Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 43 - Evidence - May 9, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 9, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 4:17 p.m. to continue consideration of the bill.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome. We are resuming our study of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We are pleased to welcome this afternoon Marc Paris, Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada. Also joining us by video conference is Hubert Sacy, Director General, Éduc’alcool. He has not joined us yet.
Go ahead, Mr. Paris.
[English]
Marc Paris, Executive Director, Drug Free Kids Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and distinguished members. We welcome the opportunity to address this panel and to comment on the amendments to the Criminal Code, particularly as it relates to drug-impaired driving.
Drug Free Kids Canada is a non-profit organization receiving no government funding, devoted to educating parents about drugs, raising public awareness issues surrounding drug use and facilitating open conversations between parents and teens in order to ensure all young people will be able to live their lives free of substance abuse.
Since we are not legal or policy experts nor do we have experience in law enforcement, we will not delve into the minutia of the bill itself but discuss our areas of concern, which are twofold. One is the need to change the perception of a fairly large proportion of our teen population who believe smoking pot and driving is not as risky as alcohol. Two is the need to have a strong deterrent for kids to not consume cannabis and drive.
On the first point, according to our most recent national survey of teens, 31 per cent of 13- to 15-year-olds agree with the statement that using cannabis before driving is not as bad as drinking and driving. However, the proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds was significantly higher, at 41 per cent.
Another aspect parents need to be concerned about is kids getting into a car with a driver who is high. In a recent Ontario study, over one in five Grade 12 students admit to being a passenger driven by someone who had consumed drugs.
At Drug Free Kids Canada, we believe parents can play a significant role in influencing teen behaviour.
According to our national survey, the main reason kids say they stay away from drugs is to not disappoint their parents. When we do campaigns targeting parents to talk to their kids about high driving or being a passenger with a high driver, we are also influencing adults who are reminded their own attitudes matter.
The great and consistent work that has been done over the past 30 years by organizations like MADD, CAA, which I believe are appearing in another panel, and Éduc’alcool, have contributed significantly to making drinking and driving socially unacceptable. We now need to do the same with drugs, especially cannabis.
Impaired is impaired. The message has to be clear and, most importantly, with our youth.
Our second area of concern is how do we ensure there will be a sufficient deterrent in the law to make youth think twice before they drive high?
DFK’s position on drug-impaired driving is simple: Make the laws and ensure that their enforcement is as strict as possible within the Charter of Rights. A strong deterrent to driving while impaired on drugs must be in place, particularly when we’re about to legalize this psychotropic substance. What is not evident is the pieces to enforce the law not currently in place. There are not enough police officers trained as DREs, the devices are not fully proven reliable and there are not enough of them. Most importantly, science has not caught up to what level of THC is considered impairment.
This, therefore, brings us back to the importance of public awareness and education. It may be the only thing saving our kids until science, law enforcement and the courts figure all this out. No matter what laws are in place, if we don’t educate and sensitize the public about the risks inherent with drug-impaired driving, we will continue to see carnage on our roads. This means we have serious work to do with today’s young drivers and the future generation of drivers.
We are here to tell you public education messaging works. In the past six years of national multi-media campaigns, more parents are talking to their kids more often about drugs. In fact, 89 per cent of parents have spoken to their kids specifically about drugs in the past year. Although we are seeing changes in attitudes by teens regarding high driving, we still have a long way to go.
DFK Canada has been creating impaired driving prevention campaigns for the past four years. Our most recent just ended this past Sunday titled The Call That Comes After. It is a $10 million national campaign that has won 15 domestic and international advertising awards and was rated one of the top 100 best campaigns in the world. Most importantly, the site has been visited over 46,000 times by parents and kids from coast to coast.
We must remind the government of its pledge to allocate a portion of the revenues toward prevention and education. We would also suggest they work more closely with organizations that have a proven track record of success in this area. Consistent messaging has worked for safety belts, anti-smoking and drinking and driving. We can and must do the same for high driving. This is the only way to make sure young people and their parents understand cannabis does not belong behind the wheel under any circumstance. It’s a substance that, like alcohol, causes serious impairment to driving capabilities, even though it will soon become legal.
I would like to thank this committee for allowing us to present our point of view.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Paris.
Honourable senators, I realize our witness from Éduc’alcool, Quebec, has not yet arrived yet for the video conference. However, I will open the exchange with our other witnesses this afternoon. I will advise when we have an opportunity to listen to our witness from Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Paris, thank you for joining us. I am familiar with your activities, including the video entitled The Call that Comes After, which is quite spectacular, and some might say that the tone is provocative. You talked about the need for very strict legislation and for a campaign that would convince not only the young people but also their parents.
Statistics Canada’s most recent survey, released last February, included questions on drug use. Whom do young people ask for drugs? Whom do they get it from? Here are the answers in order: first, the family; then, a friend; finally, a group of friends. I was surprised to see that the family was the first source.
In your opinion, what should we do to persuade young people and parents? The Call that Comes After could have been a video entitled The Call that Came Before.
Mr. Paris: Yes. First, education is clearly important. Most of our campaigns focus on the parents, because they influence kids the most. They must learn what is happening in the lives of their children and how to communicate with them. The brochure I have here, entitled Cannabis Talk Kit: Know How to Talk with Your Teen, seeks to help parents learn how to communicate with their kids. Approximately 250,000 copies have been distributed or downloaded. Health Canada funded a portion of the printing costs. You can see that this brochure has had a real impact. The Northwest Territories have just distributed it to every household. Actually, the CBC called me for an interview tomorrow.
In those sorts of initiatives, the important thing is to carry out campaigns constantly. Government campaigns are funded, if I may say so. The air time is purchased. No government can afford to run campaigns all year long, 52 weeks a year. We have formed a special partnership with our 60 media partners. They give us air time and advertising space as a public service message. We must be able to count on ongoing and up-to-date material to continue to send messages. That’s what makes the difference.
In terms of family members, in most cases, I think brothers or sisters are the ones providing drugs to their younger brother or sister. I would be less inclined to believe that the parents themselves provide cannabis to their children, although we have heard stories like that before.
Senator Dupuis: As for The Call that Comes After video, what struck me about the message was that it is very direct, very clear and even brutal in its conclusion, in the sense that it depicts reality. It may seem shocking, but that is the reality.
The Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec conducted an information campaign on drinking and driving. At first, the message was moderate and they noticed that it did not produce many results. They ended up broadcasting messages similar to your video, very strong, very intense, very shocking and very powerful messages.
Are you saying that, when it comes to public information campaigns in general, we should start with a very direct message, as in the example you gave us?
Mr. Paris: As I mentioned earlier, we have been campaigning for four years. So we are not rookies. We are running four or five different campaigns. That campaign was set up to use the same devices that parents use to communicate with their children: phones. The goal was to open the conversation with young people through technology. Parents would send a message to their children and ask them to watch the video. Having personalized videos was a first in the world. The kids could watch the video and receive the same message on their own phones. The use of technology made it possible to reach young people in a meaningful way. It gave parents a chance to open a dialogue with their children. That was the point. The video was designed for young people.
Focus groups were held with kids. Their reaction was, “That could have been me.” The video shows a little love story and then, suddenly, an accident. The young people said that they would not have been able to reply to their mother if that had been the case. Young people are not afraid to be told the truth. What they do not want to hear are messages such as, “If you do this, you will die.” That was not our goal. Instead, we wanted to use an indirect approach to help parents open dialogue.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your very interesting testimony. Let me congratulate you on your concern for our kids. We know that they are the biggest consumers of the substance and that the impacts are likely to be greater for them.
