Justice Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[David Griffin]

Again, I'm not a scientist and I don't profess to be an expert in this, and certainly I think it's going to vary for individual characteristics and individual people, but certainly the concerns are that the person is probably a little bit more happy-go-lucky, is going to be less attentive to detail, maybe fumbling for a cigarette when he or she should be paying attention to what's ahead on the road, cranking up the radio, mildly euphoric, and as you go up that scale, presents a higher risk than somebody else.

I think there are a couple of problems right now. One is that we don't have a coordinated approach from coast to coast. The provinces are different. They're at various stage of implementing the administrative systems to complement the criminal system, and I think that has to be addressed.

But there is a risk that it becomes the path of least resistance, as well, for people. So people decide it's a borderline case and, in the rush for time, instead of proceeding with the criminal charge, revert to the administrative system between 0.05% and 0.08%.

I think the risk is that those numbers are perhaps artificially inflated, because there are people in there who should in fact be dealt with under the criminal system but, because of convenience, are being dealt with under the administrative system.

The other concern I have is this repeat offender problem, a person who has gone through the administrative system three times at between 0.05% and 0.08%, who finally has an accident and kills somebody, and they do a Breathalyzer and find out the reading is 0.12%. Is that person really going to be treated as a first-time offender or as somebody with a more serious problem than the so-called first-time offender?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That's a fair point.

Ms. Nadeau, there's a point you make, not necessarily that you want to speak to it, but I think it's an interesting point.

Mr. Cannavino, you talked about wanting to have more spot checks, to have the ability to just pull people over and be able to test them, or roadblocks or things of that nature.

With drunkenness, because what you're describing, particularly in the lower range, is happy-go-lucky, more aggressive behaviour that would lead to things like running red lights or perhaps driving too fast, erratic lane changes, the type of behaviour that causes accidents, should we not be focusing mostly, first of all, on going after that kind of behaviour—in other words, the type of behaviour that is more dangerous on the road?

Ms. Nadeau has suggested, I think, photo radar as one potential thing that we should be looking at, but those things that would indicate that people are engaging in dangerous activities. In other words, is it those dangerous activities that people engage in because they have elevated blood alcohol levels that are causing the accidents, more so than the elevated blood alcohol levels themselves?

[Tony Cannavino]

I think we have to be careful with that. We have to go after all of them, because they're as dangerous.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I guess I posed the question incorrectly. I didn't mean it as a choice. I meant it perhaps as an interesting point, that these types of erratic behaviours are something we have to look at. I didn't hear from you some solutions on other ways we can go after those types of behaviours more and recognize them.

[Tony Cannavino]

It can't be photo radar—and we've made a lot of presentations, even in Quebec—because you have to be careful with the Jean-Marie de Koninck report.

Police associations in Quebec did express their concerns about photo radar, how it seems to be the panacea for certain people, but it's not, because those people are not arrested or stopped right away. You could have a snapshot of somebody who we think would be drunk, but there's nobody there to arrest the person. So I'd be careful there.

There's one other thing I would like to add. We were talking about random testing. The other thing is, and it is a known fact, if you get involved in an accident and you had a couple of drinks, and you rush home as soon as possible, leave the scene, and call the police station right away, they won't accuse you of leaving the scene of an accident. You panicked, you went home, you had a shot and called the police station; you didn't want to avoid responding to the action you were involved in.

That is the best way to trick the system. You leave, you call the police station, you get a couple of drinks, and then where's the proof? How can we bring you back to the police station and say, okay, you're going to have a Breathalyzer test? It's done. It's a known fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

What is the average processing time for an impaired driving charge, whether it's 0.08% or just straight impaired?

[David Griffin]

I was going to say it takes three hours to process at the time, and—

[Robyn Robertson]

It's anywhere from two to four hours, depending on the jurisdiction. The average was about 240 minutes in a national survey of law enforcement done in 1997. We did a national survey of 2,600 law enforcement officers in the U.S. and found it was two to three hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Even down there?

[David Griffin]

Then if you add in the time of attendance in court and everything else, it goes up exponentially.

In fact the London, Ontario, police did a workload analysis and a productivity analysis of the time spent on these types of investigations, and over the last 20 years the amount of time spent doing the paperwork and complying with all legislative requirements has gone up incredibly. Streamlining that would be a significant issue.

Some of the things we've recommended—the use of videotapes, the random checks, that type of thing—both as deterrence and as a means to process the impaired drivers, would go a long way to increase the actual impact.

[Robyn Robertson]

They use a lot of video enforcement in the U.S., and they do a lot of training. It's important that law enforcement be trained, because you want to make sure, when the video gets to court, that people know what they're looking at, so that they can hear that the person was mumbling or couldn't talk properly, or see them falling down and that the lighting is good. They've had a lot of success with video at roadside and at booking in proving the impairment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, Ms. Robertson, Ms. Nadeau and Mr. Cannavino. First, I'll state a brief preamble, then I'll ask you a question which you may all perhaps answer.

