Prepared for the Department of Justice Canada
For more information on this report, please contact the Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada at rsd.drs@justice.gc.ca
This public opinion research report presents the results of an online survey and qualitative interviews conducted by Ekos Research Associates Inc. on behalf of the Department of Justice Canada. The research study was conducted with 3,211 Canadians in February and March 2021.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre Sondage national sur la justice, 2021.
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Department of Justice Canada. For more information on this report, please contact the Department of Justice Canada at: rsd-drs@justice.gc.ca or at:
Research and Statistics Division
Department of Justice Canada
East Memorial Building
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8
Related publications (registration number: POR 089-20):
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 2021
The Department of Justice supports the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada through administering federal law, developing policies, and providing legal support to government departments and agencies. To inform policy development, public engagement and communications, and to support its mandate, the Department periodically commissions the National Justice Survey, which seeks to understand Canadians’ perceptions, understanding, and priorities on justice-related issues.
The current research gathers Canadians’ views, attitudes and opinions on several distinct topics related to the justice system, including: the state of the criminal justice system, the family justice system, impaired driving, the sex trade, access to justice, and Sustainable Development Goal 16. The 2021 National Justice Survey included a large, national survey with Canadians and follow up interviews with a subset of respondents.
The final survey sample included 3,211 Canadians, 18 years of age and older. The survey sample was randomly selected from the Probit panel, which is assembled using a random digit dial (RDD) process for sampling from a blended land-line cell-phone frame, so provides good coverage of Canadians with telephone access. Twenty-nine percent were collected by trained, bilingual interviewers, while the majority were collected through online self-administration. This randomly recruited probability sample carries with it a margin of error of ±1.7%. The margin of error for most sub-groups is between 2.6% and 7.0%.
In order to assess perceptions of the impact of Criminal Code changes on Indigenous and racialized groups[1], an oversample of each of these groups was needed for the analysis. A total of 305 surveys were completed with Indigenous people, carrying a margin of error of 5.7% at a .95 confidence interval (i.e., 19 times out of 20). Where sample size is sufficient for analysis, data for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis are presented separately. In order to isolate results for Black Canadians, and those of East and Southeast Asian descent, efforts were made to include a minimum number of completed cases with members of each of these communities, respectively, carrying a margin of error of 6.2% to 8.2% at a .95 confidence interval (i.e., 19 times out of 20).
The time to complete the survey averaged 17 minutes online and 25 minutes by telephone, and data were collected between February 1 and March 5, 2021 by telephone, in both languages, following extensive testing online. The rate of participation for the survey overall was 21% (24% online and 14% by telephone, where more efforts were made to find respondents in key target groups). Details on the rate of participation can be found in Appendix A, and the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.
Results were weighted to population proportions for region, age, gender, education, Indigenous identity, and ethnocultural group. Chi-square tests were used to compare subgroups or a population of interest to the remaining sample (e.g., Ontario vs. the rest of Canada; 65 years old and over vs. the rest of Canada; women vs. men). Because of the random nature of the sampling, along with weighting along key dimensions, the results can be reasonably extrapolated to the broader population of Canadians 18 years of age or older. Characteristics of the sample can be found in Appendix A.
Survey respondents who indicated they had experienced a traffic stop by police since December 2018 were asked about willingness to participate in a follow-up interview, conducted by phone, to further discuss the nature of this stop and their experiences at the time. Interview participants were selected based on survey responses, with a focus on the four target segments from the survey sample (Black, South/West Asian, East/Southeast Asian or Indigenous). All current or previous employees of the Government of Canada, or anyone who had participated in an interview or focus groups for Government of Canada public opinion research in the previous six months were excluded from participating.
A total of 27 interviews were conducted between March 9 and 24, 2021, each lasting 20 to 30 minutes, including six conducted in French. Specifically, interviews were conducted with seven participants self-identifying as Black, seven as Indigenous, five as White; four as East/Southeast Asian and four as South/West Asian. Participants were asked to describe their experiences with police traffic stops and general impressions of trends in this area. The recruitment script and interview guide can be found in Appendix C. Interview participants were provided with a $50 honorarium for their time.
Results of the interviews are described in shaded text, along with anonymized, illustrative quotes. It should be noted that the results of the interviews are qualitative in nature. These results should not be used to estimate numeric proportions or number of individuals in the population who hold a particular opinion as they are not generalizable. That is, results should not be assumed to be representative of the experiences of the wider population of Canada. These data are included to illustrate some experiences and perspectives. For this reason, terms such as "a few," "some" and "most" are used to broadly indicate views, rather than using specific percentages.
Most Canadians (86%) were at least moderately aware of the role of the police in the criminal justice system, while 77% were at least moderately aware of the role of the courts. Awareness of the role of corrections was relatively low, with fewer Canadians saying they were aware (26%) of the role of corrections than not aware (33%).
Before the pandemic, about one-quarter of Canadians were confident that the criminal justice system was accessible (27%) or fair (23%) to all people. Canadians’ confidence levels were lower about one year following the declaration of a pandemic in March 2020, with fewer Canadians reporting confidence that the criminal justice system was accessible (22%) or fair (20%) to all people.
Few Canadians (19%) were knowledgeable of the family justice system. Prior to the pandemic, 24% of Canadians were confident that the family justice system was accessible to all people. As with perceptions of the criminal justice system, confidence in accessibility since the start of the pandemic was lower, with 18% of Canadians confident that the family justice system was accessible to all people.
The family justice system was accessed by 7% of Canadians in the past two years. Nearly one-third (31%) of respondents thought it was easy to access the system prior to the pandemic. At the time of the survey, nearly one year into the pandemic, only 16% said it was easy to access the system.
Following a brief description, 30% of Canadians said they were aware that mandatory alcohol screening (MAS) was introduced in December of 2018. The minority, 39%, said that MAS has had a moderate to major impact on their decision whether or not to drive after consuming alcohol.
The majority of Canadians (62%) were concerned about the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by alcohol. In the past two years, 26% responded that they had driven within two hours of consuming alcohol; among them, 63% indicated that it was because they did not believe that they were impaired. About one-quarter (24%) of respondents said they were at least moderately concerned about being charged personally with an alcohol-impaired driving offence. Most often, this was because of the concern of killing or injuring someone else in an accident, being killed or injured, or having a permanent criminal record.
About one-quarter of Canadians were aware of the introduction of approved roadside drug screening equipment (25%), or of prohibited limits of THC in the blood within two hours of driving (24%). Although 57% of Canadians were concerned about the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by drugs, nine per cent fewer were concerned about the dangers of others driving while impaired by cannabis specifically. In the previous two years, 8% of Canadians had driven within two hours of using cannabis at least once. Half said they did not feel impaired. Among those who had driven after using cannabis, 17% had driven within two hours of consuming both cannabis and alcohol.
Twenty-two per cent of Canadians had been stopped by the police at least once in the past two years; 59% were stopped for a minor driving infraction while the other 41% were stopped at a roadside checkpoint. Forty per cent of those stopped were given a ticket.
Most of the qualitative interview participants were stopped by police for traffic violations, and some were aware of why they were being stopped even before speaking to police. Most interview participants indicated that the traffic stop was fairly "routine" and did not perceive they were being targeted in any way by being stopped by the police. For those few who were pulled over at a roadside check stop, they perceived that all vehicles were being pulled over in an equal manner and did not feel targeted for any reason. Overall, there were few instances of perceived profiling on traffic stops since December 2018, either through experience or discussions with friends or family. However, a few Indigenous participants said that they were pulled over for no apparent infraction, a few South/West Asian participants perceived differential treatment, and many Black participants said they were conscious of a personal risk during traffic stops. All participants had observed news coverage of police interactions, in terms of aggressive behaviour of police officers towards racialized groups. This was particularly notable in news coverage of events taking place in the United States, according to participants, although participants perceived that this occurs in Canada with Indigenous peoples and Black Canadians.
Half of Canadians correctly identified that profiting off of the sale of someone’s sexual services was illegal. The minority (41%) knew it was illegal to purchase sexual services. About one-quarter knew it was illegal to advertise sexual services (25%). About one-quarter (23%) of respondents incorrectly identified that it was illegal to sell sexual services (23%).
The majority, 58%, agreed that receiving financial or material benefit from the sale of sexual services of others should be illegal. Fewer Canadians agreed that purchasing sexual services (39%) or selling sexual services (34%) should be illegal.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
The majority of respondents (60%) who participated in the survey were not aware of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that aim to address today's social, economic and environmental challenges, even after reading a description. Less than one-quarter (21%) had heard specifically of the Sustainable Development Goal 16 to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies. Half said that all aspects of Goal 16 are equally important, although 18% saw access for all as most important. Effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels were seen as most important among 12%, while 8% pointed to promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies as most important.
