Justice Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with Mr. Dykstra that you are doing a fine job chairing this meeting. It makes sense to have the Bloc Québécois chair some meetings. We support this initiative.

This has been a very interesting discussion. I've enjoyed the presentations and learned a lot from all of you. Thank you.

Mr. Lee is a veteran of this committee, having been here when the report was done some years ago. I'm probably the newest member of this committee, so I'm learning about the work this committee is doing on this particular study.

In terms of the work done by MADD, I had a very interesting meeting in my constituency last summer. A woman called Renelle Leger decided to start a chapter of MADD in Kent County in rural New Brunswick, about half an hour from Moncton, with a group of students whom she'd graduated from high school with who are now at university or college. They began a chapter and had a series of events to raise money, and I found their enthusiasm and devotion to the good work that MADD does very impressive.

What motivated them to begin this exercise, and if we have time I'd be curious to hear from all of you.... We've talked a lot about the technical aspects of the criminal law, of highway traffic legislation, roadside alert tests versus breathalyzers, and that's obviously an important part of a justice committee's work. I certainly have the sense, listening to them, and it's anecdotal but I thought compelling, that there's been an increase in the number of young people who are drinking and driving or impaired by drugs. There seems to be a sense among young people that if you smoke marijuana you either can't get caught or that it doesn't have the same effect. There's a naïveté, I think, in a lot of the thinking that goes on in high schools.

I wonder if there's any evidence to support the idea that young people are increasingly getting caught when driving impaired, and what specific measures you'd advocate. I understand the graduated licence thing, which didn't exist when I got my driver's licence. I think it's probably been quite effective and it's a good beginning.

Am I right in thinking that the number of young people driving impaired has increased? If so, other than specific legislative changes, what policies or what actions would you encourage the government or Parliament to take to try to address that?

[Andrew Murie]

First of all, you're correct in your assumption, and there's a perspective to look at. If you go back to the 1980s, 70% of teen deaths were alcohol-related. That number has dropped into the 40% range, so we have made progress with our young people. But as a percentage of licensed drivers, they're still the most overrepresented in the group of drivers who have been fatally injured by alcohol. So we still have progress to make.

The other issue of concern with young people especially is that of cannabis and driving. Student surveys clearly show the rates of cannabis and driving at high school levels have now exceeded the drinking and driving levels. Bill C-2 will go a long way in resolving some of those problems because now police will have the tools to apprehend drug-impaired drivers. So there's a perception some young people like to get out there that they're not the problem anymore, it's their parents, it's other people. But we still have a lot of work to do with young people.

On the solution side, it's mostly administrative; it's not criminal. As our friends here from the Canada Safety Council said, the zero BAC has been a very effective tool; it's part of graduated licensing. One of the things MADD Canada is doing with all the provinces is recommending zero BAC to the age of 21 or the first five years of driving. So far, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have adopted that, so we're making headway. Just as much as we work here at the federal level, we do a lot of work provincially.

We feel that if zero BACs to 21 were done in most jurisdictions, hundreds of young people's lives would be saved. That's the most important thing that can be done. Also, the other piece for young people is random breath testing, the fact that police can intervene and put young people back to the beginning or take away their licence. Young people, more than any other group, want the privilege to drive, want the opportunity to drive. So consequently, they, more than any other age group, will follow the rules, especially because it's not their motor vehicle.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Are there any other comments?

[Raynald Marchand]

In Canada we've clearly done a pretty good job with the 0.08. It's quite effective and right for those at that level. We have the zero BAC for new drivers. Then, as in Ontario, once you get to the next level you remain at zero BAC until you get a full licence, which may be at age 21.

But part of what exists now at the provincial level isn't complete. It's a work in progress that needs to continue. In Ontario right now, if you exceed the speed limit by 50 kilometres an hour you lose your vehicle and your licence for a week. But if you drive at 0.07 you will get a 12-hour suspension. Later on this year it'll be three days; it should probably be a week or two. But we don't want to throw in the towel with the provinces. We believe they are making progress, and if we work with them it might take another three to five years. But we will get there, and I think that's what we want.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Calkins, you're up next.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate the comments from our witnesses here. My line of questioning is going to be a little different--my first question anyway.

