keeping other federally regulated companies from rolling out similar policies, well, the TTC example is a good one. Suncor is another equally good example. It tried to roll out a similar policy at a similar time and it has been similarly stuck in a judicial quagmire since then. The courts are still making up their minds about whether or not they will permit that kind of policy to go forward.

That is really the concern, that without some common national framework, these policies will keep getting rolled out and challenged on a piecemeal basis. You will get different standards applicable to different industries at different times, depending on different decisions.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Just to be clear, in the absence of federal legislation particular to your industry—if I heard your testimony correctly, lower per se levels than the average population would have—it becomes a battle between management and unions, and the courts are left to decide what management can and cannot do.

[Simon-Pierre Paquette]

That is where the dispute would be settled. I would submit that there is a broader benefit to be drawn from having a common set of standards enforced and applied by the federal government. Yes.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay. My thanks to both of you.

Mr. Comeau, with the time that's remaining to me, can you just walk me through what it would look like with what you're suggesting we do differently from what's written in Bill C-46?

There's a roadblock, an officer comes up to the car, asks for the Breathalyzer, and it shows positive. What happens now?

[Felix Comeau]

Police officers in a roadblock would walk up to the car and administer a roadside screening test, blown into the device. If it's truly mandatory, then they would proceed to request the subjects to stick out their tongue and draw a sample. They'd put it in, take it to the car, press the button, and wait five minutes. They'd get the results. In the case of the breath test, the results are known within seconds. It's quite simply there.

In Australia, in that situation, if they have a positive at the roadside, they then request the person to accompany them to another location. They have what they call “booze buses”. Inside the booze bus then they administer the second test, write it up, and take charge of the matter.

In Canada, we have had check stops operating across the country in different fashions. Simply, a road is blocked. It might be an access road to a highway or a major thoroughfare in downtown Calgary. I've had the fortune of being stopped in both. It's a funnel, and everyone goes through the funnel. There is no determination as to who goes one way or another. In the case of the RIDE program in Toronto, they typically ask questions of the person—for example, “Have you been drinking today?” That's to gather that reasonable suspicion. If there is no suspicion, then you go on your way.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

What is your position on the way legislation is proposed right now, providing police officers with that discretionary ability to compel a test for a situation that is not in a roadblock situation?

[Felix Comeau]

In the current bill, it's a mandatory alcohol test, but it's a reasonable suspicion for a drug test. As it's working currently with alcohol, we will lose most of the cases. Either we don't detect them to begin with, or we have difficulty in the courts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Boissonnault.

Colleagues, with your indulgence, because we have votes today and because we have so many panels, my suggestion is that we move to the next panel a little early, so we can finish the second panel before we have to leave to vote.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I would like to thank all of the witnesses. You were very, very helpful. It's extremely appreciated. I'd like to ask the next panel to move forward.

We'll recess until the next panel has come up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to reconvene with our second panel of the day.

It's a pleasure to welcome, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ms. Kathy Thompson, who is the assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch. Welcome, Ms. Thompson.

We also have Ms. Rachel Huggins, who is the manager, policy and development, serious and organized crime strategies division, community safety and countering crime branch. Welcome, Ms. Huggins.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Mr. Kevin Brosseau, who is the deputy commissioner, contract and aboriginal policing. Welcome, Mr. Brosseau.

From the Department of Justice, we are again joined by Mr. Greg Yost, who is counsel in the criminal law policy section. Welcome, Mr. Yost.

Colleagues, we're going to have opening statements from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but not the Department of Justice.

Just so you know, there are two members of our third panel, who are flying in and flying out from Toronto. They have flights at nine o'clock. In the event, somehow, that they are here and can make their opening statements now, my suggestion is that we allow them to make their opening statements now, so we can include them as part of this panel as well and finish before question period.

Ms. Thompson, the floor is yours.

[Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today from a law enforcement and public safety perspective regarding Bill C-46.

As you know, my name is Kathy Thompson. I'm the assistant deputy minister at Public Safety Canada and I'm responsible for the drug file, principally. I'm joined today by my colleagues. We're here and we're pleased to answer any questions you may have with respect to Bill C-46 from our organization's perspective.

I recognize that you've already benefited from hearing from Minister Wilson-Raybould and Justice officials with respect to the bill. You've also heard from many other witnesses and stakeholders and we've been tracking that with interest.

Bill C-46 proposes specific enhanced measures to deal with impaired driving and driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. Part 1 of Bill C-46 proposes to enact new Criminal Code offences prohibiting prescribed levels of drugs in the blood within two hours of driving and authorizes police to use oral fluid screening devices at the road side. Part 2 of Bill C-46 will modernize and simplify the transportation provisions of the Criminal Code by repealing all transportation offence provisions and replacing them with a new part. My submission today will focus on matters related to Part 1 of Bill C-46. As Minister Goodale noted recently before the Standing Committee on Health with respect to the review of Bill C-45, the cannabis act, this proposed legislation, Bill C-46, is meant to address a problem that exists currently concerning impaired driving, but also to ensure public safety in view of the creation of a new cannabis regime.

