Justice Committee on June 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Beauchesne.

[Prof. Line Beauchesne]

Your questions with respect to what could change the behaviour of people who drive impaired are relevant. I referred earlier to alcohol prevention campaigns. I asked my students how they view that. Those who said they don't drive impaired did not say that it was because they are afraid of being caught by police. They said they wanted to avoid killing someone. Prevention campaigns were what had encouraged them to change their behaviour. On the other hand, those who said they do drive while impaired said that they know a road that is not patrolled by the police. In any case, prevention is what had the effect of changing people's behaviour.

Furthermore, you are perfectly right: there is a need to raise everyone's awareness, including seniors and young people, with respect to the myriad of causes. In that regard, there are some new ads that I really like. I don't know whether they are being shown in all the provinces. You must be familiar with them. The message is that driving a vehicle and opting for a specific type of behaviour is, first and foremost, a matter of choice.

It has already been stated that there is no magic bullet. So, we have to ask ourselves what will result in the greatest improvement, in terms of our ability to manage the problem from a legal standpoint. There are measures which are immediate, and certain. In terms of behavioural change, having the police arrest someone, seize their vehicle for 24 hours, and give them demerits points, is more effective than a lengthy process the result of which remains unknown.

As regards repeat offenders, you're absolutely right: there are some. To my knowledge—and Mr. Therien can certainly provide you with more accurate information than I—national registries are not consistent across the board at the present time, which makes it impossible to properly identify these individuals and do something about them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Beauchesne.

Go ahead, Mr. Marchand.

[Raynald Marchand]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To answer your question about what we should do, first, I think we need to continue what we have been doing in terms of the visibility of enforcement as a general deterrence for the population as a whole so they don't go back to the bad habits they once had.

What do we do for those more narrow areas, such as youth, for example? We know that youth may not yet be dependent on alcohol but will drink occasionally to excess on weekends and so on. In rural areas, the problem we have is one of apprehension. People do not believe they're going to be apprehended. We often say that in rural areas, it's not drinking and driving, it's drinking while driving. As a result, these people either know where to go or do not believe they're going to get caught. We need to increase there. We need to continue our work, in terms of prevention, for these folks.

We also need to work with the provinces, and I think we said that in our brief. For example, Ontario has announced that they are going to increase suspensions from 12 or 24 hours to three days a week and then have more severe sanctions as we go through under the highway safety code. We think this is going to be effective. We would like all provinces to standardize so that for national prevention, we can advertise, we can promote, to all Canadians.

If we can get there, that will have an impact. I believe, like the professor, that the certainty of being apprehended is far more effective for many of those folks than the penalty down the road, whether it be a driver's licence suspension or death, in some cases.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Marchand.

I have one question. The Canada Safety Council made a very clear point that most cases pleaded are pleaded outside of court. That's in the present situation. I believe that to be true, as well. Since you made the statement, and I believe it was made also by Ms. Beauchesne--something similar at least--what is the percentage of charges laid and what is the percentage of charges that are tossed or pleaded out?

[Emile Therien]

I don't know, and that's why I asked these fellows. It's probably a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I think it's an important issue.

[Ethel Archard, Consultant, Canada Safety Council]

There is a figure in our brief of 20% based on a study in British Columbia, but that is only one province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's 20% of what?

[Emile Therien]

Of impaired driving charges, 20% were plea-bargained down to something less under the Criminal Code.

[Ethel Archard]

But that's not nationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I think the number might even be higher than that.

Mr. Rosenthal, you seem anxious to speak to this point.

[Jonathan Rosenthal]

I can't tell you what the exact percentage is in Ontario. It does happen. There's certainly a crown policy manual that discourages it. It can only be done in certain situations with the approval of either the acting crown attorney for the jurisdiction or the deputy crown attorney.

It's primarily done in situations where there is a great risk that charges are going to be thrown out because of a backlog in courthouses. Those are the jurisdictions in Ontario where you're seeing it most. It is occurring in situations where there are significant difficulties with the crown's case, and it's better to get something than nothing.

This law or any law that's going to increase litigation will put more and more pressure on those dwindling resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Again, procedure here is becoming more the issue than guilt or innocence.

What about the situation--and this is happening all too frequently--where an impaired driver is picked up and brought before the court. He obtains a lawyer and the lawyer says, “For another $5,000 we can bring in an expert to testify in reference to the charter issue. Since there are some rulings already in the court system in reference to the charter, breathalyzers, and all that other technology that has been brought into question now, we'll get you off.”

Are these legitimate arguments on impaired driving cases?

[Jonathan Rosenthal]

They're legitimate arguments that happen all the time, because cost is not the issue. For example, someone was talking about the increase of the penalty from $600 to $1,000, but $400 is not going to do a thing.

I don't want to get into the exact particulars, but the legal fees to properly defend one of these cases dramatically exceed the maximum financial penalty for an impaired driving charge--not the minimum penalty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I fully agree.

Maybe the committee should be looking at those issues, as opposed to some of the ones that were brought up here.

Ms. Beauchesne, I think you also mentioned something about that.

[Prof. Line Beauchesne]

Yes.

Studies show that if someone decides to drive impaired or to commit another offence, what that person is measuring is the risk of being arrested. He is not wondering what the punishment will be. So, changing the punishment has absolutely no effect whatsoever on a number of people committing offences. The most important factor is the certainty of being arrested or not arrested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm going to let Derek Lee ask a short question first.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I have one quick question for the Barreau du Québec.

Proposed subsections 254(2) to 254(6) of the act say that if a peace officer has reason to believe that a person has a drug or alcohol in his or her body--it could be a drug alone--the person must do the physical tests based on the judgment of the police officer and, if necessary, accompany the police officer somewhere. It doesn't say where, how far, or for how much time.

Controlled substances are in schedules 1 through 5, and schedule 4 drugs include steroids. If you had a corticosteroid on your skin for a skin condition, you would technically come within the reach of this provision. The police officer would be fully entitled to ask you to do the test and accompany him or her for whatever the other tests might be.

Should we consider amending the bill to either shrink the reach of this section in terms of accompanying the police officer, or should we remove schedule 4 or modify it in some other way?

[Louis Belleau]

If steroids are present or if there is an indication that it could be a drug listed in Schedule 4, certainly a police officer could, theoretically, ask the suspect to accompany him. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that there has to be a correlation between the drug and the person's fitness to drive. Obviously, a police officer cannot simply go on the fact that there is a drug in the vehicle or on the individual.

What is of most concern to us—and we have already mentioned this—is the completely uncertain method of assessing the presence of drugs in the individual's body. The intrusive side of searches is another aspect of the problem that was raised during the Committee's discussions. That sometimes involves physical manipulation. We have all tried to imagine an Aboriginal person out West being arrested by the RCMP. He would be locked in a dark room with all the lights off, and officers would check to see whether his pupils were dilated too much or too little. The officer would obviously try to get him to do certain things; there would be physical manipulations, and so on.

In light of available scientific data, we were of the opinion that such situations could lead to quite extensive abuse and violations of privacy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

I have to cut you short, Mr. Belleau and Mr. Bagnell. The time is now concluded.

I would like to thank the witnesses who have come forward here today. I think we've had a very in-depth discussion. It should continue a little longer, but our time is short. Again, thank you so much for your appearance here. It's appreciated.

The meeting is adjourned.