Justice Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Would you care to join us, Mr. Petit? Colleagues, I think we can start. We have a quorum.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

A vote is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m. and other members will be joining us. Therefore, I suggest we begin and hear from the witnesses in the order listed in the notice of meeting. First up are the representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have already arrived. They will be followed by the Canada Safety Council, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and lastly, the Canadian Automobile Association.

I invite the groups to introduce their representatives and, as much as possible, to limit their presentations to seven minutes. We could be extremely generous and allow them 10 minutes. However, there are four witnesses on the schedule and we would like to wrap up by 5:30 p.m., in case we need to go and vote.

The presentations will be followed by a question period during which members will have seven minutes for the first round, and five minutes for subsequent rounds. The first to respond will be the Liberal members, followed by the Bloc and then by government members.

So then, let's begin with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Please go ahead.

[Margaret Miller, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

Thank you.

My name is Margaret Miller. I'm the national president of MADD Canada. I'm very pleased to be here today representing the organization.

I came to be with MADD Canada after the death of my son, Constable Bruce Miller, a 26-year-old Nova Scotia police officer who was killed by an impaired driver.

I have found the organization to be everything and more in helping victims, in its advocacy, and in the things we do for legislative change. That's the reason we're here today.

I'd like to introduce my colleague, our CEO, Andrew Murie. He'll be following with his presentation.

Thank you.

[Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

I'd like to begin with talking about the current status of impaired driving in Canada.

Since 1999 the progress in Canada on impaired driving is stalled. There are recent indicators from Transport Canada that the problem is getting worse. In fact, in 2004, 35% of the dead drinking drivers were alcohol positive; in 2005 that number went up to 38%. In 1999 that number was 29%. The current status quo on what we're doing with the Criminal Code as it applies to impaired driving is not an option going forward.

A bit about the statistics.... Sixty percent of the dead drinking drivers have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 or greater. This group, though, is not just made up of alcoholics or repeat offenders. Studies have shown that only about 35% of these dead drinking drivers fit the clinical profile of an alcoholic. Only a small number of these are repeat offenders.

A significant group in the dead drinking drivers is young drivers aged 16 to 25. They are episodic binge drinkers who do not fit the clinical description of an alcoholic. In fact, young drivers represent about 13% of the population in Canada, but they represent 32% of the dead drinking drivers, so again it's a group that's well overrepresented in the fatalities above 0.15. Another group is drinkers who are usually social drinkers who sometimes, for an occasion, episode drink and end up dead. They are also represented in that group that's 0.15 and higher.

The other thing is that the greatest decrease...and progress that we have made in Canada and other countries over the last 20 years has been in the dead drinking drivers 0.15 and over. Any kind of presentation that says this group of drivers is resistant to legislative change or other programming that we've done is just not true, and in fact that's where we've had the greatest savings of lives.

MADD Canada has three proposals for this committee. The first one is lowering the blood alcohol concentration level to 0.5. Why? Canada has the highest de facto Criminal Code level in the world. We have a 0.8 per se level that we've had since 1969. Our courts allow a margin of error of 0.2, so in fact the police do not enforce our Criminal Code limits until the person's BAC is 0.10 and over.

Traffic safety experts tell us that 0.5 should be the highest permissible level of drinking and then driving. In fact, when you look at 0.5 there's a lot of misinformation out there. Will that interfere with social drinking? Not the case. For example, a 200-pound man can drink six standard drinks or a six-pack of beer, regular strength, 5% alcohol, on an empty stomach in two hours and still be below the Criminal Code threshold of a paragraph 253(b) charge. A 120-pound woman can have three standard drinks and still be below that Criminal Code threshold. In our account, that's not social drinking; that's putting others who are on the road at risk.

Worldwide, when BAC levels have been lowered, no matter from what level to what level, the result has been a savings of lives. There is also the impression that lowering the BAC will increase the judicial workload and the police workload. In fact, it has the opposite effect. If you claim that it's going to be a fact, you're not taking into account the behavioural change that people will change their habits when it comes to drinking and driving.

