Evidence of meeting #72 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was alcohol.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Okay.
With regard to the two-beer defence, does the department have statistics on the number of acquittals currently being obtained by the use of the two-beer defence?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
No, actually we have a lot of anecdotal evidence. We have some statistics from various courts on the overall rates of acquittals, which are reaching almost 50% now in some courts in the over 80 milligram cases. But they do not specify whether these were over 80 or from an intervening drink, or whether there was a mistake made in the demand. We can't work that one out. We are told by our colleagues that it is the most popular defence.
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
Yes, it's an expensive defence.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Do we have an estimate of how many additional convictions we will obtain?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Does Juristat have any additional figures beyond what the department has on this point of the rate of conviction?
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
No, they have overall figures for all impaired driving charges. It's my understanding that they put them all together: straight impaired driving, over-80 cases, and refusals are all counted as one. So they have an overall conviction rate for that, but they don't break the data down for over-80s, in this particular defence.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
When this bill was before this committee in the last Parliament, there was a good deal of evidence taken with regard to the research that was going on, particularly in Europe, to try to establish a scientific test for the amount of marijuana that would impair one. I think we took that evidence about 18 or 20 months ago. Do you have any additional or new information as to how that research is going?
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
I do know that a couple of European countries have established levels per se for the active ingredient of marijuana. But I'm not aware of any more recent research that establishes what basis they did that on, beyond what we had before.
I believe Corporal Graham is aware of research about how ineffective have been the attempts to detect drugs at the side of the road. Europe has been working on that, and we've been hoping they would come up with a roadside test that would help us on that.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Cpl Evan Graham
First of all, for the impairing levels of marijuana or other drugs, one of the problems they're running into is the same as we have with alcohol. Although the permissible level in Canada is 80 milligrams percent or 0.08, everybody is different. We have people who can be grossly impaired at 0.02, and cannot even be suspended in any province in Canada, and other people who show very little impairment at 200.
To try to use that with the number of drugs that are out there would be a nightmare. I think back to when I was working the streets as a traffic officer, and the number of impaireds. It was a constant battle, because trying to convince somebody that a person was impaired when their blood alcohol level was at or near the legal limit, compared to somebody who was at twice the legal limit...people think that twice the legal limit equals twice the impairment, and that's simply not the case. Everybody is different.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
May 30th, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Welcome, Minister.
I'm really interested in this particular bill. I doubt that there's anybody sitting around this table who hasn't been affected one way or another through a tragedy of some sort, some family that you're acquainted with, in regard to impaired driving. We know how serious a problem it is.
I want to ask you a couple of things. There's a family in my area, good friends of mine, who lost a 16-year-old daughter to a wreck when she was sitting on a two-lane highway trying to turn left. A gravel truck was coming and while she was sitting there, she was rear-ended by another vehicle and, unfortunately, her wheels were turned to the left and she was knocked in front of the gravel truck. Needless to say, it killed her.
During that process, her body was immediately taken to an area and tested in every way, fashion and form, but the driver of the other vehicle--I might point out, it was in a kind of remote area and it took a good 40 minutes for police and ambulances and everybody to get to the scene--who wasn't injured and didn't get hurt, was never tested in any way, fashion or form. It was suspected by the firemen who were the first to get there that the individual, who was a 40-year-old fellow, should have been tested because they suspected he was impaired.
How will this bill change that kind of scenario?
My second question is this. I watch a lot of court cases.... Well, if you want to respond to that first one, I'll get into this in a minute.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
It's a question of enforcement, Mr. Thompson, by police across this country. Most of the interactions are with municipal police or provincial police or, in provinces where there are no provincial police, the RCMP. But it's a question of enforcement and following up when there are suspicious circumstances. I think one of the benefits of a bill like this is that by updating the Criminal Code, we help raise awareness. I think it does its part in terms of getting the message out that we're having a look at this very serious problem and that we're making sure the Criminal Code has been modernized.