Detailed findings are presented in the sections that follow. Overall results are presented in the main portion of the narrative and are typically supported by graphic or tabular presentation of results. Bulleted text is also used to point out any statistically significant and meaningful differences between sub-groups of respondents. If differences are not noted in the report, it can be assumed that they are either not statistically significant[2] in their variation from the overall result or that the difference was deemed to be too small to be noteworthy (e.g., less than 5% above or below the overall average) .
Results for the proportion of respondents in the sample who either said "don’t know" or did not provide a response may not be indicated in the graphic representation of the results in all cases, particularly where they are not sizable (e.g., 10% or less). These responses were, however, included in the calculations. Results may not total to 100% for this reason, and also due to rounding.
The contract value for the POR project is $147,462.92 (including HST).
To obtain more information on this study, please e-mail: rsd.drs@justice.gc.ca
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Ekos Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed by Susan Galley (Vice President)
Over eight in ten (86%) Canadians were at least moderately aware of the role of the police in the criminal justice system, with 46% more strongly aware. Over three in four (77%) were at least moderately aware of the role of the courts. Awareness of the role of corrections was relatively low, with more Canadians saying they were not aware (33%) of the role of corrections compared with those who were aware (26%).
Q1a-c. How would you describe your level of awareness when it comes to the role of the following areas in the Criminal Justice System?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not at all aware" and 5 being "very aware"
Base: n=3211
Over half of Canadians indicated they had not been involved in the criminal justice system. Among those who had, 20% mentioned they knew someone who was a victim or accused. About one in ten were a family member of an accused or convicted person (11%), testified as a witness in criminal court (11%), were a family member of a victim or survivor (10%), or were the victim or survivor of a non-violent crime (10%). Fewer identified that they had been charged or convicted of a crime (9%), worked in the criminal justice system or related field (7%), were the victim or survivor of a violent crime (6%), were a jury member in a criminal trial (5%), or volunteered in criminal justice or related fields (3%).
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q36. Have you ever been involved in the criminal justice system?* | n=3211 |
Know someone who is was victim/accused | 20% |
As a family member of an accused/convicted person | 11% |
Testifying as a witness in criminal court | 10% |
As a family member of a victim/survivor | 10% |
As the victim/survivor of a non-violent crime | 10% |
After being charged/convicted of a crime | 9% |
By working in the criminal justice system/Working in a related field | 7% |
As the victim/survivor of a violent crime | 6% |
Jury member chosen to participate in a criminal trial | 5% |
Volunteering in the criminal justice or related area | 3% |
Other | 2% |
I have not been involved in the criminal justice system before | 53% |
Prefer not to answer | 1% |
For the analysis in this report, the 46% of respondents indicating some involvement in the criminal justice system were allocated to one of five groups. Since multiple responses were possible (i.e., involvement in more than one capacity), respondents were allocated hierarchically into only one category in order to obtain mutually exclusive groups. The hierarchy used is as follows, forming a cascade whereby members of earlier groups on the list could no longer be assigned to subsequent groups in the list:
Following is the distribution in the re-allocated, mutually exclusive groupings.
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q36. Have you ever been involved in the criminal justice system? | n=3211 |
1 - Working/Volunteering in the criminal justice or related area | 10% |
2 - Victim/survivor of a crime | 11% |
3 - Charged/convicted of a crime | 6% |
4 - Knowing someone who is victim/accused | 13% |
5 - Testifying as a witness in criminal court / Jury member | 4% |
I have not been involved in the criminal justice system before | 53% |
Looking back to before the pandemic, about one in four Canadians were confident that the criminal justice system was accessible to all people (27%) or fair to all people (23%). Notably, 43% said they were not confident that the criminal justice system was fair to all people.
Q2a-b. Thinking back to before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how confident were you that the Canadian criminal justice system was...?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not confident at all" and 5 being "very confident"
Base: n=3211
The National Justice Survey was conducted roughly one year into the pandemic. At the time of the survey, about one in five Canadians were confident that the criminal justice system was accessible (22%) or fair (20%). Nearly half (47%) of Canadians responded that they were not confident the criminal justice system was fair to all people. This suggests a slight decrease in confidence relative to perceptions of confidence pre-pandemic.
Q3a-b. Today, how confident are you that the Canadian criminal justice system is...?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not confident at all" and 5 being "very confident"
Base: n=3211
Over half (51%) of Canadians rated their knowledge of the family justice system as low. Another 29% said they were moderately knowledgeable, while 19% were knowledgeable.
Q4. How would you rate your knowledge of the family justice system?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not at all knowledgeable" and 5 being "very knowledgeable"
Base: n=3211
Before the pandemic, about one-quarter (24%) of Canadians were confident that the family justice system was accessible to all people, and 15% were confident that the family justice system was fair to all people.
Q5a-b. Thinking back to before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how confident were you that the family justice system in Canada was...?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not confident at all" and 5 being "very confident"
Base: n=3211
Confidence in the accessibility of the family justice system was lower at the time of the survey than it was prior to the pandemic. At the time of the survey, 18% of Canadians were confident that the family justice system was accessible to all people. Only 14% were confident that the family justice system was fair to all people; 45% were not confident.
Q6a-b. Today, how confident are you that the family justice system in Canada is...?
Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not confident at all" and 5 being "very confident"
Base: n=3211
Over half of Canadians had never been involved in the family justice system. One in five had been involved as a friend (23%) or family member (21%) of someone who had experienced or was experiencing separation or divorce or had provided personal support to someone who had gone through a separation or divorce (21%). Another 14% had been involved as a person who experienced or is experiencing separation or divorce with children involved. Fewer (6%) had experienced a separation or divorce without children involved.
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q37. Have you ever been involved in the family justice system in any of the following ways?* | n=3211 |
As a friend of someone who experienced/ is experiencing separation or divorce | 23% |
As a family member of someone who experienced/ is experiencing separation or divorce | 21% |
I have provided personal support to someone going through separation or divorce | 21% |
As a person who experienced/ is experiencing separation or divorce with children (18 or under) involved. | 14% |
As a person who experienced/ is experiencing separation or divorce without a child/children (18 or under) involved. | 6% |
I work or volunteer in the family justice system | 2% |
None of the above | 52% |
Prefer not to answer | 1% |
For the analysis in this report, the 47% of respondents indicating some involvement in the family justice system were allocated to one of four groups. Since multiple responses were possible (i.e., involvement in more than one capacity), respondents were allocated hierarchically into only one category in order to obtain mutually exclusive groups. The hierarchy used is as follows, forming a cascade whereby members of earlier groups on the list could no longer be assigned to subsequent groups in the list:
Following is the distribution in the re-allocated, mutually exclusive groupings.
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q36. Have you ever been involved in the family justice system? | n=3186 |
1 – Experienced the family justice system | 19% |
2 – Family or friend of someone who experienced the system | 25% |
3 – Worked or volunteered in the family justice system or related field | 1% |
4 – Supported someone who experienced the system | 3% |
I have not been involved in the family justice system before | 53% |
Few Canadians (7%) had been involved with the family justice system in Canada within the past two years.
Q7. Have you been involved with the family justice system in Canada within the past two years?
Base: n=3211
Among those who were involved in the family justice system in the past two years, 31% indicated that the system was easy to access before the pandemic while 16% said the family justice system was easy to access at the time of the survey.
Q7b. Before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how would you describe your ability to access the family justice system in Canada?
Base: n=208
Q7c. Today, how would you describe your ability to access the family justice system in Canada?
Base: n=208
Government websites or publications were the main sources of information about the Canadian family justice system for 28% of Canadians. Fewer cited a legal professional (16%), family or friends (15%) or popular culture (such as television, movies, and magazines) (14%) as their main source of information. Social media was a main source for only 8% and other professionals were a source for only 6%.
Q8. What is your main source of information, that is, the source you would be most likely to use and access most often, about the Canadian family justice system?
Base: n=3211
The majority of Canadians (59%) said they would feel comfortable looking for information and reading about the family justice system online. A similar proportion (54%) indicated they would feel comfortable completing forms online using fillable PDF forms. Fewer (44%) said they would be comfortable using video conferencing platforms for what would normally be in-person meetings, mediation or court sessions; 28% said they would not be comfortable in this scenario.
Q9a-c. How comfortable would you be accessing the family justice system in the following scenarios?
Base: n=3211
Following a brief description of mandatory alcohol screening (MAS) laws, introduced in December 2018, 30% of respondents said they were aware or very aware of this legislative change, with another 22% indicating they were moderately aware. Close to half (47%) said they were not aware of it; with 36% of all respondents indicating no awareness at all.
Q10. How would you describe your level of awareness of this legislative change before today?
