Justice Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. It is Thursday, February 7, 2008, and the committee is under direction to study the matters related to impaired driving. We have a number of witnesses appearing.

First, from the Canadian Police Association, we welcome Mr. Tony Cannavino and Mr. David Griffin. I understand that Louise Nadeau, from the University of Montreal Research Group on the Social Aspects of Health and Prevention, is not here yet. She will be here shortly. From the Traffic Injury Research Foundation we have Robyn Robertson.

Welcome all.

According to our agenda, we'll proceed in that fashion. I turn the floor over to Mr. Cannavino.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning your comprehensive review of matters related to impaired driving.

The CPA is the national voice for 57,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 170 member associations, CPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages, to our largest municipal cities, to provincial police services, to the RCMP.

Let me begin by thanking the committee for the work you and your colleagues in the House of Commons completed with respect to the issue of drug-impaired driving as addressed in Bill C-32, and subsequently in Bill C-2. We anxiously await these important measures and remain hopeful that the honourable members of the Senate will see fit to proceed with swift passage of the important legislation.

Motor vehicle collisions caused by impaired drivers are not accidents; these are crimes. Impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Despite our collective best efforts and intentions, it is apparent that the problem of impaired driving is worsening in Canada, and we are losing ground in our efforts to eliminate impaired driving.

We need a coordinated and integrated approach involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system, and we welcome the work of the committee in this regard. We would point out, however, that there have been numerous committees, bills, and studies over the past decade. The real problem seems to be in moving forward, beyond consultations, with adequate legislation and implementation.

We submit that the areas that need to be addressed in your review include the following.

The first is a legislative preamble. We would like Parliament to provide guidance to the judiciary through a legislative preamble or statement of principles, which acknowledges the inherent risks of impaired driving and the importance of meaningful and proportionate consequences for those who endanger the lives of others and of themselves.

The second is a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. Currently the legislated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit is 0.08%. Given the margin of error accepted by the courts, this has been de facto enforced as a 0.10% limit, as police and prosecutors will not normally prosecute for less than 0.10%. Proposals have been advanced to reduce the legislative BAC to 0.05%. While the CPA does not have an official position on this issue, there is compelling evidence to suggest that this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed as part of a coordinated and integrated approach to Impaired Driving. Experience across the country varies by provincial legislative scheme and enforcement mechanisms. More work can and needs to be done, and Canada needs to adopt a strategy to address this issue.

The third is maximizing available technologies. We would encourage the committee to consider mechanisms to enable greater flexibility to improve the use of technology in combating Impaired Driving. Suggestions include enabling Mandatory Alcohol Interlock programs as a component or alternative to a mandatory driving prohibition period, and streamlining the approval process for Approved Instruments and Alcohol Screening Devices.

The fourth is random roadside breath testing. Presently Canadian police officers may only administer a roadside test using an Alcohol Screening Device when the officer has reason to suspect a driver may have consumed alcohol. Unfortunately this is not always practical especially when dealing with drivers involved in motor vehicle collisions. Some countries have permitted the use of random roadside breath testing, with significantly increased results. This recognizes that driving on Canadian roads and highways is a privilege, and not a right. Random testing of drivers is a reasonable and efficient measure to deal with a serious public safety concern. It is no more inconvenient to submit to a random test on our roadways than to be screened and searched at airports, public buildings, and public events.

The fifth is extending the presumption of temporality. This would enable evidentiary breath and blood samples taken within three hours of the alleged impaired driving offence to be admissible as evidence of the accused person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of the offence.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended to increase from two to three hours the time period within which the police could demand evidentiary breath and blood samples from suspected impaired drivers. However, Parliament failed to make any corresponding amendments to the presumptions of temporality. Consequently, the breath and blood analyses are still only presumed to reflect the suspect's BAC at the time of the alleged offence, if the samples are taken within two hours.

The time constraints under the criminal code can be a problem for a police officer if the arrest occurred in a rural area or on a busy night, or if the officer was delayed in assisting crash victims or securing an accident scene.

