JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 10, 1999

• 1532

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We have received a notice of motion by Mr. Reynolds. Perhaps we could deal with that first. Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): I move, Mr. Chairman, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights undertake an immediate review of the operation and impact of the use of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code regarding conditional sentencing, with the view to amend this section to ensure it is not used by the judiciary in cases involving violent crime.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that Ms. Bakopanos has an amendment, which I would agree to if it's the same one we talked about a few minutes ago.

The Chairman: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): There's no change in this, Mr. Reynolds. I did in fact discuss this with the members of the committee on the opposition side. I don't want to put words in their mouths, but they've agreed in principle to amend the motion as follows: that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights undertake, as requested by the Minister of Justice in her letter dated April 20, 1998, an immediate review of the operation and impact of the use of...

I just want to make one comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Just one moment, please.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Okay.

The Chairman: I have a question for you, Mr. Reynolds. Are you incorporating that into your main motion?

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes, that's fine.

The Chairman: Okay. So we're going to have just one vote on that motion as indicated.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine.

The Chairman: Perhaps we'll move to a discussion now. Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I do want a clarification from the research staff. When section 742.1 of the Criminal Code was brought in, it was indicated that it was not intended for violent crimes. If that's the intent, it's redundant to have it in your motion, Mr. Reynolds. I just want a clarification. In terms of the debate, I can assure you that was not the intent of conditional sentencing. I don't want to get into a debate here, but if you would be willing, we could just stop after “conditional sentencing”. If you want to add the rest, I'm not going to argue about that, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think I'd just like to leave it in on the basis that if it is in there and they're doing it, we'll see that when we get the evidence.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Okay. I just wanted to clarify the legal point.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think everyone agrees we don't want it used for violent crime, and obviously some are doing so.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes.

The Chairman: Are the research staff prepared to comment on that?

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): What I can tell you is that the original amendment to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C-41 was itself later amended to require that judges look at the principles or purposes of sentencing specifically in relation to general and specific deterrents. That was probably an intent to ensure that the judiciary didn't apply conditional sentencing in all cases, specifically in cases involving serious violence or death.

• 1535

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: If we adopt this motion, Mr. Reynolds, we have a problem in terms of the committee's work.

Mr. John Reynolds: I already talked to the chairman. We're going to meet next Tuesday and talk about that, and I'm prepared to go along with whatever the committee agrees on at that time as to how we fit it in.

The Chairman: The steering committee will meet before our regular meeting next Tuesday to deal with all of these problems. That's a good point, though.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's fine. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Just on that same point, when the motion says “immediate”, that leaves it open-ended.

Mr. John Reynolds: It means as fast as we can do it. We'll come to an agreement on that in the steering committee.

The Chairman: Perhaps I can just read what I understand the motion to be. Mr. Reynolds moves that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights undertake, as requested by the Minister of Justice in her letter to the committee chair dated April 20, 1998, an immediate review of the operation and impact of the use of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code regarding conditional sentencing, with the view to amend the section to ensure it is not used by the judiciary in cases involving violent crime.

Is everyone clear on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would like to have for the record the French version of this. I would also like to have tabled the new version with the amendment.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chairman: With that business having been taken care of, we can move to hearing our witnesses. Today we have with us, from the Barreau du Québec, Carole Brosseau,

[Translation]

a lawyer from the Comité en droit criminel; and Jean Asselin.

[English]

I understand you have a presentation of approximately ten minutes. Then we'll go to questions from committee members.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau (Lawyer, Comité permanent en droit criminel, Quebec Bar Association): Thank you.

Before I begin, on behalf of the president of the Quebec Bar Association, I would like to transmit his thanks for having invited us once again to present our views on the issues paper that was submitted for our consideration.

For procedural purposes, I would like to state that in the coming days, we will be sending the clerk of your committee a brief on the subject. Because of the short notice, we were not able to present it to you here today.

I would like to explain briefly how the Quebec Bar works. I'm a lawyer with the research and legislation service of the Bar, which includes the committee of experts that counts Mr. Jean Asselin as a member. Mr. Asselin is here with me today, and he is a lawyer specialized in criminal law and defence law. All our decisions are ratified by the administrative committee of the Quebec Bar and eventually become the official position of the bar.

Since we do not have a written presentation to give you today, let me state that I will be referring specifically to the issues paper. We will review each of the questions asked in the paper and respond to each of them systematically.

I will begin with the first question which is as follows: "Do current Criminal Code penalties adequately reflect the seriousness of the various offences, especially in the case of repeat offenders and or those impaired drivers who cause injury or death?" The second question reads as follows: "Are the current penalties a sufficient deterrent?"

We do not agree with a gradation other than the one already contained in the Criminal Code. We do not think that graduated offences or even the potential increase in the severity of penalties will deter delinquent drivers from driving their automobiles. To our knowledge, there are only rare cases of the penalty truly having the deterrent effect that the committee is currently seeking.

• 1540

Without delving into a detailed history of graduated penalties, I would like to remind you of the recommendations formulated by the late Law Reform Commission of Canada. From 1983 to 1991, the Commission conducted research on this topic and arrived at various conclusions concerning the level of graduated penalties that are now all integrated into the Criminal Code. This was a very lengthy, thoughtful process which, in our opinion, still stands today. The gradation provided for in section 249 of the Criminal Code is still justified. We will certainly not achieve the desired deterrent effect by increasing the severity of penalties.

Next, you ask the following sub-question: "Is there an argument for a lifetime licence suspension and, if so, in what circumstances should it apply?" We believe that lifetime licence suspension lead to greater difficulties and more frequent delinquency. Lifetime suspensions have a perverse effect. For example, in 1997, 18,000 Quebec drivers saw their licences revoked, and it was observed that these drivers sometimes used cars that did not belong to them, and without driver's licences. It is difficult to control all the actions of delinquent drivers whose licences have been revoked. Moreover, we must not forget that the entire discussion surrounding legislative provisions is within the purview of the provinces and territories as well as the federal government, which has the Criminal Code. On this issue, we must be able to count on the concerted efforts of the federal government and the provinces, which are in the best position to administer the difficulties inherent in revoking driver's licences. Lifetime licence suspension is certainly not a desirable solution, since, in our opinion, it will lead to perverse effects.

Let me go on to the next question: "Should the Criminal Code mandate assessment for all impaired drivers in order to identify so-called "hard core" drinking drivers?" We fail to see how one could truly identify hard core drinking drivers. How could we ever come up with an exhaustive definition of a hard core drinking driver? It will be very difficult to come up with such a definition, both in terms of legislative provisions and the application of these provisions. Mandated assessment might be possible, although very difficult, if we were truly capable of identifying these drivers, especially since we would encounter a constitutional obstacle since this would be an invasion of the privacy of these individuals. Constitutionally speaking, the viability of such a provision could not be guaranteed.

The next sub-question reads: "Should hard core drinking drivers be required to undergo treatment, in addition to the normal penalties?" This question raises two problems, the first of which is of a purely sociological nature. The top criterion for the success of a detoxification program is voluntary participation, without which such a program can be perceived as a dual penalty. A compulsory program would have a very low success rate.

I would also like to remind you that there is currently a case pending before the Supreme Court. It's not exactly a case of driving under the influence. I'm referring to the case of the young Aboriginal woman from Manitoba who was being forced into a detoxification to prevent problems in the foetus she was carrying. In that case, it was deemed that compulsory detoxification was unconstitutional and violated the Charter. I think that the Supreme Court did not render a decision in this case, but after the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, it can be stated that this provision still presents a major constitutional problem.

• 1545

In the next question, which is certainly not the least important, you ask: "Should the legal blood alcohol content limit be lowered from .08?" The answer to that question is purely one of choice. As an example, in various provinces of Canada and in various American States, blood alcohol content limits vary a great deal. We do not have any toxicology studies that would enable us to state that a given BAC limit affects the driver's faculties to the point where he should not drive. Moreover, we are not toxicologists. There is no scientifically recognized measure. For alcohol, we have some, but for drugs, there is no specific measure that allows us to state this scientifically. Our opinion on this issue is that it is truly a question of choice.

