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, March 3, 1999

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to advise you that we're short a few members here. We have a subcommittee that is studying the Corrections and Conditional Release act, and they are out in the Abbotsford area looking at some of the penal institutions out there. That's why we're a little short on members. But they will receive your briefs and they will be briefed on your presentations next week when they return.

Also, I have to skip out to make a presentation to another committee at roughly 3.55 p.m. When I slip away, someone will take my place, I hope, but I will be back. I apologize for that in advance.

At this time I'd like to welcome our witnesses. From the Brewers Association of Canada, we have Mr. R.A. Morrison, Mr. Howard Collins, and Blair Dickerson. Blair has been with us for the duration, and we appreciate her presence. From the Association of Canadian Distillers, we have Jan Westcott and Paul MacLaren. From the Hotel Association of Canada, we have Anthony Pollard. And from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, we have Joyce Reynolds and Donald Webster.

Thank you very much.

What we propose to do is, if each of you have a presentation to make, we'll limit you to approximately 10 minutes, and following that there will be questioning from members of our committee.

Perhaps the Brewers Association of Canada could lead off.

Mr. R.A. Morrison (President, Brewers Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in your hearings. Our remarks will be brief, because we have distributed our full brief and we know there's a lot to cover today.

I would like to introduce two colleagues of mine: Howard Collins, our executive vice-president, who is responsible for overseeing all of our responsible use programs; and Blair Dickerson, who is our director of public affairs and, as you acknowledged, has been spending more time, I think, with members of the committee than she has with our organization over the past month.

We have 27 member companies, and we have consistently advocated the responsible consumption of our products. A key program has been our “Don't Drink and Drive” campaign, which has been operated by the association as a whole and on an individual basis by our member companies.

In concert with the programs of governments and other public interest groups, a major shift has occurred in attitudes and, more important, in behaviour of the public with respect to drinking and driving. Over the past 15 years there has been a 47% decrease in the rate of drinking and driving charges. This decrease has been accomplished through education and behavioural change in the majority of the driving population. Most encouraging perhaps is the change in attitude amongst the younger generation, who've embraced concepts such as the designated driver.

• 1545

Education programs have been the cornerstone of our responsible drinking programs. A brief list of our responsible drinking program initiatives is included at the end of our written submission, and we have sent an update of a binder that details all of our work in this area directly to your offices, so that members will not have to transport them back and forth.

As brewers, and like many other stakeholders, we believe in a comprehensive approach to the problem of impaired driving. We've been working with stakeholders and other interest groups on this issue for years.

While the reduction in the incidence of drinking and driving is encouraging and most Canadian attitudes have changed, clearly some have not. A disproportionate number of people are causing the bulk of the carnage on the roads.

We are advocating specific measures to deal with these hard-core repeat offenders who we know you've been hearing about over the course of the hearings, and we're advocating more preventative measures as well.

Specifically, under Criminal Code sanctions and in the federal area, we recommend the following.

Consider implementing graduated penalties based on blood alcohol levels: the higher the blood alcohol level, the more serious the sanction.

Admit as evidence the results of mobile digital breath-testing devices, which have proven to be highly reliable over the first-generation devices that were initially used.

Accept the use of digital cellular telephones for secure on-site communications with legal counsel. We understand the problem with the first-generation cellular telephone technology was that it was too easy to scan and pick up communications from those devices.

We recognize that the latest technology, as described, will not always be available to police officers, so you should extend the two-hour limit for the subsequent breath test that is currently required. This extension is also necessary to allow police officers to deal with the many other demands they face in securing and dealing with the accident scene.

The police should enforce the current legal blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and consideration should be given to mandating the testing of drivers for drug impairment, as provided for in the Criminal Code, but it has not been really pursued so far, to our knowledge.

Federal leadership can be brought to bear to encourage provinces to adopt a universal standard for graduated licensing for new drivers. The graduated licensing programs are very important for initial drivers. We are concerned that the different standards brought in by individual provinces create a patchwork quilt, which makes it more difficult to communicate the goals and objectives and to measure the results. If we could have a universal standard, that would be a significant advance.

We also support user-paid ignition interlock systems for repeat offenders. We know you've heard about them; these prevent a person from starting their car if the operator has been drinking at significantly below the level of the Criminal Code.

Promote closer coordination among the provinces on all measures to reduce drinking and driving.

In conclusion, we're pleased to have been part of your committee process. We've been monitoring closely the other briefs tabled and presented and are happy to work with many of those other groups.

We're convinced that a strong will to deal with the problem of impaired driving has been demonstrated by the stakeholders before you and the community at large. We will continue, as brewers, to do our part to encourage responsible drinking behaviour, to work on education and prevention, and to advocate collaborative countermeasures.

We appreciate the attention of the lawmakers on this issue. It's our view that we will be able to further reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Canada through adoption of many of these measures.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

The Association of Canadian Distillers.

Mr. Jan Westcott (President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Distillers): Thank you. My name is Jan Westcott. I'm the president of the Association of Canadian Distillers. We're an industry trade association that represents both manufacturers and marketers of Canadian distilled products as well as products from outside Canada.

By way of background, our companies make and sell about 85% of all of the distilled spirits sold in Canada. We have six members in our organization, we operate nine production facilities in four provinces, we employ about 15,000 Canadians all in, and we have sales of about $4 billion.

• 1550

We're primary manufacturers who transform what I like to call Canadian tradition, expertise, and raw materials into world-renowned finished products, and then we market those products both here in Canada and around the world. In fact we have quite a strong and growing export component to our business and were proud to count over $0.5 billion in export sales last year, most of it in our signature product, Canadian whiskey.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share our views on how Canada's Criminal Code and other measures might be altered to help eradicate impaired driving in this country. We have been following your deliberations quite carefully. I think there probably are a couple of transcripts I've missed, but I have read most of them. I found it pretty interesting. So we are well up to speed on the kinds of things you've been hearing and some of the responses.