Base: n=3211
Respondents were asked if knowing that the police have the authority to demand a roadside breath sample without suspicion of alcohol use would have an impact on their decision to drive after consuming alcohol. Just over one in three (35%) said that it was not applicable to them since they do not have a license or they do not drive after consuming alcohol. Among the remaining 65%, 20% said it would have a major impact, and another 19% said it would have a moderate impact on any decision to drive after consuming alcohol.
Q11. Does knowing that the police have the authority to demand a roadside breath sample without suspicion that you have alcohol in your body impact your decision to drive after consuming alcohol?
Base: n=2150, excludes 34% who said they do not drink, do not drive or do not combine these, and 1% don’t know/no response
Six in ten Canadians (62%) were concerned about the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by alcohol, with 17% indicating they were concerned and 45% indicating they were very concerned. Another 24% were moderately concerned and only 14% were not very or not at all concerned.
Q12. How concerned are you about the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by alcohol?
Base: n=3211
Respondents who drive and who also drink alcohol were asked about concern about being charged with an alcohol-impaired driving offence. While 75% said that they were not personally concerned, 7% said they were moderately concerned and 17% said they were concerned (4%), or very concerned (14%).
Q13. How concerned are you about being charged personally with an alcohol-impaired driving offence?
Base: n=2581, excludes those who do not drink and also those who do not drive
When asked about key concerns related to driving while impaired by alcohol, by far the main concern was killing or seriously injuring someone else in an accident, which was reported by 84% of Canadians. Half indicated a concern about being killed or seriously injuring themselves. Similarly, 46% were concerned about having a permanent record that would impact their ability to work or travel. Other reasons, reported less frequently included getting caught by police (17%), incurring higher insurance premiums (12%), being judged by family or peers (10%), or damage to property (9%). A small proportion of respondents (4%) said they did not have any concerns.
Q14. What would be your biggest concern(s) about driving while impaired by alcohol if you were to do so? (Respondents were able to select more than one response)
Base: n=3211
One in four respondents (26%) reported having driven within two hours of consuming (an unspecified amount of) alcohol at some point in the previous two years. It is worth noting that those who reported driving in the two hours after consuming alcohol were also more likely to be aware of recent changes in the legislation (38% were aware). They were also more likely to say this did not have an impact on their decision to drive after drinking (61%); most indicated this was because they limit their consumption (71%) if they expect to be driving. This same segment was less likely to be concerned about the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving. They were moderately more concerned than other respondents, however, about being charged, and indicated being caught by the police and having a permanent record as their primary concerns associated with drinking and driving.
Q15. In the past two years have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of consuming alcohol?
Base: n=3211
Among the 26% indicating alcohol consumption in the two hours before driving, 73% said it occurred a few times, and 8% said it occurred more often. Only 17% noted a single instance.
Q15b. In the past two years, how often would you say this has occurred?
Base: n=941 (those who reported consuming alcohol within two hours of driving)
Among the same 26% who reported drinking alcohol within two hours of driving, most said the reason was that they did not think they were impaired (63%). The remainder largely said they believed they were within the legal limit (29%). Only a very small percentage of respondents provided a different reason, including thinking they would not get caught, the need to get home, or to attend to an emergency.
Q15c. What was the reason for having driven within two hours of alcohol consumption?
Base: n=941 (those who reported consuming alcohol within two hours of driving)
Public awareness of legislative changes related to drug-impaired driving was similar to awareness of legislative changes related to alcohol-impaired driving, where 30% indicated awareness of the changes. Roughly one in four indicated awareness of new legislation on drug screening and prohibited THC levels (27% and 24%, respectively), with 30% and 26% saying they were moderately aware of these changes. Nearly half of respondents, however, were unaware of the changes.
Q18-19. How would you describe your level of awareness of these legislative changes before today? Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not at all aware" and 5 being "very aware"
Base: n=3211
More than half (57%) or respondents were concerned or very concerned about the dangers of drug-impaired driving. Impairment from cannabis specifically was a concern to somewhat fewer, although still 48% of Canadians expressed concern. Another 30%, however, said they were not concerned. Thirteen per cent said they were concerned about being charged with a drug impaired driving offence, although 80% said that this was not a concern.
Q20a-c. How concerned are you about...? Rated on 5-point scale of 1 being "not at all concerned" and 5 being "very concerned"
Base: n=3211
When asked about key concerns related to driving while impaired by cannabis, a main concern for 70% of Canadians was killing or seriously injuring someone else in an accident. Having a permanent record or being killed or seriously injured themselves was the second most frequently reported concern, noted by 43% in each case. Other reasons, expressed by considerably fewer, were getting caught by police (17%), incurring higher insurance premiums (12%), being judged by family or peers (9%), or damage to property (9%). Only 9% said they did not have any concerns. Results were a very close reflection of the concerns expressed with alcohol-impaired driving.
Q22. What would be your biggest concern(s) about driving while impaired by cannabis if you were to do so? (Respondents were able to select more than one response)
Base: n=3211
Eight per cent of Canadians reported having driven within two hours of using cannabis in the past two years. As with alcohol-impaired driving, those who reported this behaviour in the previous two years were also more likely to be aware of the legislative changes (42% regarding roadside screening and 34% regarding THC levels), and to report that they were not concerned about the dangers of driving following drug use (52% were unconcerned), particularly when it came to cannabis use (71% were unconcerned). They were, however, more likely to be concerned about being charged (29%) and to cite getting caught by police (37%) or having increased insurance (25%) as a primary concern when driving after consuming cannabis.
Q23. In the past two years have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of using cannabis?
Base: n=3211
Among the 8% reporting this behaviour in the past two years, half did so a few times (50%), and another 31% did so often. It was a single event for 16%.
Q23b. In the past two years, how often would you say this has occurred?
Base: n=217 (reported driving within two hours of using cannabis)
As with alcohol-impaired driving, by far the most prevalent reason provided for driving after using cannabis within two hours of driving was that they did not think they were impaired (50%) or simply said they were not impaired (17%). Some described it as a necessity (10%), did not think they would get caught (7%) or provided another reason.
Q23c. What was the reason for having driven within two hours of cannabis consumption?
Base: n=217 (reported driving within two hours of using cannabis)
Among the segment of respondents who indicated they had driven within two hours of using cannabis, 17% said they had driven following a combination of cannabis and alcohol use. This suggests that this occurs among 1% of Canadians over the age of 18, according to survey results.
Q24. Have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of using cannabis in combination with alcohol?
Base: n=239[3] (reported driving within two hours of using cannabis)
One in three Canadians 18 or older (34%) had been stopped by the police while driving at least once in the past five years. Of these, 22% were stopped within the past two years, while 12% were stopped two to five years ago. Sixty-six per cent had not been stopped by police within the last five years.
Q24a. In the past five years, have you been stopped by police while driving, for any reason? This could include stops for minor driving issues, or random sobriety stops. Q24b. Was the most recent stop within the last two years? Base: n=3211
Of those who had experienced a traffic stop by police within the previous five years, the majority were stopped for a minor infraction (59%). Fewer (41%) were stopped in a roadside checkpoint. Four per cent identified multiple reasons for stops. Those indicating that the reason was unclear (about 1%) were specifically asked in a subsequent question if they were stopped for impaired driving, either from alcohol or cannabis. Only a few indicated this to be the case.
Q24c. What was the reason given by the police for this most recent stop? The police... (Respondents were able to select more than one response)
Base: n=1131 (those who were stopped in previous 5 years)
Forty per cent of respondents who experienced a stop in the previous five years said they received a ticket, and 14% were given a written or verbal warning. Respondents, who reported a minor driving infraction, were more likely to have received a ticket (64%) or a warning (22%). One in three of those who experienced a stop in the previous five years said that there was no outcome (34%), although this proportion was higher (66%) among those who went through a roadside checkpoint. Among those reporting a roadside checkpoint, 8% received a ticket, 4% received a verbal warning, and 3% were asked to provide a breath sample. Among those indicating another outcome (10%), almost all respondents described a specific infraction, with speeding at the top of the list, and a few described a verbal warning.
Q24f. What was the outcome of the most recent stop? (Respondents were able to select more than one response)
Base: n=1131 (those who were stopped in previous 5 years)
Survey respondents who indicated they had experienced a traffic stop by police since December 2018 were asked about willingness to participate in a follow-up interview, conducted by phone, to further discuss the nature of this stop and their experiences at the time. Interview participants were selected based on survey responses, with a focus on the four target segments from the survey sample (Black, South/West Asian, East or Southeast Asian or Indigenous). All current or previous employees of the Government of Canada, or anyone who had participated in an interview or focus groups for Government of Canada public opinion research in the previous six months were excluded from participating.