The presumptions relieve the prosecutor of the time-consuming and costly obligation of calling a toxicologist in each impaired driving case. A prosecutor who wishes to introduce samples taken outside of the limit must still call a toxicologist to testify. Given the time, expense and complexity of obtaining such evidence, the charges will most likely be withdrawn except in cases involving death and serious injury.

The sixth is authorizing police to videotape field sobriety and drug recognition tests. Where practical, police should have the authority to videotape and submit, as evidence, the testing of impaired drivers. Many police agencies have found that the use of such technology assists police in demonstrating the demeanour, behaviour and condition of an accused person. It reduces the potential for frivolous public complaints and reduces the potential for dispute over test results.

In conclusion, impaired driving is not an accident, but a serious crime with tragic consequences. Canada requires a coordinated and integrated approach, involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

I'll just go over to the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

Ms. Robertson, it's your opportunity.

And welcome, Madame Nadeau.

[Robyn Robertson, Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation]

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation. I have some information that I think you will find interesting.

Our submission mainly focuses on lowering the BAC limit to 0.05. We have provided some supplemental information on ignition interlocks as well as continuous alcohol monitoring, which are being used in other jurisdictions to monitor offenders.

In the last several years there has been a lot of debate surrounding the 0.05 issue. Until this time, I think much of the debate has focused on the strength of the scientific evidence, or lack thereof. Our organization has produced a number of reports on this issue, as have other organizations. So today I am not going to speak to the scientific evidence, but I will speak to the practical implications.

Our organization, with funding from Transport Canada as well as the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, surveyed 1,000 lawyers in Canada, both crown and defence counsel, and asked them about the issue of impaired driving. One of the issues we touched on was lowering the limit. I think the findings from the survey certainly provide insight into how well the justice system is currently coping with impaired driving offences, and what the implications will be for the justice system if we lower the BAC to 0.05.

I don't think it comes as any surprise that the majority of cases that go through the system are usually at 0.10 or above. We do see some 0.08 to 0.10 offences prosecuted, but the vast majority of cases are generally over the 0.10. Again, that's something we have to keep in mind as we look at the rest of the results.

The criminal caseload of crown prosecutors is approximately four times that of defence attorneys. In a given year, a crown prosecutor will handle some 450 cases, relative to about 115 cases for defence counsel. So from the outset, I think we see vast inequities in terms of the magnitude of the overall criminal caseload. If you're looking specifically at an impaired driving caseload, on average about one-quarter of all criminal cases are impaired-driving related. This does vary by jurisdiction, from as low as 17% to as high as 30%.

Also, we have to keep in mind that a significant portion of the cases currently processed through the justice system involve repeat offenders. These are offenders who pose a higher risk and, certainly, offenders who contribute more significantly to the alcohol crash problem.

So the variations in the caseload between the crown and the defence are quite substantial. At this time, crowns are certainly working at a disadvantage.

Lowering the BAC limit obviously is going to result in even more cases coming into the justice system, an issue I'll speak to in a few moments. Given the inequities we have today, we have to understand that those inequities are going to become even more pronounced as we increase the volume of offenders coming into the system.

If you look at how cases are resolved, you'll see that close to half, or more than 40%, of impaired driving cases proceed to trial. Obviously that has implications for the resources available in the justice system. It's much easier and quicker to resolve cases through things such as plea agreements. Plea agreements account for about 16% of the resolutions, but as I said, more than 40% go to trial.

Generally, from what we understand from the input of crowns and defence attorneys, people go to trial not just because of the penalties associated with a conviction, but also because of the sheer consequences of having a criminal conviction on your record. I think the implications since 2001 of criminal conviction have become much more pronounced. So I don't think there's any reason to believe that people at lower BAC readings are simply going to resolve their cases by taking a plea and a conviction, because at the end of the day, that conviction has serious consequences and is one of the key concerns.

Looking at preparation time, crowns generally spend one-half or one-quarter as much time as defence attorneys in preparing cases. Again, relative to the size of the caseload and the inequities within it, it's not surprising they spend so little time preparing cases relative to defence attorneys. Again, I think you're going to see those inequities become much more pronounced as the volume of cases going into the system increases.