First of all, we're talking about impaired faculties. The Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, through its experts who support the Crown prosecutors, often say that the faculties are already impaired at 0.05%. We're talking about different faculties, whether it's physical, mental or related to thinking. You gave all kinds of examples a little earlier.

Then I would like to hear about the problem that we're having with regard to the bill. Earlier someone commented that the two-beer defence, which you talked about earlier, is currently being studied by the Senate. We have to wait. As you know, a senator steps slowly. That defence should nevertheless be eliminated, at least at first glance. In my opinion, this committee is doing a very good job in this regard.

I would also like to emphasize the fact that it's the provinces that sell alcohol, not the federal government. Alcohol is a provincial jurisdiction. The Société des alcools du Québec makes a profit of $1 billion a year. I don't know how much the LCBO makes, but it also seems to sell a lot. So they're the ones that sell alcohol and do advertising, among other things, in Quebec. I think that Ms. Nadeau can confirm that for us.

Alcohol is criminal. Governments sell a criminal product, and people consume that product! What is worse, compared to Ontario, alcohol, wine and beer are sold everywhere in Quebec. There are 50 convenience stores and 50 alcohol licences in a neighbourhood of approximately two or three streets. Wine and alcoholic beverages containing alcohol levels greater than the 2% or 3% that used to exist are even sold in the grocery stores.

We're fighting on this matter, and we're trying to find a solution. However, if the vendor doesn't want to stop selling alcohol, what do you do? We can think whatever we want, we'll still have a problem. Governments handle alcohol and gambling, and soon it will be something else. They make profits from all of society's vices.

There's another alcohol-related problem. It concerns the theory of the patient or the alcoholic. As a lawyer, I don't usually get the impression I'm putting a sick person in jail. If he's sick, he shouldn't be in prison but in hospital. That's something else.

I now come to the 0.05%; that's what interests me. Shouldn't we prefer a somewhat European solution—as in France, I believe—by setting up road blocks? In France, they use random roadblocks. In the street, you find a judge and three or four police officers who stop you, and if you've been drinking, they seize your car, and you finish your trip on foot. That's done in France; I've seen it with my own eyes.

Wouldn't it be better to choose another solution? By allowing a percentage of 0.05% or 0.08%, we allow someone the option of drinking. However, if we say that the allowed level is 0.0%, there's no loophole. Wouldn't that be a solution? I'm not saying that's what we want. I'm trying to understand, because we're opening a door that we won't be able to close. If I say there's no alcohol at all, you won't need anything; there won't be any possible defence since you can't drink alcohol at all. There will be no two-beer defence or machines, since it will be no. I would like to hear what you have to say on that issue. Isn't that the problem?

The government sells alcohol, makes profits and doesn't want to let go of the money machine. On the other hand, citizens are being killed. In my province, the number of deaths caused by alcohol is appalling. As Mr. De Koninck said, even the National Assembly has been informed, but they're dragging their feet in adopting what Mr. De Koninck wants. I'd like to know what you could suggest to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Excuse me. Before you reply, that was a very long question. Could you make your response short, please?

[Tony Cannavino]

I believe Mr. Bronfman would be pleased to hear you say he should stop the legal sale of alcohol. Alcohol sales may be the provinces' responsibility, but the federal government levies a tax on it. That means that the various orders of government—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Petit advocates abstinence.

[Tony Cannavino]

It may be easy for Mr. Petit, but it's a little more difficult for others. We're European, and having a glass a wine with food is not a problem for us. We never feel we're criminal. Where it becomes criminal, however, is when a person whose faculties are impaired drives a vehicle and risks killing or seriously injuring someone. The vehicle then becomes a weapon. In those cases, the person in question must not be considered sick, but rather as someone who has committed a crime. Using a firearm to hunt within the parameters is fine; that causes no problem. Using a firearm in other circumstances becomes criminal.

I would suggest to you an experiment that might enlighten the committee. Take the test; it's worth it. We administer it to police officers who are taking development courses and who are trying to get certified as blood alcohol test technicians. The behaviour of some people suggests, prima facie, that they don't tolerate alcohol as well as others. By writing or taking a few small tests, you'll see that your faculties are impaired and that you too are dangerous. The idea isn't to say that no one in Canada should drink, but to acknowledge that, in driving a motorcycle or another motor vehicle, a person whose faculties are impaired by alcohol becomes a potential criminal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Nadeau, did you have something you wanted to say?

[Louise Nadeau]

Prohibition didn't work in the United States. In the nineteenth century, we wanted an alcohol-free Canada, and that didn't work either. Health Canada has just issued a policy aimed at moderation. However, I remind you that, despite the government monopoly in this area—the same monopoly is also found in Ontario—the alcohol consumption record in Quebec is among the best in Canada.