A total of 27 interviews were conducted, each lasting 20 to 30 minutes. Specifically, interviews were conducted with seven participants self-identifying as Black, seven as Indigenous (four Métis and three First Nation), five as White; four as East/Southeast Asian and four as South/West Asian. Six interviews were conducted in French, and the balance were conducted in English. Participants were asked to describe their experiences with police traffic stops and general impressions of trends in this area. The recruitment script and interview guide can be found in Appendix C. Interview participants were provided with a $50 honorarium for their time. The following is a high-level summary of results from the 27 follow-up interviews. Interviews were conducted to examine police traffic stops experienced since December 2018, along with general perceptions of experiences and news coverage related to these issues. Results are segmented by ethnocultural group and Indigenous identity.
Topics | Black (7) | Indigenous (7) | South/West Asian (4) | East/Southeast Asian (4) | White (5) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traffic stop type/ reason | All stopped for driving infractions; speeding or expired plates. Most suspected the reason for the stop. The police officer told them the reason right away in all cases. | Some stopped for driving infractions; speeding, burned out light, not wearing seatbelt, pulling out too aggressively. One attended for roadside assistance and asked if drinking. One for having license plate that did not match vehicle. | Driving infraction; speeding. A few at roadside checkstops. One for having a taillight not working properly. | Most stopped for driving infractions; speeding or expired plates. One at a roadside checkstop. | Some for traffic violations; speeding, distracted driving. A few at a roadside checkstop. One stopped because plates mistakenly read as having outstanding warrant. Those with traffic violations were aware of why they were likely being stopped. The few at a roadside checkstop said the officer said it was random and everyone was being pulled over. |
Description of process | Officer asked for license and registration in all cases but one. A few said officer took a long time to return with documents. Interaction described by most as businesslike or cordial. One felt officer was provoking to "get into a fight." | Traffic infractions were described as routine. (The license plate match was officer error in reading plate) Officer was confrontational with individual who pulled out of parking lot too fast. One respondent not provided with a reason for being pulled over, was asked questions, including if drinking, and released. | The respondent pulled over for a malfunctioning taillight said the officer pulled up beside to look at her and then pulled her over. Asked "do you even speak English?" | Those with driving infractions asked for license and registration. A few said officer took a long time to return with documents. The one at roadside checkstop was asked if drinking and waved on. One indicated officer said "your husband (who directed where to display fallen off license) is stupid." | The few who were stopped at roadside checkstops noted that all cars were being pulled into the stop. One said officer defended the mandatory test, saying there were times he didn’t think someone was impaired until they gave the breathalyzer. |
Incidence of testing during stops | No one tested for drugs or alcohol. | One brought to station and tested after driving car into ditch, and admitted had been drinking. | All at checkstops waved along after brief interaction. | One waved along at checkstop after brief interaction. | A few provided sample at roadside checkstops. One was asked at roadside stop if drinking and waved along. |
Outcome of stops | Most were given tickets, two received a warning. | Tested positive for alcohol at station; taken into custody and charged. Others were tickets (e.g., speeding) or warnings for minor infraction. | Issued a warning for taillight. Ticket for speeding. | Speeding tickets. Expired plates were asked to park vehicle and provide proof of registration within 24 hours. | Those with traffic violations were given tickets or warning. All who gave breathalyzer were negative. |
Perceptions/concerns about experiences in general | Many described perception of racial targeting (personal and friends). Many talked about perceived personal risk during police stops and caution they take as a result (keep hands in plain sight). A few very angry/resentful of treatment. Several spoke of need for better officer training on treatment and bias. | Several described perception of racial targeting (personal or friends). Some resentment expressed about confrontational tone by police. Abuse of authority and assumption they are always right (not willing to listen). | Some concern expressed about differential treatment based on race (double standard in judgement, less positive interaction, fear of police). | No real sentiment of racial targeting personal or friends. Concern expressed more for treatment of Black and Indigenous drivers. | A few have discussed traffic stops with others in terms of fairness of speed radars or general traffic tickets. A few note they were pulled over more often in youth. A few have discussed or asked racialized friends about their experiences with police; some of which felt targeted. |
Perceived news coverage | Most have observed news about aggressive police interactions, mostly in the US. Some say treatment at stops less aggressive in Canada, but racial bias occurs; particularly to Black and Indigenous people. | Less specific observations/comments about news coverage related to racial unfairness. Some observations of news coverage about roadside testing for impairment. Observations that it is worse in the US. | Mixed views on hearing about racial targeting/unfair treatment in the news. Several believe this to be the case for Indigenous and racialized people, especially Black people. | Mixed views on media coverage of racial bias, but some feel there is heightened coverage and public awareness of this issue now. Several observed that it is worse the US. | Most recall "dramatic encounters" on the news affecting racialized groups – Black or Indigenous. A few mention hearing about cannabis testing in traffic stops, or covid stops. |
Additional comments | A few stated concerns about abuse of authority and disrespectful treatment of Blacks. Need for training about racial biases. | A few frustrated by unfair treatment and pushing back by posting incidents on social media. A few further statements about concern about police aggressive tone and disrespectful tone, setting up for confrontation/ personal embarrassment. | A few concerns about abuse of authority/lack of willingness to listen. Need for training of officers and audits regarding the use of authority and appropriate treatment of citizens. |
Most participants were stopped by police for traffic violations, and some were aware of why they were being stopped even before speaking to police. These participants acknowledged they were speeding or committing some other traffic violation such as not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. A few were pulled over for having expired license plates or were pulled over in error as the license plate number was misread by the police officer.
"Driving on a highway and pulled over by an RCMP officer, and I suspected it was for speeding." (Black)
"I knew my license plates were expired. I had the new plates in the front seat of the car." (Black)
"Was stopped for the sticker not being renewed on the license plate." (Black)
"Right turn coming out of (coffee shop) parking lot. Lights from unmarked car behind me. I was completely confused about what the reason could have been." (Indigenous)
"I was driving my nephew’s car, helping him move. During the pandemic, he forgot to renew his plates because he didn’t drive for six months at home." (East Asian)
"Exactly as expected, officer said I was driving while using my cell phone" (White)
Most participants were told the reason for the traffic stop by the police officer in the initial stages of the interaction after being pulled over. Two participants felt that they were pulled over for no particular reason, with a reason for the traffic stop not clearly given by the police officer, or that the officer was looking for a reason to pull the individual over.
"I got pulled over for basically no reason, and the only reason they could come up with was I had a light out, but I could tell from the way they were speaking to me, and asking me if I even spoke English, that it had nothing to do with my light being out." (West Asian)
"I wasn’t sure at all why I was being stopped. It wasn’t a standard roadside stop. It was one police car alone. He asked if I had had any drinks in the past few hours or so, and I said no. That was it. No more questions and no testing. He didn’t make any reference to my driving or why he stopped me." (Indigenous)
Some participants were pulled over at a roadside check stop. These participants thought that all vehicles were being pulled over in an equal manner and did not feel targeted for any reason. A few were immediately aware that they were approaching a roadside check stop, while a few others were initially unaware of what was occurring.
"It was during the holiday season, and you could see up ahead that people were stopping and there were police cars. I knew from public service announcements that there would be RIDE stops. They were pulling over everyone." (East Asian)
"It was calm. I believe it was basically a traffic stop at night around one or two in the morning. I believe they were trying to test if people were driving safely." (South Asian)
"Pulled over in a roadside check. It didn’t look like it at first. It looked more like a construction zone with lights, but when I got there, you could clearly see that they were pulling over absolutely everyone, into these parking spots off to the side". (White)
Most participants indicated that the traffic stop was fairly "routine" and did not perceive they were being targeted in any way by being stopped by the police. Many said that the interaction with police was neutral or respectful.
"[Pulled over for expired license plates] I had the license plates in the front seat of the car, and he said ‘ok, no problem, go ahead.’ Didn’t take license and registration or anything like that." (Black)
"The usual. They just told me I was going too fast, how fast I was going, asked for ID and ownership, insurance, all of that good stuff and then go back to their car while you sit and wonder what your fate is going to be." (White)
"[License plate was misread as belong to someone with outstanding warrant] [Officer] explained why he stopped me and asked to see license and registration. Saw that this man was obviously not me, but needed to clear up why that outstanding warrant was associated with my plate. It turned out that a plastic cover over the plate was obscuring or blocking part of a number so it read another way, but when cover was off, it was clearly not that number. The officer was very nice and polite and respectful. He apologized for taking up my time." (White)
"[License plate misread] It was very respectful and not confrontational in any way. We looked at my paperwork, and then we walked around to the back of my vehicle. Turns out that because of my trailer hitch on my back bumper that the number was obscured and the officer had actually misread the number on my plate. So, in fact they did match, the officer was just in error in what they saw. It was all fine, and both of us shrugged, and they apologized for misunderstanding." (Indigenous)
Some felt that the police officer was being more discourteous than necessary, with an abrupt or accusing tone to begin the interaction at the vehicle window. A few described interactions with police officers during the traffic stop that contained language or phrases that were perceived as racial targeting and resulted in a negative perception of police officers. One participant, who identified as Chinese, said that a police officer said her husband "must be stupid" for telling her to place her fallen license plate in the back window; she perceived that the comment was racialized. One Black participant said that he speaks very calmly and respectfully during interactions with police officers so that he "doesn’t get shot." However, these participants said that the stop took place without incident, in terms of an escalation of the situation, overall.