In their reports, some committees, including ours and that of aboriginal peoples, have advocated delaying the legalization of marijuana, because it is difficult to anticipate the availability of police equipment. It’s almost June and we do not know yet what type of equipment the police will be using or whether they will receive training in the short term.
Your statistics speak for themselves. Young people smoke more than they drink while driving. They are more likely to be with young people who have smoked than those who have been drinking. There is a carryover from the point of view of consumption. Is it because of the policing, which is more difficult for marijuana than for alcohol? There are all sorts of reasons. The government’s response was to reject the idea of delaying the coming into force. That is what I gathered from the government’s main position.
Faced with such a situation, what are your concerns about the fact that the police are not ready and that young people are the biggest users of cannabis? Last week, experts told us that the bill is designed for smokers, not for those who consume this substance as a product, such as muffins, and so on. Faced with a situation where we may well not have the tools we need to check those young people, what are the anticipated consequences of no roadside checks in the coming months?
Mr. Paris: We already have a problem in Canada. Young people aged 16 to 24 are the world’s largest cannabis users. Whether it is legalized tomorrow or a year from now, we already have a problem. I don’t think delaying —
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Paris, right now, when a police officer checks a young person, they apply zero tolerance. However, the bill will allow for a certain level of consumption. The prohibition will not be the same.
Mr. Paris: I agree with you. That is why we are saying that education is important. If we have managed to convince young people that it is unacceptable to drive under the influence of alcohol, we should be able to do the same for cannabis. Actually, we have to. So, we might as well start campaigns earlier and plan ongoing, powerful campaigns each with a different message to try to convince people. It took 20 years with alcohol.
Senator Boisvenu: Aren’t you concerned that the police are not ready right now and that cannabis is being legalized?
Mr. Paris: Yes, we are concerned. There should be zero tolerance. I know that falls under the provinces. We didn’t dare talk about it here. In our view, there should be zero tolerance for young people aged 21 and under, until the criteria for measuring intoxication levels can be found.
Senator Boisvenu: That is more or less what the expert told us last week. In the absence of accurate tools for proper screening, zero tolerance might be the most logical way to go until we have the tools. That’s what you’re advocating.
Mr. Paris: Yes, especially for young people.
The Chair: Our witness from Éduc’alcool from Quebec has just joined us.
[English]
Good afternoon, Mr. Sacy. Can you hear me?
[Translation]
Hubert Sacy, Director General, Éduc’alcool: Yes, perfectly, thank you.
The Chair: I invite you to make your presentation in about five minutes. My colleagues are around the table and they will have the opportunity to talk with you. We had the pleasure of hearing Marc Paris from Drug Free Kids Canada. Go ahead, Mr. Sacy.
Mr. Sacy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to apologize to the members of the committee. Our Internet has been down since this morning. You know, there is alcohol dependence, but today, in our offices, we are still dependent on the Internet. Since the system is not back yet, I have to speak from memory and ask you to be indulgent with me.
The gist of the brief we have provided has to do with drinking and driving and, in particular, random breath testing, which is called mandatory screening in the bill you are currently studying.
Of course, we know — and all the scientific research supports this — that one of the essential determinants in reducing impaired driving is the idea of being arrested if you break the law. At this stage, the likelihood of being caught is what makes the big difference. There is no denying that there has been considerable progress. As the saying goes in both French and English I think, “fear is the beginning of wisdom.” You just have to see a police car on the side of a highway when you are speeding to slow down immediately. The reason is very simple: it is because we are afraid of being stopped.
Mandatory screening — and I will use the vocabulary from the bill — is in effect in a number of democratic countries where it has been shown to work. They have reduced impaired driving quite significantly.
We know that we have a long-standing tradition in Canada of defending individual rights and freedoms and that, when it comes to restricting individual freedoms, we must be extremely careful. But what we must weigh is, on the one hand, an inconvenience and, on the other hand, the human lives that can conclusively be saved. Of course, it is unpleasant to be asked to undergo a breathalyser test if you are perfectly sober. However, today we know — because scientific research has shown — that police officers miss at least 40 per cent of those who drive while impaired. Let me cite as an example an experiment where a random roadblock was installed 500 metres away from a traditional police roadblock where the police had to have sufficient cause to ask drivers to take the breathalyzer test. They let pass about 50 per cent of the people who had a level of over 0.08 at that time.
Given the minor inconveniences, but the major advantages of allowing police to conduct mandatory breath testing to screen drivers randomly, it means they could all — or one in three, one in two, whatever — be tested. The important thing is that people know that it is not enough to camouflage, pretend, chew gum or look cheerful to avoid taking a breathalyzer test. This is a minor measure.
In closing, I remind you that every passenger who gets on a plane is required to go through a search that is certainly more unpleasant than blowing into a tube. No one complains about it, because it is about everyone’s safety.
Once again, I apologize for being late, and thank you very much for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sacy.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Sacy, thank you for your brief. I agree with you, moderation is always in good taste. I really like the first page of your brief that says: “Éduc’alcool: yes to mandatory breath testing to increase the perceived likelihood of impaired drivers being caught.” This whole issue of perception is very important. Can you elaborate on that for us?
Mr. Sacy: Yes. We know that defenders of rights and freedoms are very reluctant about this. We have facts — and you have four or five pages in the brief — that show that the tests prevent people from driving as soon as the police are able to do breath testing with breathalyzers, and do so rigorously. Those people would otherwise be on our roads drunk.
That is extremely important, and I think it is essential to insist on it. This is not only in the interest of others, but also in the interest of the driver. Because a drunk driver can kill someone else on the road, that is indisputable, but it is also true that the drunk driver can injure and maim people and make their lives worse than if they had been killed, because they will survive in absolutely unsustainable conditions.
This is also true for the drivers, because often these impaired drivers have lost that sense of realism and completely underestimate their disability. They think they are fit to drive, but we know that alcohol abuse also affects judgment and, once our judgment is impaired, we are no longer fit to make the right decision.
So, when we know in advance — and this is what is important — that we risk being arrested, we will act differently.
I can give you another example, because I worked for four years as director of the Société des transports de la communauté urbaine de Montréal.
The Chair: I have to interrupt you, Mr. Sacy, because four of our colleagues want to speak, and we only have 12 minutes left. I’m going to ask for brief questions and answers, otherwise my colleagues won’t have time to talk with the witnesses.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Paris, I want to come back to your organization’s choice to rely first on parents. I understand the logic of it, but I would like you to explain a little more why you made that choice, because I think, like everyone here, that as parents, it is a somewhat surprising choice. I understand that parents dialogue with their children, but we often hear and see that those who, at least by their words, may not have much influence on their children for this kind of thing, are the parents. We have the impression that sometimes teachers, especially peers, that is, their friends, have much more influence than parents, especially through their words. Behaviour is something else. What led you to make that choice, to go through the parents first?
Mr. Paris: Our organization started seven or eight years ago. We have modelled ourselves somewhat along the lines of an American organization called Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, formerly called Partnership for Drug-Free America, which has the same approach. Studies show that parents have a great influence on their children. As our research shows, young people say that the idea of not disappointing their parents is an important reason to avoid making a bad choice. When parents talk to an 18-year-old who is six feet and two inches tall, they often think they’re talking to an adult.
Senator Pratte: Six feet, four inches, in my case.