We've also been taking a bit of initiative to go out and talk to some of the groups you've already heard from to make sure we understood their perspectives and why they were advocating some of the things. In some cases, they persuaded us sufficiently that we're recommending many of the same things.

Let me state very clearly at the outset our industry's unequivocal opposition to impaired driving and in fact any abuse of our products. We in the Canadian distilling industry have a long history of very proactively encouraging Canadians to use products moderately and responsibly, particularly with respect to drinking and driving. Despite these efforts, however, impaired driving remains a serious problem that can only be resolved by governments, health organizations, and industry working together.

Impaired driving is a problem with many different sides. Effective curtailment requires targeted measures that address the characteristics peculiar to each distinct facet of the program. There continues to be a need to inform and educate the public about the problem of impaired driving and the damage it does to families and to our communities. That's why our association continues to seek new ways of carrying to Canadians the message about the problems of impaired driving.

We've done a number of things, and I'm going to show you a couple of things. We've distributed some of them, and I'll make a point about them in a second. One timely example is a commitment we made in partnership with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and Bell Canada on a 1999 RIDE program. RIDE is a program called “Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere”. It's a province-wide initiative that does the roadside spot-checks to stop impaired driving. Many people believe it is the single most effective way of doing that.

We're doing a program with the police during 1999, and this is a year-long campaign, as opposed to some of the seasonal ones that we've also participated in. Police officers across the province will distribute these brochures and free Bell phone cards worth 50¢ to motorists who successfully go through a RIDE spot-check.

Last year millions of Canadians were stopped in these things. They are an extremely effective way of communicating the importance of the message and educating the public on an ongoing basis. Not only does the program deliver important messages about the dangers of impaired driving; it also provides motorists with some tangible recognition for those people who don't drink and drive or drive impaired. Also—and this is a critical aspect—it rewards them for cooperating with the police in running these programs that really are at the front line, taking problem drivers off the road.

Certainly public support for police action to erase the problem is critical to the ongoing effectiveness of measures. We're pleased that we can play a role in continuing both the public education and the support for these kinds of programs.

We have done a number of other things along the same lines. We do television commercials to push the message. We find expert third parties to work with us. We've done major sponsorship campaigns, such as this with police forces and others, to communicate the message. In fact we're working with AADAC in Alberta and AFM in Manitoba right now to drive a program to help parents talk to their kids about alcohol and the risks.

My point in outlining some of the work we've been involved in is simply to illustrate that we're doing our part, just as our colleagues in our other sister businesses are doing, and it's having a positive effect. I think you've been hearing that it's having a positive effect. But the reality is we've reached a point where more has to be done. That's why we're here. The government now has an opportunity to do some more things to move this along a little further.

• 1555

As important as public education is, by itself it won't solve the problem of impaired driving. In fact we're increasingly coming to realize that a disproportionately large part of the problem stems from a dangerous minority who are not responding to public education activities; it doesn't matter how good they are. Of course I'm referring to those people who repeatedly drive while they're intoxicated, all too often after they've already been caught, charged, convicted of the offence, and most times have lost their driving privileges.

As I said earlier, because each facet of the impaired driving problem is different, carefully targeted actions have to be the response. It's with this focus in mind that we register our opposition to lowering the BAC from .08.

Committee members have heard from a variety of knowledgeable groups why the BAC should not be lowered. I'm not going to go into all of them, but by way of example, the eight reasons cited in the presentation to you by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation argue very ably for maintaining and enforcing the BAC at .08.

In fact our first recommendation calls for strict enforcement of the .08 provision. The committee has heard many recommendations similar to ours from other witnesses. I'm not going to go into detail on them; I'll just walk through them quickly, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions then.

First, maintain the present .08 limit and strictly enforce it.

Authorize police use of passive alcohol sensors to detect impaired drivers.

Permit police use of roadside numeric breath-testing units as a way of empowering the police to do their jobs better.

As you've heard, increase the time period during which the police may demand samples; we think it should go to three hours.

For accident situations resulting in death or serious injury, authorize police to demand breath and/or blood samples from any driver involved in the accident.

Provide for tiered BAC limits that equate the type and severity of the sanctions to the gravity of the offence that's been committed.

Authorize mandatory assessment of all first-time impaired driving offenders with a BAC over the federal legal limit, and for those found to have alcohol and/or drug dependency problems, sentencing should include treatment at the cost of the offender.

We recommend mandatory assessment and treatment of repeat impaired driving offenders in addition to their conviction and sentencing, again on a user-pay basis.

Judges should be allowed to order installation of devices such as alcohol interlock devices as terms of probation for dealing with offenders, again on a cost-recovery basis.

And our last one, number 10, the government should be looking at alternatives to simply locking people up. We've gone around and talked to a number of groups, and putting people in jail doesn't seem in all cases to be solving the problem in terms of changing people's behaviour. So it's time to look at some other kinds of mechanisms and sanctions for dealing with people.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Westcott.

The Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

Mr. Donald R. Webster (Vice-Chairman, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I own and operate food and beverage operations in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I'm a vice-chairman of the CRFA, which is the largest hospitality association in Canada, with 14,500 corporate members controlling 43,000 food service operations. With me today is Joyce Reynolds, who's the senior director of government affairs at CRFA.

We share the government's and the public's concern about the human tragedy that results from impaired driving. We all know someone who has lived through the misery and experienced the needless waste brought about by an inebriated driver behind the wheel of a car. While we profit from the responsible sale of alcohol as a beverage, we do not profit from drunk driving. Drunk drivers are the worst advertisements our industry could have. Our industry, like government, wants the dangerous offenders stopped, and we are committed to working with you to attack the drunk driver problem.