"I was by myself, he came up to the car and did that thing police do where they are kind of condescending. I feel they provoke you so that you get into a fight. He was implying that I was negligent, stupid, or not responsible for not having my sticker up to date. I felt frustration because, I’m Black, and when I encounter the police, I try to be extra polite so that they don’t shoot me. I tried to be nice, ‘yes, sir’, and lower the temperature so that it doesn’t get out of control." (Black)
"Officer was very abrupt and aggressive right from the start. Said, ’You pulled right out in front of me. I had to slam on my brakes. Do you like your car? You need to drive safer. You were driving too aggressively’." (Indigenous)
"I was pulled over by a police officer because the rear plate was missing. It had fallen off during the day and I put it in the back window. I told the police that I called my husband about what to do and he said the back window would be okay. The police officer said, ‘well then, your husband is stupid.’ He wrote me a ticket because the license plate wasn’t properly affixed. […] I am a person of colour, and I feel he told me my husband was stupid because he assumed my husband was also a person of colour. There was no reason for him to call my husband stupid." (East Asian)
A few said that the officer went back to the police vehicle for what felt like an excessive amount of time—15 to 20 minutes—with the license and registration before returning to their vehicle.
"He was in his car for a bit, a good 15 minutes, but once he came back he said ‘here you go, you have three options’ and described those. He was pleasant. I was respectful to him as well. It was as pleasant as can be, that experience. Nothing out of the ordinary for the overall interaction that we had, I felt it was a typical stop." (Black)
"It took a long time when he went back to vehicle, about 10 minutes. He was very business like, not a lot of interaction." (East Asian)
Of those who were pulled over at a roadside check stop, one said that the task of blowing into a breathalyzer felt "intrusive" but not personal. The process of the roadside check stops was considered by participants to be efficient and cordial. Participants said that there was a brief interaction with a police officer, that the officer explained that roadside check stops were taking place and, in most cases, the participant was told they can proceed from the stop, without having to give a breath sample.
"I think I was treated pretty fairly, even though I am a person of, you know, a minority, even with that everything went smoothly. He actually asked me if I had my license and I said yes and I could show it to him but he said ‘no, that’s okay, you can go’. You could tell he used his judgement, could see I wasn’t drunk or anything and I mean he of course looked into my car as well from the window, but he used his judgement and let me go right away. So yeah I don’t think there was anything unfair about that." (South Asian)
"They didn’t ask for my license or anything. Was alone in the car. I’m a mature person, I’m small, and look very non-threatening. They look in the car and everything is neat and tidy." (East Asian)
"He was polite, everything was good. He asked if I had my license, I said I did and could show him and he said ‘no that’s okay’ and I think within a minute everything was done. It was my first stop in Canada ever so when they were stopping me I kind of thought ‘what’s happening here?’ but they treated me very fairly and everything was good." (South Asian)
"[Provided breath sample] You have no choice. If you don’t, they automatically assume you’re guilty and you get charged. You cannot refuse breathalizer. If you do, at minimum they’ll give you a 24 hour suspension, minimum." (White)
Many participants said that they talk about occurrences of police traffic stops generally with friends or family. Some, particularly Black participants, indicated that they discuss the perceived personal risk during police traffic stops and the caution they take as a result (such as keeping hands in plain sight). Some Indigenous participants spoke of a perception of racial targeting by police, experienced personally or by friends or family. These participants expressed resentment about a confrontational tone used by police or an abuse of authority by police. A few South and West Asian participants said they have had conversations in their community about differential treatment based on ethnicity, less positive interactions or fear of police officers. East Asian and White participants described conversations with friends and family about concerns over improper treatment of Black or Indigenous drivers by police during traffic stops.
"I’m the only person I know that gets pulled over by the police. I don’t have Black friends though. My wife [who is White] has never been stopped by the police." (Black)
"With friends, but not with family. Friends seem to be more engaged in police matters in general. There is a general feeling that there is racial profiling in policing. It is one thing if you get pulled over [for something specific], it’s another if you’re being racialized. It can be more dangerous or targeted. It can be more frequent if you are racialized. My friends who are not White say ‘yeah, I get pulled over all the time.’ People who are not White have more interactions with the police in general. Friends say they have to be really careful of what they say and how the interaction goes; being really aware of preventing the situation from escalating, feeling like they need to be the one to make sure the situation does not escalate. Anecdotally speaking, it seems to happen to [Black] males more than female." (Black)
"Have talked with my children. They know the do’s and don’t. Keep your hands on the steering wheel and wait. My friends are White and don’t go through the same things with traffic stops. I’m not as concerned with my kids because they are bi-racial and the colour of their skin is more fair and I don’t think they’ll have the same issues I had." (Black)
"One of my [Black] friends was pulled over for no reason at all, asked for license and registration, went back to the police cruiser for about a half hour, then came back to the car to give back documents and just let him go. No reason was given for being pulled over."(Black)
"Yes, I had friends talk about stops and run-ins with the police for sure. They all seem to say that there is immediately not a lot of respect in the encounter from the police side. It would be a bit nicer if there was more respect, at least to start, rather than immediately having a tone. I’ve heard about interactions where the police were immediately aggressive and lecturing." (Indigenous)
"Yes, they definitely focus more on people like me. I am stopped an average of 15 to 20 times a year! And my friends say the same happens to them as well. It is the men, more than the women who are stopped. They always say them are looking for someone/something. It has increased in the last few years. It’s like a way of life now. I am going to go into town later this week for groceries/supplies and I have about a 50% chance of being stopped. Sometimes I’m followed around in town as well, in my car. I see the police car behind me for blocks. It’s very discouraging and disheartening. You know that you have to go about your business and get things done, but you (also) know you are being watched and treated differently. It’s police harassment, but it happens all the time and they have the authority." (Indigenous)
"Very similar to mine (my experience) where they are being pulled over for no specific reason, or they are not being told why they’re being pulled over, whereas my mother—she’s White—if she gets pulled over people are always very polite to her, they’ll tell her why (she’s been stopped), treat her very kindly, so it’s quite the opposite experience of what I deal with or what my father, who is darker skinned, might deal with. So with us it’s more like they’re looking for a reason and with her it’s like their apologetic for even having pulled her over." (West Asian)
Many participants indicated that they have discussions with friends and family about the need for better officer training on treatment of citizens and racial bias.
"I believe there is systematic racism and there are a lot of people pulled over simply because of the way they look. I believe that’s how people are trained and that’s sort of an unconscious bias." (White)
"My views are probably a bit more critical than the media presents. More critical of policing in general than what the media portrays. There are going to be good and bad apples, but more concerned about the systemic approach to how traffic stops are performed and the procedures around it, rather than being up to the individual police officer to maintain decorum and follow process. Too much leeway for officers to take it into their own hands instead of following procedures." (Black)
However, some participants also said that they do not often talk about police traffic stops with friends or family; only when they feel they were unfairly given a traffic ticket.
"It depends on the type of stops. One of my good friends is a traffic lawyer. Any ticket I have, I go to him. In terms of conversations with friends, only the rolling stop one I talked about because that one irked me quite a bit." (Black)
"The ones you always hear about are when the officer is up on his high horse." (White)
"Occasionally, when something happens to someone; relating what happened, rightly or wrongly, that they didn’t deserve the ticket. Sharing of stories [minor traffic violations]." (East Asian)
A few participants said they were pulled over more often by police officers when they were younger; in part because they drove flashier cars, were out later, or, admittedly, drove faster. A few, particularly Black participants, said that they felt targeted by police during their younger years. These experiences included traffic stops but also walking down the street.
"Not so much lately, I’m older now, but when I was younger the neighbourhood I grew up in Calgary wasn’t the most affluent neighbourhood, so you’d get pulled over just because." (White)
"When I was younger, I used to be pulled over all the time. I had a car with tinted windows, big rims, sound system. I used to get pulled over weekly, for nothing except the car that I had." (Black)
"When I was much younger, I’m a Black man, I would say I was stopped and harassed like crazy. There was multiple times where I was pulled over with friends, pulled out of the car, frisked, roughed up, and then put back in the car." (Black)
Most participants had heard about police traffic stops on the news. Some said that they had heard about racial targeting by police during traffic stops on the news or about treating Black or Indigenous people aggressively. A few believed that this happens more in the United States than in Canada, and a few felt that occurrences are more public now due to the prevalence of smart phone cameras and social media. In fact, one Indigenous participant stated that one First Nations community is posting information about traffic stops to raise awareness of the perceived racial bias disproportionally targeting Indigenous peoples.