If you look at everywhere else in the world where they've lowered the BAC levels, there has been no impact on police or judicial resources. In fact, there are studies showing that there are economic savings to our health care, our policing, and our judicial system over a long period of time.

The big debate with 0.05% is not what level, but whether it should be done federally or provincially. Over the years Parliament has dealt with a number of options looking at various ways of lowering the BAC and the accompanying penalties. There's also a model out there with the provinces for doing it administratively. In fact, since the model was put in place with the provinces over three years ago, the provinces have made no progress, and that's something federal parliamentarians need to consider.

Our second theme is random breath testing. Drinking and driving is a persistent problem in Canada. Only a small fraction of drinking drivers are apprehended or charged. Statistics show or estimate that one out of every 445 trips results in a Criminal Code conviction. The international success of random breath testing is significant in lowering alcohol-related deaths. In 2003, the European Commission recommended that all 26 member states introduce random breath testing programs.

If random breath testing is done comprehensively and with a good charter analysis, there should be no concerns with meeting the test of the charter. Canadians are routinely subject to random detection and search in their daily lives. I'm sure all of us were searched here today as we came into this room. If we try to board a plane or go into a government building, we're scanned and searched. The Canadian courts have upheld the constitutionality of random stopping, searching, and questioning of drivers in order to maintain traffic safety.

There is no question that reducing carnage caused by impaired driving continues to be a compelling and worthwhile government objective. In summary, random breath testing is one of the most effective means of deterring impaired drivers and lowering the number of alcohol-related deaths.

Third is the matter of ignition interlocks. There are 60,000 convictions each year in Canada for impaired driving. We currently have about 11,000 interlocks on vehicles. The provinces are working hard to enhance their interlock programs. In fact, the State of New Mexico is the first to introduce mandatory interlock programs for all convicted impaired drivers. In the past two years, New Mexico has had a 10% reduction in the number of deaths on their highways since the introduction of the mandatory interlock program. It should also be performance based. So it's easy to get on...you have to prove that the interlock needs to be removed, that you've been able to separate your drinking from your driving.

In its wisdom, the federal Parliament put the interlock provision in the Criminal Code to allow provinces to introduce alcohol interlock programs approximately 10 years ago. It also put in an accompanying hard suspension period of three months, six months, and nine months. But as we've become more knowledgeable about interlock programs, the hard suspension period has become a kind of hindrance to effective provincial programming on interlocks.

We'd like to ask the federal Parliament to either reduce the interlock hard suspension to 30, 60, or 90 days, or eliminate it altogether. That does not mean the driver would not serve the full prohibition period of their licence suspension, but it would allow them to serve the whole thing on the alcohol interlock. We'd like to ask you for that consideration.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

I would ask you to wrap up your presentation, as you have been speaking for almost 10 minutes. Perhaps you can have one more minute.

[Andrew Murie]

Okay. I'm at the summary right now.

The implementation of the 0.05% BAC and random breath testing would dramatically reduce the number of impaired driving deaths in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much.

We will now hear from the Canada Safety Council.

You have the floor, Mr. Marchand and Mr. Therrien.

[Raynald Marchand, General Manager of Programs, Canada Safety Council]

Bonjour. Good afternoon.

First I'd like to thank the committee for our opportunity to present today. I will cover my presentation, but I will skip some part of it in the interest of time. You do have copies.

In 2005, road crashes involving drivers who had been drinking took 851 lives. Of these, 459 were drivers whose blood alcohol concentration was above the current legal threshold of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood--or 80 milligrams percent. The 2005 fatalities were down by 34% from 1995, when 1,296 motor vehicle deaths involved drinking drivers. Nonetheless, progress has stalled in recent years and the problem is far from eradicated.

Canada's national strategy to reduce impaired driving was initiated in 1991. It has the commitment of provincial and territorial jurisdictions working together with Transport Canada and safety organizations, including the Canada Safety Council.

