Justice Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[Tony Cannavino]

I'm always comfortable.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I've noticed the limits of your inhibition run quite deep, Mr. Cannavino. You can comment on Ms. Nadeau's remarks without a problem. I'd also like you to go back to random tests.

[Tony Cannavino]

Absolutely, I don't question what Ms. Robertson and Ms. Nadeau say. We very much agree on a number of points. It was said that people aren't afraid of being stopped. That's because there have to be a lot of reasons for a police officer to intercept someone. I understand you on that point. It would be interesting to allow police officers, as is the case in certain countries, to impose random roadside testing, to conduct operations during which they stop people and check their blood alcohol levels. That might help police officers and citizens travelling on those same roads.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Permitting random tests means skipping reasonable grounds.

[Tony Cannavino]

Absolutely, because driving a vehicle isn't a right: people need to get a licence to do it. We're searched in airports in the same way. We're not outraged when we're searched before entering an aircraft.

I don't think Ms. Nadeau or Ms. Robertson talked about the fact that, after two drinks, people who rarely drink are dead drunk because they aren't used to alcohol, whereas others can drink 40 ounces of scotch, get into their vehicles and drive. In their case, I can guarantee you that you'd have trouble believing they're drunk, except for the smell. Some walk a very straight line and pass the so-called symptom tests. This measure would enable police officers to intercept these people.

We're talking about the quality of blood alcohol tests, and it's true that a certain margin is generally allowed. Crown prosecutors will tell you: a person stopped whose blood alcohol level is 0.08 has a good chance of not being charged. However, if that person was involved in an accident in which people were injured or killed, the prosecutor is somewhat forced to lay charges. Otherwise, once the prosecutor's review is completed, the case is set aside.

The advantage that accused have of being represented in court was also mentioned. That's for sure. First, the proceedings last for months. Consequently, it may very well be impossible to find the witnesses who were at the scene. In the majority of cases, people get off on technicalities. They claim that the time period was more than two hours, that the blood alcohol test was set up and the heat of the room affected the results, so that was prejudicial to the person stopped.

In addition, you can't solicit the services of experts every time a case involving a blood alcohol test is heard in court. That would cost the government a fortune. We would definitely like to use that expertise, but it's denied us. We are authorized to use the services of an expert in the case of fatal accidents, when enormous damage or injury is involved or when a technicality concerning times is raised. Once again, that depends on the incident. This kind of situation doesn't help us either, and it's true that that's unfortunate.

I very much appreciate the testimony of Ms. Robertson and Ms. Nadeau to the effect that 50% makes no sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino and Monsieur Ménard.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank all our witnesses, who have raised some very important and valid questions.

I'd like to start by coming back to Ms. Robertson. We don't have a written presentation, but I want to review figures.

What was the number of cases of drunk driving you talked about that an average crown prosecutor would have?

[Robyn Robertson]

It depends upon what jurisdiction you're talking about. Generally, anywhere from 100 to 150 cases are impaired driving.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This would be over the course of a year?

[Robyn Robertson]

Yes. They do about 450 cases a year.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, so 150 cases.

You mentioned that about 50% of those cases actually go to trial.

[Robyn Robertson]

Yes, a little more than 40% go to trial.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay. Could you give us the figures again about the numbers that are left aside because of what's essentially a block in the judicial system?

[Robyn Robertson]

Is it the 2005 numbers that you're talking about?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You had 0.08, did you not? These are figures of 50% that go to trial from among those who are actually charged. You said that a number of those are subject to plea bargain, but there are also cases that would simply never go to trial. Is that correct?

[Robyn Robertson]

People would either plead guilty or would negotiate a plea agreement, and there are a few cases that are withdrawn. Then the bulk of them would go to trial.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

And those that are withdrawn are essentially due to overworked crown prosecutors, isn't that right?

[Robyn Robertson]

It's either for that reason or that there is not enough evidence generally to support the charges that a case would be withdrawn.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

And of those that actually go to trial, the conviction rate is 52%?

[Robyn Robertson]

Yes, nationally. It ranges from 41% in Quebec up to 75% in the Maritimes and the Atlantic region.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

So essentially, of those who are charged, one in every four actually are convicted under the present legislation?

[Robyn Robertson]

About that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I mean, this is the fundamental issue. I'm very supportive of lowering the limits, and I have a private member's bill to that effect. The problem is that even under the existing law, if we only have one in every four convicted, what we're essentially doing is tossing over to extremely heavily charged police officers and crown prosecutors a workload that isn't sustainable now.

To all four of you, what is the funding shortfall that we're seeing in the national judicial system and for police officers nationally to actually put in place dropping back to 0.05%? And how have other countries handled it? How have they provided support to their judicial system and their police officers so that they can actually crack down on drunk driving without completely unrealistic expectations of how underfunding is going to cope with an increasing demand for arrests and convictions?

[Robyn Robertson]

In terms of the dollar value behind what it would cost, I couldn't tell you. That's not something we have information on. But as I said, to do that many more cases, we know that it would essentially be at least doubling, if not tripling, what we're currently spending.

Within a lot of other jurisdictions, you'll find that criminal penalties are not frequently enforced because they do have stronger administrative provisions. They tend to use those administrative provisions and rely on the criminal system less frequently. I think that's really how they cope. They use the criminal system to do your higher-risk and higher-BAC offenders, and they deal administratively with lower-risk and lower-BAC offenders.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

When you say doubling and tripling, you're talking about the actual resource requirements for dealing with drunk driving and a lower BAC.