"I do hear about these conversations about carding, about say selecting Black people and picking them out and asking them if they own their car, and this and that. I’m aware of many such stories in the media, but I’ve never run into it myself or ever had any of my family or friends run into it." (South Asian)
"I think that it’s absolutely accurate, and may actually be even worse than is being reported. I think that people of colour, and immigrants are definitely being targeted. I’ve experienced it and my friends and family have experienced it. So I definitely think it’s true, everything I read about is kind of true, unfortunately." (West Asian)
"I would say that the majority of stories you hear of up here are attributed to race or marginalized societies. I would argue that the majority of stories I hear are about Black people in the states are the primary target group, followed by Hispanics. In Canada, it would be Indigenous groups." (East Asian)
"I have seen it [locally] on the news, personally, I haven’t experienced it. I am not Caucasian either, but I have never been stopped by the police because I’m not Caucasian. I’ve been stopped because I was speeding." (East Asian)
"I see the terrible videos in the states with Black people and traffic stops. I don’t see too much on the news about it in Canada. I suspect that it’s more aggressive or violent in the states, but I don’t have any hard evidence [that it’s any different in Canada]. The States is a little trigger happy. If the police pull you over for a traffic stop there, they already have the gun drawn, and that doesn’t happen in Canada, or not to me at least." (Black)
"As a Black male, getting pulled over by the police, I’m apprehensive about that. What I see in the news is American news or Indigenous people up north." (Black)
"Residents of the reserve have started taking pictures of these stops and posting them on Facebook just to say, look what is happening, ‘look, I got stopped again!’, to get it out there. To draw attention to it. But it’s hard to push back on the police; they are the one with the authority and power. You know you are being harassed but you can’t just turn around and say no." (Indigenous)
A few mentioned seeing information on the news concerning traffic stops, in terms of the accuracy of cannabis impairment testing, traffic stops related to COVID-19 related restrictions, or the December 2018 legislation that "police can stop anyone to breathalyze them without cause".
"Hearing more about cannabis level testing and what the science is and whether it really works/tells you anything about impairment levels. All know that alcohol level works and have been doing that for years, but the cannabis impairment testing is newer and not so well understood and tested." (White)
"In news people are up in arms about traffic stops about Covid ‘they can’t stop you, it’s a breach of privacy’ but if you haven’t done anything wrong, who cares, you don’t have anything to hide is the way I look at it." (White)
"Yes, there’s been talk in news of not being about to blow into breathalyser adequately and if you can’t do it, the police can immediately impound your car, which is concerning to me." (Indigenous)
Survey respondents were asked about their awareness of Canada’s legislative approach to the sex trade. Currently in Canada, it is illegal to profit from the sale of the sexual services of another person, to purchase sexual services, or to advertise sexual services. Most Canadians (86%) knew that profiting off the sale of someone’s sexual services is illegal. Over three-quarters (77%) knew it is illegal to purchase sexual services, while 61% knew it is illegal to advertise sexual services. Canada’s criminal law views those who sell their own sexual services as victims who need support and assistance to exit the sex trade, and therefore the sale of sexual services is not criminalized in most scenarios. The survey found 59% of Canadians incorrectly thought that selling sexual services is illegal. Very few, 3%, believed none of the listed aspects of the sex trade are illegal.
Q26. As you may know, some aspects of the sex trade are illegal in Canada. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following are illegal in Canada? (Respondents were able to select more than one response)
Base: n=3211
More than half (58%) of Canadians agreed that receiving a financial or other material benefit from the sale of the sexual services of others should be illegal; 25% disagreed. Forty-six per cent agreed that advertising the sale of others’ sexual services should be illegal. Fewer agreed that communicating in any place for the purpose of purchasing sexual services (40%) or purchasing sexual services (39%) should be illegal. Thirty-four per cent agreed that selling sexual services should be illegal; a higher proportion (44%) disagreed.
Q27a-e. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements...?
Base: n=3211
Thirty-five per cent of Canadians believed there should be exceptions to the provisions governing some of aspects of the sex trade. Another 44% felt there should be no exceptions.
Q32. Should there be any exceptions to any of these?
Base: n=3211
Among Canadians who believed there should be exceptions, similar proportions indicated there should be a legal age limit required (17%), the sex trade should generally be a legal or regulated business (15%), there should be punishment for those profiting or exploiting commercial sellers of sexual services (14%), or that if both parties are consenting there should be no repercussions (11%).
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q32a. Please explain. | n=1133 |
Legal age limit required | 17% |
Sex trade should be a legal/regulated business | 15% |
Punish those profiting/exploiting sex trade workers | 14% |
Both parties consenting are acceptable actions, there should be no repercussions | 11% |
Sellers of sexual services are doing so under their own free will/choice, there should be no repercussions | 5% |
All laws/situations merit exceptions, decisions should be made on a case by case basis, always exceptions/outstanding factors | 5% |
Physical sexual health exceptions/without punishment | 3% |
Exotic dancer's establishments advertising should be permitted/ exempt | 3% |
Necessary for protection/safety within the industry | 2% |
Advertising in certain appropriate places is acceptable | 2% |
Sellers of sexual services should be able to hire support services from legitimate businesses without repercussions to these businesses | 2% |
Legalization will decrease underground market/exploitation of workers/violence/illegal activity | 1% |
Comparisons to legalization of sex workers in other countries, system/infrastructure examples and precedents set | 1% |
Exceptions under conditions of harm/sexual assault/violence | 1% |
Should provide assistance/social services for sellers of sexual services to assimilate out of sex trade safely | 1% |
Other | 3% |
Don't know/No response | 13% |
The final series of questions, about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, were asked of online survey respondents only. After reading a description, 60% of respondents who participated in the survey online indicated they were not aware of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Another 12% were aware, while 26% were moderately aware.
Q33. How would you describe your level of awareness about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?
Base: n=2348
Just over one in five (21%) respondents who participated online indicated that they had heard about Sustainable Development Goal 16: to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies. The majority (71%), however, had not heard of Goal 16.
Q34. Have you heard anything about Sustainable Development Goal 16: to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies?
Base: n=2348
About one in five said they had heard about Sustainable Development Goal 16 from traditional or other media (23%), the United Nations (22%), civil society organizations (20%), or friends and family (20%). Fewer had heard about the goal through work (15%) or school (12%). Only 9% cited the Internet generally and 7% cited social media.
Col1 | Total |
---|---|
Q34a. From where did you hear about Sustainable Development Goal 16: to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies?* | n=578 |
Traditional media, media | 23% |
United Nations | 22% |
Civil society organizations | 20% |
Friends/ family/ colleagues | 20% |
Work | 15% |
School | 12% |
Internet | 9% |
Social media | 7% |
Television (general mention) | 2% |
Podcasts | 1% |
Other reading/literature | 1% |
Government sources | 1% |
Other | 4% |
Don't know/No response | 7% |
Half of Canadians indicated that all aspects of Sustainable Development Goal 16 were equally important. Eighteen per cent said that providing access to justice for all was most important. Another 12% believed that building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels was most important. Fewer (8%) thought that promoting peaceful and inclusive societies was most important.
Q35. Which part of Sustainable Development Goals 16 is most important to you as a Canadian?
Base: n=2348
The survey was developed cooperatively between the Ekos Research team and the Project Authority. The average time it took respondents to complete the survey was 17 minutes online and 25 minutes by telephone. The survey was pre-tested with 39 respondents (29 in English, 10 in French), including 25 collected online and 14 by telephone. Since no significant changes were made as the result of survey pre-testing, these cases were retained in the final sample.
Respondents to the online survey were 18 years of age and older and were randomly selected, with an oversample in the four target groups. The sample included all provinces and territories, and the survey was administered in English and French, as well as with an accessible link for those using a mobile phone or screen reading technology. The survey sample was pulled from an Ekos’ Probit panel, which is assembled using a random digit dial process for sampling from a blended land-line cell-phone frame, providing good coverage of Canadians with telephone access. All households/individuals in the Probit panel are contacted by telephone and the nature of the panel is explained in greater detail (as are Ekos’ privacy policies) and demographic information is collected. At this time, the online/off-line as well as landline/cell phone status is ascertained to determine the method of completing surveys (i.e., online, telephone, or mail). This variable of "type of telephone service" (cell phone only, landline only or both) collected at the time of screening is used to determine cell phone only sample.
A total of 3,211 surveys were completed between February 1 and March 5, 2021. The associated margin of error is up to plus or minus 1.7%, at a .95 confidence interval (i.e., 19 times out of 20).