In matters related to impaired driving, the Canada Safety Council strongly urges Justice Canada to collaborate with STRID to ensure that any changes fit with the national strategy and have support from all STRID partners. The priority must be to prevent alcohol-related crashes, not just to punish drinking drivers.

The Canada Safety Council presents a rationale for the government to retain the current criminal blood alcohol limits. Many studies have shown that harsher penalties, beyond a reasonable level, will have little or no deterrent effect. What is needed is to increase the perception of apprehension and to improve the system efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with impaired offenders.

Essentially, we have a three-pronged approach. We wish to recommend the traffic code for lower BAC drivers. In Canada, there are two levels of government dealing with impaired drivers. Driving with a BAC of 50 milligrams percent is not permissible under the traffic act in almost all provinces and territories. The STRID reports referenced below provide details on the strong countermeasures currently in place for lower BAC drivers.

All of Canada's 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions, except Quebec, impose administrative licence suspension on drivers whose BAC is under the criminal limit. Those drivers immediately lose their licence for four to 24 hours, and for longer with subsequent violations. In addition, under graduated licensing, all novice drivers must have a zero BAC.

Administrative licence suspensions protect the public by taking potentially dangerous drivers off the road and giving them a serious warning. These suspensions have proven to be an effective tool in the fight against impaired driving, in part because they impose swift and certain consequences. Some provinces have licence reinstatement fees, and requirements for assessment and treatment in the case of repeat suspensions. An evaluation of the Alberta administrative licence suspension program found a 24% drop in the number of repeat impaired drivers and a 19% reduction in the number of repeat offenders involved in alcohol-related collisions that caused injuries or death.

Administrative licence suspensions are fundamental to the success of randomized breath testing through roadside check programs. The purpose of these programs is not simply to catch and punish offenders. In and of themselves, they serve as a very effective deterrent by providing highly visible enforcement.

Recent Ontario RIDE statistics attest to their deterrent effect. Of the 846,400 vehicles checked during the last five weeks of 2007, OPP officers charged 334 people with alcohol-related criminal offences and gave another 842 drivers 12-hour licence suspensions. This represents only 0.14% of the drivers checked, a very low proportion. It is consistent with a large body of research that shows people are less likely to offend when they believe they will be caught. Programs like RIDE, CounterAttack, CheckStop, and others actually prevent people from drinking and driving.

Other measures are being taken outside the Criminal Code to prevent offenders from driving while impaired. These include licence suspension, vehicle impoundment, and alcohol ignition interlock system.

An Ontario government web page, for example, describes the many possible penalties to which drinking drivers are subject. That province plans to implement even more stringent measures in late 2008, including escalating administrative sanctions for repeat drinking drivers with BACs from 50 milligrams percent to 80 milligrams percent and the use of the civil forfeiture law to take vehicles away from those who continue to drink and drive.

Making conduct criminal is society's ultimate condemnation. The Criminal Code addresses offences such as murder, rape, and assault that violate basic societal norms. Criminal Code sanctions are very severe. A criminal conviction, be it for armed robbery or for drinking and driving with a BAC over 80 milligrams percent, limits travel and job opportunities for the rest of the offender's life. Justifiably, the legal process to charge and convict an offender is intricate and costly.

A driver who has been awake for 19 hours is as impaired in the operation of a motor vehicle as someone with a 50-milligram percent blood alcohol level. The risk is real, but statistics show that chances of a serious crash are low when compared with drivers at 80 milligrams percent.

Provincial and territorial transport officials, represented in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, have taken a position against lowering the criminal BAC to 50 milligrams percent. According to the CCMTA, such a change would hamper the ability of the police to detect drivers with a BAC greater than 80 milligrams percent, who are the greatest crash risk, due to the overextending of the enforcement resources. CCMTA says a move to criminalize drivers who are at lower risk of collision involvement would further burden an overtaxed criminal justice system without increasing the deterrent effect of the law.