Mr. Paris: All right, there you go. But I can tell you that once they’re at a party and someone gives them a pill — Have you had a conversation with your son or daughter and asked them, “What would you do if someone offered you something? Do you understand the risks you take in taking anything?” I can tell you that, at that moment, Mom or Dad is right there on the kid’s shoulder. I am not saying that we should not campaign to raise awareness among young people, absolutely not. This, too, is one tool among others in the toolbox, but we must also focus on communication with young people. However, it is a completely different communication and approach. The media are different. There is also education in schools, there are peers, there are sports coaches. All these people can play a role with young people. We have chosen the parents’ niche, but this is not the only approach to change everything.
[English]
Senator Sinclair: I found both presentations to be a little at odds with each other for the point Senator Pratte has just made, which is you appear to be focusing on parents, Mr. Paris, and Éduc’alcool is focusing on deterrence. The fear of discovery is the largest deterrent, if I understood the presentation correctly.
To get to your presentation, Mr. Paris, you spent $10 million on an education program focusing on or targeting parents. In particular, based on that experience, you have told us that children or young people tend to listen to their parents and therefore they’re good candidates for this kind of programming. I’m thinking about the vulnerable children in society — the ones who don’t have good relationships with their parents. That’s a large number of kids.
Over 50 per cent of the children in child welfare care right now are Indigenous children. They are not living with their parents; they are living in foster-care situations, often with foster parents who do not relate to them as parents but relate to them as worker-and-clients or living in a group home situation. They’re not going to benefit, I gather, for your educational approach. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Paris: I totally agree.
By the way, we’re not at odds with deterrence. We mentioned in our brief that there has to be deterrence. We just don’t know what that should look like right now because of the lack of follow up science.
I agree that vulnerable communities, whether it’s inner city kids or Indigenous youth, are special situations and require a different approach. My background is in marketing and communications. You have to understand who your audience is and market to that group if you want to have some impact.
I would say campaigns focused on those communities would have a different look. We’re a small organization. We can’t have a multiplicity of messages. We have to pick our battles. We have chosen to work with mainstream media. The consumers of the mainstream media are adults, mostly. Kids don’t watch CBC’s “The National,” quite frankly.
Yes, it’s different approach. We have chosen not to go down that path only because of a lack of resources.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: First of all, thank you both for your presentations.
Mr. Paris, I want to go back to the point you make about the legislation. When I see the legislation, I see it giving police new tools to work with. Given that driving under the influence of drugs has been in place since the 1920s, what do you see as the most important aspect to getting the message out?
When it was alcohol, it took a generation. In terms of alcohol, as you know, certainly the generation I grew up with was different than my son’s, whose designated driver was the key.
I’m curious what you see as the key from the research you’ve done in terms of getting the message out. It’s happening today with a multitude of drugs and a combination, in some cases, from what law enforcement tells me.
Mr. Paris: Absolutely.
Senator Boniface: You say your key is the parent. That’s what you see. How about getting the message directly to the kids themselves; how do you see that from a marketing perspective?
Mr. Paris: You would have a different approach. The approaches taken to target kids have to be very credible, because with kids, if it’s a government message coming from Big Brother, they just tune out. It has to be very pertinent at their level.
We have explored various programs. Again, due to a lack of resources, we were not able to go down that path.
Getting back to substances, you’re right. Cannabis right now is considered a benign substance, particularly with youth. They don’t see impairment of cannabis as being as risky as impairment with alcohol. That’s the first message we have to get to these kids: impaired is impaired. It’s a different impairment. Often, you’re right there’s a mixture of alcohol and cannabis, which compounds the impairment tenfold.
Those are messages we can get through to parents but we also have to get that message to the kids through schools and so on. We know that in-school programs are very effective, and some less so. There are good in-school programs. I know in Quebec, La Maison Jean Lapointe has a program called APTE Parents and APTE Jeunes, where they go in school. They have gone through 160,000 youth and have a peer-to-peer program.
There are programs out there. We would love to offer that across the country but we have estimated the cost of doing in-school programs, according to the people at Jean Lapointe, is about $10 a child. I estimated just the English community would cost about $15 million to do a good in-school program. That’s not in our wheelhouse at all.
Senator Boniface: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the representative of Éduc’alcool. Bill C-46 provides for random testing of motor vehicles only. There is no random screening for airline pilots, train conductors or boat operators.
However, during the summer, and particularly on bodies of water such as the Richelieu River, the St. Lawrence River and on lakes, there are often alcohol-impaired driving situations. Do you think random checks should be extended to the whole nautical sector, for example? In Quebec, we invested a lot in setting up a marine patrol. Shouldn’t we also control this sector?
Mr. Sacy: If I may, I would like to make two clarifications. The first is in direct response to your question. One glass of alcohol on land is equivalent to three glasses of alcohol on the water because of the effect of the sun and the waves. Therefore, what’s valid on land is equally valid on the water.
The second point is that we must not choose between parents, legislation, supervision or the police. It is not one or the other, but each element that contributes to the building. Things work well when everyone works in the same direction. In fact, you don’t necessarily have to choose; rather you see what you can add instead. I’m sorry I digressed.
Senator Carignan: Thank you. You answered two questions when I only asked one.
The Chair: It certainly wasn’t a digression on your part; your comment was relevant.
[English]
Senator Pate: Underlining both your presentations seems to be a belief that deterrence works for young people, yet all the research I’m familiar with shows that is not true. Certainly, in education fields it’s been shown to be in progressive parenting approaches.
When the Youth Criminal Justice Act was brought in, the reason deterrence was left out, which was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada, is because it has been shown to be ineffective.
If you have research that shows otherwise, can you please send us some information?
Mr. Paris: I wouldn’t have any data specific to that question and subject. I’m sure it’s out there. I would go along with my friend at Éduc’alcool. I think a deterrent does work. I think kids think they can get away with it when it’s cannabis because they can fake it. Kids are aware. They’re reading what’s going on. They know there’s a good chance they can get away with it. If we take that away from them, particularly when they’re in a vehicle, I think that does have an impact.
Senator Pate: With respect, the research I’ve reviewed shows that it’s an education component that can be effective in the certainty of being caught, not the deterrents. That’s an overlay adults often put on young people, but in fact there’s no evidence that’s accurate. I understand there’s anecdotal belief and that’s repeated in many instances and places, but there’s no research to back it up.
Mr. Paris: I haven’t explored that area. Maybe my colleague has some information on that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Unfortunately, honourable senators and witnesses, I must suspend the meeting to give our colleagues a chance to go to the Senate to vote. If you can remain in the room, there are two other senators who would like to ask you some questions when we return.
However, since there is a vote at 5:10 p.m. and another at 5:30 p.m., we won’t be back before 5:45 p.m. to resume the meeting.
[English]
The meeting is adjourned until 5:45 p.m.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will resume our meeting. Again, I apologize on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Busch and Mr. Jack. I understand, Mr. Paris, there may have been one or two more questions for you. After that, you are free to go back to your usual responsibilities.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Paris, thank you for your presentation. We have just received the brochure, in French and English, prepared by your organization, Drug Free Kids. I see that it’s mainly for parents. My question is about distribution. Was this brochure distributed to homes, in schools and in other educational settings?
Mr. Paris: Initially, a certain number were distributed to medical centres, social services centres, schools and school boards. Since then, word of mouth has done its job, on the one hand, and we have organized an information campaign, on the other. Over time, we have managed to distribute 250,000 copies. The Northwest Territories and Yukon, for example, have ordered them for distribution to all homes.