Survey data collection adhered to the Government of Canada standard for public opinion research as well as all applicable industry standards. Ekos informed respondents of their rights under the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act and ensured that those rights were protected throughout the research process. This included: informing respondents of the purpose of the research; identifying both the sponsoring department and the research supplier; informing respondents that their participation in the study is voluntary, and that the information provided would be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.
Once the survey data were collected, the database was reviewed for data quality. Coding was also completed. The questions asking respondents about any previous involvement in the criminal or family justice systems were coded in a hierarchical manner when multiple responses were given, with respondents coded into one category which was highest on the list. The hierarchy for the criminal justice system was, from highest to lowest: work/volunteer, victim/survivor, arrested/charged, know someone, witness/jury. For the family justice system the hierarchy was: (personal) experience, family or friend, supported. Survey results were weighted to match key population characteristics (i.e., age, gender, education, region, Indigenous identity and ethnocultural group) using official population statistics from Statistics Canada (2016 Census). Combined with the sample selection process defined above, this ensures that the study sample is reasonably representative of the general population of Canada aged 18 years and older.
Data tables were created for each survey to isolate results for major subgroups to be used in the analysis (e.g., results for each age segment, gender, and region).
The response rate for the survey was 21% (23.5% in the sample collected online and 13.5% in the sample collected by telephone), using a formula developed by the Marketing Research Intelligence Agency in conjunction with the Government of Canada. A total of 9,821 invitations were sent by email, of which 41 were returned as undeliverable, for a resulting valid sample of 9,780. A total of 2,333 interviews were completed, resulting in a response rate of 23.5%. A total of 8,976 telephone numbers were attempted for recruitment. Of these, 1,952 telephone numbers were invalid, resulting in a remaining valid sample of 7,024. Of these, 32 were found to be out of scope (under 18) while 878 cases were completed, for a resulting response rate of 12.5%. Of the 878 cases, 314 (36%) were reached on a cell phone and 564 (64%) on a landline.
Col1 | Online | Telephone |
---|---|---|
Total Invited | 9,821 | 8,976 |
Invalid | 41 | 1,952 |
Out of scope | 0 | 32 |
Total valid | 9,780 | 7,024 |
Responding Units | 2,333 | 878 |
Response Rate (Responding Units over Total Valid Sample) | 23.9% | 12.5% |
A comparison of the unweighted sample with 2016 Census figures from Statistics Canada suggests that there are similar sources of systematic sample bias in the survey, following patterns typically found in most general public surveys. The survey sample was more educated than the general population, with 43% reporting university degrees, compared with 23% in the 2016 Census of population. There was also an under representation of those under 35 (16% compared with 27% in the 2016 Census of population. As previously described, each sample was weighted by region, age, gender, education, Indigenous identity, and ethnocultural group.
Age | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
---|---|---|
n= | 3211 | |
Under 35 | 16% | 27% |
35-44 | 16% | 16% |
45-54 | 19% | 18% |
55-64 | 22% | 18% |
65 up | 25% | 21% |
No response | 1% | -- |
Gender | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
Male | 51% | 48% |
Female | 48% | 51% |
Another gender | 1% | 1% |
Prefer not to answer | 1% | -- |
Education | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
High school or less | 17% | 39% |
College/CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma, some post-secondary | 39% | 34% |
University | 43% | 26% |
Prefer not to answer | 1% | -- |
Household Income | Sample | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
Under $40,000 | 20% | 20% |
$40,000 to just under $80,000 | 27% | 23% |
$80,000 to just under $120,000 | 19% | 30% |
$120,000 or higher | 21% | 23% |
Prefer not to answer | 12% | -- |
Born in Canada | Sample | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
Yes | 81% | 78% |
No | 18% | 22% |
Prefer not to answer | 1% | -- |
Indigenous | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
First Nations (North American Indian) | 4% | 2% |
Métis | 5% | 1% |
Inuit | 0.7% | .1 |
None of the above | 87% | 96% |
Prefer not to answer | 4% | -- |
Ethnocultural Group | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
East / Southeast Asian | 5% | 8% |
South / West Asian | 6% | 5% |
Black | 8% | 3% |
White | 60% | 78% |
Prefer not to answer | 3% | --% |
Type of community | Sample | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
Urban | 78% | 77% |
Rural | 17% | 19% |
Remote/ Reserve | 3% | 4% |
Region | Sample (unweighted) | Population |
n= | 3211 | |
British Columbia | 14% | 12% |
Alberta | 12% | 11% |
Saskatchewan/Manitoba | 6% | 6% |
Ontario | 39% | 38% |
Quebec | 19% | 23% |
Atlantic Provinces | 6% | 8% |
Northwest Territories | 3% | 0% |
Survey respondents who indicated they had experienced a traffic stop by police since December 2018 were asked about willingness to participate in a follow-up interview, conducted by phone, to further discuss the nature of this stop and their experiences at the time. Interview participants were selected based on survey responses, with a focus on the four target segments from the survey sample (Black, South/West Asian, East/Southeast Asian or Indigenous). All current or previous employees of the Government of Canada, or anyone who had participated in an interview or focus groups for Government of Canada public opinion research in the previous six months were excluded from participating.
A total of 27 interviews were conducted between March 9 and 24, 2021, each lasting 20 to 30 minutes, including six conducted in French. Specifically, interviews were conducted with seven participants self-identifying as Black, seven as Indigenous, five as White; four as East/Southeast Asian and four as South/West Asian. Participants were asked to describe their experiences with police traffic stops and general impressions of trends in this area. The recruitment script and interview guide can be found in Appendix C. Interview participants were provided with a $50 honorarium for their time.
Results of the interviews are described in shaded text, along with anonymized, illustrative quotes. It should be noted that the results of the interviews are qualitative in nature. These results should not be used to estimate numeric proportions or number of individuals in the population who hold a particular opinion as they are not generalizable. That is, results should not be assumed to be representative of the experiences of the wider population of Canada. These data are included to illustrate some experiences and perspectives. For this reason, terms such as "a few," "some" and "most" are used to broadly indicate views, rather than using specific percentages.
Thank you for your interest in taking this survey. The Government of Canada has hired Ekos Research to conduct a public opinion survey on behalf of the Department of Justice Canada. Si vous préférez répondre au sondage en français, veuillez cliquer sur français. The government is interested to know your views on a variety of topics related to the law and justice system. This survey is one way for the Department of Justice Canada to hear back from Canadians. Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential. Your answers will remain anonymous. Any information you provide will be administered in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act, and other applicable privacy laws. The survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. A few reminders before beginning... On each screen, after selecting your answer, click on the "Continue" button at the bottom of the screen to move forward in the survey. If you leave the survey before completing it, you can return to the survey URL later, and you will be returned to the page where you left off. Your answers up to that point in the survey will be saved. If you have any questions about how to complete the survey, please call Probit at 866.211.8881 or send an email to online@probit.ca. Thank you in advance for your participation.
In what year were you born?
Hesitant, QAGEX
In which of the following age categories do you belong?
What is your gender?
PART 1 – Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System (5 questions)
How would you describe your level of awareness when it comes to the role of the following areas in the Criminal Justice System? Q1: [interviewer:]On a scale from 1 Not at all aware, to 5 very aware
Police
Courts
Corrections
Thinking back to before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how confident were you that the Canadian criminal justice system was... Q2: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all confident, and 5 is very confident
fair to all people
accessible to all people
Today, how confident are you that the Canadian criminal justice system is... Q3: [interviewer:]Using the same scale
fair to all people
accessible to all people
Part 2 – Confidence in the family justice system
Now, turning to the family justice system. The family justice system in Canada extends beyond the courts and includes family justice services such as parent education sessions, supervised access, and family dispute resolution services. Issues such as divorce, parenting (custody and access), child and spousal support, as well as division of property are all handled by the family justice system.
How would you rate your knowledge of the family justice system? Q4: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all knowledgeable, and 5 is very knowledgeable
Thinking back to before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how confident were you that the family justice system in Canada was... Q5: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all confident, and 5 is very confident
fair to all people
accessible to all people
Today, how confident are you that the family justice system in Canada is... Q6: [interviewer:]Using the same scale
fair to all people
accessible to all people
Have you been involved with the family justice system in Canada within the past two years?
Yes, Q7
Before the pandemic was declared in the middle of March 2020, how would you describe your ability to access the family justice system in Canada? Q7: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is very easy to access and 5 is very difficult to access, with 3 being neutral
Yes, Q7
Today, how would you describe your ability to access the family justice system in Canada? Q7: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is very easy to access and 5 is very difficult to access, with 3 being neutral
What is your main source of information, that is, the source you would be most likely to use and access most often, about the Canadian family justice system?