The argument that criminal BAC should be lowered because the police do not normally charge drivers below 100 milligrams percent is frivolous. If charges are not being laid at 80 milligrams percent, measures are needed to ensure the law is enforced.

Lowering the criminal BAC would have serious repercussions. For example, the necessity to apply criminal sanctions at lower BACs would nullify the many effective, proven countermeasures currently in place at that level. The change would be costly and counterproductive.

Roadside check programs would be jeopardized. Currently, police can suspend the licence of a lower-BAC driver on the spot. The need to spend an average of four hours to lay charges would jeopardize such programs.

It is important to deal firmly with individuals with BACs below the criminal level, both to prevent them from causing immediate harm and to ensure they do not join the high-BAC group. However, most drivers killed in alcohol-related crashes are legally impaired. Statistics show without a doubt that driving with a BAC above 80 milligrams percent is very dangerous.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Mr. Marchand, you should consider wrapping up.

[Raynald Marchand]

All right.

When we look at the BAC in line with other countries, one argument used is that the idea of reducing is the same in other countries.

We had a report that was updated in 2006 to determine whether recent developments would affect the conclusion about international BAC levels. There were changes, but the conclusions remained the same as they were added. The approach of countries and jurisdictions with 50-milligram percent limits is still typically outside of the Criminal Code.

Many studies have shown that harsher penalties beyond a reasonable threshold would have little or no deterrent effect. For example, in 1998, New South Wales doubled the maximum penalties for most drinking offences. An analysis of the impact of these harsher punishments was released in June 2004. It found that after a tougher penalty went into effect, there was a slight reduction in the recidivism rate for drinking drivers. However, the changes were not substantial, and no reductions were seen in Sydney, the largest urban area in the state.

In summary, Justice Canada should focus on sentences that will prevent recidivism. It should ensure remedial programs are prescribed and readily available, and it should encourage the use of ignition interlock.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much. No doubt we will have a number of questions for you later.

Moving along, the next group to present is the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Their spokesperson is Mr. Robert Mann.

[Dr. Robert Mann, Senior Scientist, University of Toronto, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health]

Merci beaucoup.

I am pleased and honoured to be here with you today to speak about reducing alcohol-related deaths on Canada's roads.

My name is Robert Mann. I am the senior scientist with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and I'm the director of the Collaborative Program in Addiction Studies at the University of Toronto.

Drunk driving is one of the largest causes of alcohol-related death in Canada and is the largest criminal cause of death. Thus it is appropriate and commendable for Parliament to be considering ways to reduce those deaths.

Dr. Jürgen Rehm and his colleagues, in their report on the costs of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, estimated the number of Canadians killed in alcohol-related collisions in 2002 to be 909, a number that for several reasons is acknowledged to be a substantial underestimate. Of these victims, an estimated 28 were children 14 and under, and an additional 74 were teenagers and young adults. To put this number in context, 30 members of Canada's armed forces were killed in Afghanistan in 2007.

There is now substantial evidence from Canada and other countries that legal initiatives to control and prevent impaired driving can be very successful. For example, our recent evaluation of the introduction by Parliament of Canada's 1969 per se law, which made it a criminal offence to drive with a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams percent, has shown that in Ontario this law was associated with a reduction of 18% in drunk driving fatalities on a continuing basis.

Two areas where there is now clear scientific evidence to support additional government action in Canada are, first, lowering the legal limit for driving to 50 milligrams percent, and, second, introducing random breath testing. A third area where the evidence strongly indicates that improvement can be made is in our use of ignition interlock devices. Finally, it's also important to remember the crucial role that alcohol regulation plays in preventing drunk driving fatalities.

Norway introduced the first legal limit in 1936 and set their limit at 50 milligrams percent. Canada's current legal limit is 80 milligrams percent, modelled on the limit introduced by Great Britain in 1967.

There are now three key lines of evidence that provide strong support for a legal limit of 50 milligrams percent. First of all, it's abundantly clear from laboratory studies that driving skills are significantly impaired at that level. There is no question of that now.