We have also noticed great interest from public companies. They want to inform their employees. We are in contact with several large companies, including banks, which are incredible channels of communication. The Bank of Montreal has 130,000 employees, many of whom have children. Parents are concerned about the negative effects that the legalization of cannabis could have on their children. Our ultimate goal is to put this brochure into the hands of every Canadian parent.
Senator McIntyre: Congratulations on this brochure, which nevertheless contains 23 pages, including a table of contents.
The Chair: You began your presentation by acknowledging that young people don’t seem to be aware of the dangers of cannabis. How do you explain why young people have developed this attitude? Why are they in this state of mind or how do you explain it?
Mr. Paris: That’s a very good question. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction set up meetings with groups of young people to assess their perceptions of cannabis use. The vast majority of young people believed that cannabis could cure cancer, that it was a medicinal plant. There is confusion. They believe that if it is a medicinal plan, then it shouldn’t be so harmful. Furthermore, cannabis is not necessarily seen as a harmful substance in general in our country, which would explain why the percentage of young people who use cannabis is one of the highest in the world.
That is why we believe in education. The first pages of the brochure you mentioned are aimed at deconstructing the myths about cannabis. In recent years, science has proven the negative implications of cannabis for young people’s brain development. Especially since cannabis today is much stronger in THC than cannabis 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Perhaps the myth is that today’s parents have experienced a much less harmful cannabis product, which has led them to trivialize its use.
The combination of all this leads me to believe that this is really a lack of valid information. We need to better inform our youth so that they can make good decisions.
The Chair: Isn’t there some contradiction between cannabis itself, which can be a harmful substance under certain circumstances, and the idea that cannabis is presented as recreational? When we use the word “recreational,” we’re talking about something harmless, entertaining, pleasant, whereas we are dealing with a substance that contains psychotropic elements, especially since, as you say so well, the plant contains more THC in recent years. Don’t you think we’re stuck, in a way, with a contradiction?
Mr. Paris: Absolutely. I believe that using this word may trivialize the use of this substance. In addition, the substances most used by adolescents are alcohol, cannabis and drugs. We know where we stand on alcohol advertising. That’s why we want to ensure that the government commits to not opening the advertising, branding and promotion of cannabis for at least 10 years. This is important because, I can tell you, that the industry is ready.
I just received a text from a Quebec beer company that just launched a cannabis-infused beer. Advertising positioning is already in place. In a few years, the industry will convince the government to relax the strict marketing rules. Right now, the rules are based more on tobacco than alcohol. We advocate waiting until the next generation before really understanding the impacts of this legislation on our society. So let’s not get into this. We know what happened with alcohol.
The vast majority of consumers are young people aged 18 to 25; they will be targeted as a priority. You shouldn’t take this route until you have better information on the subject.
[English]
The Chair: Next is Senator Batters, because I was supposed to have the last question.
Senator Batters: Sorry about that. That just triggered a brief supplemental question in my mind. I agree with you that too often teenagers think marijuana is not harmful. It’s become somewhat normalized in a lot of ways. I wanted to use a brief opportunity to tell Canadians, in your experience working with your particular organization, the need to know things about how cannabis can affect young people.
Mr. Paris: I think there have been plenty of studies cited in multiple presentations on the effects of cannabis on the teenage brain. That is one of the points we seem to see that kids are getting that one. They’re understanding that there is a risk. It’s always a question of risk. The higher sense of risk with teenagers, the lower the level of trial. It’s not a matter of fear-mongering, but they need to know there are certain risks in those kinds of behaviours. Regarding cannabis today with youth, they have to understand it’s a risky proposition and if they fall into that. Kids think it’s not addictive. On the contrary, it can become addictive. We presented in front of a parliamentary committee last June.
We talked about the fact that many kids who smoke cannabis are doing it to self-medicate — undiagnosed ADD, ADHD, anxiety problems, bullying. Kids use cannabis as a relaxant. The problem is it becomes a cycle because the only time they feel good is when they’re high and that’s when substance abuse is a problem.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paris, for being patient and for waiting for us. We apologize for the delay and appreciate your availability. Thank you again. You’re excused now.
[English]
It’s my pleasure now to introduce, in our second session this afternoon, Lennard Busch, Vice President West and Chief of Police of the File Hills First Nations Police Service, on behalf of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association. We also have, from the Canadian Automobile Association, Ian Jack, Managing Director, Communications and Government Relations.
It is my pleasure to welcome you both. I will invite Mr. Busch to be the first one to open our sitting this afternoon.
Lennard Busch, Vice President West and Chief of Police of the File Hills First Nations Police Service, First Nations Chiefs of Police Association: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the distinguished members of this committee for inviting the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association to be here this evening. I am a member of that organization and currently, as you were told, hold a position on the executive as the vice-president west.
The First Nations Chiefs of Police Association is an association representing First Nations police chiefs from the 38 self-administered First Nations police services in Canada. The FNCPA is presently a non-funded organization with no full-time support staff. As such, the FNCPA has not published a position paper on Bill C-46 but many members of our association are also members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and provincial bodies that represent chiefs of police. I know some of our members sit on committees to put together position papers on this bill and Bill C-45.
I’m also the chief of police of the File Hills First Nations Police Service in Saskatchewan where I’m responsible for providing policing services to five First Nations communities. Like First Nations communities in Canada, First Nations police services are diverse in many ways, including size, culturally, geographically and how and where they get their authorities. Generally, First Nations police services are smaller than most mainstream police services and while some are located adjacent to large urban centres, many operate in remote geographic locales.
Thirty-four years of my policing were in the RCMP, first as a Native special constable and then later as a regular member. I retired from the RCMP in the fall of 2014 as a commissioned rank of inspector. During my career as a police officer I have functioned and performed in general duty and First Nations policing, drug intelligence unit and the drug section. I was a training and academic instructor at the RCMP training academy in Regina. I was director of the RCMP National Aboriginal Policing Services. I served in protective operations, being in close protection for two of our past Governors General. I was then director of the Professional Development Centre for Aboriginal policing at the Canadian Police College and when I retired I was director of the Police Leadership Centre at the Canadian Police College. In the past I was qualified as an expert witness on street level drugs in Nova Scotia County Court and later in Provincial Court of Manitoba.
While serving in the RCMP our mantra and goal was — and still is — safe homes, safe communities. In many First Nations communities in Canada this is still not a reality. As you know, many First Nations communities continue to struggle with significant social and economic issues. First Nations police officers working in those communities are often called to be a social safety net where other resources are lacking.
Many of our communities struggle with inordinate rates of violent and property crime. In some First Nations communities drug abuse is rampant and gang violence is common. In our communities, where I work, home invasions are common and people often barricade their doors at night. It was interesting to me, therefore, that in a recent poll taken from the students at one of our elementary schools in one of the communities, when the children were asked “what is the biggest fear they have living in the community,” the most common response we heard was “impaired drivers.”
The topic and consequences of impaired driving have also impacted me personally when last week at my wife’s First Nations community in northern Manitoba, three children walking on the road in the community were struck and killed by an impaired driver. Two of the children were my wife’s relatives. My daughter is a teacher at the school where the children attended.
While I don’t have statistics regarding impaired driving related deaths in First Nations communities, and I don’t know if anyone keeps those statistics, I can tell you that during 2015 five deaths were attributed to driving while impaired in the five File Hills communities where I work. That year we had a total on-reserve population of 3,500 people. That same year there were 122 deaths attributed to impaired driving across Canada, where the population that year was over 35 million and 57 of those deaths occurred in Saskatchewan. This is to say that in my opinion, while impaired driving and impaired driving deaths across Canada have been decreasing, it still presents a significant problem in many First Nations communities.