Clearly we are not experts on the Criminal Code or the judicial system, but we do take seriously our role in preventing impaired driving by having safe service policies in place in our restaurants and by training alcohol servers in responsible practices and procedures. CRFA has been active in educating its member restaurants about the issue of drinking and driving since the development of its responsible service of alcohol beverages manual in the early 1980s.

• 1600

We also have been working with concerned organizations, such as the Traffic Injury Research Foundation and the Canada Safety Council, to come up with measures that will reduce the number of fatalities caused by drunk drivers.

Our primary concern is the issue of a lower legal BAC limit, which was raised in your issue paper. It is the view of CRFA that lowering the legal BAC to .05 from .08 will not contribute to reducing the number of accidents and fatalities caused by drunk driving. Today we would like to bring to your attention the detrimental effects such a move would have on law enforcement efforts to deal with those drivers most likely to cause alcohol-related injury and death.

It is our view that lowering the BAC limit would strain law enforcement resources and clog up the courts, devalue the importance of Criminal Code sanctions, and marginalize public support for tougher sanctions. I'll elaborate on each of these.

Other approaches that deserve support and that target chronic alcohol abusers who insist on driving are: a graduated penalty system for BAC levels above .08 that aligns criminal sanctions with BAC levels; stronger enforcement of current penalties; stiffer penalties for repeat offenders and those impaired drivers causing injury and death; penalties that impound vehicles and immobilize drivers, including electronically monitored home confinement, alcohol ignition interlocks, and auto timer and fuel locks; mandatory alcohol dependency assessment for first-time offenders with BACs above .15; greater access to and availability of treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders; better police access to testing equipment; and extension of the two-hour time limit allowed for breathalyser tests.

Some of this is going to be a bit repetitive, and I apologize to the committee, but some of these things seem common to a lot of the thinking process here.

As I said, we feel lowering the BAC will strain resources and clog up the courts. Police officers would find the .05 BAC limit nearly impossible to enforce. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation reports that drivers already are not being charged if their BAC is between .08 and .10, and that half the drivers with BACs in excess of the current limit escape detection by police at sobriety checkpoints.

We don't think problem drinkers will be deterred by a reduction in the BAC limit any more than reckless drivers would be deterred by a 10-kilometre-per-hour reduction in the speed limit. Law enforcement efforts would be redirected towards Canadians who have responsible drinking habits. These people will be deterred from dining out and having a glass of wine with dinner, which would be devastating for our industry.

At the same time, the chances of apprehension of the chronic alcohol abuser would decline. As one police officer put it at a spring drinking and driving symposium that CRFA attended:

Lowering the BAC to .05 would have the same effect as forcing us to ticket speeders going 10 kilometres over the speed limit. While we are processing them, others fly by at twice the legal limit.

The paperwork and the time it takes to process an impaired driving charge are already problems plaguing police officers, according to a 1998 survey of 1,500 police officers and 175 police forces across the country. This study found that police are committed to laying impaired charges but feel let down by the court system. Police see crown attorneys as overworked and unable or unwilling to give priority to impaired charges. This brings me to my next point.

From what I've read, it seems the judicial system in Canada is already stretched to its limit. Lowering the federal legal BAC limit to .05 would expand the caseload of provincial courts and further clog the system.

Our research review and discussions with other stakeholders have convinced us that those drivers most at risk of bringing about alcohol-related accidents and fatalities are those who exhibit chronic alcohol dependency. Statistics from TIRF show that the overwhelming majority of serious alcohol-related accidents are caused by chronic problem drinkers with BACs well in excess of .08. They indicate that those who repeatedly drive with a BAC of .15 or greater account for only 1% of all drivers on the road at night, but account for as much as 65% of all alcohol-related crashes and 75% of all alcohol-related fatalities.

• 1605

According to statistics from the Federal Highway Administration in the United States, the U.S. situation is similar. Two-thirds of all alcohol-related deaths are caused by drivers at .15 or higher. The average drunk driver causing a fatal crash in the U.S. is at .18.

Support for the case against further restricting allowable BAC can be found in the experience of other jurisdictions, such as the State of Maine and the Scandinavian countries, as outlined in our brief.

We know people on the other side of this debate can cite examples where these measures might have helped. However, a comprehensive literature review and re-analysis by TIRF of data from jurisdictions that have recently changed their BAC limit concluded that there is no evidence that lowering the statutory BAC limit in and of itself will have a measurable impact on safety. Studies in jurisdictions showing beneficial effects of a lower BAC fail to take into consideration the impact of other countermeasures that were introduced at the same time.

A Criminal Code charge is considered a very serious offence reserved for dangerous crimes. We consider repeatedly drinking and driving with a high BAC level a serious and dangerous crime. But as previously noted, there are many who drive with a BAC level below .08 who do not present a safety threat. These people should not be saddled with a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

Those individuals whose driving is impaired at a lower BAC level can currently be charged under the Criminal Code. It is therefore unnecessary to make all Canadians with a BAC below .08 potential criminals if those who create a safety threat can already be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. In addition, administrative sanctions are available to police officers in eight provinces in Canada for individuals with BAC levels below .08.

Why do we think public support would be lost if the BAC level were lowered? CRFA was responsible for a recent national public opinion poll on drinking and driving, undertaken by TIRF. This research indicated a very high concern among Canadians about the issue of drinking and driving. They view it as a very serious problem, more serious than health care and taxes. However, they do not support a reduction in the legal BAC.

According to this study, 60% of Canadians believe the current limit of .08 is appropriate and it should be retained. Of the 27% who said it is not appropriate, 26% felt the BAC limit should actually be higher. In total, this means less than 20% of Canadians believe it should be lowered.