Second, it is also clear that risks of being involved in a collision, including a fatal collision, are significantly increased at that level. For example, a recent study by Paul Zador and his colleagues in the United States found that the minimum increase in risk of involvement in a fatal collision was eightfold, and that for most age and gender groups the risk was substantially increased beyond that.

The third line of evidence is evaluations of the impact observed when legal limits are lowered. This research was largely unavailable when legal limits in most jurisdictions, including Canada, were originally set. It therefore provides an important new line of evidence for lawmakers to consider.

A consistent conclusion of recent reviews of this literature is that in most or all jurisdictions in which BAC limits have been lowered, substantial reductions in various measures of the drinking and driving problem, including injuries and fatalities, have been observed.

The potential impact on fatalities on our roads can be substantial. In 1998 my colleagues and I reported that if we saw the same effects in Canada that have been observed in scientifically rigorous studies in Australia and Europe, lowering the legal limit in Canada to 50 milligrams percent could prevent between 185 and 555 deaths per year on our highways. Rigorous scientific research that has appeared since that time has served to support and strengthen that conclusion. It is also important to note that every evidence-based health and safety organization that has considered this issue has recommended a 50-milligram percent limit.

Random breath testing originated in Australia and Europe in the 1970s as a means of dealing with the drunk driving problem. The key to random breath testing is allowing the police to request a breath sample without probable cause. This permits the processing of large numbers of drivers at the roadside as a way to increase general deterrence. Evaluations and reviews of random breath testing support its effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related collisions and fatalities.

Reviews of random screening measures, including random breath testing, found across studies a reduction—ranging from 8% to 71%—in alcohol-related fatalities, with an average reduction of 30.6% in accidents with injuries. Because of these positive results, random breath testing has been supported by many health organizations. In the recent WHO-sponsored study of measures to prevent alcohol-related harms, it was also one of the measures given strongest support.

There are existing technologies available that appear able to reduce impaired driving, and there is promise of important developments in the future.

One technology now in use is the ignition interlock device, which, when installed on a vehicle, prevents its operation by a driver with a BAC above a predetermined level. The available evidence provides a very clear indication that impaired driving and recidivism are significantly reduced while these devices are installed on the vehicle. However, a substantial concern with interlock programs as they now exist is the low level of utilization of interlock devices among offenders eligible to use them. Typical utilization rates are 10% or less.

Thus, while existing laws and regulations permit the use of interlock devices, their potential impact on traffic safety has not yet been realized. Increasing that beneficial impact may require consideration of those laws and policies that affect their use.

In summary, the Government of Canada has the opportunity to take important action to reduce drunk driving fatalities in this country through legal initiatives. The available scientific evidence indicates that important reductions in drinking and driving and associated fatalities can be achieved through reducing the legal limit in the Criminal Code to 50 milligrams percent, introducing random breath testing, and more effectively using ignition interlock devices.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health supports the Government of Canada in its efforts to prevent deaths and injuries resulting from alcohol-impaired driving. We also note that if legal changes are made, it is essential that resources to support their implementation and to rigorously evaluate their impact be provided.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you for wrapping up your presentation in under 10 minutes. You are an inspiration to all of us.

Next up is Mr. Chris White from the Canadian Automobile Association.

[Chris White, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association, thank you for inviting us.

From our establishment in 1913, CAA has been Canada's foremost voice, supporting the rights of Canadian motorists and travellers. With approximately 5.2 million members, CAA continues to advocate for a wide variety of safety initiatives, which have helped guide relevant traffic safety laws, public safety initiatives, and public policies throughout Canada. We continue to work with the federal government, our nine clubs, and other stakeholder groups to ensure safer drivers on safer roads in safer vehicles.