The challenge for First Nations police services, like all Canadian police services, is to be ready to enforce the new laws surrounding the legalization of cannabis. First Nations police officers will require training to understand the new legislation once it is passed into law. Operational First Nations police officers will require training to detect and prosecute drivers impaired by drugs — training such as standardized field sobriety testing and drug recognition experts.
A lot of our First Nations police services are so small we do not have any support services. We do not have a training branch. We always have to look somewhere else to get our training done and a lot of times we’re at the bottom of the list. Quite often many of the police services are behind in both mandatory and developmental training. There’s a rush now when the training comes out for the larger municipal police services and the RCMP to get their people trained, and I understand that. It presents a problem for the smaller First Nations police services to bring our members up to the standard where they can adequately enforce when there is a significant problem in our communities.
It’s particularly costly and difficult for smaller police services to have members away for extended periods on training, plus it puts an added strain on human resources and service delivery. Human resources in a lot of the remote First Nations police services is an ongoing issue and a major risk. Being a small police service, if one person gets sick and another one goes to training, it really puts a strain on staffing. I think I’m probably one of the only chiefs of police who actually goes on call on weekends and gets called out in the middle of the night because we’re so short-staffed.
I’m happy to say that lately it has swung around the other way. We’re actually fully staffed and some of that strain is gone. However, I’m totally aware that with a couple of quick circumstances, we could be right back in it again very easily and I know many other smaller police services share that with me.
The development of Canadian-based training for our officers, including reducing and eliminating the reliance on the practical training portion predominantly only available in the United States would be a great advantage. Right now they have drug recognition, expert training, half of the training is here but they also have to go to Arizona, I believe, or Florida, for the other part. That’s pretty tough. It would be a lot better for us if we could do it in Canada.
While funding for training has been announced, details regarding how the funding will be allocated through the provinces and into municipal and First Nations Police Services’ hands hasn’t been clarified. From what I understand, it’s going to be fairly costly to get the people trained.
What really concerns First Nations police and policing overall is that, quite frankly, many people still haven’t been getting the message when it comes to impaired driving, whether alcohol or drugs. It remains a leading criminal cause of death in our communities as it does all across Canada.
I agree with what my colleague said earlier that our youth particularly has not yet got the message and we have to find a way to educate them on the risks. Maybe one of the biggest risks, considering their age, is the fact they could lose their driver’s licence for a long time.
I work a lot with youth. We have a cadet corps and I talk to them and try to help them make the right decisions in their lives. Some of these kids don’t have strong support at home. I try to expose them to positive role models in the community and help them make the right decisions.
Quite frankly, I think with the legalization of cannabis, I feel like I’m at loggerheads in trying to get the message across. In one case there’s a message saying marijuana is fun, it can be recreational, but at the same time you shouldn’t do it. I think the message is mixed and in some ways makes the job of the police more difficult, particularly with our young people.
I don’t have the answers. I see what so many of our young people in our communities are going through with rampant intravenous drug use, impaired driving, gang violence. I hope we find the answers.
I would like to again thank you for allowing me to come and present to you on this critical topic and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Busch.
Now it is my pleasure to invite Mr. Ian Jack on behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association.
Ian Jack, Managing Director, Communications and Government Relations, Canadian Automobile Association: Thank you very much, everyone. Good evening and thank you.
Most of you will be familiar with CAA, I’m sure. We were founded in 1913. We are a non-profit federation of eight clubs from coast to coast, Saskatchewan, Quebec, et cetera, across the country. We provide 6 million members with emergency roadside, automotive, insurance and travel services.
[Translation]
CAA has also, since the beginning, advocated on issues of concern to its members. Currently those issues include road safety, the environment, mobility, infrastructure and consumer protection.
[English]
What you may not know is that from our inception we have been advocating for critical pieces of the traffic safety framework in place today. From our earliest days pushing for stop signs to seatbelts and air bags to campaigns against impaired and distracted driving, we have been at the forefront of traveller advocacy for more than a century.
[Translation]
Today, CAA represents one in four adult drivers and was recently recognized by the University of Victoria’s Gustavson Brand Index as Canada’s most trusted brand.
[English]
Make no mistake, drugs and driving has been an issue in road safety for decades. With the legalization of cannabis on the horizon, however, drug-impaired driving has become top of mind when Canadians think about road safety.
[Translation]
As with drinking and driving, driving under the influence of cannabis affects not just those individuals who partake, but potentially all road users.
[English]
One thing is very much worth noting. While very few Canadians would claim to be better drivers when they’re drunk, over a quarter of Canadians say that they’re as good or, even more frighteningly, better drivers when they’re under the influence of cannabis. Of course, for the record, they’re not right.
There are many myths about the impairing effects of cannabis on a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. For this reason, earlier this year, CAA developed and launched its own national public awareness campaign titled Driving High Is Driving Impaired. It leveraged real tweets from real people to deliver our message, debunking many of the myths people hold. Our bilingual social media campaign aimed at youth achieved great success on a small budget, boasting 5.5 million impressions and more than 600,000 views of the content.
We are also pleased to have been invited to partner with Public Safety Canada on the federal government’s anti-drug driving campaign. We are also proud partners of Drug Free Kids Canada and the excellent work that they do.
[Translation]
It, too, suffers from a relatively modest budget. Indeed, as far as we can make out, the federal commitment to public education on cannabis-impaired driving amounts to a very small portion of the overall funding for public education.
[English]
Let me add one more statistic. Cannabis-impaired driving is a top three public concern when it comes to cannabis legislation. Maybe even number one at some elementary schools in Saskatchewan. More needs to be done, in our view, by the federal government.
[Translation]
Turning to the legislation before you, CAA shares the concerns raised by other stakeholders about the state of drug detection technology, the need to train more drug recognition officers, and the difficulty of scientifically measuring an individual’s level of impairment. From the beginning of this process, CAA has called for more government funding for law enforcement, research and public education.
[English]
We’ve been consistent since 2015 and still feel that more needs to be done and that our voice and the voice of many others have not been fully heard on that topic. In our view, the issues the government should do more on today largely come down to money. As a piece of legislation, Bill C-46 will create a newer and stronger law to deter Canadians from driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The introduction of roadside oral fluid screeners and ensuring that drug evaluating officers providing testimony do not need to be qualified through an expert witness hearing are also positive steps.
These new tools will help police better detect drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired drivers and ensure they face the justice system. We believe the bill strikes a good balance based on the available scientific evidence.
It’s true that, as I mentioned, there are important elements of the regime that require investment. Even with more money, it will take time to train officers and for investments in research to pay off in better detection devices.
[Translation]
The one thing we can control for certain, and that doesn’t require a long lead time, is the public education piece.
[English]
We need more public funds and effort now to reach people who will be tempted by a newly legal substance to experiment and drive.
In conclusion, CAA supports the changes put forward that will make the law easier to enforce and more efficient, ultimately leading to safer roads.
[Translation]
This legislation is a positive step, but it is only one piece of the puzzle.
[English]
Thank you for your time today and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jack. You were able to summarize it effectively within the short time, like Mr. Paris and Mr. Busch before you.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Paris.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Mr. Busch and Mr. Jack. Did I understand correctly that 38 self-administered First Nations are represented in your association?
[English]
Mr. Busch: Yes, that’s correct.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Would you say that your work is comparable to that of other police forces on First Nations reserves that are not self-governing?