I'd like to give you a concrete example. As I was saying, there has been some evolution in Canadian and Quebec society regarding tolerance for drinking drivers or drivers under the influence, whether this can be attributed to toxic substances such as drugs or to alcohol.

Recently, in Quebec, barely two years ago, we amended the Highway Safety Code by focussing mainly on young people between 18 and 25. The consumption of any quantity of alcohol whatsoever is no longer tolerated for these young people. This program, called the "zero tolerance" program means that now, no young driver can drive with any blood alcohol content whatsoever. This is one measure; zero is a measure.

I think that it is up to the government to make the decision required under the circumstances. All choices are allowed. You ask about the .08 level, but any choice is possible. I think this is a matter of social choice. In Quebec, it was felt that for young drivers, given their inexperience as well as the statistics that reveal that they have the highest level of accidents, we had to adopt a zero tolerance.

Will this choice be enshrined in the Criminal Code? That depends on you. But I know that this choice is not an easy one to make. Will toxicology studies help you make it? We don't know. It's really not an easy issue to settle.

For the second sub-question, I will give the floor to my colleague.

Mr. Jean Asselin (lawyer, Comité permanent en droit criminel, Quebec Bar Association): In the second sub-question, you are asking if, in our opinion, it would be valid to have a gradation of penalties according to the driver's blood alcohol content. The answer, at least from the standpoint of the Bar and the Comité permanent en droit criminel, is no. The main reason for this is that graduated penalties could encourage people to refuse to take a breathalyser test.

I must say, as a practitioner of criminal law, that most judges apply their discretionary powers in a judicious and fair manner, in accordance with the specific case and the facts, of course. When a person is truly over the legal limit, clearly, the majority of judges will hand down a much more severe sentence even if it's a first offence.

For example, for a first offence, the minimum fine under the Criminal Code is $300 for a driver found guilty of driving under the influence. But if this person with no criminal record has a blood alcohol level of, let's say, .18, the judge will impose a much more severe sentence than the minimum fine provided for in the Criminal Code. I think that we have to trust judges in this matter and that legislators should not intervene.

• 1550

We were also asked whether, in our opinion, the police should have greater powers to demand breath, blood or saliva samples for alcohol or drug testing. Once again, our answer would be no. We feel that the Criminal Code provides the police with complete and exhaustive powers. If it was the legislator's intent to increase police powers, it should be recalled that the Supreme Court has already handed down a decision on this issue in 1995, by declaring that the requirement of reasonable grounds to subject an individual to a breathalyser test, as provided for in section 253 of the Criminal Code, is a constitutional requirement provided in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here again, there would be an obvious constitutional problem if ever we sought to increase the powers of police and lower the threshold of reasonable grounds.

Another sub-question states: "Does the Criminal Code allow the police sufficient time to collect blood samples?" Here I would say that the provisions of the Criminal Code are clear enough, in my opinion, and according to the Bar Association, give the police all powers necessary to collect breath or blood samples.

I believe that section 258 of the Criminal Code means that blood or breath samples must be obtained as soon as it is possible to do so, within a two-hour time frame, so that the presumption of guilt can be applied. The legislator's intent here was obviously to ensure that the blood alcohol levels determined reflected the driver's blood alcohol level at the time where the offence was committed. In our opinion, it would be inappropriate to change that.

The next sub-question overlaps with the previous one in our opinion: "Should drivers involved in serious accidents be automatically subject to blood and alcohol testing?" Here again, of course, a Charter-related problem could arise. The powers of the police are really quite exhaustive.

If you consider section 256 of the Criminal Code, you will see that the police can obtain a telewarrant very quickly in order to collect a blood sample where a driver or third party has a bodily injury or when someone dies. The deadline provided for in a telewarrant is four hours. We therefore feel that the provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient.

The Charter problem that might arise has been examined by the Supreme Court which responded to it in 1993 in the Dersch case. The police had asked the doctor to collect blood samples without the person's consent. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated rights guaranteed under the Charter.

I will now go on to the next question which is: "Should impaired driving offences be brought under the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial or territorial court judge, in order to eliminate an accused person's right to elect a preliminary inquiry or trial by jury?"

At the outset I would answer that if the legislator intends that persons accused of impaired driving, or having also caused bodily harm or death, no longer have the right to a preliminary hearing or a trial by jury, he could run into subsection 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to this subsection, a person is entitled to benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment of five years or more.

Thus, if it is indeed the legislator's intent to deprive persons accused of impaired driving of trial by jury, he will have to reduce the maximum penalties provided for under section 255 of the Criminal Code.

• 1555

My colleague will respond to the other part of the question.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: To follow up on this answer, I would say that on one hand, we did try to obtain statistics before coming here, but we were unsuccessful. We were curious to find out the true percentage or number of cases that are actually brought before jury in such circumstances. In our opinion and according to our experience, this number is minimal.

Moreover, the whole issue of preliminary hearings has been brought up regularly in the past few years. When you start chipping away procedure such as the preliminary hearing, with regard to one specific aspect of the Criminal Code, the result can be an unbalance in the entire Code. The preliminary hearing is applied universally. I think that the contentious issue or all the problems that have been raised in the past few years regarding the preliminary hearing should be examined in this context. Under the circumstances, we should not eliminate any possibility of a preliminary hearing given the arguments put forth by my colleague.

We also wanted to speak in general terms about these questions. This is in addition to what has already been proposed or raised regarding constitutionality under the Charter.

The last question to us is as follows: "The Criminal Code currently allows the courts to discharge an impaired driver who is in need of "curative treatment" by placing that person on probation with the condition that he or she attends such treatment. Is this appropriate?"

Obviously, it is appropriate in our opinion to count on the curative effect or to use deterrents if the person is very aware of his or her problem. I think that in doing so, we save at least one life, and perhaps many others, or at least the integrity of several people. That is the objective: to deter and to ensure that unfortunate incidents are not repeated.

Lastly, there is the following sub-question: "Are there other sentencing options that should be made available to the courts?"

As a last resort, we could offer the courts certain alternative solutions. For example, from a technical standpoint, there could be widespread use of the alcohol ignition interlock which may be extremely useful. I think we should give it some serious thought. Technology is improving in this area, and this could become a very useful tool both for the driver and for society in general.

But the most constructive solution, and I think that we have seen this in Quebec in the last few years, is public awareness and long-term deterrence. People must be made aware of the dangers of drinking and driving as well as drugs even though, right now, there is no medical or scientific method that enables us to evaluate the degree of impairment in a driver's ability to drive a vehicle with toxic substances or drugs in the blood stream. I believe that a public awareness campaign could be instituted, but I don't know how. This could certainly be done in co-operation with the provinces. With regard to that, I would like to give you an example.

A few years ago in Quebec, for those who may have seen...

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Brosseau, I apologize for interrupting, but we've gone over our allotted time and the committee members are anxious to ask questions. Could you wind up very quickly. We only have three quarters of an hour slotted in to hear you, and that includes questions as well.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Fine. I think that we have answered all the questions.

The topic is certainly a complex one. Moreover, as I was telling you, it is an area of shared jurisdiction that must be examined in co-operation with the provinces.

I must say that I am not familiar with the situation across the country, but Quebec has already put in place administrative measures that have had an effect on such drivers. Those driving under the influence of alcohol, etc., have their driver's licence suspended immediately. Administrative measures have been taken and there is growing public awareness of the problem. I will end my remarks there.

• 1600

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Harris, I'd perhaps ask that the questions be short and succinct, and the answers as well, so we can move on as quickly as we can to other members.

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): I'll try, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Dick Harris: Thank you for your presentation.

I'm sure you're aware that impaired driving kills about 1,400 people a year and injures over 50,000 a year. It costs untold hundreds of millions of dollars in health care insurance costs. Despite those very alarming and tragic numbers, I get the impression from your presentation that in your opinion we should simply leave things as they are, that the laws are working fine as they deal with impaired driving, and that in effect really no further changes or steps to enhance deterrence or ensure that the penalties more suitably reflect the seriousness of the crime should be made. Is that what you're saying today?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: No, that is not exactly what we said. We answered the questions on the basis of the decisions that have been made.