If legislation is seen to be targeting normal or moderate behaviour instead of deviant behaviour, it will only succeed in alienating the general population and in the process decrease support for those provisions that are effective.

I'd like to quote headlines from a few articles in the Winnipeg Free Press: “Judge lets repeat drunk driver off the hook”, “Toews upset after judges give a break to drunk driver who killed”, “Officer acquitted after arguing nine-shot spree not a factor in crash”. I won't go into details of those, other than to say they highlight some of the problems we have enforcing the existing penalties.

I agree with a lot of the recommendations that have been made here concerning the police officers, the secure phone lines, and the ability to take blood samples or breathalysers at the scene of an accident causing injury or fatality.

To conclude, CRFA believes that lowering the legal BAC limit would water down the current federal and provincial initiatives to get drunks off the road. It would tie up police officers and increase the caseload in the courts. It would also result in the prosecution of people of questionable safety risk, leading to the devaluation of Criminal Code sanctions. The government would also risk losing the current high level of public support for measures to prevent impaired driving.

We do not want to see responsible drivers criminalized and dangerous drivers allowed to go free. We therefore recommend that your amendments to the legislation be designed to focus resources on those who cause the vast majority of fatalities: the hard-core drunk drivers.

Thank you very much.

• 1610

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.)): Thank you, Mr. Webster.

The Hotel Association.

Mr. Anthony P. Pollard (President, Hotel Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tony Pollard. I'm the president of the Hotel Association of Canada. We welcome this opportunity to participate in the process.

We're as concerned as all of our legislators are about this very important issue. We want to find a common solution and one that will work for all of us.

Our association represents all of the hotels, motels, resorts, inns, etc., right across the country. In 1998, just to give you an indication, we generated about $8.9 billion in revenue for the country and we employed 235,000 people.

The hotel industry is one of the leading partners of the federal government, and I always hasten to point out that we're one of the very few industries that's out there creating jobs and generating foreign revenue for our country. We've seen our travel deficit, for example, fall from about $6.5 billion to under $2 billion. Needless to say, we enjoy working very closely with the government in all of these areas.

Impaired driving is a serious problem, and it can only be solved by governments, health organizations, and industry working together. One extremely important solution is educating Canadians about the dangers of impaired driving and its criminal consequences. In fact we have a long history in this area of working with our hotels and participating in alcohol awareness programs. My colleagues from the distillers' association, from the brewers, and from the restaurant association have mentioned them. We have programs right across the country, including “It's Good Business”, “Serving It Right”, “Smart Serve”, “Le Dernier Service”, and so on.

Our position is very clear. The Hotel Association of Canada believes the problem rests with the habitual drunk driver and with those drivers who consistently have a blood alcohol content level above the legal limit. A reduction in the federal blood alcohol content level is not a solution to the problem. We do not support a reduction in the level, because it does not address the problem. The problem is elsewhere.

Our position is underlined and reinforced by two of Canada's leading independent authorities on the subject: the Canada Safety Council and TIRF, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada. In testimony yesterday—and we've all been following it very closely—the Canada Safety Council stated that we must enforce the current 80 mg% BAC limit in the Criminal Code; we must not lower it. They went on to say that most impaired drivers killed in car crashes have BACs of at least 150 mg%, close to twice the current limit.

It was about a month ago that Dr. Herb Simpson, president and CEO of TIRF, stated before this committee:

A major part of the problem that faces us today is caused by what we call hard-core drinking drivers.

We've put forward a lot of recommendations, but I'll just briefly highlight them.

First of all, in the assessment and treatment area, it should be mandatory for all first-time offenders with a BAC over the current federal legal limit to be assessed for alcohol and/or drug dependency. As well, mandatory treatment should be part of the sentencing if an offender is found to be dependent on alcohol. Assessment and treatment should be paid for by the offender.

Technology is an important area. We've talked about the importance of secure cellular phones and about numeric breath-testing units. We support all of this. Technology has changed, and we have to move with the times.

In terms of the grounds for testing, if there are injuries in a collision and a driver is taken to a hospital for medical attention, we all know that a law enforcement officer is currently required to have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect impairment before requesting a breath sample or a blood test. Law enforcement officers would charge more drivers with impaired driving if what constituted reasonable and probable grounds were changed.

In the area of time limits, the two hours should be moved to three hours from the time a vehicle is stopped.

• 1615

On education, as I noted, we've been involved in this for many years. Frankly, I believe there is a greater need for attention to the ramifications of violating some of these laws.

In the penalties area, the Hotel Association of Canada is very clear. We support a stronger enforcement of laws respecting BACs. In the provincial area, there are administrative sanctions in such areas as ignition interlock, administrative licence suspension, and vehicle impoundment. We could have greater reinforcement of that.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, our society works because it respects the rule of the law. You, as our legislators, must work with us and with all of our partners towards public respect of and adherence to the law. We need to address the problems and solutions to the problems, not create a new class of criminals, which will really solve nothing at all. We need to address the problem of the habitual drunk driver with a blood alcohol level consistently above the legal limit, and we need to do that with stricter and stronger enforcement of the laws respecting BACs.

We're very pleased to be part of this process, as I stated at the outset, and we will continue to encourage responsible drinking behaviour and to work on education and training. We will continue to work with all of you to reduce the very serious problem of drinking and driving.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Mr. Pollard.

I'd just like to take a moment to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I'm sure the members have some questions, so we'll proceed to the first round of questioning.

Seven minutes, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations, and we also appreciate the attention you've given to these hearings as they've gone on.

I guess you've all been asked this question before at one time or another, but I'll ask it again. You're in the hospitality industry. What responsibility do you see for the servers of alcohol in your establishments, and of course the servers of your products? What kind of responsibility do they have to society as far as monitoring your clients goes? What responsibility should be placed on them or is placed on them?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: It's a critical area for all of us, and we've recognized this for many years. Right across the country, there are...call them server intervention programs; call them responsible drinking programs.