[English]
Mr. Busch: In a lot of ways it is. I know a lot of police services delivering services to First Nations communities strive to deliver culturally sensitive and appropriate service, and they realize a lot of the communities they serve are short resources in other areas. They take the necessary steps to engage with the community in addressing some of these issues. I think we’ve realized in a lot of ways, enforcement is not going to solve a lot of the problems we have in these communities. We’re engaging with communities to find other solutions, work with what resources we have to help people through their problems and provide the best service we can.
You don’t have to be a self-administering First Nations police service to do that. I know the RCMP, OPP and the Sûreté du Québec strive hard to accomplish the same things.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Last fall, the Assembly of First Nations established a task force to study the issue of cannabis. One of the areas it had to look at was justice, law enforcement and police work. I was wondering if you had been involved in this AFN work. Were you invited, did you have the opportunity to work with the group on these issues?
[English]
Mr. Busch: Personally, I did not. Mr. Daniel Bellegarde, the chairman of our police services board, did participate and he’s deeply engaged with the AFN and other organizations to get that work accomplished as well.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Jack. I believe you referred to a public survey you conducted. Do you have any public data you could share with us, or send to us? I had a more specific question on how young people, and not-so-young people, view their ability to drive after smoking cannabis.
Mr. Jack: For your first question, absolutely.
[English]
We will get that to you. We have a piece of research under way at McGill that we should get results back on this summer addressing part of your second question. One of the many pieces of research that’s lacking is giving people the knowledge of how long they should wait after consuming a legal substance before they get behind the wheel.
There has been scientific research, and most of us figure out by trial and error when it comes to alcohol and we get lots of peer input on that and public education to tell us a glass of wine with dinner is probably fine, maybe two over a whole evening. We all have in our head what we think we can do. That same knowledge doesn’t exist in any form when it comes to cannabis. This piece of research being undertaken by Dr. Mark Ware at McGill will put youth in a driving simulator under the influence of cannabis and try to get some preliminary results at least as to how long one should wait before driving.
Because it’s been an illegal substance, cannabis hasn’t officially been talked about that much. There hasn’t been a lot of research. We see the lack of good testing devices. Partly that’s because there hasn’t been a huge legal market that companies have been interested in investing in. We haven’t had a large country like Canada wanting to buy thousands and over the years millions of these devices. Now we do. This is starting, but we’re not there yet. That is a large part of the problem is that we’re very much at the beginning of this. None of us was alive when alcohol was first regulated and put under a government regime, whenever that was. We’re in the same spot with cannabis in 2018.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to both our witnesses. Chief Busch, I want to offer you my condolences for what you have experienced in your family. I truly appreciate all the work you do in your community. It is not easy; it is an everyday struggle. I wanted to tell you this.
Most of the police forces that had testified shared with us their concerns about not being ready when this drug is legalized, and most of them, if not all of them, do not think they will be ready in July if the government maintains its intention to legalize cannabis then. Since 2015, how many evaluation officers have you trained in indigenous communities across Canada?
[English]
Mr. Busch: We have none. We often rely on other police services who have members trained as drug recognition experts come in, and we have a good working relationship with the RCMP and nearby municipal police services.
As a number for across all the First Nations police services, I don’t know. Some have been trained, but there’s still a strong demand for more within the First Nations police services.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: If ever the government shows us which tool to use to detect the drug in saliva, and if this gets done during the summer, how much time will it take for all of the indigenous communities to train their police officers? Are we talking about weeks or months to train all the indigenous police officers who will be responsible for doing the tests?
[English]
Mr. Busch: It would be months and maybe more, depending on the police service and what resources are available to them. Every province is a little different. Even now, being a small police service without any training unit, as I said earlier, we rely on other police services to see if they can hold a seat for one of our members to go.
In our police service, we have nine enforcement personnel. We can’t send all nine away at once. We would be lucky to have our people trained within a year or two years in my particular service.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended delaying the legalization of marijuana by one year, due to preparedness issues. Do you support delaying the legalization for one year to minimize the negative effects in your communities?
[English]
Mr. Busch: Yes, I would strongly support that.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Allow me to wish you good luck with this challenge. You have yet another task ahead of you.
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Jack. As a CAA member, I have a conflict. I want to congratulate you, because your organization provides us with a great deal of safety, particularly for our children, who are all members as well. We feel a little bit safer knowing that you are there if they have problems on the road. Thank you also for the research you do.
Your American big brother, the AAA, has done a lot of research, and has funded and worked on research related to impaired driving and the impact of legalizing cannabis in some states, such as Washington and Colorado. Can you tell us a bit about what they have learned post-legalization, and what they have noticed, specifically concerning impaired driving?
[English]
Mr. Jack: Yes, I can give you a brief response because I don’t have that material in front of me. I haven’t looked at it recently, but we can provide that, first of all, to the committee. We would be happy to. Second, I recall the top line conclusions. One was they did see, I believe it was in Washington State, a significant increase in collisions and injuries post-legalization.
However, there was an asterisk beside that in the research because it wasn’t clear that enforcement officials had been carefully looking for cannabis. I’m not the law enforcement official at this table, but our understanding is if you can get someone for alcohol, it’s easier. Often people might have used both and you might not proceed to do the paperwork on the cannabis; so cannabis may have been underreported pre-legalization in some of these states. Clearly, there was a spotlight at that point and law enforcement would quite likely want to be finding cannabis at that point.
Some indication of an increase, but also a bit of a question early on as to how much of an increase as opposed to starting from a base lower than it should have been in the first place.
The other thing I would note for this committee, to us it comes back to money. The projections for revenue that state governments made were out of whack. They were higher than they should have been. The amount of business transferred into the legal market was lower than what the states had expected. That has an impact on promises made about redirecting funds when they arrive, tax revenues into public education, and helping train police forces.
Certainly, from our point of view, one of our takeaways from some of the AAA research was in looking at the States. What they had said they would get in revenue and what they received after legalization, that hasn’t materialized yet.
Very big challenges. I’m not the expert. I’m supposed to be the driving expert, but very big challenges in pricing properly when you’re a state trying to sell cannabis regulated against people who don’t really worry about regulation and are very motivated to hold on to their market share and their high-margin cash business they have been operating.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Can you send us the documents from the study?
Mr. Jack: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: First of all, Chief Busch, I echo the remarks made by my colleague Senator Boisvenu on the loss of family members and the excellent work you’re doing as First Nations police.
Gentlemen, this committee is presently studying two bills; first of all, this bill, C-46, which deals with offences relating to conveyances, and part of C-45, which deals with the legalization of marijuana.
Both bills were tabled at the same time. According to a poll conducted by CAA, more than two thirds, 69 per cent, of Canadians, are concerned roads will become more dangerous with the legalization of marijuana.
In your opinion, should this bill, Bill C-46, have been tabled before Bill C-45? In other words, should it have been tabled at least a year ago, instead of having two bills tabled at the same time?
Mr. Busch: That would have been advantageous, from a police perspective, to give us a little more time to prepare, to train our members and to understand all of the implications as much as we can.
Mr. Jack: The longer the lead time, the better, I think, but we are where we are. It’s mid-2018.
Senator McIntyre: In other words, make the roads safe first and then deal with the legalization of marijuana. Would that be correct?
Mr. Busch: Yes, having the police prepared would certainly be an advantage.
Senator McIntyre: Perhaps another question, Mr. Chair. Last year, the Quebec government proposed the blood-alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood be reduced to 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. In other words, move from 0.08 to 0.05. Would you support an amendment to lower the blood-alcohol concentration?