The government is committed to supporting the implementation of Bill C-46, through screening, prosecution, public education, in order to send a clear message to Canadians that driving under the influence of any drug whatsoever is dangerous and criminal.

To begin, in terms of the broader public safety in law enforcement context, impaired driving continues to kill or injure more Canadians than any other crime. While alcohol-impaired incidents are declining, recent statistics show that the number of police reported drug-impaired incidents increased 11% from 2015 to 2016 for a total of about 3,100 incidents, which accounts for approximately 4% of all impaired driving offences. The number of police reported drug-impaired driving incidents is believed to be under-reported because detection requires specialized training, as we'll discuss shortly. If alcohol and drugs are present, it's easier for law enforcement to pursue only the alcohol impairment driving offence. Drug-impaired driving is a challenging offence to prosecute, as it requires proof of driving impairment, as well as impairment caused by a drug. Unlike alcohol, there is no separate offence for driving over a legal drug limit. Additionally, there are limited tools and training at present for front-line officers to detect drug-impaired driving.

On September 8, 2017, the government announced funding in support of Bill C-46 and in support of Bill C-45 as well. For Bill C-46, for drug-impaired driving, it committed up to $161 million for training of front-line officers on how to recognize the symptoms of drug-impaired driving, building law enforcement capacity across the country in support of this, providing access to drug screening devices, developing policy, bolstering research, and raising public awareness around drug-impaired driving, which I know has been a point that's been driven home in your discussions.

An amount of $80 million over the next five years will be available in order to provide access to drug screening devices in the provinces and territories, and to improve training for all police officers so that they are able to enforce new strengthened legislation.

Public Safety Canada has already engaged with provinces and territories to identify the current level capacity used to control and determine impaired driving. This initial work will help to establish how these funds are distributed across the country, and we will continue to engage all partners to further flesh out the allocation of these funds to ensure the most effective strategic use.

Building law enforcement capacity across the country to address impaired driving will be met by an increasing number of officers trained in standardized field sobriety tests, or SFSTs, and also drug recognition experts, or DREs, as we call them. There are approximately 3,400 SFST-trained officers in Canada, which is about 15% of front-line officers. These officers perform a set of divided-attention tests at roadside, which provide evidence that a driver is impaired. At the moment they are trained to recognize alcohol impairment only.

If the driver fails the test, the officer has reasonable grounds to believe there is impairment and can have further investigative tests conducted by a drug recognition expert, who is a police officer trained to detect impairment by drugs. There are approximately 600 DREs in Canada currently. In the proposed approach Public Safety is pursuing with provinces and territories, the intention is to have approximately 7,000 officers, representing about 33% of the front line, who are SFST-trained over the next two to three years, with a 50% coverage within five years. This number will then continue to increase as training institutes implement new training into their core curriculum. The objective is to put in place a “train the trainer” program across the country as the most efficient approach to meet these levels. The number of DRE-trained officers will increase by about 250, to about 800 officers.

In addition to training, further capacity for law enforcement to pursue impaired driving is being built through the testing and deployment of oral fluid screening devices. Public Safety is working with the RCMP and the Department of Justice to establish standards for these devices and have manufacturers submit their devices to be tested against these standards, with the aim of recommending the devices to the Minister of Justice, and allowing their initial deployment by spring 2018.

Last winter, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the RCMP worked with seven police agencies across the country to conduct a pilot test on two oral fluid screening devices. The police indicated that the devices were generally easy to use in various weather conditions and temperatures, as well as various lighting conditions.

Another critical element of the work under way to address drug-impaired driving relates to public awareness. As I alluded to earlier, we know that this raises an important issue. Earlier this year Public Safety and partners, including the RCMP, used social media channels to encourage Canadians to drive sober as well as to dispel some of the myths that police cannot tell if you're driving high. This included a Twitter campaign. It was launched around March of last year, and it reached more than 13 million social media users. Presently, Public Safety Canada is broadening its reach and developing a national, multi-year public awareness campaign around drug-impaired driving specifically targeting youth, which will roll out very shortly this fall with radio, television, print, in movie theatres, and of course, through social media.

In addition, these efforts will be reinforced through work with provinces and territories and law enforcement agencies, indigenous policing services, and relevant stakeholder organizations, such as MADD and the Canadian Automobile Association, to inform the public and prevent drug-impaired driving.

There will also be federal efforts to improve research and data collection, thereby creating a better understanding of drug-impaired driving issues and making it possible to assess our efforts and investments in those areas, and also to improve accountability.

In summary, Mr. Chair, through this important legislation and related efforts, the government has indicated that it is committed to a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to drug-impaired driving and is proposing to take strong action to create new laws and initiatives to combat this crime. For its part, Public Safety and the RCMP are working together to develop supporting materials, training, and tools to help all law enforcement agencies across the country as well as border services to effectively and efficiently enforce the drug-impaired driving legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson.

Now we'll hear from the RCMP, Mr. Brosseau.