I pointed out to you, for instance, the changes with respect to the penalties. You can't leave it at $600 forever. It should be $1,000. I remember when the standard fine for impaired driving was $150--just one right after another. I remember wondering why, for somebody who was picked up for shoplifting, for instance, the standard fine for shoplifting was $200. So even as a young lawyer, I was quite aware of the fact that impaired driving is a much more serious assault on our country's values--a much more serious offence, in my opinion, than somebody who's picking up some food out of a grocery store.
So I asked myself those questions 26 or 27 years ago, when I was practising criminal law, and I remember when the minimums were raised. I was a member of the government at the time, but again, I look at it today and know we must continually modify the law to make sure it reflects the seriousness with which the impaired driving offence is held in society.
Mr. Yost, I know you wanted to make a comment.
4:25 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
With respect to the situation that you outlined, Mr. Thompson, this bill would, in the new proposed subsection 254(2), perhaps go a long way to helping. The current law allows a police officer to demand a roadside screening breath test if they suspect a person--and these are the words--“who is operating a motor vehicle”. Now, the courts have allowed a little bit of time, but if it takes 40 minutes for the police to straighten out who has done what, that person's not operating. If they just suspect alcohol but they haven't got reasonable and probable grounds, they can't ask for the screening test to see how the person will blow.
The new provision that we propose is that if the police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours been operating a vehicle with alcohol in their system—so if the police officers smell alcohol 40 minutes later, after an accident—he, under this legislation, would be allowed to ask for the approved screening device, which could move to the next step.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
The reason I asked the question is that for the deceased no permission was given, yet she was thoroughly tested. Yet the other individual wasn't. I just never could quite figure out why that was the case.
As far as the $1,000 fines go, I appreciate doing what we can. Personally, for impaired driving—I'm pretty radical, though, of course—I do happen to know that 35 years ago in the county I lived in, in the States, if you were caught driving impaired you lost your vehicle--no questions asked. It became the property of the county immediately. Now, you want to talk about deterring impaired driving; that did it. I know of a couple of fathers who were very unhappy with their sons, because it didn't matter if it was your vehicle or the company vehicle or your dad's.
But I'm really concerned about a $1,000 fine. I'm watching the court cases in my riding and there are some pretty hefty fines, but it doesn't seem to slow it down. Every week there are more of the same types of charges. Nowadays, in pretty nearly every case where they have an impaired driving charge, they also have a possession charge of a drug; they find drugs within the vehicle. Most of these are young people, and that really disturbs me because I thought you had to be 18 to buy booze, but these are 16- and 17-year-olds, a great deal of them.
I'm wondering, where's the investigation on who bought them the booze? If they're too young to even have it, how did they get it? These kinds of problems seem to keep multiplying.
My question is, does the penalty from this bill apply to young offenders 16 and 17 years old? If not, could we do that?
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
I have to apologize to the committee. I don't believe this provision overrides the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which requires the police to go through a number of other things before they apply that. I'll have to check that with our youth criminal justice experts.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
If you could do that, I'd appreciate it. In my opinion, if suddenly they're old enough to buy booze and they're under age, then maybe this law should apply to them specifically as well. I find that really—
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada
There's no question that the impaired driving provisions apply to them and it's an offence. What I don't know is whether the youth criminal courts impose the mandatory fines if they find other ways to deal with it.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Yes. I don't know what to do about it, but it is a concern of mine, because I did notice a high rate of young offenders in court appearances in my particular area, which is a rural riding. I get these reports pretty regularly.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
To be fair, though, Mr. Thompson, I think there is a much greater awareness of the problems of impaired driving today. I, as I'm sure you do, visit high schools and have quite a bit of interaction with young people. Quite frankly, I've been quite impressed by the level of awareness there is. I appreciate that there are exceptions to that rule. I appreciate that impaired driving continues to be a scourge within our society. But it seems to me, even within my lifetime, there has been a greater awareness through education. I give credit to the high schools and to youth groups.
I think we've made progress, so it's not all bad news in this area. I think that's one of the things we can be thankful for and should continue to encourage.