At present, the Criminal Code provides for tiered penalties. Our comment was that increasing penalties does not have a deterrent effect. For example, you gave us some statistics earlier. I checked. Between 1973 and 1986, over a period of approximately 15 years, according to my note, the number of road deaths and injuries in Quebec dropped from around 2,300 to 877. I need to check my figures. I will give them to you later.

What I want to say is that this is not the only factor. There are choices to be made. Earlier, you mentioned the legal blood alcohol limit of .08. That is an issue that has been submitted to the committee for discussion and reaction. It is an option that is available. A decision could be made in favour of zero blood alcohol tolerance for anyone driving. That is a choice you can make that would remedy the situation quite quickly. But it is a choice.

As far as tiered penalties are concerned, we were pointing out the legal difficulty that you would probably face if you answered yes to some of the questions. As I mentioned, the whole issue is one of public awareness. There is also, for example, the ignition interlock and other potential ways of preventing a problem. We are not saying that it is impossible.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: If I may comment, I think we're all aware that the legal system as it deals with impaired drivers, whether by drugs or alcohol, is wraught with problems, and in all due respect is a defence lawyer's dream because it works very much in the favour of defence lawyers who are able to get hard-core impaired drivers off in many cases when the ultimate crime has occurred, which is impaired driving causing death, which means basically a traditional sentence of anywhere from zero to two and half or three years when the latitude really is zero to fourteen years. These are some of the problems we're trying to fix.

I have to take an opposite view of your opinion—

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Could I...

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: —on a higher sentence and harsher penalties being a greater deterrence. We heard testimony a couple of days ago from some experts in traffic injuries who showed us a graph going back twenty-some years, and we noticed in the graph that when the governments—both provincial and federal—decided to take a stiffer penalty look at impaired driving, impaired driving indeed started to go down.

As a matter of fact, surveys have indicated that the number one overwhelming reason people say they don't drink and drive any more is because they don't want to get caught, not because they didn't feel they could safely drive home. They feared the penalty of getting caught.

• 1605

Now, if it works to a good extent in dissuading people from impaired driving, it makes sense to many people, including myself, that it could work to an even greater extent as a deterrent if the penalties were to become more severe.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: I would first like to explain to you that the proposals we are submitting to you today are the work of a number of people together, including both Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers. We are therefore not just representing the defence side. University professors, Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers sit on our committee. We are really trying to take a broad view of the situation.

Where tiered penalties are concerned, if you will recall, we said at the beginning that the deterrent effect of increasing penalties was not automatic. You risk creating situations where other problems will arise, such as hit-and-run behaviour. We feel that increasing sanctions will give rise to other difficulties because people will leave the scene of the accident.

I will give you a recent example of something that happened in Quebec. The Carrière case got a lot of press coverage. There is a potential risk in increasing sentences.

With respect to enforcement, some people say that it may not be the content of the... There are already graduated penalties. In extreme cases, such as the ones you are talking about, or those involving repeat offenders, the Criminal Code already provides for severe penalties. I will not cite them. Under section 255, a repeat offence involving injury causing death has a 14-year sentence. I will not quote the section, but the sentence to be given is 14 years. As Mr. Asselin said earlier...

[English]

M. Dick Harris: Zero to 14 years is the latitude.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: That's right, but Mr. Asselin told you earlier that judges in cases of repeat offences hand out sentences on the basis of the particular case and use a sliding scale for penalties.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: In all due respect—

The Chairman: Mr. Harris, I'm going to have to cut you off.

Are you finished with your response?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I would like to begin by thanking Ms. Brosseau and Mr. Asselin for coming today and for accepting the committee's invitation.

One of the issues that has been laid before the committee is the hit-and-run problem. It turns out that it sometimes pays, if I may use that term, for someone who has an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol to leave the scene of the accident rather than to stay, since the penalty for leaving the scene may be less than for driving while impaired.

I would like to have your comments on that, please.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: I will answer in much the same way as I did to Mr. Harris's question. There is definitely concern that there would be more hit-and-run behaviour if sentences were increased. Increasing sentences encourages people to leave the scene of an accident. The more sentences are increased, the more you encourage people to do this.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Some people would react to your answer by saying that the solution may be simply to increase the sentences for leaving the scene of an accident at the same time as you increase sentences for impaired driving.

Mr. Jean Asselin: As you are aware, some American States have decided to reinstate the death penalty because there have been a large number of murders. Has it brought down the murder rate in those States? I don't think so. It has not stopped murders from happening in certain States.

My impression is that if priority is given to prevention, information and education, as is being done through certain campaigns like "Nez rouge"—that you probably know, coming from the Quebec City region—it would have an impact on the general public.

• 1610

Ms. Brosseau has statistics that show that in Quebec, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of deaths and serious injuries involving impaired drivers. I do not think that increasing the penalties would have a deterrent effect.

It is important to understand that someone driving while impaired is not always a delinquent or a criminal, the way one might think. In many cases, it is a good father or mother who unfortunately had one too many to drink that evening and decided to drive home anyway. The car hits someone causing death or injury.

Personally, I think that most people need to be educated about what constitutes impairment. In my opinion, the administrative measures taken in Quebec under the highway safety code deter people from driving while impaired.

Mr. Richard Marceau: What was that decrease, as a percentage or in absolute numbers?

Ms. Carole Brosseau: The statistics from the Quebec automobile insurance corporation, the SAAQ, are as follows: in 1973, there were 2,200 deaths on Quebec highways, and in 1997, there were 867. However, not all these deaths involved impaired driving.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Are there figures for the number of people arrested for impaired driving?

Ms. Carole Brosseau: I tried to get them. I was supposed to receive them at the beginning of the week, but I didn't.

Mr. Richard Marceau: We therefore can't be sure that the deterrent campaigns have an impact if...

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Well, it is a combination of factors. The present provisions of the Criminal Code go back to about 1994. It really came out of the process started by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, which began its work in 1983 and submitted its final report in 1991. The changes were based more or less on the recommendations. I have reread the report and I think that the situation has changed very little since then.

There is also the overall effect of what each of the province is doing. All provinces in Canada have adopted measures or a highway safety code that are much more strict and that take into account high-risk groups, such as young people. I know about the situation in Quebec; the high-risk group was 18 to 25 year-old males. So special provisions were made for that group. It is a combination of all that and the publicity campaigns that have had such an impact.

By the way, officials at the SAAQ were telling me that one public service message in particular had a strong impact in Quebec, among young people and others. It showed a young man in tears remembering a car accident that had caused the death of his wife or girlfriend. He wasn't impaired, but he was driving fast and did not really have control of vehicle. So there are these deterrence campaigns.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you. Ms. Brosseau, something you said struck me a bit. You talked about an ignition interlock device.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: That was in your answer—

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Right at the end.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, when you were talking about alternative solutions. So this interlock device would be ordered by the court. A court would impose the requirement on someone who has already been arrested.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: It could be installed on any vehicle. It could be part of the system...

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes! That's just what I wanted ask you. So it is something that could be part of the normal equipment.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: It's something that would be installed as a matter of course, like back running lights.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Exactly.

Mr. Jean Asselin: The interlock device is already used in Quebec. When someone is convicted of impaired driving on a first offence, an order is issued suspending the person's driver's licence for three months under the Criminal Code. After the three- month period, the highway safety code calls for an ignition interlock device to be installed until the end of the suspension, which is one year under the highway safety code. For nine months, then, the person rents the device from a firm specializing in this area and, when starting the vehicle, he or she must...

What society wants, in general, is to prevent people from driving while impaired.

• 1615

I am convinced that automobile manufacturers would be able to systematically equip all vehicles with this device. This would ensure that no one would be driving while under the influence of alcohol. This can be done.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It is too short.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mackay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Just to follow up on that, I think part of the disincentive to repeat drunk drivers is having them bear the cost of installation of this interlock device. I think they're doing that presently in Alberta, and I'm glad to hear it's happening in Quebec as well.

