Justice Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Tony and David. It's good to see you both again, and Ms. Robertson and Ms. Nadeau.

David, you'll remember back in the day there was a time, while I was still Solicitor General, when we pulled the Breathalyzers from the streets because there were concerns about the calibration. So I want to talk a little bit about the equipment, just factual stuff.

Is it possible to upgrade the current equipment, if we make this change, with just a minor calibration, and if so, what would that cost be? If we have to replace it with brand new technology, what would that cost be?

I was quite interested, Ms. Robertson, in your saying that in California the roadside Breathalyzers are of such a quality that they're actually allowed to be introduced in courts, which, as far as I know, is light years away from where we are.

Perhaps, Chair, we could get a little bit of feedback on that.

[David Griffin]

From our perspective one of the first issues is streamlining the approval process so that as the new technologies come forward, we have the opportunity to get them into the system quicker.

I don't believe the equipment that is currently generally being used in Canada will provide a roadside reading, but that technology is available for the roadside screening devices. Certainly, to my understanding, a change in the legal limit would not have any impact on the type of equipment we would use today.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's not a big deal to calibrate it?

[Tony Cannavino]

No, because it's consistent from zero right up the scale.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And in terms of California, is it the kind of equipment they use?

[Robyn Robertson]

Yes, they have a device that they use--we actually have information about it on our website. They've been doing it for a while. They appear to have success with it, and it certainly shortens the time that it takes.

Again, a lot of jurisdictions use automated paperwork. There are several jurisdictions down in the U.S. that are doing it, and they can cut their time to half an hour. That's relative to two or two and a half hours, so it has a big impact.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's a big savings system-wide if you apply it across the board.

Ms. Robertson, I was curious that it was less than half--40%--of all prosecutors. It was 11% of defence, and you have to take a grain of salt with that, because they have a different perspective. But I was really surprised at the prosecutors. Is it because of the reasons you're outlining here that they just...? Maybe you can give it in your own words. I found that surprising.

[Robyn Robertson]

I think it's because they already feel as though they're fighting a losing battle. In some jurisdictions you can have pleas to non-alcohol Criminal Code offences or to non-Criminal Code offences. You see them particularly frequently out in British Columbia. They've got huge caseloads, they don't really have a lot of time to prepare, and as I said, they're not convicting a lot to begin with. So I think that has a lot to do with it. They see the implications and what it is going to mean for their own caseloads and their own workloads if it is 0.05.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one last question. What about law professors, who would have the time to stand back and look at the whole system and the impact? Is there an opinion from that group?

[Robyn Robertson]

There is no opinion that I'm aware of.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're welcome.

Mr. Harris, you have the last question.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Ms. Robertson, I think I heard you correctly when you said that in your work there was a consensus among the legal community or the judges about how we might be able to fix some of these problems.

[Robyn Robertson]

That was in the United States, in the research we did there.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

What were some of the most predominant solutions that they put forward?

[Robyn Robertson]

One was streamlining the system when it comes to paperwork requirements, and better communication and cooperation. You frequently see prosecutors and police officers working on the same case who have never spoken to each other. Records tend to be an issue. There was the increased use of technology; I don't think anyone thinks that technology is a panacea, but it can do a lot to help us do our jobs better.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In the States, did they have the problem with the recognition of certificate evidence not being given enough priority in the crown's point of view, as we had it here?

[Robyn Robertson]

I don't think that's as big a concern in the U.S., but they do have concerns about expert testimony, as we do in Canada. Trying to get an expert is certainly an uphill battle. I was quite surprised in doing the work in the U.S. and then looking at our results in Canada. It seemed that even though our systems are very different, there is a vast amount of similarity.

I've spent the last nine years working with the different practitioners in Canada and the U.S., and I can honestly say I've never met a practitioner who was not concerned about impaired driving. They're all concerned; they're just looking for ways to be more effective in what they're doing and to keep that specific and general deterrent effect out there.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Until we get it right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you to all the witnesses. We appreciate your testimony. It's going to be valuable for our committee, I know.

Now may we have a motion to adjourn? Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.