Mr. Jack: As I mentioned off the top, we are a federation of eight clubs. We don’t have a national position at this point. We do think it merits, at the very least, more study.
Mr. Busch: I would agree. It’s hard to speak for everybody who would have an opinion in First Nations policing. I haven’t seen any kind of a study on whether that would save lives or make a huge difference. It’s something I’d be interested in hearing about. If it was demonstrated that it would save lives, I would certainly support that, as I think all police officers would.
Senator Boniface: My question is for Chief Busch. First, our condolences to you and your family. I think all of us felt incredible regret at the circumstances over the weekend. I also want to commend you for an incredible career. I think you have been a leader in many senses. I’ve followed your career for some time.
I want to talk about issues. You referred to five deaths in your community. I fully appreciate you may not be able to speak specifically about that. If you attributed those to impaired driving, was alcohol a factor, drugs a factor, or a combination of the two?
Mr. Busch: I believe it was three separate accidents. There were some that had multiple fatalities. Alcohol for sure. I don’t think we ever did test to get the — I don’t know, even, if the autopsies tested for the presence of illegal drugs.
Senator Boniface: If I can just go down this line, I’ve been speaking, as you would expect, with a number of officers, trying to figure out what they’re finding. Of course, as we know, driving while impaired by drugs is not new at all. What the DRE program, I believe, is actually finding, is that, when the do the DRE testing, they’re finding multiple drugs, not a single drug.
My point is that this bill, aside from views on Bill C-45, the legalization process, would give you mandatory alcohol testing, which I suspect you would see as very positive and which I think has tremendous impact, as demonstrated.
The second thing, because you’re also today and yesterday — and a decade ago — people were dealing with drug-impaired drivers. There are tools in this bill that will give police greater investigative tools, and, of course, prosecutors will have a better deal.
My point is to ask the question: Ultimately, the bill is a solid bill, from an enforcement perspective, in terms of the goal, which is to create safety on the highway and the roadways. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Busch: Yes, I would.
Senator Pratte: I would follow up on this and ask both witnesses their view on one specific aspect of the bill, which is the per se limits on drug concentration, THC concentration, which are introduced in Bill C-46. My understanding is the reason for these being introduced is twofold — first, to act as a deterrent so drivers know they shouldn’t consume marijuana at all before they drive because they know that, if they do, there is a high risk that, if they’re stopped by a police officer, they will at least face a possible charge.
Second because, right now, it is more difficult to charge a driver, and, if they do, the trials are longer, and it’s more difficult to get a conviction with a drug-impaired driver than for an alcohol-impaired driver. That’s the reason for these THC limits that have been introduced. Do you favour these thresholds being introduced by the bill? Do you think they will be useful tools for diminishing drug-impaired driving?
Mr. Busch: I think there has to be a threshold, from a legal perspective. Maybe my colleague can answer better than I. I don’t know if the science, so far, has shown us what the threshold should be, but there has to be one at some point.
Mr. Jack: I’m not a scientist either. I don’t have a particular opinion on that. Our understanding is the threshold is low enough to be the lowest level of what the machines can detect so that it is approaching zero, although not entirely zero. The only thing I would add is, of course, we have 13 provinces and territories also putting in place regimes. While it is very properly the business of this table to consider the federal legislation, we’re quite aware there will be, as there is with alcohol, two regimes for everyone in this country and that the provincial ones, in many cases, are instituting zero tolerance at age 21 or, for everyone, administrative monetary penalties and so on. There’s a regime well beyond Bill C-46 that will apply to everyone in this country.
Senator Pratte: Would you say this regime that is in store from the federal government and the provinces will act as a better deterrent than the current regime?
Mr. Jack: Yes, as I said in our remarks, we think that, overall, the bill is an advance, as Senator Boniface said as well. Our primary issue with the government is over the level of funding they’ve provided to let people get ready, whether it’s people like us who do public education or whether it’s law enforcement, not with the law as written.
Senator Batters: Thanks for much, both of you, for being here. Chief Busch, as a senator from Saskatchewan, I want to personally thank you for a lifetime of service to the people of Saskatchewan and the people you’ve helped.
How many First Nations people would be under the jurisdiction of the File Hills First Nations Police Service?
Mr. Busch: We police five First Nations communities. The total population on-reserve would be between 3,500 and 4,000, and then there’s a large off-reserve population as well, which would probably bring those numbers up to around 7,000.
Senator Batters: How many police officers in the File Hills First Nations Police Service?
Mr. Busch: We have nine enforcement personnel, and then we have positions for five special constables, who are unarmed. They’re not enforcement, but they do a lot of great work in our communities, with our youth in the schools. Then we have three support staff. Fully staffed, we have 16 or 17 employees.
Senator Batters: Okay. Thank you. It was going to be one of my questions; my colleague asked how many drug recognition experts File Hills has, and you said none. If a one-year delay was granted by the federal government in legalizing marijuana, what sort of things would that allow your police service to do to better prepare for that new significant change in the regime in Canada?
Mr. Busch: I think it would give us the opportunity to train one or at least two people whom we could call upon within our own police service as drug recognition experts. Right now we have requirements for what we call mandatory training requirements that we’re supposed to accomplish every year, like the annual firearm qualifications, use of force, things that we’re required to get.
We struggle because we’re always having to piggyback on another police service to see if they could squeeze in one or two of our members into their qualifications. Often we’re overdue in getting some of our mandatories renewed. Anything like having a drug recognition expert is a necessity but it’s not mandatory. A lot of times if I have to send people away on training, they’re going to have to go for the training strictly required by law. I recognize we definitely need this other training to provide a good police service, but like I said, a small police service, you can’t send everybody away all the time.
Senator Batters: No. Exactly. Difficult choices, yes.
Mr. Jack, I’m wondering if the CAA has any research about the compounding effect if someone is impaired by both alcohol and marijuana at the same time.
Mr. Jack: We don’t conduct primary research ourselves at CAA. We’ll check back and see what we’ve got on file from others, and if we have anything, we’d be more than happy to provide it to the committee. It’s a good question.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Senator Boniface: Thank you. I just wanted to go back on the DRE issue. I think you’re likely aware there’s some training up. My understanding as to what some are doing in my province is they are doing it sort of regionally. Our First Nation police service may train up one, the neighbouring police service, which may be the OPP or municipal, will do — they make a decision jointly and then use each other’s DRE, which would be typical even with Breathalyzer operators — are you seeing that in Saskatchewan? I’m just wondering if it’s different by province.
Mr. Busch: Yes, I am. From our personal experience at File Hills, we have a good, close working relationship with the RCMP detachments in our area. We have called out for a drug recognition expert and they’ve always sent one, sometimes from quite a distance because there weren’t that many people with that training. It’s getting better now. The same when they go on training; they say they’ll give us one position or two positions so we can try to catch up, and then they can use our positions as well.
Senator Boniface: Right. The reason I raise it, one of the issues around drug recognition experts, which you’re likely aware of, is trying to keep the expertise up and used enough so they can keep the knowledge and the expertise that’s needed. I assume that’s something you take into consideration when you make your decisions.
Mr. Busch: Yes, it is.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Jack, yesterday in Toronto, the thirtieth arrive alive DRIVE SOBER campaign was launched, and the CN Tower was lit up in red and white to recognize the DRIVE SOBER campaign and promote sober driving.
One of the sponsors of this campaign was CAA South Central Ontario. Can you explain more about this campaign? Are you aware if there are similar campaigns going on in other provinces?