As did others, I couldn't help but note from your remarks—I'll qualify this by saying that you have made some useful suggestions as well, and I'm glad to hear of some of the things that are happening in Quebec—that in answer to the questions that were posed to you, the points of reference you are suggesting basically and literally say we should leave the Criminal Code alone, that we shouldn't change anything legislatively. Quite frankly, I don't think that's an option for us. I think the statistics that have been cited indicate that there has to be some change, that there has to be some intervention by the legislative branch.

I'll disclose to you that I'm a criminal lawyer. As such, I would say there's going to be a glut of litigation that comes out after any changes are made to the Criminal Code. It's inevitable. In fact, I've heard some of my colleagues say we should change the Criminal Code just because doing so is a make-work program for lawyers, given the application of the charter. So it's a given that this will happen. I guess it just comes down to us placing a higher priority on what we do as legislators in terms of trying to combat these statistics.

I will ask you my first question. With respect to the police and their ability to request sobriety tests at the scene, we saw both case law and cases emerge in the eighties that struck down the ability of police to do that. One suggestion now is that we legislate their ability to do that. I'd be interested in your response.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: I can tell you that section 636.1 of the Quebec highway safety code allows for a physical coordination test whenever the peace officer has reason to suspect the presence of alcohol.

Section 254.2 allows peace officers to check using a testing device where they have reason to suspect alcohol.

What you are proposing might be an interesting possibility. Should the Criminal Code be changed to allow for physical coordination tests whenever peace officers have reason to suspect the presence of alcohol or drugs? That might be a worthwhile measure. I do not want to speak for the Quebec Bar Association, but I think that as legislators you might look into that possibility. If you include the requirement of reasonable grounds, I think that it should stand up in court.

On the other hand, since you are doing something to a person against his or her will, on the basis of the peace officer's suspicions, as you said, there might be legal challenges under the Charter.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you suspect it would revert to the original argument that this was too much of an infringement on section 8. Even with legislative presumptions requiring an individual to do so based upon the reasonable suspicion of the officer, I guess you're again into the whole section 1 argument before the courts.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: In my opinion, it is an obvious violation. The Attorney General of Canada might be able to submit irrefutable evidence under section 1 of the Charter to justify this measure.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: There is even case law that would support it. In certain cases, it has been recognized that an action violated a person's privacy rights but that it was justified under the circumstances. I cannot cite you the cases off the top of my head, but there is a Supreme Court ruling to that effect.

• 1620

Mr. Jean Asselin: Do you remember a ruling by the Supreme Court, in the Thompson case—

Ms. Carole Brosseau: That's the one.

Mr. Jean Asselin: —where the challenge involved the fact that the policeman had used a screening test because of his suspicions. That was challenged under the Charter. In fact, the accused claimed he had a right to have a lawyer present under paragraph 10(b) of the Charter. In that case, the Supreme Court said that it was indeed a violation, but that it was justified by section 1 of the Charter.

Why? Because it is understood, and exhaustive evidence was given by the Attorney General of Canada and the provincial attorneys general, that impaired driving is a scourge and that steps must be taken to prevent it.

The change to the Criminal Code that you are proposing would satisfy the Supreme Court of Canada as long as there was solid evidence given relating to section 1 of the Charter, even if there was a violation of privacy rights and the right to protection against entry, search and seizure under section 8.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: However, a police officer always needs reasonable grounds for suspicion. I think it would stand up. I agree with my colleague.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madame Brosseau, you mentioned a case that was pending before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of compulsory detoxification. Do you have a citation or the name of that case?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: You will have that in our legislative submission. You will have all the references. I already cited the ruling on mandatory curative treatment.

Mr. Jean Asselin: That issue is before the Supreme Court.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Yes, at the moment. There is only an appeal court ruling.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thank you.

I have a final point related to your exchange with Mr. Harris.

There's obviously a different philosophy here with respect to the effects of deterrence on impaired drivers. Obviously I think there is a group of individuals affected who are chronic drinkers, who are alcoholics, and for whom you cannot legislate change. Come hell or high water, they have a problem. It's a disease, which they're not going to come to grips with, perhaps.

Mr. Asselin, you cited the death penalty example in Texas or the southern U.S. The response is that while it may not deter others, it deters them. A lifetime prohibition or a lengthy prohibition from driving is going to have some effect. To that end, upping the ante is going to impact on the statistics. If that's going to save lives, I say it is incumbent upon us to do that.

The Chairman: Can we get a quick response on that, please?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: I will answer that.

I would say yes, as long as the person is not driving. But just because we prohibit someone from driving, that does not mean that the person will not drive. That is the problem. Many people are driving despite the fact that their licence is suspended, and it is difficult to monitor those people.

And so we can say yes, in principle. The reality is something else. Is that a short enough answer?

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Brosseau. Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much for your presentation. I must say that I am of two minds. I am really torn because, on the one hand, I know that your presentation is based on very logical arguments but, on the other hand, I feel helpless.

Intuitively, nothing tells me increasing penalties will do any good. Tiered penalties and lifetime licence suspensions create all sorts of problems, which you have alluded to. I do not see how we will get results that way. I am talking about increasing what we already have.

You talk about public awareness programs, but according to something I read recently 1% of those charged were responsible for over two thirds of the accidents. I presume that if those people could have been educated about the problem, they would have been by then. Therefore, I also have doubts about the effectiveness of public awareness programs on that target group.

• 1625

When studying violation tables or graphs, you really have to understand one thing; awareness programs work primarily on those people who perhaps make an honest mistake or error for some reason or another but wish they hadn't done so. Such programs have no impact on the others.

So I certainly understand what you're saying, but, the fact remains that there are 1,400 deaths per year.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Listen, we know that this is what people are thinking. We are well aware of the fact that, as soon as this subject is raised, emotions always run high. We have suggested two solutions: the BAC of .08, while wondering if we must maintain a blood alcohol concentration and which one.

We also said that the ignition interlock appeared to be an extremely useful technical device because it was a preventative measure; we don't want the accident to occur.

As for the deterrent factor, one accident victim is always one too many.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to make a comment about the allowable BAC. There was ample evidence presented to us, on more than one occasion, moreover, that showed that the margin of error that can occur in reading the BAC means that, the lower the limit, the more inclined judges are to take this factor into consideration. In other words, with a level of .08, the impact is x, but at .04, the impact is much greater than x. This, therefore, means that the more we reduce the limit, the more difficult it is to demonstrate guilt and, consequently, to deal with the problem.

Finally, the issue of the BAC limit is really, as you said earlier, a choice that society makes. Obviously, we could promote zero tolerance. We could also promote a .04 level as is done in some countries, or a .08 level, as we do here. However, in all honesty, I do not have evidence that this measure, aside from making society feel good about itself, will truly enable us to resolve the problem posed by this hard-core 1%. I'm all ears when it comes to dealing with the problems created by the 1%. As far as I'm concerned, this is where the real problem lies.

Mr. Jean Asselin: Perhaps you could resolve your problem by deciding to advocate zero tolerance. At least part of the problem would be resolved. People who decided to drive while impaired would do so knowing that the limit allowed by law was zero and that they would risk getting a much harsher sentence. However, as you said, this is a choice made by society, a choice made by the legislator. Do we want to go that far? If we do, I think that we could resolve a good part of the problem.

We must also understand one thing that has probably happened to everyone. This .08 limit is not obvious. How can you know whether or not you have exceeded the legal limit?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm a bad example; I never drink when I drive.

Mr. Jean Asselin: There you go! On the contrary, you are a good example. But when you know that the law at least allows you to consume alcohol to a certain point, to the point where you are not impaired by the alcohol...

I can tell you that many clients with levels of .09 or .10, which is close to .08, tell us that they believed that they were able to drive their car. And this difference, for those people who decide to drive after drinking, is very tenuous. Sometimes, when clients give us this explanation, I find that they are, to some extent, right. What does being alcohol-impaired mean?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: I look for some direction from the committee. We've exhausted our time to hear these witnesses. Do we wish to go perhaps to a couple of three-minute rounds? Maybe we can just go with a quick question and answer session.