It's incumbent upon our industry—and I'm talking now about the hotels, but it's also the bars, the night clubs, or whatever it might be—that they recognize the importance of this, which in fact they do. We have a role in society to ensure that responsible drinking takes place right across the country.

Mr. Dick Harris: Do you think it's being recognized at a level that it should be currently, or can we move that to a higher degree?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: There's an important recognition of it, because we literally have programs from coast to coast, so obviously hoteliers recognize that this is a critical issue for us as an industry. In every jurisdiction, there is some type of program in place.

But there's always room for improvement in anything we're doing, so certainly, as I said in my comments and in the formal presentation, which I submitted to you earlier, there is more room for education and awareness. And there's room for education and awareness not just simply on the part of the industry—the hoteliers, the servers—but on the part of the public at large. We've seen an improvement in this over the years. We need to further educate them on the severe ramifications of it. Frankly, if there is stronger enforcement of the laws, that will serve as an even greater deterrent to this problem.

Mr. Dick Harris: At least one of you talked about responsible drinking, and we all understand what you mean by that. My question is this. If a person does not know what their limit is before they become impaired—and I would hazard a guess that probably 90% of the people who drink socially really don't know that limit; they're maybe going on gut feelings.... If someone does not know beyond a shadow of a doubt what their limit is before they personally could be considered impaired, do you think any sense of responsibility is shown when that person gets into their car and drives after they've been drinking, period? Is there any responsibility there?

• 1620

Mr. R.A. Morrison: From our standpoint, let me be clear. Our message consistently has been, don't drink and drive. We acknowledge, obviously, that it does occur. We don't think making the Criminal Code below .08 is the way to go, for all the reasons that were enumerated.

We do, however, support appropriate administrative sanctions to increase awareness, to remind people they shouldn't drink and drive. These involve administrative suspensions, roadside action by the police, and so on. For people who don't appreciate that you shouldn't drink and drive, these are going to be, as they have been introduced, far more effective in raising that awareness and getting behaviour change, if the police can act quickly. One of the problems has been the restrictions and constraints imposed on police by the rigours of the Criminal Code. So we feel that's a better way to deal with the bottom end.

On the other end, the person who sits down and drinks 12 beers and goes and drives his car has to know absolutely that that is irresponsible, that is breaking the law. We need methods to drive that home, because those people clearly haven't got the message. It's not a matter of judgment; they're just pushing that aside.

So there are two different issues here.

Mr. Dick Harris: Just out of curiosity, what steps would be taken by a server in an establishment if they knew someone couldn't be persuaded to not drive their vehicle? Would there be an immediate call to the police to try to stop that person?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: First of all, what typically would happen is this. Let's say there's a maître d' or somebody at the door and they realize the individual has consumed more than they should have. They won't be allowed in. Try to stop a problem—

Mr. Dick Harris: I'm talking about maybe a pub or a bar, for example. Are the servers aware enough, or do they care enough, when someone gets up to leave and they've had 10 or 12 beers, and they are determined to get into their vehicle and drive? Under the various awareness programs you've talked about, are they actually taking steps at that point, when they see a patron leaving who they know has had too much—

Mr. Anthony Pollard: First of all, they wouldn't have reached the point of serving that much alcohol to them, because they realize what the ramifications of that would be.

Mr. Dick Harris: You mean someone couldn't go into a pub and drink 10 beers in, say, two hours?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Well, with the programs we operate under right now, there are limitations on the amount of alcohol that is served to them. It's very clear. There's a legal liability on the part of operators in this area, and we have to be exceedingly cautious as to what we serve. We know that; we understand that.

Mr. Dick Harris: I have one last question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): A very short question.

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes.

Recognizing that education plays a huge role in this whole issue, would you support at the provincial and federal levels a designated portion of the taxes collected—I'm not saying increased taxes, but a designated percentage of the taxes the government collects—being specifically targeted toward education programs and indeed impaired driving programs? Would you support something such as that?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Who are you addressing the question to?

Mr. Dick Harris: To any of you, or maybe all of you.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: As for what government does with the tax revenues, we feel they are—and you are, as legislators—in the best position to do that. We do have some reservations, as Canadian manufacturers—and I appreciate your comment that they would not necessarily be higher—that our products bear amongst the highest tax burdens anywhere in the world. So we're sensitive to that issue, but how government employs those taxes is clearly—

• 1625

Mr. Dick Harris: Government puts taxes into general revenue, but pressure from the industry itself to designate a portion of those taxes would sure be helpful to us if we were going to try to do that.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to finish that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Thank you.

Mr. Morrison, in your brief you recommend using a secure means of communication and cellular telephones. Could you please clarify your thinking on this point. What is the purpose of this recommendation?

[English]

Mr. R.A. Morrison: Blair, do you want to handle that?

[Translation]

Ms. Blair Dickerson (Director of Public Affairs, Canadian Brewers Association): Certainly. At the present time, technology has developed and is more sophisticated. This wasn't the case 10 years ago, and the systems were not totally reliable. Today, such systems exist and we recommend that they be used.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Are you recommending that police receive such equipment to enable people who are stopped to contact their lawyers?

Ms. Blair Dickerson: Yes, police vehicles should be equipped with such equipment.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That's fine. Thank you.

Mr. Westcott, like other witnesses, you have said that one of the most serious problems is the fact that drivers whose licences have been suspended continue to drive and to commit offenses. Although they only represent a tiny proportion of the public, it is very difficult to educate these repeat offenders. Since our committee is looking specifically at the Criminal Code provisions related to impaired driving, what recommendations would you make with respect to the Criminal Code? What amendments should we make to deal specifically with these hard-core drinkers and repeat offenders, people whose alcohol-related problems usually far exceed merely impaired driving?