Prosecutors will tell us that the conviction rate on average is about 52%, which is shockingly low. It ranges from anywhere from 41% to 75% across jurisdictions. Obviously you can see why so many people are inclined to go to trial; if you've got a 50-50 shot of being acquitted, I think most people would take their chances and go to trial, particularly to avoid a criminal conviction. Clearly, the specific deterrent effects of the law are being eroded when we can't even convict the offenders that we currently have coming through the justice system.

How long does it take to resolve cases currently? If you're talking about a plea agreement, you're looking at about six months; if you're talking about a summary conviction trial, it's about 11 months; if you're looking at a trial that proceeds by indictment, you're looking at 14 months. Again, the deterrent effect of the law is certainly being eroded. If it takes offenders more than a year to have their cases resolved, I would say that sanctions certainly are not swift, and given the 52% conviction rate, they're not certain either. I think the general and specific deterrent effect of laws is certainly being eroded with the cases we currently have.

When we asked crowns flat out if they support it, 40% of them agreed, which means 60% of them didn't. You see variations across jurisdictions, but given the inequities in caseload, given the inequities in case preparation time, given the fact that they face such challenges convicting the people we already have, you can understand the lack of support for increasing the volume of cases going through the justice system.

In 2006 there were some 74,000 criminal incidents of impaired driving. On average, year to year we're already processing about 50,000 criminal cases through the justice system. We asked the provincial jurisdictions that record them how many 0.05-and-above offences they record. From those that gave us a number, we came up with 47,000. You can see right there that all of those 47,000 provincial charges would be converted criminal charges, so you've already doubled the number. That's not counting Alberta, that's not counting Ontario, and that's not counting Quebec. Quebec does not have a lower limit; with federal legislation they will have a lower limit, which means we can expect an equal portion, if not a larger portion, of offenders in that range to come from Quebec. By lowering the legal limit, you will at a minimum double, if not triple, the number of criminal cases already being processed. Again, given four times the caseload, half as much time to prepare, and a 50% conviction rate, you have to understand what the consequences are going to be of doubling the volume of cases going through the justice system.

Certainly lowering the BAC will result in more time to prosecute and close these cases. It will detract from the focus we have on higher-BAC offenders, higher-risk offenders, and repeat offenders. The level of resources really isn't going to be there to be able to sustain that type of volume within the system.

I don't think we can expect conviction rates to improve. Again, our conviction rates are very important to us. That's what deters offenders from reoffending.

I think we've seen that lower-BAC drivers can be dealt with within an administrative system. Certainly that administrative system needs to be enhanced, and Transport Canada and CCMTA have been working on that. They have developed a strategy and a method for doing that. I think those efforts should be encouraged and continued, just given what the criminal justice system and what the lawyers working within it are currently trying to cope with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Robertson.

Go ahead, Ms. Nadeau.

[Louise Nadeau, Full Professor, Research Group on the Social Aspects of Health and Prevention (GRASP), Université de Montréal]

Bonjour à tous.

The report has been written in French, but I will speak in English.

I'm a scientist, and I work with a group of scientists who are essentially examining repeat offenders and the risk of people who have been arrested. I will speak about our concerns. Our data comes from Quebec, and essentially what I will be speaking about is the situation in Quebec.

First, I really want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of this committee. It's an honour. I will describe the situation as our team sees it and then give our recommendations.

One of the first things that strike us is the fact that the probability of being arrested when you're driving while intoxicated in Quebec is 1:500 to 1:2,000. That probability is extremely low, and I'll come back to that.

Secondly, as Robyn Robertson just spoke about, the probability of being convicted once you've been arrested is 50%. Now, what does that mean concretely? That means that if you have the means to hire a lawyer, you will do that. Given that the lawyer is paid by the hour, the more you can pay that individual, the more the individual will find faults in the procedure. The blood alcohol level will not be put into question, because right now those tests are quite reliable. What will be put into question is how the policeman has worked.

That has impact on the Quebec policemen. We would be blind not to think so. This means that if somebody who probably has a high blood alcohol level is driving a car that shows this person has means, most of the policemen will just turn their eyes away, because those are the folks who probably can afford a lawyer. The impact of that right now is that we have a two-tier justice system in this area. People who are comfortable probably don't get arrested, or if they do get arrested, they hire lawyers and get out, which means the poor folks are suddenly convicted.