Mr. Jack: That is a local club initiative and not taken out of national office where I work. I’m not aware of all the details. We’ve certainly worked with arrive alive. We think they’re a very good organization.
Clubs are free to tailor their provincial and local work as they will, but they all do work in the area of distracted and impaired driving. That takes on different forms in different provinces. I know in Saskatchewan, for instance, that Students Against Drinking and Driving is sponsored by CAA Saskatchewan. That’s work that they do. CAA Quebec has other work that they have under way right now. They’re touring their famous pot goggles through the high schools in the province, showing kids what it’s like and how impaired they are when under the effect of cannabis. It depends where you are in the country. We’re active, though, in every province one way or the other.
Senator McIntyre: One final question. You mentioned in your presentation that CAA has been invited to partner with Public Safety Canada on the federal government’s anti-drug-driving campaign. I understand this too suffers from a modest budget. Could you tell us a little more about that?
Mr. Jack: We like the campaign. They have a less modest budget than we do because of the federal government but still not very much money. They’ve got a message that there are consequences and you are impaired. Let me say two things.
First of all, I think all of us in the area — Marc, ourselves and the government — are all trying to get people to model their pot smoking behaviour, if they’re going to do that, with their alcohol behaviour. As we said earlier, it did take a generation, but we do have people, especially young people, to the point where, to put it in the vernacular, it’s just not cool to drink and drive. We need to get them to think about cannabis the same way. As you’ve heard, a significant minority do not today.
That’s the work we all have under way, and that’s what the federal campaign is doing. It shows a car crash with a bunch of kids in the car.
What we do like about their campaign is they’ve done some slightly out-of-the-box work for government, at least in terms of where they’re positioning it. I was at a volleyball tournament at the University of Montreal a few months ago and saw it running in the athletic centre, on the TVs they have there.
I know they’re showing in bars, which is a big deal for the government, to actually start advertising in bars. We like that aspect of their campaign, they’re reaching into some non-traditional ways where young people are to get their message across.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Busch, I am enormously concerned with your situation. We know that most indigenous communities will not be ready, with equipment and training, before next fall. However, it is highly probable that this drug will be legalized this summer. I am trying to put myself in your shoes in evaluating the consequences of this situation. What consequences do you foresee in your communities, should the legalization date for this drug not be pushed back?
[English]
Mr. Busch: I think it goes without saying that currently there’s a high significance of people driving while under the influence of cannabis right now, and probably has been like that for a long time, as well with combinations of alcohol and different drugs.
I don’t think the incidents are going to spike dramatically once cannabis is legalized. I do think Bill C-46 is going to open another responsibility for police to detect people who are under the influence of cannabis. I think until we get our people trained, we won’t be able to enforce the laws of the land as well in that respect. We’re going to be playing catch-up in terms of getting ready if it goes ahead on schedule.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Chief Busch.
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Canadian Automobile Association representative. You say that you are urging the government to invest more in research, public education and the enforcement of the legislation. You have alluded a few times to how the government said it invested, but that this was nowhere to be seen on the ground. How much money is “more” money for you? What would you do if you were in charge of this implementation?
[English]
Mr. Jack: We don’t have a figure in mind. We know it’s not enough. In particular, on the enforcement side, both short and long term, as I mentioned earlier, we think in the longer term, the tax revenue, if we look at the U.S. states that have legalized, is unlikely to be as high as the government would project.
We think in the short term there hasn’t been enough priming of the pump.
Speaking of things that could have happened a year ago, 2017-18. We have struggled to figure out how much money is being spent or is bucketed to be spent in the budget and economic statement. It’s very difficult to penetrate those numbers. It’s very difficult to break out how much is for public education and how much is for DREs and so on.
In fairness to the government, some of that money has yet to roll out, although we would say even the small sums that have been budgeted already should already be out the door and there needs to be more. I think I would consult with the chiefs of police, with the police association, with groups like Chief Busch’s to figure out how much more money is required.
We understand there will never be enough to do everything. When you look at the number of DREs in the country right now, which is as low as 600, I think, that number needs to at least double and do so rather quickly. Police forces like Chief Busch’s, I think, will potentially struggle with buying all of the oral swabs and the stations required for them without some funds being made available.
As this is a federal decision to legalize and create these costs, we think it’s only fair the federal government play its fair part in funding them.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a short question for Mr. Jack, concerning funding. If I understand correctly, the government announced $161 million in funding over five years. Does this figure ring any bells? Have you heard it anywhere?
I am trying to better understand your argument on the necessity of planning more public information campaigns. Are you saying that $161 million over five years is not enough? Because this amount has to cover the enforcement of the legislation, research and public education.
Do you believe that organizations like yours, that already run public information campaigns, should be directly funded by the government? A part of this funding could then be assigned to grants for organizations like yours or Drug Free Kids Canada to run awareness campaigns, since you are already working on the ground.
[English]
Mr. Jack: We have pointed out and will continue to point out that some funding for third parties would be more than welcome. We are all in this space, non-profits at the end of the day, with limited funds.
The issue is much broader. As I said, I honestly can’t answer the question because the breakdown from the budget is rather unclear. We’ve asked follow-up questions. Indeed, we might ask this committee if one of the things you might be able to do is to ask for a straight answer as to where these funds will be directed.
If we break that figure down over the five years the government talks about, if we then break out how much of that is for organizations like CBSA to get ready at the border, which some of it is for, and other federal organizations other than the RCMP, there’s money there for that. There is money, as I said, for the provinces, I think, for some law enforcement training.
In any event, support for Indigenous organizations, community-based organizations, and research. All of these are worthy, all of these should get funding, but once you start subtracting from what at first blush may sound like a large figure and then, as I said, divide it over the five years, it’s not much for any one of those things. I think we need to do some prioritizing and additional spending in some ways.
Obviously I’m here to talk about driving. We also know from other polling, not just our own, this is one of the top three concerns Canadians have with legalization is the effect on the roads and on public safety.
The Chair: Chief Busch, if I may ask you a question before we adjourn: How would you describe the situation of consumption of cannabis on the reserve by youth in comparison with off reserve? Would you say the problem is more acute considering you have to implement the legislation now that prohibits the consumption of cannabis? What’s your appraisal of the situation so far as youth consumption on reserves?
Mr. Busch: Again, I can only speak for the five reserves I’m responsible for and I know the situation varies from place to place. On the cases we get at the schools where we’re getting called because kids are out smoking marijuana near the school, it’s a very common occurrence. What that translates into in terms of statistics, I’m not really sure. It is a common occurrence when we get called to the school because there are kids smoking marijuana or cannabis products and it seems to be everywhere. Went into a lot of houses; you can smell the marijuana. Stopped cars; you can smell marijuana.
It certainly is maybe not a daily occurrence but it’s something that doesn’t raise eyebrows anymore with police officers. It seems to be everywhere.
Again, we have problems with prescription drugs, illegal opiates, fentanyl and things like that. It seems to be getting worse as time goes by. I kind of welcome this bill. It’s kind of helping us to do a better job at enforcement. As I said earlier, we know enforcement is not going to solve our problems but maybe it will save some lives if we can reduce or stop incidents of impaired driving, which are happening right now.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of all my colleagues around the table, again, I extend to you our condolences for the event that happened in your family. We’re very sensitive that you took the time to come and share those concerns with us today.
Mr. Jack, thank you so much for your contribution. It will be helpful in our thinking and reflection around the bill.
(The committee adjourned.)