Choose one
How comfortable would you be accessing the family justice system in the following scenarios? Q9: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all comfortable and 5 is very comfortable
Looking for information and reading about the family justice system online
Completing forms online using fillable PDF forms
Using video conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom, MS Teams, Google Meet, etc.) for what would normally be in-person meetings, mediation, or court sessions
Part 3 – Impaired Driving
Changes were made to Criminal Code impaired driving provisions in 2018. One of these changes introduced Mandatory Alcohol Screening or MAS in Canada. MAS gives police the authority to demand a breath test without having any suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol. Previously, police needed to have a reasonable suspicion that a driver had alcohol in their body before demanding that they provide a roadside breath test.
These changes came into effect on December 18, 2018.
Part 3a Alcohol-Impaired Driving
How would you describe your level of awareness of this legislative changes before today? Q10: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all aware, and 5 is very aware
Does knowing that the police have the authority to demand a roadside breath sample without suspicion that you have alcohol in your body impact your decision to drive after consuming alcohol? Q11: [interviewer:]Would you say: read list
Yes or No, Q11
Please explain why you think this.
How concerned are you about the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by alcohol? Q12: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all concerned and 5 is very concerned
How concerned are you about being charged personally with an alcohol-impaired driving offence?
What would be your biggest concern(s) about driving while impaired by alcohol if you were to do so?
(Select up to 3 responses) Q14: [interviewer:]Read list and ask for a yes/no for each one, read 1 at a time. If more than 3, go back over the list of those selected to accept only 3
We need your honest responses to these questions. Remember, your responses are completely confidential and no answers will be linked with identities.
In the past two years have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of consuming alcohol?
Yes, Q15
In the past two years, how often would you say this has occurred? Q15B: [interviewer:](Read list)
Yes, Q15
What was the reason for having driven within 2 hours of alcohol consumption?
Part 3b Drug Impaired Driving
Changes were made to Criminal Code drug impaired driving provisions in 2018. The changes permit law enforcement to use approved drug screening equipment to detect the presence of several drugs in the oral fluid of drivers, including any or all of THC from cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. During a roadside stop, police can demand an oral fluid sample if they suspect you have drugs in your body.
The legislative changes also enacted new offences for having prohibited levels of THC (the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) in the blood within two hours of driving. There are two prohibited limits for THC on its own: (1) having more than 2 nanograms (ng) of THC per millilitre (mL) of blood (but less than 5ng THC/mL) is a less serious offence and (2) having 5ng of THC/mL of blood is a more serious offence. It is also an offence to have 2.5 ng of THC/ml of blood combined with 50 mg of alcohol per 100 mL blood.
How would you describe your level of awareness of these legislative changes before today?
Introduction of approved roadside drug screening equipment Q18: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all aware, and 5 is very aware
Introduction of prohibited limits for THC in the blood within two hours of driving Q18: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all aware, and 5 is very aware
How concerned are you about... Q20: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all concerned, and 5 is very concerned
the dangers on the road from individuals driving while impaired by drugs
the dangers on the road from cannabis-impaired driving specifically
being charged personally with a drug impaired driving offence
What would be your biggest concern(s) about driving while impaired by cannabis if you were to do so?
(Select up to 3 responses) Q22: [interviewer:]Read list and ask for a yes/no for each one. Read them 1 at a time. If more than 3, go back over the list of those selected to accept only 3
We need your honest responses to these questions. Remember, your responses are completely confidential and no answers will be linked with identities.
In the past two years have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of using cannabis?
Yes, Q23
In the past two years, how often would you say this has occurred? Q23B: [interviewer:](Read list)
Yes, Q23
What was the reason for having driven within two hours of cannabis consumption? Q23C: [interviewer:](Do not read
Not No, Q23
Have you driven a motor vehicle within two hours of using cannabis in combination with alcohol?
In the past five years, have you been stopped by police while driving, for any reason? This could include stops for minor driving issues, or random sobriety stops.
Yes, Q24A
Was the most recent stop within the last two years?
Yes, Q24A
What was the reason given by the police for this most recent stop? The police... Q24C: [interviewer:](Read list)
Select all that apply
Other reason, Unclear, Q24C
Were you stopped by police and investigated for:
Other reason, Unclear, Q24C
Alcohol-impaired driving?
Other reason, Unclear, Q24C
Drug-impaired driving
Yes, Q24A
What was the outcome of the most recent stop?
Select all that apply Q24F: [interviewer:](Read list)
Part 4 – Sex trade
As you may know, some aspects of the sex trade are illegal in Canada. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following are illegal in Canada?
Select all that apply
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements: Q27: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree and 3 is neither
Purchasing sexual services should be illegal
Communicating in any place for the purpose of purchasing sexual services, should be illegal
Selling sexual services should be illegal
Advertising the sale of others' sexual services, including in print media, on websites or in locations that offer sexual services for sale, such as erotic massage parlours or strip clubs, should be illegal
Receiving a financial or other material benefit from the sale of sexual services of others, including from participation in business activities involving the sex trade, should be illegal
Should there be any exceptions to any of these?
Yes, Q32 Please explain.
Part 5 – Access to Justice. Online only
In September 2015, Canada and all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda). As part of the 2030 Agenda there are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that aim to address today's social, economic and environmental challenges. These goals recognize that ending poverty must go hand in hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality and spur economic growth—all while tackling climate change and working to protect and preserve the environment.
Online only
How would you describe your level of awareness about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals? Q33: [interviewer:]On a scale where 1 is not at all aware and 5 is very aware
Online only
Have you heard anything about Sustainable Development Goal 16: to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies?
Yes, Q34. Online only
From where did you hear about Sustainable Development Goals 16: to promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies?
Select all that apply Q34A: [interviewer:]Read list
Online only
Sustainable Development Goal 16 has three elements 1) promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development 2) providing access to justice for all and 3) building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Online only
Which part of Sustainable Development Goals 16 is most important to you as a Canadian?
Please select one. Q35: [interviewer:]Read list of top 3 again
The following questions will be used for statistical purposes only. All responses are strictly confidential.
Have you ever been involved in the criminal justice system?
Select all that apply. Q36: [interviewer:]Read list and accept yes/no for each one. Read 1 at a time
Have you ever been involved in the family justice system in any of the following ways?
Select all that apply. Q37: [interviewer:]Read list and accept yes/no for each one. Read 1 at a time
What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed to date? QINC: [interviewer:](Read list)
Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household, before taxes?
Were you born in Canada?
QINDIG
Do you identify as: QINDIG: [interviewer:](Read list)
Not Indigenous, QINDIG
People living in Canada come from many different ethno-cultural backgrounds or countries. Do you consider yourself to be:
Select up to two answers. QETHN: [interviewer:]Read list
Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you...? QEMP: [interviewer:](Read list)
In what type of community do you live? QTYPE: [interviewer:](Read list)
What are the first three characters of your postal code?
Hesitant, QFSA
In which province or territory do you live?
Thank you, those are all the questions we have for you today.
Screened out
Thank you for your time. We appreciate your interest in the study. If you have any questions about the study feel free to contact us in the future toll-free at 1-800-388-2873 or by email at online@probit.ca.
The Department of Justice has commissioned Ekos Research to conduct public opinion research on Canadians’ views on a number of justice-related topics. This research will inform ongoing and future policy development, communications, and public engagement on justice-related issues.
As part of this study, Ekos is conducting a number of one-on-one interviews with Canadians, talking specifically about experiences with and perceptions related to traffic stops by the police. You recently completed our National Justice Survey and indicated your willingness to be contacted for a follow up interview. In this interview, we will ask some follow-up questions about a traffic stop that you reported in the survey, as well as some general questions about your perceptions of traffic stops.
The interview is expected to last about 20 minutes. Participation is voluntary and your confidentiality will be respected. No information that might directly or indirectly reveal your identity will be released or published without your specific consent to the disclosure. The interview will, however, be recorded to allow the interviewer to prepare summary notes from the interview. The recording will be destroyed once the project has been completed.
You indicated in the survey that you had been stopped by the police while driving in the last few years. Can you describe your experience(s) with police traffic stop(s) since December 2018?
What was the reason that the police gave for stopping you (if different from your perception of why you were stopped)?
What happened during the stop? What was the process like? [probe: did you feel you were treated differently? In what way?]
Were you asked to provide a breath or oral fluid sample, or perform roadside sobriety tests (e.g., were you asked to walk and turn)?
What was the outcome of the stop?
Do you ever talk about occurrences of police traffic stops generally with friends (from the same or other racialized group?) or family? What are those conversations usually like? (probe for themes, types of stops, concerns)
Have any of your friends (from the same or other racialized group?) or family described their own experiences with police traffic stops since December 2018 that they have told you about?
Do you hear much on the news about police traffic stops? What kinds of things do you hear? What type of news media to you typically go to for information?
Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share?
Thank you for your participation