I want to get some insight from our witnesses on what happens when somebody has been charged or convicted for impaired driving, goes through the system once or maybe twice, and learns the nuances of the system. They become educated on how to fight an impaired driving charge and become more and more savvy at getting away with essentially what a first-time person might otherwise be convicted with.

Mr. Mann, you responded to a question by saying that most of the convictions are for first-time offenders. Is there any evidence or are there any studies that would lead us to believe that someone who has the experience of going through an impaired driving charge, because it's so technical and onerous and there are so many loopholes...? Is one of the reasons why most are first offences because it's so hard to get a second and third conviction on someone? Is there anything that would lead this committee to believe that is the case?

[Dr. Robert Mann]

I think you need to keep in mind in all of this that your actual chance right now of being apprehended if you're driving while impaired is quite low. That applies whether you're a first-time, second-time, third-time, or fourteenth-time offender. So that may have something to do with the statistics we see now on the low number of second offenders and multiple offenders that come back into the system.

I think the system is challenging for individuals to deal with. In good jurisdictions about 60% of individuals come back into the system after completing remedial programs, interlock programs, and getting relicensed. But then it seems there's a substantial portion we don't see any more. We're concerned about them and what they're doing out on the road.

That's one of the reasons why we're in favour of more effective interlock legislation that will provide a way to keep these folks involved and engaged in the system, rather than perhaps being out driving without a licence or insurance. So that's a major concern for us.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is there anybody else who would like to comment on that?

[Andrew Murie]

We've done two studies on suspended drivers, mainly looking at people who were originally charged with impaired Criminal Code offences. We found that approximately 50% of convicted impaired drivers in Ontario never returned to the system. In Saskatchewan it was 30%.

It goes to what Dr. Mann was speaking about earlier. The apprehension rate of getting caught, whether you're driving impaired or while suspended, is very low in Canada because what police have to go through, even in a sobriety checkpoint, is cumbersome. They're still looking for reasonable suspicion.

Studies in the United States show that even when the person's BAC is over the legal limit of 0.08 or greater, 50% of them go through police spot checks undetected. People who are chronic alcoholics have a lower detection rate because they don't show the obvious signs of intoxication. This is again ample proof why we need random breath testing in this country. We need to give the police the tools to apprehend all kinds of drinking drivers and drive that number down. There's no doubt about that. It will also be very effective in keeping suspended drivers off the roadways.

[Raynald Marchand]

If I may echo Mr. Murie, the people who have a tolerance, who have been doing it for years, are often difficult for officers to identify as impaired. Imagine how much more difficult it's going to be with these individuals, under the Criminal Code, when we're at 0.05. They won't show much impairment at all.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, do I have time for another question?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Yes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

If I could just make a point that--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Well, I'd like to get to my next question, if you don't mind.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Sorry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

My experience has been that of course we're dealing with evidence. The evidence is a blood alcohol content. That involves, obviously, some charter issues.

When you're dealing with the destruction of evidence--for example, consuming alcohol after a motor vehicle accident, if somebody were to do to that.... Mr. Cannavino, who was here at the last meeting, basically said on the record that this is what's happening. People hit and run, leave the scene of an accident, take a drink to ruin the evidence, do whatever they can to be able to get off on a technicality.

I'm wondering, from your perspective, if there are any recommendations you have for our committee for how we could change the current impaired driving laws to basically get rid of that loophole, so that somebody who destroys the evidence, which is the blood alcohol content, would be, let's say, more easily convicted.

[Émile Therrien]

Could I just respond to that?

We mentioned the RIDE program in Ontario. I hate to sound parochial, but we follow what goes on in Ontario. If you look at the 600,000 cars that were stopped, it would be very interesting to find out how many of those people took off--very few.

I would be very suspect of what the Canadian Police Association said on that. It's not a position shared by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much.

