Justice Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

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

In Quebec, if a driver is arrested for having a BAC of more than 0.08%, but his case has not yet gone to trial, his driver's license is suspended for either 30 days or 90 days, pursuant to the highway safety code.

[Raynald Marchand]

I believe the suspension is for 90 days.

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

However, if this individual does not drive for 90 days and is eventually exonerated, then the principle of reverse onus does not apply. Is that correct?

[Émile Therrien]

No.

[Raynald Marchand]

In fact, under the highway safety code, a person's driver's license is suspended for 90 days from the time the charge is laid. If this person has not appeared in court within this 90-day period, his license is reinstated, pursuant to the provisions of this same code, until such time as he makes a court appearance. However, if, after two weeks or 30 days, the Crown decides not to prosecute this individual, then his license is reinstated.

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

I believe Mr. Mann touched on some medical considerations.

In Quebec, a person involved in an accident is charged if his BAC is 0.08%. That person must subsequently undergo testing to determine if he has an alcohol addiction problem. This test which was developed by the Société de l'assurance automobile, costs $581. However, there is a shortage of people to administer this test. Could this be the problem?

[Raynald Marchand]

Are you referring to the Alcofrein program?

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

No, I'm talking about the program where the Société de l'assurance automobile asks people who have been stopped to prove that they are not addicted to alcohol, among other things, by providing a medical certificate.

This too may be a problem area, Mr. Mann. We are talking here about administrative matters.

[Dr. Robert Mann]

Yes.

I would like to comment on that. I think Quebec's program is widely recognized as an excellent program in that regard, and most or perhaps all the other provinces now have an assessment component to their remedial programs where offenders come in and are assessed in terms of the alcohol, drug, and other problems they're experiencing and the kinds of risks they have.

In Ontario, it's used to determine the level of program they're screened to and what kind of involvement they need to have with the program in order to complete the program requirement.

I think it's recognized that these are important components of the system to deal with these individuals.

One of the studies of convicted drinking drivers we did a number of years ago involved a sample of about 700 second offenders. We followed them for 8 to 13 years to see what killed them. When we look at the elevations in mortality rates, it turns out that the profile we see of what kills a group of second offenders is what we see when we look at what kills our alcoholics coming in for treatment. They are six times more likely to die from a liver disease, seven times more likely to die from alcohol-dependant syndrome, twice as likely to die from accidental and violent causes like suicide, collisions, falls, and fires, but that was the largest number of deaths.

So it's absolutely clear that in the group of convicted offenders we see a large number who have drinking problems or early-stage drinking problems, and from an addictions treatment perspective, this represents a good way to address these folks at this early stage.

So I think that's widely recognized now, and I believe most if not all provinces have a way to try to accomplish that.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Moving along, next up is Mr. Lee. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to preface my remarks with three things. First, I was stopped at a spot check on Saturday night at the crossroads of the 401 and Yonge Street in Toronto. It wasn't a problem, but it was a big spot check and it was clearly there for a period of time. I mention this to make everyone feel better that this kind of thing is going on, the random spot check.

Second, I spent a few hours last week at Heathrow Airport looking at their systems for screening out drug swallowers, as they call them, the importers bringing drugs in by swallowing them. They have to pick these people out of aircraft that have 300 people on them. They have machines and dogs and all kinds of things. It's a tough job. They have the airport customs authority, which is a lot different from what we would have on the street here trying to find a drunk driver randomly.

Finally, I sat on this committee in 1999, so there's a bit of pride in authorship here, and it might be a tough sell to get me to change my mind nine years later. But all the other faces here are fresh faces, good minds, and they're listening. I'm saying that to MADD principally, but also to the other witnesses.

I want to ask a question that to me is fundamental. I appreciate that almost anything we could do to reduce deaths would have a huge plus in it. I say that in theory. But when it comes to the practice, we end up with practical challenges.

I'm going to direct my question to Mr. Murie. The provinces have been able to address the 0.05 to 0.08 category through their administrative penalties, without having to involve themselves in the application of criminal procedures, which require a relatively intense investment in procedure and infrastructure. They've just been able to do it. It may not be working as well as you'd like, but it's got to be working somehow. It allows a quick response to a drinking driver. This is exactly what enforcement of every other criminal statute would entail anyway. It's not whether the guy is going to get a six-month or a two-year sentence that deters him; rather, it's the prospect of getting caught.

I think the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, have stepped up to the plate and have done a good job. I'm happy to spend millions of dollars, or require the provinces to spend millions and millions of dollars, to save an extra 100 lives, or whatever the data works out to be. But I put to you this question: do you think we have to go there? Do you think we can improve the 0.05 to 0.08 administrative response in a way that would obviate the need to criminalize the 0.05 to 0.08? Is there another way we can do this?

[Andrew Murie]

There are two ways you can do it, and we've talked very openly about that. You can do it through the Criminal Code or you can do it through the highway traffic act. What we now know is that impaired driving costs the Canadian public $11 billion a year. That's the estimate. So we're not talking a few million; it's $11 billion a year. It's quite a high cost to the economics of our country.