Mr. Chair, as one of Canada's largest member-based advocacy groups, we, like you and the members of the committee, are anxious to see fewer deaths and injuries on the roads as a result of impaired driving. In 1999, this committee tabled the report entitled,Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving. That report concluded that the current level of 0.08 adequately empowered police to remove impaired drivers from the road, while at the same time not burdening the justice system.

More importantly, though, the report stated the following:

...a legal BAC limit of 50 mg/100 ml of blood could result in a loss of public support, especially since scientific evidence suggests that not everyone would be impaired at that level.

Mr. Chair, CAA's only raison d'être on behalf of our members and on behalf of the travelling public is to be a credible advocate for safety issues for Canadians. With this as our sole motivation, CAA continues to support the approach cited in 1999. Based on figures from Transport Canada, we know that nationally 2005 crashes involving drinking and driving accounted for about 33% of all road users killed on public roadways. And until studies show overwhelmingly strong and consistent evidence for lowering the criminal BAC limit, it is our view that the current limit of 0.08 should be maintained and strongly enforced.

To address the growing concern of impaired driving, CAA strongly supports legislation, strict enforcement, and continued education to end the practices of driving while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication. It is our view that this is where an investment of resources is most needed.

The committee's review of mechanisms to reduce impaired driving in Canada is timely and overdue. Current measures are clearly not providing adequate deterrents, nor are they removing dangerous drivers from the road. It is our perspective that we are not talking about a deficiency in law but rather a deficiency in the social behaviour of drivers. Most drivers inherently know when they have consumed too much alcohol to drive, regardless of the blood alcohol content. The more serious problem, though, is the drivers who lack this understanding and those who chronically and consistently get into their cars under the influence of alcohol well beyond the 0.08 levels. Repeat offenders and an underresourced judicial system are endangering the safety of everyone on the roads, and, as CAA has long maintained, driving is a privilege and not a right.

Furthermore, CAA, like many stakeholders, believes in a comprehensive approach to address the problem of impaired driving. We advocate for specific measures to deal with repeat offenders and measures to increase enforcement.

We would specifically like the committee to consider the following:

One, introduce tougher sanctions for recidivists and drivers with high BACs: the higher the blood alcohol level, the more serious the sanction.

Two, implement a mandatory requirement for the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices that become progressively longer with each subsequent conviction.

Three, encourage provinces to coordinate provincial legal drinking ages to reduce the practice of cross-border drinking and driving.

Four, recommend that the Criminal Code admit evidence from mobile digital breath testing devices in court. These devices have proven to be highly reliable compared to the first-generation devices that were initially used.

Five, encourage the federal and provincial governments to simplify the evidence-gathering and charging procedures, with the goal of reducing the paperwork and time needed to lay an impaired driving charge.

Six, and finally, strengthen coordination and increase funding to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources and legislative support to effectively detect and properly charge drug-impaired drivers.

The continued level of public concern about drinking and driving is justified by the persistence of the problem on Canadian roads. CAA appreciates the attention of lawmakers to this issue and is confident the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations will improve safety on the roads and highways and will also reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Canada.

I would like to conclude by thanking the committee for undertaking this important study. In addition, committee members should be commended for their work on Bill C-32 during the last parliamentary session and the speedy passing of the violent crime bill, Bill C-2, last fall.

CAA strongly supports Parliament's efforts to strengthen the enforcement of drug-impaired driving offences in Canada and would persuade the members of this committee to encourage their Senate colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much.

We will now begin our round of questioning from the members. Mr. Bagnell from the Liberal Party, the official opposition, will be first up, for seven minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Merci, monsieur le président. You're doing an excellent job as chair. I am disappointed to see you as chair, though, because you're such a poignant questioner of witnesses.

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

Oh! Oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Mr. Petit.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You have all convinced me on the interlock device, so I have no problem there.

Mr. Marchand, I tend to agree with something that you said—at least I haven't been convinced otherwise—and that a previous witness said. I don't want to rush into increasing the level because of the consequences of a criminal record. They are unintended consequences. When they set up the system, they didn't know they would affect the rest of your life--you couldn't travel, and all sorts of things.