So what do we do? As my colleague said so well, we won't prevent Canadians from drinking. We have to learn to drink in moderation, in certain contexts. If we opt for prohibition, this committee will be dealing with more problems than in the case of impaired driving. I think Health Canada's present policy is remarkably well done. It proposes 14 situations in which people should drink prudently. Educ'alcool is doing exactly the same thing in Quebec. We have to follow suit.

I would like to just try to clarify issues around youth, 0.05, and 0.08.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Very quickly, madame.

[Louise Nadeau]

When you look at the risk curves, in fact the risk with blood alcohol levels between 0.05 and 0.08 is not very high. The risk really increases beyond 0.08, and then it goes up exponentially.

The answer about young drivers is that, drunk or not, they have many more accidents, and the probability of being injured and dying when you're in a car with them is much higher. So we need to be able to understand the distinction between risk-taking, which is increased with blood alcohol level but is there in youth, and blood alcohol levels that are very high, which in and of themselves then create an immense risk for accidents, and it really goes high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not a member of this committee, and normally I wouldn't enter into the fray, because I'm not sure where you are with the study, but I have had some exposure to this particular issue, because until recently I had two big breweries in my riding, Molson and Labatt breweries. Now I have a Molson brewery. But I have been quite involved in the issue because, of course, how this shakes down is very important to them.

Many of the provinces have the 0.05 already, and those are administrative sanctions. When you move to putting it into the Criminal Code, I'm worried about the casual person who has one beer too many but doesn't really create a terrible hazard and ends up with a criminal record. That criminal record is with them for life.

The other thing is that I am more concerned with chronic offenders. You pick up the paper, and there are the people who have been accused and charged and convicted of drunk driving so many times they've had their licences removed, or suspended, and they're on the road. Some of them are on the road when they don't even have a licence. How do you police that? You have to police it by pulling them over and finding that out. But it seems to me we should be very harsh on repeat offenders. You can't do anything about the person who's not entitled to drive, who gets in the car and drives anyway. All you can do then is hopefully lock them up for a bit. I'm more concerned about the chronic offender.

Maybe you could talk about what police and the provincial jurisdictions are doing about that. It seems to me we could have some harsher sanctions for the chronic offenders.

There's another area that I'm not sure you've touched. We're talking about alcohol, but the big issue emerging is drugs. It's a difficult issue, as you know, because you can measure alcohol through a Breathalyzer, but drugs are a little thornier problem. Parliament just passed some legislation not too long ago, but for measuring what's in a person's system, whether they have medicines or they have a bit of coke or a bit of crack or a bit of this or that, the technology just isn't there right now.

I gather that a lot of young people and other abusers of drugs and alcohol are moving more now to drugs, because if they are going to drive, it's harder for them to get caught and convicted if they're taking drugs.

I'm wondering if you could talk on those two aspects, the chronic offender and also drugs and how to deal with that.

[Tony Cannavino]

First of all, if you hear in the news that somebody has been arrested for the fifth time or the tenth time, everybody is going to have a concern here. Everybody is going to ask how the hell that person could have been arrested 10 times, or why he still drives, why he still has a permit, and why he is not in jail. But a person who has driven impaired and caused an accident for the first time is as dangerous.

The other thing was about drugs. We have addressed that, and it's in Bill C-2, where we talk about drug recognition experts. We hope this legislation will be passed as soon as possible. We have addressed that part.

As I said earlier, we have to be very careful. I don't say there should not be a deterrent, that there should not be a more severe sanction or penalty for somebody who is a repeat offender. Of course there should be even more severe sanctions for that person. But let's be careful here. We are talking about people who are impaired, who are using a car, a truck, or a motorcycle and putting the security and the lives of others in jeopardy.

[David Griffin]

Regarding the 0.05, I think you can assure the brewer in your riding that the 0.05, which, as we discussed earlier, would effectively be enforced at 0.07, given the margin of error that is used by the courts, for most people--given that essentially each person is going to burn off about 0.015 milligrams or percent per hour--it's equivalent to having roughly five drinks in their system plus any drinks that they actually burned off for the period of time that they were drinking.

I'm certainly concerned about the person who takes the wheel and who has the equivalent of five drinks in their system. That is where this committee should be focusing its attention, not on some of the mythology that the brewers or others may be promoting about what the impact is going to be on their industry. I think it is none. The reality is that you have to look at the scientific amount that represents, the 0.05 versus the 0.08 or the 0.07 versus the 0.10, and then the equivalent that represents for the average person who is consuming that amount of alcohol.

As I challenged the committee before, if you take the Pepsi challenge and do the test, I think you'll be surprised at how much alcohol you can drink before you're going to go over those amounts.