[English]

Mr. Jan Westcott: Certainly technology offers us a tremendous opportunity. I've been a supporter of things such as alcohol interlock devices for a long time.

Our problem is this. I actually am involved in my own community with a police officer, who I go camping with every year. He tells me they pick up the same people over and over and over again, because the police don't have an ability to stop that person from getting into his car, whether he has a licence or doesn't have a licence. At that level, people don't care. We don't seem to be able to affect them by the things that affect the rest of the population, other people. So we have to be a little more invasive.

It's amazing. I'll offer an example. This is not a criticism, but police forces spend a tremendous amount of money on buying the most sophisticated radar equipment imaginable to catch speeders. It's fantastic equipment. They go to the cutting edge to have laser technology and so on. We need to bring the same kind of thinking to this issue, because this issue is as critically important as people who are speeding down the highways. In fact I would argue it's probably more important.

We seem to be reluctant to use those technological mechanisms to move this problem forward in the hard-core area, where what we've been doing so far isn't working. That's one example of what I'm talking about.

Many provinces are already moving forward on administrative sanctions where they take the automobile away. That's something else. Those seem to be working. They're fairy new. We'll have to wait and see, but those offer some promise for people who continue to do it over and over again.

Let's differentiate a little bit whether they know it's right or wrong. If your family has been hit by somebody who's been drinking and driving and has had too much to drink and injures them, the question of knowing whether it's right or wrong isn't all that relevant.

Lots of things can be done that can give the police, and the courts particularly, more scope in order to take actions to take these people off the roads.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: When should people be obliged to install an interlock device on their cars? Would it be after the first offence, from the time that they have been caught with a blood- alcohol level above 0.08? Would it be after a second offence, or when they are found to have a blood-alcohol limit above 0.15? How could we determine when an automobile interlock device becomes mandatory?

[English]

Mr. Jan Westcott: Certainly after the second offence, the court and the judge need to have that opportunity.

It's hard to speculate, but there may be cases where it's a first offence but a pattern emerges; this may be just the first time the person's been caught. But certainly if you're there on your second offence, and particularly if there's an incident where somebody's been injured, absolutely the courts need to have that flexibility to be able to order the installation of those kinds of devices as part of the sentencing or probation or treatment program. If we can't do it through the Criminal Code, then maybe, in order to get their licences back, they'd have to participate in something such as that.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: The Traffic Injury Research Foundation gave evidence of a pilot project undertaken in Alberta that reduced the incidence of repeat offenders, so it was applied to second-time offenders or more, and it dramatically reduced the rate of reoffending. It was done at a cost borne by the offender and proved remarkably effective. Certainly that is why it's included in our recommendations. That's a demonstrated intervention that has worked.

Just quickly on the matter of vehicle impoundment, a similar pilot project was operated by Manitoba, and it had a high level of success. As I recall, it was not quite as much as the vehicle interlock, but still high.

I'd like my colleague, Blair, who made an inquiry, to provide a little anecdotal evidence about Ontario's launch of vehicle impoundment, which is but two weeks old, I think.

Blair, do you want to—

[Translation]

Ms. Blair Dickerson: I called the Department this morning, and I was told that 77 vehicles had been impounded in the past two weeks. Most of the drivers did not have a drivers' licence and had been found guilty of many violations. The Department says it is very pleased with the success of its program.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Mr. Brien.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you very much, Chair. I see you're moving up in this committee.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to thank all the presenters. Your information is extremely useful.

I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate you, because as the producers and distributors of alcohol, obviously you're taking a leadership role and an involvement. The Canadian Brewers Association partnering with MADD goes a long way in sending out the message and changing the stigma that exists about alcohol and drinking and driving.

I have some comments and some questions I'd like to pose to you. I want to pick up on some of the questions by my colleagues. In particular what struck me—and I say this not facetiously—was the novel aspect of free telephone calls for those who aren't drinking. It's somewhat ironic that those who are drinking will be getting a free phone call as well, after being given their rights.

Mr. Anthony Pollard: And a free place to stay as well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, free lodging, true enough.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: Not to digress.

I want to extend a special welcome to Mr. Webster from my home province of Nova Scotia. He mentioned something I wanted to pick up on, with respect to lowering or raising the BAC. I understand this is a thorny issue for all of you.

You made a comment with respect to deviant versus normal behaviour. It's a very fine line when you start talking about somebody being deviant and criminal at .10, as opposed to somebody at .07, who's just under. So it doesn't add greatly to the debate in that respect when you start making that kind of broad comment about the level of impairment.

• 1635

However, you made a comment with respect to the graduated penalties. It is encouraging to hear you all recognizing that stiffer penalties for repeat offenders is a direction where we're probably headed. Would you agree that we're going to have to make similar amendments to penalize those who leave the scene of the crime and those who choose to drive while suspended? I see one going hand in glove or cheek by jowl with the other, because obviously there's going to be a greater incentive to flee the accident scene or to flee custody, knowing that the price you're going to pay is higher.

I invite comment from any of you.

Mr. Donald Webster: I would agree with that. Yes, I would, if you're going to leave the scene of the accident.

The maximum sentence is presently 14 years if you're involved in an impaired accident causing death. The average sentence is two years less a day. The maximum that's been ever been handed out is eight and a half years. So one of the things being talked about here is that certain tools presently exist.

I suspect tools exist to deal with people driving while their licence is suspended or leaving the scene of an accident. I don't know the judicial system, but I suspect the tools probably exist. I suspect what's happening is that the courts may have too much flexibility to waive them, and if the public believes their chance of conviction or penalty is low, well, they just go ahead and do it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Another common theme I take from all of your remarks is this move towards greater emphasis on mandatory curative treatment. These interlock devices are a terrific step forward, with greater use of that technology.