I was quite impressed, actually, with the progress some provinces are making. I thought a lot more of those roadside measures were definitely having a deterrent.

Mr. Murray, I think you said they weren't successful and Mr. Marchand said they were.

Mr. Marchand, could you elaborate on the roadside administrative measures? Is there any proof of the success of those measures?

[Raynald Marchand]

Yes. An evaluation of what was done in Alberta shows clearly that they had a reduction in the numbers of offenders and repeat offenders subsequent to what they were doing.

My argument is that because of the severity of the Criminal Code, conviction becomes intricate and costly. What we favour is hopefully harmonizing the provinces. Under the highway code you are guilty, you have to prove your innocence, as opposed to the Criminal Code, where it is the other way around.

Ontario is moving this fall into a three-day suspension for the first time somebody gets pulled over with a BAC in excess of 0.05, between 0.05 and 0.08. We believe that currently, with the exception of Quebec, we already have a 0.05 and for new drivers we have a zero BAC already in place.

We want to see the provinces work on this at that level because we feel it's more efficient and we can get more drivers off the road when there is a RIDE program, for example. Once they're charged at the criminal level, the time that is required to do it and so on basically means that these roadside RIDE programs, for example, cannot continue because of the lack of needed resources.

We feel the deterrent, the visible enforcement, is important because people will behave according to being caught. They're not afraid of dying; they're afraid of getting caught. So we need that presence, and a BAC of 0.05 would eventually remove some of that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had said the administrative measures by provinces were not working.

[Andrew Murie]

I think my colleague is referring to a study on administrative licence suspension, which is that when you're actually charged at a roadside it's 90 days.

There has never been a formal evaluation of the provincial system, of the 0.05 system, to show its effectiveness. There was a brief one done in Ontario when it was introduced, and it really showed no effectiveness. The problem is the sanctions ranging from 4 to 24 hours are not enough impact to make the drinking driver wake up and realize.... In a lot of jurisdictions there are actually no ramifications. You could have 200 of those, because there are no records kept in most jurisdictions. So it's nothing that impacts.

If you're going to put a provincial system in place, there are two things they can't have. It has to be substantial enough to make the drinking driver not repeat that behaviour. The other thing is it can't be a patchwork quilt. We've had a system for 30 years, and Quebec still doesn't have one. If that's the future that holds, in 2038 we're going to have a very improper system. That's the advantage of a federal system. That's the advantage of a federal 0.05.

Also, we've dealt with some of the issues that my colleague is concerned with here on a ticketing offence. The criminal record automatically goes away after a certain period of time. The penalties should go with the level of blood alcohol concentration.

[Raynald Marchand]

The evaluation of the Alberta administrative licence suspension program was done by Howard Research in August 2005, and it is referenced at the end of our document. What they found was a 24% drop in the number of repeat impaired offenders and a 19% reduction in the number of repeat offenders involved in alcohol-related collisions that caused injury or death. So it is documented.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I don't want to go on with this one any longer, because I won't get to my other question and the chair will cut me off.

Mr. Mann--just a quick yes or no is fine--scientifically, are most drinking and driving offenders repeat offenders? Is there a high rate of recidivism?

[Dr. Robert Mann]

If you look at the number of offenders coming into the courts, most of them, in fact, are first offenders in terms of what's being defined as an offender by the court and by the Ministry of Transportation. It's quite likely that they've driven after drinking or driven while impaired many times before that. But in terms of the folks coming into the court system, most are first offenders.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

One of the things we've found from experts in the criminal system, and not just for this, is the huge proportion of repeat offending, whether they're caught or not. It is solved by doing something to stop recidivism when we have these people at our fingertips, such as treatment, even mental health treatment, and so on. I was a bit disappointed that no witnesses talked about how you cure the root of the problem as opposed to just giving another ticket. I wonder if anyone wants to comment on things that can be done to actually eliminate people offending in the first place, or at least reoffending once we have them in our hot little hands.