If there are no objections, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Moore who has not yet had a chance to ask any questions.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks to all the witnesses. It's been an informative meeting. I appreciate all the work done by each of your groups.

A couple of you mentioned the bill that we've already introduced on impaired driving, which deals with driving while impaired with drugs as well as alcohol limits and some of the defences. We know that the impaired driving sections in the Criminal Code are taking up an ever-growing and disproportionate volume. We've heard your calls for us to address some of the defences, such as the two-beer defence and the last-drink defence. You also mentioned the need for drug recognizance experts to deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving.

We know it is not yet law--it's still in the Senate--but we're hopeful that, shortly, Canadians will be served by the protection of that bill when it becomes law.

I want to talk a bit about something raised by each one of your groups. Unanimously you raised the issue of ignition interlock devices. There haven't been many questions about that. From the evidence you gave, we know the participation rate is low, yet most of you testified that these are effective where they are used.

What are some of the things we can do on the issue of the participation rate? What are the benefits of the device? And, if you will, what are some of the limitations with the ignition interlock device such that we'd have to come up with other mechanisms for instances where they fall short? Can each of you comment on that?

[Andrew Murie]

The research on the ignition interlock is very strong, especially when it is on the vehicle. I really believe that the ignition interlock problem should be under provincial jurisdiction. That's where it belongs, and that's where the most innovation could be done. That's where the greatest relationship between the person on the interlock and the authorities could be.

One of the things that Canada has so far failed to do in its interlock programming is make it performance based. Right now the interlock is put on the vehicle, and usually it's taken off after a given period of time, largely following what the Criminal Code allows. For a first-time offender, it's three months' hard suspension, nine months on the interlock. At month 12, regardless of performance--even though the person's showing signs that they'll reoffend or return to old habits--the interlock is removed from the vehicle.

We'd like to see the federal Criminal Code amended so that we don't have those long hard suspension periods, which cause inconvenience to the province and also teach convicted drinking drivers how to drive suspended and not get caught. So that's very important.

Once we have that, the province needs to make it mandatory and performance based, and I think you'll see participation rates go up, and you'll also see the number of impaired driving deaths go down slightly. You have to remember that it's not going to have the wide ramifications of a lower BAC or random breath testing, because it's only dealing with the convicted market. Those other factors deal with the whole population that might drink and drive.

[Émile Therrien]

I gather the prohibition against it is the cost. It is $150 a month, and it is really prohibitive for a lot of people.

[Raynald Marchand]

As prevention, this potentially could be brought down. I do agree that the interlock system should be introduced as soon as possible. Whereas in Quebec they can do it after three months, at one point in Ontario they had to wait a year, and then it was a year with the interlock. By this point they have learned that they can get away with driving under suspension, and they wait a second year before they finally get their licence, so they stay out of the system.

It should be mandatory that it be introduced early on, and it should be performance based, i.e., if you are still showing signs of impairment, the vehicle doesn't start, and if you're in your twelfth month, it shouldn't stop come the end of the month; it should continue.

[Dr. Robert Mann]

I would like to comment on that. It makes sense to somehow or other provide incentives for individuals to get on the interlock system early and stay on the interlock system through legislation, perhaps working through insurance and so on. I think one of the barriers, for example, to relicensing in Ontario is the high insurance costs. I think it's probably useful to look at that and see what one might do, working with the insurance companies, as a way to encourage people to utilize these devices.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

This will be your last question.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Maybe I'll just say a little bit on the interlock. If someone is subject to having the interlock in place, so it's on their vehicle, how are we finding that that person is less inclined to drink and drive? Obviously if someone is going to drink and drive and take that risk, do they not find other means to facilitate that? At what point in someone's thought process are they being stopped from drinking and driving by a vehicle equipped with the ignition interlock? I would think it's not actually at the point where they get into their vehicle and go to start it. I would think it's at some point earlier. Or do you find that literally they go out, have some drinks, get in their vehicle, and find the vehicle won't start? So at what point in the process does the device impact on someone's actions?