Quebec has taken the extraordinary decision of making sure we have an assessment of those who are arrested, and we really commend la Société de l'assurance automobile for having done that. The idea behind that, and the idea of the Assemblée nationale, was to evaluate those who are arrested, evaluate the risk of recidivism in order to get those folks into treatment, getting the care they need, and getting them to change their behaviour to save lives.

That whole concept is exactly where Canada needs to go. However, when you look at the way the process is applied, the story is different. The story is that if you have a satisfactory evaluation, you are evaluated and you are not seen as having a risk. It still has cost you $4,000. If, on the other hand, you have a non-satisfactory evaluation, then the cost goes up to $7,000. These generally are poor folks. As a result, the concept was created so that we could get dangerous people off the roads. In fact, what we are seeing is people simply don't go to the assessment.

In our report you will see a paper that's currently under print—the first author is Tom Brown—and what we find is that the non-compliants, the people arrested who simply do not go to the assessment and drive without a licence, are the most severe cases. Since we're looking at them in our data bank, I can also tell you that those people are the poorest. As a result, what we know from the international literature is that anybody driving without a licence has a higher probability of having an accident.

So the end result right now is that the legislation in Canada is probably adequate, but the way it's applied has a consequence. We have the wealthy people driving, probably with high blood alcohol levels, and the reality is that your perception and your time of reaction is equivalent, be you rich or poor. That doesn't make a difference. So they are quite dangerous. On the other hand, you have the poor people who cannot afford to go through the process, and they are driving without a licence, increasing the risk.

What are our recommendations? You will soon have the translation of the report that was done by Jean-Marie De Koninck. The report is clear. It has very interesting recommendations, and our team thought that maybe we could point out some of those recommendations. But right now for this committee, we have five recommendations, given the research work we're doing. I'm essentially looking at what our work as scientists has taught us.

First, it's clear that we need to increase the probability of being arrested in Quebec and probably in Canada. The beliefs have to change. For beliefs to change, you have to have more surveillance or you have to do what France has done and other countries have done, and put in sensors so people will be watched. That's key. Unless we change that, we will have other results like we had in Quebec in 2006: people believe that they will not be arrested if they drive while intoxicated, and that's the first problem. Two thousand seven hundred people die in Canada because of road accidents, and about one-third are linked to alcohol.

The other thing we need to do is look at why the ratio of conviction is so low. Madame Robertson has spoken about that. We have spoken about that. It doesn't make sense that 50% of these folks get off.

The third thing we need to do is better understand recidivism. Our research—and you'll find the bibliography shows this--is one study. We can't generalize it. The work has to be redone with other teams.

What we're finding is that these people have no memory and these people have no executive function. What does that mean? It means that you have people who, for whatever reasons—either biological or because they drank so much—(a) cannot remember, and (b) think that if they do this then this is going to happen. That's executive function. So they get in their car, and they're not able to anticipate that if they do this then this is going to happen. That's exactly the winning cocktail for another case of recidivism.

We need to think of drunk driving, given the fact that now we're starting to understand the neuro-psychological limits of these people. We've seen them as wicked. If we want to change the fatalities on Canadian roads, we need to think of strategies that take into account who they really are, and not who we think they are. Of course, putting in ignition interlocks would be a winning strategy. Right now they have to pay for them, and as a result, they don't use them. We need to rethink our strategy if we want to be effective.

Finally, the other thing that is extremely important, which we do not speak about and which is out of this field, is controlling speed. In France, because they put sensors in, the rate of accidents involving alcohol has been reduced. When you're drunk, you take risks. The regular alcoholic, 50 years old, who knows he's an alcoholic, knows he's drunk, drives slowly, makes his stops, and is super prudent and doesn't get arrested. If you're drunk and you know that there are sensors around, you're still not crazy because you're drunk. You know that you can't take risks, because you're going to be caught. You know you can't speed, because you're going to be caught, and you're in a world where speed is forbidden.

Unless we work on speed and risk-taking on the roads as a Canadian priority, we won't be able to achieve our goal, which is essentially to increase the security of Canadians on our roads. That's essentially what our team has to convey to you.