Mr. Harris, go ahead.

Mr. Dick Harris: I have to ask this question. You said it was your opinion that for people driving while impaired, in many cases they've basically lost the ability to make a good decision about whether or not they should be driving their cars, since their judgment is impaired by the alcohol, the drugs, or whatever. Well, I'd like to suggest something that was given to us the other day by the police association, just to see what you think.

• 1630

Suppose a person gets into a car to go to a bar, a party, or a nightclub, without knowing that he or she will be drinking. That person has not thought about how to get home any way other than by driving his or her vehicle. I suggest—as did the police association, and as have many others—that the culpability begins the moment such a person leaves his or her house. There is therefore a powerful case to build increased deterrence to stop that person from leaving the house while knowing he or she is going to drink, unless an alternative method of getting home has been arranged.

You say these people go out and have a drink or two, and they don't think they're over the limit. The fact is that the law says that .08—in some provinces it's different—is the allowable BAC limit. I think the onus should be put on the people who are about to drink. It's up to them to know they should not think about driving home because 99 times out of 100 they won't know whether they're impaired or not. They may very well be impaired, but they won't know it.

I'm trying to make the case for deterrence, to let a person know that it is a serious crime to drive your car after you've been drinking; that you had better make some provisions before you go out to that party or that bar, because you're going to be in serious trouble if you get caught. You don't seem to agree with that line of thought.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: Again I'll go back to what I was saying earlier; if you want to get rid of the problem, the best solution is zero tolerance. People will know what to expect then. Furthermore, if we go back to...

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: If you wanted to cut impaired driving, would zero tolerance be your recommendation, then?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: In conjunction with that, you were told that this was a political choice and that the Bar did not want to get involved in that issue. I think that it's up to you, as members of the House of Commons, to make this decision. This is not a matter for the Bar. You talk about a scourge. If you want to eliminate it, perhaps it's one avenue you could take.

My comments may be redundant, but I repeat that we spoke earlier about an ignition interlock. The Canadian government could require that automobile manufacturers install such devices systematically. I believe that the sophistication of this interlock is such that a person who has consumed alcohol will not be able to start his or her car. In this manner, we may be able to eliminate highway accidents caused by impaired drivers.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

Ms. Bakopanos.

[Translation]

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have only one question. Thank you very much for your presentation. Based on your experience, do you think that even more emphasis should be placed on youth education? Personally, I believe in zero tolerance for young people. This is my personal opinion, and not my opinion as the parliamentary secretary. I think that we should reach people right from the start, and not when they are already used to drinking alcohol. Do you have any comments to make on this issue?

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Right now we cannot ascertain what impact this will have on young people. I do believe that zero tolerance for young people has already been implemented in several provinces. What I can tell you, however, is that zero tolerance has been in effect in Quebec for only two years. We must remember that these young people will be deemed to be full-fledged adults when they are 25 years old and that perhaps they will have already got into the habit of not drinking when they drive.

Education is never a short-term process. We spend enough time in school during our life to know that this is a long-term process, and God knows that we are always learning.

• 1635

Consequently, I think that this is an ongoing process and that we have to rely on long-term measures. Obviously, if you want immediate results, this always leads to drama, which is never desirable. Instantaneous, spontaneous change does not exist. Change always requires long-term work.

Everything also depends on the choices that our society makes. We no longer tolerate cigarettes the way we did 20 years ago. More or less the same thing can be said about alcohol. Society changes, attitudes change, tolerance changes. The same thing applies to alcohol.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. MacKay, you have time for a quick one.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, I want to thank you as well. I should have done so in the first round, because we do appreciate your input. It's extremely helpful.

My question again relates to the expanding case law. This has been an area in which some lawyers have made their living. There have certainly already been some decisions from the courts that have caused significant shifts in this area of law. If we go down the road of legislative change—if we delve into increasing the minimum sentences, for example, or into mandatory treatment—do you anticipate that there will be an increase in the case law? To that end, should we not then look at making this a non-electable offence in the first instance—that is, when the penalty does not carry a maximum sentence of five years? Should we not take that option away? Are we not looking at the potential for a huge, further backload, which would result in Askoff-type delay arguments that would nullify these attempts, which would see cases thrown out because of unreasonable delay?

They're lengthy questions that require simple answers.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Brosseau: As for minimum sentences, we have often appeared before the standing committee to state that we do not agree with minimum sentences, in every case where they are imposed. This creates more problems than anything else. If I may, I would be pleased to send you our numerous interventions on this issue.

Fortunately, we always put our trust in our courts, in our legal system.

As for mandatory cure treatment, we will not repeat the arguments that we made earlier. Such measures must be voluntary in order to have a real effect. But I am extrapolating. I will not talk to you about the Manitoba Appeal Court decision nor will I refer to the Supreme Court decision that will be made on this issue.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect, my question was not on any of those. It was whether or not legislative change would result in a greater increase in the case load. I'm not debating those issues. I'm asking whether we're going to increase the case load if we go in that direction.

The Chairman: A quick response, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: I think so. The harsher the measures we enforce, the greater the number of court cases. This is obvious to me.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: That's right.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a comment about this drunkometer ignition lock that we're going to put on cars. I wouldn't put much hope in it. For the last two or three years, car manufacturers have been saying their cars are theft-proof, that you can't hot-wire the ignition in them. They're still being stolen at an increasing rate. I can see a very profitable business in wiring around the drunkometer. It just isn't a solution.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on the comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Asselin: My answer to that would be that Mr. Harris would be very justified in ensuring that offenders who modify the devices be severely punished.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, Madame Brosseau, thank you for coming to meet with us. We very much appreciate your input.

I would like to call a brief one-minute recess so we can get Mr. Campbell set up, and then we'll open up again.

Thank you.

• 1640

• 1642

The Chairman: I welcome Mr. Larry Campbell. He represents a large number of other individuals from B.C. Transit, Cycling B.C., the Automotive Retail Association, Registered Nurses Association of B.C., the Business & Professional Woman's Clubs of B.C. and Yukon, the B.C. Safety Council, the Vancouver Police Department, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, the Chinese Advisory Board, the Youth Advisory Committee BC, B.C. Trucking Association, Young Drivers of Canada, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and the Consumers Association of Canada, B.C. Branch.

You speak for a lot of people here today. We welcome you, Mr. Campbell, with a presentation of roughly ten minutes. Then we'll open the floor for questioning.

Has your brief been translated?

Mr. Larry Campbell (Chief Coroner, Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia): No, and I apologize for that. Due to the limited time, I only had it completed by Monday. I have copies and I've given the original to Mr. Prefontaine to have translated for me.

The Chairman: Perhaps if there is unanimous consent, we can have those distributed now. Everyone has it and there's no objection.

Go ahead, Mr. Campbell; the floor is yours.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I want to thank you very much for inviting me here today. I heeded your advice contained in the guidelines and conjoined with a number of other groups to make this presentation.

First and foremost, I'm here as a coroner and I'm representing those people who have lost their lives in British Columbia as the result of impaired drivers.

Until you've been in a room with the parents or loved ones of someone who has been killed due to an impaired driver, it's truly difficult to comprehend the grief involved. There is the realization by the survivors that life as they knew it has been altered for all time, and holidays and occurrences we take for granted, such as family dinners, will never be the same. Notifying families of any death is traumatic at any time, but it's especially so once they realize the senselessness of the act that took their loved one's life—impaired driving.

It never ceases to amaze me that rational, right-minded citizens who are abhorred and repulsed at the thought of one person killing another with a gun cannot see the parallel of a person getting behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired and killing another human being. The only difference between the two offences is the choice of the weapon: gun or vehicle.

I would like to see this committee bring in changes to the Criminal Code that will make drunken driving socially unacceptable.

