Evidence of meeting #6 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bac.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Did you take into account how some of those significant changes we made would make the system that much more difficult?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
I think we're optimistic that those changes will have an impact, but it's important that we see whether they do have an impact before we continue adding more to the justice system.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for having come this afternoon. I have already seen several of you during the last session, when we were discussing drug-impaired driving rather than alcohol. We are now trying to review the changes that we might make to blood alcohol levels and driving impaired by alcohol. Let us set drug-impaired driving aside and concentrate only on alcohol. That is the subject in fact of my question.
We are discussing amending the Criminal Code. As I always say, the Criminal Code is philosophy. It governs what we do in our daily lives and determines whether or not we will be punished. The Criminal Code is part and parcel of who we are.
My question is either for Mr. Andrew Murie or for Mr. Solomon. In some provinces, if an adult is smoking a cigarette in his or her car while accompanied by children, they can be charged and convicted of an offence. To my knowledge, cigarettes do not alter a person's faculties, but that person can nevertheless be convicted. In the same province, a driver can get behind the wheel of a car with a BAC under 0.08% with children in the car, and not be charged with anything and continue on his way.
I am really wondering about this, and I need your assistance. I want to believe that we should all end up with a 0.05% level. I would however like to know what makes you want to reduce the legal BAC to 0.05%, given that in some provinces, smoking a simple cigarette in a car where there are children can result in a conviction, whereas a driver with a BAC below 0.08% driving a car in which there are children will not be charged.
I would like to hear what you have to say about that comparison. If we are going to review the legislation, you will have to at least tell us what your motivation is, scientific principles aside, in wanting to reduce the legal blood alcohol level to 0.05%.
Legal Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Thank you very much.
What motivates us to move to 0.05 is our review of the traffic safety literature worldwide. Looking at various issues, the two most effective ways of reducing impaired driving deaths and injuries in developed democracies like ours is to lower the blood alcohol level and to introduce random breath testing. So we're motivated by the prospect of reducing deaths and injuries on our roads.
Again, I want to note that we have not been very successful. As a matter of fact, Transport Canada just did a recent study, in 2008, in which they looked at the progress they've made in meeting their targets. Transport Canada and the CCMTA, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, set targets in 1996 for where they wanted to be in terms of impaired driving deaths and injuries. The sad fact is that we failed miserably in meeting those targets. Impaired driving deaths now are higher than in 1999. So our concern is reducing the number of victims, the number of deaths, and the number of injuries. That's what motivates us, and we're driven by the research.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have a question for you, Ms. Robertson. Earlier on, you raised a very interesting subject, that is the bottlenecks in the court system due to the higher number of cases that might be heard if the legal blood alcohol level was 0.05%.
I would like to point out one thing to you. This is true in the case of Ontario, where legal aid fees are paid by the hour. The more time a lawyer takes before the court, the more he is paid. In my province, Quebec, we work on a case basis. The maximum amount that a lawyer can be paid for arguing a case of this nature is approximately $500. He or she must appear, receive the evidence from the Crown, set a date and attend the trial. The trial lasts from eight to ten hours, including the time spent waiting for the case to be called. On average, a lawyer works for approximately 20 hours and earns $500. In Quebec, people plead guilty.
There is perhaps a problem that is not in the purview of the federal government but rather of the provinces, who have a different way of dealing with cases before the court. In Ontario, half of the cases are subsidized through legal aid on an hourly basis, and not a case-by-case basis.
Did you look at the differences between Quebec and Ontario?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
We looked at all the jurisdictions across the country in terms of their individual caseloads, in terms of their conviction rates, and we found Quebec had the lowest conviction rate of any other jurisdiction of the cases going to trial. We didn't look at how the costing was done for particular cases, but we did find very comparable trends across all the jurisdictions. We found Quebec probably faced the greatest challenge in prosecuting cases because evidence to the contrary was significant. They tended to do more cases in the 0.08 range and they also had more delays in going to trial.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I should say at the beginning I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Rathgeber.