Again, I was honoured to speak to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Madame Nadeau. We appreciate that.

We go now to questions.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

If I don't finish with my time, Mark will use the rest of it.

Tony, it's great to see you again.

[Tony Cannavino]

It's always a pleasure.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

We noticed in one of the last bills we were doing that in most places there was really no control over the maintenance of the Breathalyzer machines. I was wondering, if we put in regulations saying that they had to be maintained by an outside independent body and certified every so many years, if that would give the judges more confidence and bring more people to conviction without all these ones getting off.

Would that help that situation?

[Tony Cannavino]

First of all, I forgot to introduce my colleague here, who I'm pretty sure you all know. Mr. Dave Griffin is the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.

By the way, he was a Breathalyzer technician, so he knows a little bit more about everything that is involved and the technicalities. I would like Mr. Griffin to answer most of this question.

[David Griffin, Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you.

I haven't done a Breathalyzer test for 20 years, so my experience is somewhat dated. I was a Breathalyzer technician for four years; I did about 440 tests and received my training at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto. They, at that point in time, and I believe still today, administered the provincial Breathalyzer system in Ontario and did the certification of the machines and the training for police officers.

Certainly the machines have probably changed since I was doing tests 20 years ago, but they were a fairly simple device in which issues of calibration and that type of thing weren't really a significant concern. I understand the point about the confidence of the judiciary, but I'm not sure that the adequacy of the device, or the instrument itself, is the reason we're seeing the problems with the conviction rate.

In many cases the reading is not the issue; it seems to be more an issue around the procedures followed by the officer up until the time of arrest--from the time of the arrest until the time the Breathalyzer samples were taken--and then other factors that the defence may call into question during their examination. Certainly if there was a belief, or if it was established, that the confidence in the equipment is an issue, then perhaps that type of step would be necessary. But certainly, that wasn't my experience during my time.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Ms. Robertson, I also have a problem with the increasing penalties that go with a criminal record, even though it has nothing to do with the criminal system; it just happens to be extraneous things that make it very difficult. We have them come into our office all the time, actually, so I see that as a problem.

I understand what you're saying, that if you change it to 0.05, with the stats you're giving, it might overwhelm the justice system. Some of the provinces have put in these various roadside methods for punishing people and deterring them, and if more of the provinces did more of those types of initiatives, I wonder if it would keep people out of the justice system, but also keep them off the roads, and be a penalty that we could use to deal with some of the problems.

[Robyn Robertson]

Yes, a lot of the jurisdictions do have 0.05 in place, with the exception of Quebec, and they have been moving in the last few years to increase the sanctions. For starters, some of them are actually going to record that people have had 0.05, but they're also going to have increasing licence suspensions associated with them. For some, they may be required to go for an evaluation of some sort, and there are graduated sanctions. I think that makes a more feasible approach to dealing with the issue.

Our concern is that if you have a lot of lower BAC cases in the system, then that takes your attention away from the higher BAC. Transport Canada and CCMTA have done some great work on developing a strategy for 0.05 and developing tiered sanctions, which is what they do in a lot of other countries. Some provinces have already moved to implement that strategy, so I think further encouraging and supporting those efforts is important.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Ms. Nadeau, what you were saying was music to my ears, but I just want to make sure I got it right. Your studies show that, because of what a person is and the condition they're in when they're getting in a car, either increasing penalties or changing levels, all these things, might be totally incomprehensible to them, and there may be other steps we could take to prevent impaired accidents.

You mentioned a key one, but I'm sure you've also mentioned dealing with the addiction before they get back in the vehicle. Maybe you could expand on that.

[Louise Nadeau]

At this point what we're looking at is that in order to get a person who's addicted into a change process, the context has to be not as repressive as it is right now. That's one point.

Second is that—even though I hate to say this, because in fact they should be responsible—if it's too costly, they won't do it, because generally they're poor.

The third thing is that probably we need to look at more mechanical means, such as interlock devices. If somebody can't remember, then you'd better have an apparatus in the car that at least stops that person from driving when they're drunk.