I speak to approximately 5,000 to 10,000 graduate students every year, and I'm convinced the problem lies not with the youth. I think the education is getting through. I think the problem lies with us, the older generations, referred to here as John Q. Public. We have the sense that there but for the grace of God go I, and I say no to this.

• 1645

It's my contention and that of the groups I represent today that the Criminal Code should reflect the fact that driving an automobile is not a right, but rather a privilege. That privilege carries a number of responsibilities we already regulate and legislate. There are a number of changes to the Criminal Code that we believe will reinforce this idea and go a long way toward making the road safer for all our citizens.

These are conscious decisions you make when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle—conscious. I don't like the word “accident” used with impaired driving; it's a conscious decision to get behind the wheel and take a risk at killing either yourself or somebody else.

I will start with implied consent. At the core of our comments on the issues identified by the standing committee is the singular point, which we believe to be paramount, that driving is a dangerous practice. We license and regulate drivers in this country, to mitigate the dangers of driving. We administer qualifying tests and enforce rules of the road, to mitigate dangers of driving. We've placed the good of society ahead of the good of the individual in the development of our road transportation systems, in order to mitigate the dangers of driving.

Therefore, it is our opinion that if an individual makes the conscious decision to engage in this dangerous, licensed, regulated activity, they implicitly consent to all the obligations it carries with it. This includes consent to be tested, upon reasonable suspicion, for the presence of substances that may affect their ability to safely engage in this dangerous activity.

Past challenges to impaired driving law have often been used on charter issues; that is, the argument is frequently made that police actions such as roadblocks, spot checks, breath and blood demands, etc., are infringements of an individual's rights. Many of the issues the standing committee has proposed for consideration may require solutions that would be subject to the same charter challenges. With minimum impact upon the rights of the individual, it is possible to reduce the risk of successful challenges to impaired driving legislation. Again, we strongly believe that driving is a privilege and not a right.

Related to implied consent is the issue of drug impaired driving. Current Criminal Code provisions for testing of impaired drivers allow police to test breath or blood for the presence of alcohol. Yet while the Criminal Code includes driving while impaired by drugs as an offence, it makes no provisions to allow officers to detain drivers for drug testing, nor does it make it an offence to refuse to participate in drug testing.

As casual drug use becomes more and more commonplace, so does drug-impaired driving. In 1998, 371 people died from overdoses of intravenous drugs in British Columbia. If we extrapolate that to the population, you'll have some idea of how many people are out there driving while impaired by just illegal drugs—not even counting prescription drugs.

We would like to see the Criminal Code modified to include demands for saliva. While alcohol is easily detected by breath testing devices, it is insufficient to detect the presence of drugs. Sobriety tests, which test things like a driver's coordination, have long been a standard method for police to help build a case for impairment. At present, compliance with these tests is only voluntary. We would like to see formal authority given to police officers to compel roadside coordination tests, with the same penalties for refusal that are attached to the approved screening devices.

Our committee believes the current penalties reflect the seriousness of the various offences. However, in our discussion with local law enforcement and members of the bar, we have established that there is a problem with the application of the penalties, particularly as they apply to a first offence. We recognize that this issue may be unique to British Columbia, but we felt it appropriate to raise it in the context of the question concerning severity of the penalties currently associated with impaired driving.

We believe the Criminal Code should mandate assessment for all convicted impaired drivers, not just the hard-core drinking drivers. Impaired driving is generally acknowledged to be a crime, but is not always perceived as a significant social problem.

• 1650

Alcohol and drug addiction have serious health and societal consequences. We believe an assessment should take place before sentencing and be made available to the presiding judge, so it may be factored into the sentencing decision.

We are not convinced of the merits of lowering the legal BAC, not because we think people should be able to drink and drive, but because we foresee difficulties in enforcing a lower limit and a corresponding lessening of the number of Criminal Code charges for impaired driving. As already stated, it is our opinion that impaired driving is not taken as seriously as other crimes, and while lowering the threshold sends a message that impairment can happen at very low levels, it also lends itself to a trivialization of the law.

On graduated penalties, we do not feel this will be a particularly effective remedial measure and would far rather see mandatory assessment for all convicted impaired drivers, as we have previously stated. We think this will more adequately address the nature of the problem with hard-core drinking drivers, as it will proactively identify those whose offences are tied to their drinking problems, and ensure treatment.

Our position on increased police powers is directly tied to our second priority issue, which is drug-impaired driving. The powers of the police, as they currently stand, are inadequate to obtain a conviction for drug-impaired driving. While it is currently an offence to drive while impaired by drugs, police do not have the authority to test a driver for drug impairment, nor is there an offence for refusing a drug test, as is currently the case for alcohol.

We are concerned, based on the results of a recent British Columbia survey, that drug-impaired driving is on the rise in Canada and particularly in British Columbia.

As stated in the discussion, our committee believes consent for testing should be attached as an implied duty to the privilege of driving. Barring this measure, we'd like to see legislation authorizing the taking of samples from drivers involved in all serious injury and fatal accidents. The simple fact is that 50% of fatally injured drivers in 1996 tested positive for alcohol. While we accept that this is little in the way of deterrence to impaired driving, we believe it will help identify more impaired drivers and ensure charging, assessment and treatment.

We welcome the elimination of preliminary inquiries for impaired driving cases. While we are keenly aware of the need for a fair and impartial justice system, we believe the preliminary inquiry creates a perception at least that the system is weighted more heavily toward the accused than society as a whole. Elimination of this option would speed the judicial process, and more importantly would be easier on both the victims and the witnesses. Accused impaired drivers should be given the option of choosing a trial by judge or jury.

We do not believe the impaired driver should be discharged under any circumstances. As previously stated, assessment should be mandatory for all convicted impaired drivers, and any treatment should be seen as a complement to the appropriate punishment.

All of our recommendations are included within the report I gave you and I won't take the time to do a summary of them.

In conclusion, there's a clear record in British Columbia and in Canada of success in fighting impaired driving. Despite the recent achievements with administrative sanctions and programs, the program continues to be significant, affecting the lives of thousands of Canadians every year. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that all of these deaths and injuries are preventable.

If the powers of the Criminal Code are sufficient to take care of impaired driving, why do we still see so many people dying? We hear all the time that the issues may provoke one charter issue or another. Is this not a reason to refine and change the Criminal Code? Should we not make changes simply because people say this is going to trigger a charter response?

While we continue to encourage the development of provincial measures, we believe there is a distinct role that must be played by the federal government by way of the Criminal Code amendments. Strong provincial and territorial commitment to impaired driving programs, coupled with decisive action by the federal legislature, will save lives and prevent suffering.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, seven minutes.

• 1655

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Campbell, I appreciate your coming to share with us your views, which are representative of the many organizations you've been associated with.

I think one of the best things you've told us today is something we all know, but it should be reinforced, and that is that perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that all these deaths and injuries are preventable. I would say that of all the crimes in this country, impaired driving is a 100% preventable crime if people will simply not drive after they've used drugs or alcohol.

I think you're right that the federal government has to show leadership in the issue of impaired driving. I hope that at the end of our deliberations, whatever we come up with will represent a zero tolerance attitude by the federal government toward impaired driving and that we will be able to give the provinces and the police forces and the justice system, the legal system, all the tools they need to begin to dramatically lower the 1,400 deaths and tens of thousands of injuries that we have every year.

That being said, I'd like to ask your opinion on two things. The Canadian Police Association noted that while the latitude in sentencing for impaired drivers who kill is zero to 14 years, traditionally and historically the sentences have been very much on the lower level of that latitude. Indeed, in my own city there were a number of cases that have really shocked and outraged me and the community as a whole. They recommend that minimum sentencing for impaired drivers who kill after having been once convicted of impaired driving be seven years if there's a second case causing death. Could you express your opinion on that recommendation the police association has given us?

Mr. Larry Campbell: I would support that.

Mr. Dick Harris: That leads to my second question on an idea I'm very supportive of, and it's shared by a lot of people. In the case of a sentence incarceration, and I don't know what the time period would be—perhaps we'll come up with that as we go through this, but let's say two years. Someone receives a two-year sentence or whatever. As part of that sentence it should be made clear to the convicted person that a successful completion of a rehabilitation program, whether it be drugs or alcohol, will be an absolute criterion of any consideration of parole. Could you support something like that?