First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming today. Some of you have come multiple times, and it's clear to see the passion and the knowledge and the expertise you have for this issue. I think it's pretty apparent what we're trying to do. We want to increase conviction rates and increase deterrence at the same time. Some of the discussion around the table today, while enlightening, is somewhat discouraging.
Ms. Robertson has said we're not getting the success in bringing our conviction rates up, so why would we want to bog the system down more? In your studies, have you found where the problem is? Is it in the numbers of crown prosecutors or is the bottleneck further down the chain? Do they not have the support staff to provide the background information and the research they need to prosecute properly? Have you been able to identify where the issue is?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
I think a lot of the issue stems from caseload. The caseload of crown prosecutors is four times that of defence counsel, so off the bat they're fighting an uphill battle. While we may be doing well enforcing and arresting and bringing people in, all things considered it seems to be when the cases come to court people are not willing to plead guilty because of the criminal conviction and because of the licence suspension. Even in instances where the criminal conviction is expunged, the U.S. is under no obligation to recognize that expungement. It's quite the paperwork process to go through. We're seeing more and more that Canadians who want to go across the border are having a more difficult time. Obviously, having a criminal conviction is going to have an impact.
Even at U.S. customs, they found U.S. citizens who come across the border to Canada have difficulty getting back because of that conviction. I think we shouldn't underestimate the impact that criminal conviction is going to have on the average citizen and the degree to which they're willing to go to great lengths to avoid that conviction.
Conservative
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
For cases at trial.
Conservative
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
Generally, it is higher, and I'll provide you with a copy of the report, which will show what progress or what lack of progress we've been making. You'll see that for cases going to trial the conviction rate will range from 42% to about 75%, so some jurisdictions are doing better in terms of managing cases.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
This is my last question before I go to Mr. Rathgeber. Which jurisdictions in this country are doing better?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
I would have to say the Atlantic provinces are doing better, and the jurisdictions struggling the most would be Ontario and Quebec.
Conservative
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you.
Back to Professor Solomon. You indicated a couple of times today that impaired driving continues to be on the rise and death caused by impaired drivers is also on the rise. In the last 10 years, both levels of government have taken some steps to get tough on this matter. We have increased prohibitions and increased suspensions under the Criminal Code. Fines have increased. In the last 10 years, provinces, with the exception of Quebec, have all brought in administrative suspensions for readings as low as 0.05.
In light of that, why do you believe--and someone else may be able to help you--that if we go to either 0.05 in the Criminal Code and/or bring in random testing it will help the problem?
Legal Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
We have, over the last several years, made the penalities higher. The evidence is overwhelming, not only in the impaired driving field but in other fields, that increasing the severity of the penalty is not what has the deterrent impact. What has the deterrent impact is an increase in the perceived risk of apprehension, and clearly that would be done with a lower blood alcohol level and also with random breath testing. What we often hear in Canada is that we have the toughest laws. It's not about tough laws; it's about effective laws. When we looked at effective laws--there are people who have spent their lives reviewing all kinds of traffic safety measures--they are consistent, whether the study came out of Oxford, Washington, Australia, or Europe: the things that work and have the most effect are random breath testing, which is the highest, and lowering permissible blood alcohol levels.
Let me just say one thing. I'm not opposed to streamlining the current criminal law. The current federal impaired driving law is horrifically complex and convoluted. It takes forever to process even a simple impaired driving case. So we can do much better administratively in terms of the process. But that alone won't get you substantial reductions. I think we have to understand that the rates of binge drinking are increasing in this country, particularly among young people. The rates of driving after drug use are increasing. So we have to take effective measures, and it appears to us that there are effective measures that have worked in countries similar to our own.
What MADD Canada is proposing in terms of a 0.05 offence is not simply lowering the limit. We've actually drafted legislation, which was introduced in the House of Commons, that would streamline procedures, would allow an individual to plead guilty without making a court appearance, and would have an automatic expungement of the criminal record after two years. It would address some of the concerns about the backlog in courts.
Conservative
