Evidence of meeting #12 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Cullen's time is actually up, but I'll give him the opportunity to put one final question in.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
In committee, we hear mythologies of all kinds. I understand what you're saying, Mr. Cannavino, that first-time offences are just as bad, in a sense, but why we don't yank these licences from people who repeatedly get into their cars when they have more alcohol in their system.... I think we should hammer them.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Some of the other witnesses want to respond. I'm going to ask you to get to your point quickly.
Ms. Robertson.
5 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
We do take their licences. Generally what the research shows is that about 75% of people who don't have a licence continue to drive anyway. I think that means we need to take measures to ensure that if we take their licence and they keep driving, then we need to put an interlock in their car. Then they can't drive.
The BAC set point for an interlock is about 0.02. We know that when interlocks are installed on the vehicle, they reduce recidivism by 50% to 90%. So I think there's a very good solution right there.
5 p.m.
Full Professor, Research Group on the Social Aspects of Health and Prevention (GRASP), Université de Montréal
I would just follow by stating that if we want it to work, they can't pay for the interlock. We have to put them on for free, because if they have to pay for them, they won't put them in. It's sad to say, but it's like that.
5 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
We have installation rates of less than 10% for ignition interlock in this country.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chairman, this is like déjà-vu. In 1999, we did all of this. I was on the committee at that time, from beginning to end. I'm happy to say we made some major changes. I think in November 1999 the bill passed, and we made some major changes. But we're still fighting a situation that was evident then and is still not fixed now.
Back in those days the latitude a judge had for sentencing was from zero to fourteen years. By the time we finished all that legislation changing, it was zero years to life imprisonment, depending on the factors of the incident.
That being said, back when it was zero to fourteen years, the average sentence for impaired driving causing bodily injury was somewhere around two or three years; it was nowhere near the maximum. So we increased it to zero years to life imprisonment for accident causing death where there were aggravating factors. And yet of the sentences they're handing out, unless I'm mistaken, the highest one since 1999 was in a case in Alberta, where I think someone got eight years. There may be a higher one I don't know about.
The courts are simply not enforcing the law. I know there are lots of problems with our court system, but until we get judges who are willing to put forth a deterrent, which they have the power to do, people are going to disregard it.
I did several surveys back in those days. I asked, “Why don't you drink when you drive?” The number one answer was, “I don't want to get caught.” They didn't think they were driving impaired; they just didn't want to get caught. Well, there were a lot of people still driving because there was no deterrent. And there still isn't.
Concerning the 0.05, we didn't make it on the 0.05 back then, but someone just brought up the crux of the thing, which is that you don't even get to court now unless you're 0.1. There's that built-in margin of error, which was not caused by the equipment; it was caused by the courts. Some pretty sharp lawyers convinced the judge one day that the equipment was faulty—which it probably wasn't, but the judge accepted it.
So if you're at 0.08, you will never even get to court, even though you were impaired. There is so much reason to adopt a 0.05, because you're not going to get to court unless you're at 0.08, which is where you should be going to court now, but you're not.
Just to look after what I call that fictitious margin of error, we should go to 0.05, because we will only begin prosecuting at 0.08. I think that will send a strong message out to those people who choose to drink and drive—and it's a choice—and think they're going to get away with it. If the judges let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it and will keep killing and injuring people.
I don't know whether I have a question here, but it's frustrating after all these years to see that we have had the legislation and the courts still aren't even using it.
February 7th, 2008 / 5:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
I can't agree more. I totally agree with what you said.
The other part we should be thinking about is prevention--marketing. MADD is doing a great job, and I think the federal government should jump on that. It should put on some ads to inform Canadian citizens of the dangers of drinking and driving and the impact. I think we should focus on that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
We have ex-police officers out there getting these guys off on technicalities, because they know it, and they know they can do it.
I agree that there have to be PR campaigns. One of the campaigns should be to drive home the fact that culpability begins before you have that drink. If you're planning on drinking, you have a responsibility to make arrangements to get home without driving. If you fail to do that, as far as I'm concerned, you're guilty and you should be charged as such, because that's what kills people--kills kids.
5:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
With regard to the sanctions, I would agree with you. We do have some harsh sanctions on the books, and they're not being enforced. If you look at the average sentence that was imposed, even in 2002, 77% of people got a fine; the fine was $700-and-some. You very rarely see jail sentences.
I think it's also important to spend some time looking at what the judges are doing and why they're doing it--the very same as we did with prosecutors. We did this in the U.S. It was interesting. When we took it on, people said we would never get the judges to participate. We surveyed 900 judges in 44 states, and they were more than happy to tell us their issues, concerns, and what problems they face.
To work with them in a manner similar to how we worked with police and with prosecutors would give us a lot of insight and provide guidance to the committee in terms of the challenges and, more importantly, what other things can be done. The judges were more than happy to tell what they thought could be done to make the problem better. At the end of the day, I think they're just as concerned about drunk drivers as everyone else.
5:05 p.m.
Full Professor, Research Group on the Social Aspects of Health and Prevention (GRASP), Université de Montréal
It's a difficult one. I've worked with municipal judges, and it was clear they have very little time to make those decisions.
On the other hand, I'll restate my perspective. If a judge feels that in fact there are many, many others who are guilty and they are not being convicted, what does that do? The probability of being arrested right now is so low in Canada, and maybe that has an impact. I don't know, but we have to look at it.
It's clear that the judges don't see this as a crime in the way they see armed robbery as a crime. There's a consensus in the magistrature about that. It won't change by making more severe penalties.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I can probably assume that 1,500 people a year are being killed by drunk drivers. I would suggest there are a lot fewer than that being killed by armed robberies. Until the judges can recognize that killing someone with a car is as serious a crime as killing someone with a gun--
5:05 p.m.
Full Professor, Research Group on the Social Aspects of Health and Prevention (GRASP), Université de Montréal
Can I give you an example? I've worked with criminals behind walls. One of them had a six-year sentence because he was drunk and killed somebody. The problem I had in the therapeutic community was that he didn't see himself as a criminal. The others who had done armed robberies viewed themselves as having their place in prison--believe it or not. They saw themselves as criminals; he never did. That was our major problem, as clinicians. There's a whole culture out there.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
There's a culture of advertising that tells people it's fun to drink and it's fun to go out and have a good time. I guess it is, but they don't spend enough time telling people to make plans to get home if they're going to go out and have that fun.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Ms. Robertson, you talked about surveying judges in 44 states. Has there been any thought about surveying judges in our provinces and territories?
5:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
It's a thought that's been considered.
5:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
Probably a funding issue.