Mr. Larry Campbell: In the first place, I agree with the presenters before me: you're dealing with a health issue. Generally, somebody who is in this position who is alcoholic has an addiction problem, and they have to want to be cured or they have to want for the treatment to apply. My position on it is if you don't want to be cured, if you don't want to have it apply, then you shouldn't be out there. So I would agree that if a person does not want to partake of this when it's obviously going to be there and they have no place else to go, I really question whether they are suitable to be released back out into public life.

Mr. Dick Harris: Let's say that someone is given a three-and-a-half to four-year sentence for impaired driving causing death or injury under the current provisions. Could you consider that this person... I don't think anybody wants to be an alcoholic—

Mr. Larry Campbell: I agree.

Mr. Dick Harris: —or wants to be a drug addict.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I also agree.

Mr. Dick Harris: If that person knew they were going to serve their full sentence of three and a half or four years, that's one option. But if an opportunity is presented for them to enter rehabilitation and work to successfully complete it and thereby they could be considered for parole under the normal time limits, do you think that would be some sort of incentive to make them want to enter the rehabilitation program?

• 1700

Mr. Larry Campbell: In a perfect world, after three years in prison one would like to assume that you weren't drinking or taking alcohol.

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes.

Mr. Larry Campbell: In a perfect world.

Mr. Dick Harris: Right, that's another issue.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I don't live in one of those worlds, unfortunately. So I really don't know whether that would be a deterrent or not, Mr. Harris. If you're at the point where you say you're not going to do it, you're so far down the road that I don't know whether there's anything that's going to deter you from going out again and reoffending.

Mr. Dick Harris: Okay.

The Chairman: Chuck, do you have something for this round?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'll go in the second round.

The Chairman: We'll pass then, and give it to Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. Campbell, thank you very much for your concise and detailed presentation.

Much of what we have seen involved in impaired driving legislation has come about because of judicial interpretation. I think a lot of the submissions we've heard have said that if judges were using the higher end of the sentences maybe a different attitude would exist in terms of the deterrence and the acceptance of the current laws as being sufficient. In your experience, do you feel that mandatory minimum sentences would impact on those attitudes?

Mr. Larry Campbell: I think they would impact on the attitudes. I have real difficulty in somebody walking away after killing somebody with time served or community hours. I have difficulty with that because it goes back to my original contention that you make a conscious choice to do this. Nobody poured it down your throat. You made a conscious choice.

Mr. Harris had a point that I guess the police brought forth. When I get into my car to go out at night, I know if I'm going to drink or not. So I have to make a decision at that point. How am I going to get home? There are a number of options open to me. It's not that difficult.

I think that if you take a human life, there should be a penalty to pay for it. I don't believe in this “but for the grace of God”. And I don't believe the idea of John Q. Public. Forget it. When you kill somebody, you're not John Q. Public to me any more. So if you're looking at a minimum sentence for death, and some would say in some cases of serious injury, I think it is a deterrent. We heard that the number one reason you don't drink and drive any more is because you're going to get caught. If you up the ante on that getting caught and you know you're going to do jail time, I think that John Q. Public has a sufficient fear of going to one of our prisons for that to be an effective deterrent.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You've stated quite clearly on the record that you disagree with the curative discharge provision in the Criminal Code and you feel that it should be removed. This is going a little far afield, although it's related and timely, but what do you feel about the attachment of conditional sentences to impaired driving causing death or bodily harm? The conditional sentences are the ones you speak of where a person is essentially serving time in the community.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I don't think that a conditional sentence is an appropriate sentence for somebody who takes the life of another.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I agree.

Those are my questions, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

On the government side, Monsieur Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I understand the recommendations you are making concerning the reinforcement of the law in order to tackle the problem posed by those who are offending and committing a crime actually out driving while impaired. Maybe you can correct me, but I fail to see any study that would demonstrate a jurisdiction where these principles have been applied—in other words, reinforcement and harsher penalties and so on—and things have indeed improved.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I would doubt there is a study in Canada, because we've never had the situation where I think the penalties are of such.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Or outside.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I can't answer that, but I can tell you this. This may be off topic, but there are studies available that say a person who drives impaired probably drives hundreds of times impaired before they get caught. So at any given time, these people are out there driving.

• 1705

I was a police officer, and I can tell you that in the early 1970s we checked, and one of every three persons driving up the Big Cut in North Vancouver after midnight was impaired.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that. I'm sure you also understand the question I was putting.

I think one of the very important fundamentals of your position has to do with the intent. As you said, when you take your car knowing that you are going to drink, then you already have put in place the conditions to do harm, and therefore you have to assume responsibility for it.

If I'm going out in the evening to visit a friend and I know we can have one or two drinks, and the more I stay with him and discuss a bit longer the more I drink and I go beyond the point where I should be going in terms of being allowed to drive without being impaired, how can you consider in such a case—and I'm just building up a case here—there is an intent?

Mr. Larry Campbell: I don't mean to be flippant, but you may want to consider an insanity plea, because it has about the same basis in law from where I'm sitting. You have the intent simply by drinking.

If I drink one drink and then I drink another, as I'm going up this scale of impairment I know what I'm doing. I know I'm taking alcohol into my system, and I know it's increasing my likelihood of being impaired.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But you know, Mr. Campbell, first of all, when you drink, the more you drink the less you are able to judge. That's one thing.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I've had that experience.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The second thing is, we know full well that the limit of .08—and whether it's .08, .04, or .05 doesn't really change anything in my argument—is very difficult to determine when you are simply having two drinks and finding yourself more vulnerable, or tired or whatever, and the impact is greater and you end up by shooting .09 or .10 or .11.

My point is not that those people aren't responsible. My point is that it is very difficult to accuse or to suspect intent in that case, and you don't seem to make room for that in your recommendations.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I make no room for it. I don't see a distinction. If I have one drink, I don't drive—period.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So you would be proposing, in fact, zero tolerance.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I'm not proposing zero tolerance at all. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether you go .08. You're right, there are people out there who are impaired at .04. There are people out there who are probably impaired at a lesser level.

You're talking about intent. When I drink, I'm taking a substance poison into my system, and I should know if I take more than one... You're probably going to be okay with one, but who knows? But certainly if I take more than one, I'm taking a risk of being impaired. Therefore the intent is there.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. But I would like to push it to the end of the logic.

If the simple fact of driving or having the intent to drive and taking a drink could create a problem—and you said yourself that when you drive you simply don't drink, period—the end of your logic is indeed to the contrary of what you were saying. You don't want to change the limit, but you are in fact proposing a zero tolerance in practical purposes.

Mr. Larry Campbell: The law is set at .08. We as a group don't see any sense in altering it one way or another.

I still don't think that changes the intent part of what you have to say. You could make it zero, or you could make it higher; it doesn't really matter. All I'm saying is, first of all, it's not a right that you can drink and drive. It's not even a right that you can drive. That's the first position I'm taking.

The second one is that you should realize that if you take some substance into your body that could cause impairment, there's an intent, right from square one. The more you take in, we know, the higher your level is going to be and the more chances that you'll be impaired.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So you're saying the intent doesn't have anything to do with the legal limits that are set.

Mr. Larry Campbell: No.

• 1710

Mr. Jacques Saada: In other words, intent doesn't have anything to do with abiding by the law and allowing yourself to go within the range allowed by the law.

Mr. Larry Campbell: You said it yourself: you can go within it. If you say that the range in the law is zero to .08, then you'd better really know your body and you'd better know how it's going to react, because you're playing a game of roulette. We've seen circumstances in British Columbia where some prominent people have been suspended at the side of the road by that simple roulette of not recognizing that .08 and over is a very fine line when you start adding one drink or not having a drink.