The second thing is, I disagree with you, the provinces have not stepped up to the plate. Mr. Mann just referred to the fact that the provincial legislation on 0.05 to 0.10 does not work and is ineffective. It has had no impact on drinking drivers. If it's to be effective, there has to be good enforcement of it, so that's where the random breath testing would enhance it. The second thing is, it has to be a wake-up call for that drinking driver. A 12-hour suspension does not do it. Also, having this patchwork quilt of different sanctions across the country does not allow us to educate the Canadian public. Effective administration of the law and good public education will change the behaviours of Canadians when it comes to drinking and driving. That's what we need. We've been very clear with that.

You could also do that federally with 0.05--with penalties taken into consideration. We don't want the severity of the current Criminal Code penalties, but it could be a 45-day licence suspension. There could be other ramifications for repeat offenders while keeping the fine reasonable, a ticketing offence, which saves on police and judicial costs as well.

So there are effective ways of doing this. We have made two proposals: one that's done provincially and one that's done federally, taking into consideration all that has been expressed since 1999.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you.

The next member on the list is Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you doing such a good job in your position. I certainly admire the work you've done this evening and afternoon.

Mr. White, I do have a couple of questions. One of the things you mentioned was the prospect of raising the penalty according to the amount of blood alcohol in someone's system. Is that correct?

[Chris White]

Correct.

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

I'm trying to determine how that would work. Generally speaking, in law, the severity of the crime and the result of the crime are what determine the severity of the penalty or the sentence. You're suggesting that we actually have a schedule that says if you're at 0.08 or if you're at 1.1, depending on how significant or how serious it is.... Have you researched that to find out how that would survive a test in a court of law?

[Chris White]

We haven't researched it from the perspective of how it would stand up in a court of law, but we heard a number of things when we surveyed our members. One is, because there is an inconsistency in terms of applicability from province to province, they are looking at--and I think some of the other witnesses have spoken to this--sort of a common standard that can be applied from one province to the next.

We look at people who are chronic offenders, and we know, for example, that if they're caught, their sentence is X. But if they're caught again, we'd like to see it be more severe. Clearly we know it goes up, but, for example, when it's 0.08 or over, there doesn't seem to be.... I could be 0.1, I could be 1.5, or I could be 2.4; there doesn't seem to be a delineation in terms of the severity.

What our members tell us when we do our annual surveys is they would like to see that type of delineation. Now, how that would stand up in a court of law...we certainly haven't gone to the Canadian Bar Association. We haven't done that kind of analytical work. But from their perspective, that's something they would like us to at least consider, to see whether there is any appetite and any legitimacy to that kind of a scope, if you will.

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

On your last point, certainly there may be an appetite for it; the question is whether or not it actually has grounding in a court of law. Partly the study is determining what we can do to address the issue, and how to do it, in terms of legislation.

So if it is a recommendation that you're making on behalf of the membership, I think it might be in your best interest to find out and determine whether or not that actually would survive a challenge, because at this point I'm not sure it would. But thanks, I do appreciate that.

To Mr. Murie, I want to be clear on a couple of the comments you made. One thing you said at the outset was that you're not necessarily in favour of harsher penalties because that won't necessarily drive down the number of impaired driving convictions we have in this country. Is that fair?

[Andrew Murie]

That is correct.

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

Okay. I want to counterbalance that a little bit.

I did hear you say that there should be a greater number of days with respect to a suspension, that there should be a greater number of random breath tests taking place. You argued that lowering the rate to 0.05 would eliminate more drunk drivers from the road--or get higher convictions, I suppose.

I guess I would argue that you actually are presenting a case for harsher penalties. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to say...and I'm not trying to pin you into a corner here. However, on the one hand, you're talking about not moving into a harsher penalty for what we're doing. On the other hand, your three recommendations certainly suggest to me that it would be a harsher penalty or certainly a harsher action on behalf of the crown.

[Andrew Murie]

When I speak of no more harsher penalties, I'm talking about taking our existing laws, like the 0.08, and adding increased penalties to our existing provisions in the Criminal Code. What we presented today was that when you look at what we're talking about on suspensions on 0.05, it is dramatically less, 45 days less, than the current one-year driving prohibition. So it's less, but it can be effectively done in a much more efficient way. Police can lay more charges.

The whole premise of this is to drive down the number of drinking drivers on the roadway. As I said earlier, it's about working effectively, using the tools that have worked worldwide.

So it's not a case of applying more harsh penalties than what we have now. It's a case of looking at new techniques--like 0.05, like random breath testing--for deterrence rather than punishment.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

This will be your last question.

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

Thanks.

I know Mr. Marchand would like to respond as well. I am just going to put one question to Mr. Mann, and hopefully Mr. Marchand will have the time to respond.

Mr. Mann, I was interested in your comments about the legal limit study from 1998 that showed you'd prevent up to 155 deaths, getting to a lower rate, by lowering the limit. I wonder if you could just expand for a couple of moments...or I guess you don't have that long. Perhaps you would give just a brief response on the tests that brought you to that result.

[Dr. Robert Mann]

We looked at studies from Australia and Europe that examined what happened when legal limits were lowered to 0.05 in Australia and in European countries. The studies were looking at collision fatality rates and using econometric analyses that controlled for things like alcohol consumption levels in the population and other known factors that affect collision mortality rates--weather conditions and so on.

In those studies, what they found was that when the legal limit was lowered to 0.05, there was a 6% to 18% reduction. The range of reduction was 6% to 18% in fatality rates. That's where that range comes from of between 185 and 555 deaths prevented if we apply that to Canadian roads.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Mr. LeBlanc, you have the floor.