However, the issue of user-pay, I'm sure you can all appreciate, is very prohibitive for many. Suggesting that this is going to be the easy answer, that we're going to force those who drink and drive to bear the total cost of this in making this mandatory as part of their probation orders.... I worked as a crown attorney, so I saw a lot of people who were coming before the courts time and time again, and they had zero ability to pay.

So I throw the question back to you, particularly in the area of treatment. I know it comes down to resources; it comes down to government decisions to prioritize.

Mr. Webster, you'd be aware that in the province of Nova Scotia, several treatment houses have closed, one recently in Mulgrave, which has a slight reprieve. So I ask you the obvious question: Is there any talk amongst your community of more charitable donations in this direction, towards curative houses and programs, such as 28-day programs that have been pared back, ironically, to 21-day programs now? In that community, is this something you see yourselves targeting as an area for charitable donation?

Mr. Jan Westcott: Let me answer that, because I'm actually involved, in the community where I live, with some of these kinds of issues. The reality is it's not a lack, as you say, of facilities. In most cases it's a lack of cashflow.

Driving a car is a choice people make. You take on responsibilities for buying gas and for all kinds of expenses. If you choose to do it in a particular fashion and it hurts other people, and if that's demonstrated through the courts, then there's an obligation.

In my community—I live in Oakville, Ontario, a small community—there's very strong support for putting the cost on the person who's doing the harm. We all run businesses. We all lead our lives. If I speed down the highway, I pay in a number of different ways. I pay the fine perhaps, I pay for the time it takes to deal with that, and I pay my insurance company a lot more. We put very specific tracking systems in to capture those kinds of behaviours, and we penalize those people.

And we pay. I just got my insurance bill. Yes, I went down the highway a little too quickly, and guess what? I'm paying more. So we have to keep that in perspective.

• 1640

There's a choice. When people do this behaviour, it's a choice they make. If they don't want to be in this position, they should take the bus, take a taxi, or do something else. There's a lot of personal choice here, and it's entirely appropriate....

Certainly, reflecting the opinions of people I talk to in my community, there's a strong view that if you bring these costs onto society, there is almost an obligation that you should bear a significant part of dealing with the problem.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: We share that view very strongly. Driving is not a right; driving is a privilege. You put your privilege at risk if you abuse that privilege.

The economic cost is not that serious. You can argue that in certain cases it is serious for an individual, but in Alberta, to my recollection, it was $300 for the installation and then about $75 a month for the check and calibration. Well, I hate to tell you this, but with the burden of tax imposed upon our product, that represents less than a case a week. And these guys wouldn't be in that trouble if that was all they were consuming.

So there is the opportunity. If driving is important to them and if they need it for their economic well-being, the funds, we argue, are there to fund the ignition interlock.

Quite frankly, on the treatment side, we do believe that is an appropriate role of government. We do believe that, to Mr. Harris' point, the funds are there; it's a matter of allocation. If we need more treatment resources, government should make that choice and priority. It is not something that should be charitable or drawn out. It is an essential public service.

I say this with the one caution, which I think the treatment experts would acknowledge, that for the hard-core repeat offender and person with an alcohol dependency problem, treatment on its own is a very limited corrective. Somebody can go through 30 days of treatment, but the majority of the people coming out are likely not to be fixed with a 28-day course of treatment. That's where the ignition interlock comes into play. That's a tool to help them get along the way, or at to least keep them from killing somebody else on the road.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I tend to agree with that, and I'm really glad to hear that Ontario has taken this initiative further, to impound the vehicles. Certainly making them inoperable takes away the instrument of death.

I have another quick question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): That's it, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, that's fine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Miss Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, but most of the questions I had have been covered, either by the presenters with their excellent reports, which I followed along with them, or by my colleagues on the other side of the table.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Okay, I guess we'll go to the second round then.

Mr. Harris, three minutes.

Mr. Dick Harris: There is a serious problem with the hard-core drinker, the repeat offender; there's no doubt about it. If we're going to get tough on licence suspensions, even up to lifetime licence suspensions on the third offence—well, suspensions of any kind—it appears to me that if the person disregards that directive from the court, we have to have some even more severe penalties in place to back up what we're saying.

If we tell someone they can't drive for six months or a year or three years, if that person repeatedly goes out and drives despite the court order, it's my opinion that we have to be prepared to back up the threat and say if you do, you're going to get into some very serious trouble.

We hear the argument that we can't just lock everyone up in jail, because we don't have enough jails. But in my opinion, the safest thing for society is for a hard-core, repeat-offending drinker to be in jail or off the roads in some manner. How do we go about doing that? If you have some suggestions, I'd sure appreciate it.

Mr. Anthony Pollard: You know, it's interesting. When I was doing the research and preparing our submission to this committee, one of the things I did was go back to the very first Criminal Code of Canada that I ever had when I was in my first year of law school—and now I'm dating myself—back in 1977. I pulled it out. I was curious to see what the punishment was then, what would happen.

• 1645

Well, it was two years. That's what it was back then—two years. Think about that. That was 1977. Today it's 22 years later, and we're up to 14 years and we've seen the incidence falling off.

We still have that problem with the hard-core drinker. I think we all agree to that. We're at a stage right now where I heard my colleague from the restaurant association say that the maximum that's been received to date.... I see the member from Nova Scotia looking at Martin's. What is it, eight years, eight and a half years?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, that's the maximum that's been doled out so far.

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Well, I can tell you, from the hotel side, if somebody is going out and repeatedly doing this, throw the book at them. Put them away.

When I get in my car and drive down a city street or a highway, I like to think that the people who are driving towards me are sober. It scares the living daylights out of me to think that person might be inebriated. Frankly, if we have to put these people away, and put them away for longer than eight years....