My choice is simply to have none and drive, or to drink and not drive, period. That's the intent. It seems to me that any rational person who's going out there... This is why I get back to this “but for the grace of God”. When I talk to all these graduating students, they have this grasp, they understand that. When I go and talk to people of my age, they say, “Oh come on, it can happen to anybody”. That idea is what I want to get rid of. It can't “happen to anybody” if you don't have the intent to drive while you've been drinking.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris, round two?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): I have just a quick question, Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much for being here today.

My question goes back to dealing with and educating kids. I've seen your presentation that you give with Dr. Campana. Could you give the committee just a basic idea of what kind of reaction you get out of the kids after they've had to sit there and listen to you and Bruce?

Mr. Larry Campbell: We do a 45-minute presentation to graduate students. It involves Bruce Campana, who is an emergency physician. With graphic pictures describing every single procedure he does, he takes them from the time the person comes in to his emergency ward to the end, with the body on the table, completely clamped and open. He talks about going and seeing the parents.

Out of 500, we'll lose maybe 10 or 15 at that point. I take over then, and I describe coming to the scene and taking them out of the car. Most importantly, what seems to be most effective is my description of going to their house at two o'clock in the morning, meeting with their parents and taking their dad down to the morgue and having him identify his daughter or son.

The effect is quite different from what I thought it would be. I have an 18-year-old son, so I know about “in your face”. The effect is really quite different. At the end of the presentation, you can hear a pin drop. It's unbelievable. And we're talking to 500 students who are all in various stages of emotional distress by that time.

I keep being called back time and time again to talk to these people. My only regret is that most of mine were done only in the lower mainland, and I can tell you that in the lower mainland I've seen a difference. We're talking about a matter of maybe only three or four deaths. We don't see them like we saw them before. Now we see them in the outlying areas, where it's a long way between the bush party and the graduation. So I'm going out there.

I have such hope for them and so little hope for us, the people around 50 years of age, my generation. I can tell you that while there are pockets of enlightenment in this country, there are pockets where point A to point B is measured in the number of beers you drink. It's just an accepted fact. It's simply an accepted fact. That's where we have to make the changes.

If we have to take on the charter, so be it. I'm not afraid of the charter. It's there for us as a society. If some individual's rights have to be trampled so that the overall good of the citizens is taken care of and we keep people alive, so be it. It's not going to affect anyone who is obeying the law. It's not going to affect anyone who isn't drinking and driving. As for the rest of them? Sorry, they deserve it. That's my only answer.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Campbell, for coming here today.

• 1715

I would like to congratulate you. I'm known to be picky and to say, well, that's a marvellous recommendation, but you can't do it because it just won't fly. Yet I agree with all of your ten recommendations, and that they are doable—possibly only as a first step, but at least a step.

There's one other thing I would like to add. If you're caught illegally hunting or fishing, all your equipment—guns, fishing rods, and so on—are confiscated, as is your vehicle, and sold at public auction. Why do we not seize the vehicles of impaired drivers? I know someone will come back with all cars are either leased or financed now. True, but if a car is sold at public auction, the individual still has an obligation to pay. Therefore, it would be a default.

There goes the second most valuable thing in life. The first is freedom, and the second is your credit rating. That is going to hurt, and we don't have to put him up in accommodation anywhere for six months or a year—or seven years, as is recommended. I think it would be a most effective thing.

There's already a precedent: it's done for hunting and fishing. My goodness gracious, if you catch two fish above your limit, we'll take your car, but in impaired driving, which is really a loaded gun ready to kill someone, we'll leave you with the car.

Mr. Larry Campbell: We actually considered that. It was one of the things we looked at.

We heard that one percent of people do two-thirds of the offences, but I'd really like to see where that comes from, because I find that hard to believe. We do know, however, that a number of people are repeat, continual offenders, and these are the ones I suppose we're looking at going after.

Quite frankly, the vehicle they drive isn't worth taking to the auction, and they will just continue to go out and get another wreck.

I agree with you, though. I have to tell you, I don't know of a penalty, as it applies personally... And I'm not talking about life in prison or the rest. If it has a deterring effect, then as far as I'm concerned it's fair game, because all I want to see is the 200 people killed in British Columbia from impaired driving still alive. That's my only job in life—to stop people from dying.

Mr. Ivan Grose: The reason I mentioned it particularly was that you talked about your age group—not mine, we've given all that stuff up. But it's the ordinary businessman, respected in the community, who has too many drinks before he goes home. Now, the person he kills is just as dead as your fellow in the Old Crock. Well, the fellow in the Old Crock is probably an alcoholic too. That's a whole different ball game. How we're going to handle that, I don't know. I'm looking to get the people who are more easily caught to begin with. Let's get down to the people at the bottom of the scale.

I don't believe those figures about one percent causing two-thirds of the accidents. That just isn't the way it is. I've seen a lot of accidents in my time, between Christmas and New Year's. A young lady in my town was killed, and it was a case of straight drunken driving. The fellow had gone through three red lights before he hit the young lady in the car. It was the fourth red light and he didn't make it. He's still alive. She's dead.

If you can, first let's get this group, the respectable guys in suits, and then worry about the guys on the bottom. It seems ludicrous to me that if you catch a fish out of season we'll take your car, but if you get drunk and drive a car...

Mr. Larry Campbell: I would agree with you. I'm not disagreeing with you. It's like the minimum sentence. You're right. If you're driving around in a nice car, it's one more thing to think of “Oh, by the way, on top of everything else, your car is gone”.

Mr. Ivan Grose: And your credit's gone too.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief.

Mr. Campbell, again, we're very appreciative of your straightforward, refreshing remarks. I think you said it very succinctly, that the number one priority for all of us has to be saving lives because of the numbers affected. You mentioned 200 in British Columbia. We're hearing 1,400 nationally, in that range.

I wish I had the ability to get you to come to Nova Scotia and make some of those presentations to some of the schools there.

Mr. Larry Campbell: You have my card. Feel free.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I do.

I don't know if you're familiar with John Butt, Nova Scotia's chief coroner.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I'm proud to know him, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It would be interesting if we could perhaps team you up in our province at some point.

• 1720

I want to ask you about something outside of the standard criminal law provisions we're looking at. There have been some novel approaches taken. I know some provinces have considered having identification on licence plates or licences for repeat offenders, in particular. Another issue that has been suggested, which seems somewhat novel, is to have warning labels on alcoholic beverages, similar to what we see on cigarettes. I'd be interested in your response to those.

Mr. Larry Campbell: The warning labels was an issue we considered, not only on alcohol but also on prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, because they're one of the concerns we have. I think that's probably a good idea. I think it's just one more... From the point of view of intent, if I'm picking up a bottle of beer, and staring me in the face is something saying this is going to cause impaired driving... It may be something that would trigger it.

Quite frankly, I don't think the repeat offenders could care less what you have on their driver's licence. In fact, the repeat offenders probably don't have a driver's licence. They don't have insurance. And they don't care. That's sad, because one of my contentions is that intravenous drug use is a health problem. Somebody who reaches the point where they don't care whether they've got a driver's licence, they don't care if they have insurance, and they don't care what's going on is in exactly the same position. It's a health issue. Somehow we have to get to them to help them. I just don't see that adding something to their driver's licence would make a bit of difference to most of them.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Harris, do you have a question?

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes.

Just to follow on Mr. MacKay's question, and I know the charter people will go nuts on this one, how about an identification on a licence plate for repeat conviction of impaired driving? The police would then have authority upon seeing that licence plate to stop and just check to make sure they're still sober.

Mr. Larry Campbell: I have a little difficulty with that one.

Mr. Dick Harris: You do, eh? Okay.

Mr. Larry Campbell: Plus, again, I don't think they even have a driver's licence. They wouldn't have any insurance or anything else, probably.

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes, you're probably right. Okay.

Mr. Larry Campbell: They don't care.

Mr. Dick Harris: It was just a thought.

The Chairman: Mr. Campbell, thank you very much for coming today.

Mr. Larry Campbell: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Your comments were very frank and we very much appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Larry Campbell: Thank you.

The Chairman: There being no further business, we'll adjourn for the evening. Thank you.