In fact, we're doing it for people.... Once you're 75 years old...I don't know the exact age, my data is not clear on that. But when you're increasing in age, you have to be tested every year, because we do acknowledge that not everybody can drive a car. Some people are 40 years old and they can't drive a car. Probably we're going to have to become more sophisticated with that, and implementing that is very difficult. Maybe we should look at how we make sure our cars don't start when people are drunk.

At this point, the results we're getting with the folks we're seeing.... Also we did qualitative studies; we spoke to them and we asked them how they viewed these things. We did this blind, and I was able, by reading the answers of these people, to know if they were recidivists or not, because the more they're recidivists, the less they see themselves as responsible or see that they can put other peoples lives in danger.

We had people who had been arrested once, and you have this clear statement, “Thank God I didn't kill anybody. And even if I'm paying $4,000, it's not a lot, because I didn't kill anybody”. You know this person is not a recidivist.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the folks who, of course, are responsible for a large fraction, and we need to be able to.... I'm going to say this, I hope it sounds right. Ideally, I would like to beat these people, but I know it won't work. We're going to have to think of a means to protect us against them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Nadeau, the last time you appeared before this committee, I believe it was studying the fetal alcoholism regulations introduced by Mr. Szabo. I remember I very much appreciated your testimony. We continued the conversation in the West Block cafeteria. We talked about various things, subjects that don't necessarily concern committee members.

I see, and this is important, that there is a common point in your testimony. You say there are limits to what can be expected from criminal law. It's not at all clear that criminal law is always the key to achieving our objectives, that is to say road safety and public protection.

You said one thing that struck me, and I'd like you to go back to that. In your view, we shouldn't form an idea of these people, but rather find out who they are and how they operate. You seem to draw a distinction between people who manage to slip through the system and who, even if they intoxicated, are clear-headed enough not to get caught, and the inveterate drinkers who, even when they are caught, aren't deterred by the penalties they receive. Criminal law won't enable us to progress in that sense. You offered some suggestions with regard to prevention and remote starters.

Please be more explicit so that we can understand more exactly what you want to recommend to us.

[Louise Nadeau]

First, it's important to understand that all the laws that have been passed in Canada, whether in the House of Commons or in the Quebec National Assembly, have been passed in good faith. Elected representatives really wanted to opt for the best solution.

Second, the problems arise when you enforce those laws. For example, some people can afford to hire a lawyer, who will find a procedural error. Despite what our colleagues say, blood alcohol tests are currently calibrated so that people aren't convicted in spite of dangerous blood alcohol levels. The lawyer doesn't question the blood alcohol level, but rather the procedure. Did the police officer put a comma in the right place? Did he do this or that? If a police officer is humiliated five times in court, the next time, he closes his eyes if rich people are involved.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Did you look into that question?

[Louise Nadeau]

No, we don't have any data on the subject, but the samples we have of individuals who were convicted are surprisingly poor. The reason why we've been supported is that we have a representative sample of people convicted, which is very rare in the area of scientific documentation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Allow me to make an aside to emphasize that Bill C-2—which we passed, but which the Senate is slow in ratifying, which stresses the Conservatives—contains a measure concerning the defence of witnesses. Their two-beer defence has thus been eliminated. You say that there's a question of social condition related to whether people are convicted. I'm very sensitive to that.

[Louise Nadeau]

Furthermore, when the Quebec National Assembly decided that people had to be assessed, that was simply to facilitate change. They thought that these citizens could change. In fact, when you look at the process, getting your licence back is a real obstacle course. The National Assembly was in good faith, but the reality in the field is slightly different. A selection occurs regarding who is convicted. As the De Koninck report indicates, this process costs approximately $4,000. The average Canadian who earns $10,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year can't spend that much to get his licence back. From a certain standpoint, we're creating a form of delinquency and deviance, whereas that was not the National Assembly's intent. Nor was it the intent of the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec. However, the implementation of that decision has produced these kinds of results.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We obviously can't not give Mr. Cannavino the floor. I emphasize that I don't want you to comment on the police laxism that Ms. Nadeau talked to us about it. I don't want to make you uncomfortable. I'll let you react to what Ms. Nadeau said.