Why do people not break the law? This is the justice committee. They don't break the law in part because of what's going to happen if they get caught. Well, let's enforce those laws even more.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think we're getting into a variety of theories on what actually is a cause-and-effect relationship, and which particular theories impact directly on the rate of recidivism. “In part” was probably a good phrase to put in, because I don't think we have the studies to show an inverse relationship between the number of years in jail and a decline, as you mentioned. A variety of other factors are at play here. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: The only point I wanted to add is that I have a great belief in economic sanctions, and I have a concern about whether we can afford to incarcerate people for that period of time. Clearly the courts, in their wisdom, notwithstanding having the power, have chosen not to do it, and they have obviously good reason in their minds.

But some jurisdictions now are seizing the vehicle and selling it. If there's a repeat offender and he loses his car, which on average I guess is about a $10,000 hit right now, and if he borrows his friend's car and his friend loses a $10,000 car, he'll rapidly run out of cars. That may be a good direction to go in.

In Manitoba, while it was only an impoundment, they made the point that the car the offender was driving would be impounded. If he got it from his brother, his brother didn't have a car for 90 days. There is an appeal process, and if he could prove he had no knowledge that his brother didn't have a licence or was driving suspended, fine, but otherwise, the car is gone.

As I say, taking it the next step into selling it and using the proceeds to build this case I don't think is too tough, and I think may be more effective than long-term incarceration.

Ms. Joyce Reynolds (Senior Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association): Mr. Morrison made the point I was going to make. I heard about this in New York State just in the past couple of weeks, and I thought it would help resolve the resource issues for rehabilitation and for interlock programs. It seems to make a lot of sense.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: I hasten to say I don't embrace the New York system as I understand it being applied, where the car is seized and sold before you have your court appearance and the car is still gone if you're proven innocent. I think we can improve on that system if we adopt it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jan Westcott: One of the things I have a great deal of difficulty understanding really comes down to the definition of a crime. There are precedents and examples of this kind of activity everywhere right now. In most provinces, if you engage in hunting or fishing and if you break the rules.... I used to work up north, and I've seen people have their airplanes taken away from them, their boats, their campers. They get the message very quickly.

• 1650

So we're not trying to create something that doesn't already exist in other parts of society and that people aren't quite accustomed to. If we're prepared to protect the moose, the bear, the fish, and all the rest—and that's worthy—surely we should be willing to look at those kinds of things to save people. I don't think we have to make such a big leap as it may look.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm just leafing through the Criminal Code here, and it never ceases to amaze me the amount of case law that has been generated from this particular Criminal Code offence. It's been a make-work project for lawyers. Anything we produce from this committee that changes the Criminal Code is going to again result in a glut of case law that will challenge it, particularly under the Constitution.

With that said, I picked up on a comment that I believe Mr. Pollard made with respect to the reasonable and probable grounds being changed. I'm sure in your industry you've heard the boiler-plate phrases that police officers use: slurred speech, glossy eyes, thickness of tongue. All of these things have been thrown about. In a courtroom, though, the observations of the police officer in an over-80 case are not admissible but for the grounds to give the demand. That was found to be unconstitutional.

Would you favour a police officer being given that discretion to make sobriety tests at the scene—therefore go back to the old system of making them walk the line, finger to nose, and this type of thing—and having those observations admissible along with the admissibility of his general observations at the scene?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Legislating those, putting those in?

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Specific to the industry of alcohol production, what about warning labels? I asked Ms. Dickerson this question before, but I'm interested in getting your response to the types of warning labels you see on cigarettes perhaps being on alcohol boxes or labels. They had a very effective program in Prince Edward Island, where children were asked to decorate the liquor bags at Christmas, reminding people not to drink and drive, reminding them of the consequences. The tears and the broken hearts and all of these little reminders seemed to have quite a tangible effect. What's your industry's response?

Mr. R.A. Morrison: Howard, do you want to have a run?

We, with your colleague, Mr. Szabo, have been through this in past years, so Howard perhaps can summarize our views.

Mr. Howard Collins (Executive Vice-President, Brewers Association of Canada): In short, I wouldn't agree with the introduction of warning labels. The reason is that we haven't found them to be effective. The research in the United States, where they have been law for about a decade, has shown it doesn't make a difference in behaviour.

What we've chosen to do in Canada—and we've been very active over the past decade—is put our money into other programs. So in addition to the awareness programs that we do on radio and television, which you'd expect us to do, we also do partnerships with the College of Family Physicians, the Native Physicians, BACCHUS, and a variety of other groups. That takes a targeted message directly to those who are most at risk.

When you're putting a label on a bottle, I think once the person has picked up the bottle, it's too late.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: Our commitment over the past decade has been in the order of $10 million a year. If a warning label were mandated, the cost to the industry in converting and applying the warning label has been quantified at approximately that.

We could take the position that in its wisdom, the government has said that is what they expect from the industry, but we think it would be disappointing, because we think the programs that Howard has outlined, coupled with educational programs that we're working with in the province of New Brunswick for high school kids, have the promise to do a lot more.

Our urging is this. Let's identify what is effective and let's not spend money just to paper over a problem. Warning labels themselves, as Howard said, won't fix the problem.

• 1655

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

I'm staying away from some of the more technical responses, because you've given us your position quite clearly, but I've heard a few more novel approaches. I agree to a great extent that it is papering over the problem.

One approach that was discussed recently in Nova Scotia was having identification somewhere on a licence plate, or similarly, for repeat offenders, some indication on their driver's licence that would then go into reasonable and probable grounds for an officer, upon seeing the production of this licence by somebody who had previously been convicted.

Charter implications aside—and I know it's like the old scarlet letter, or the “tort fees or tattoo”—what's your response to that?

Mr. R.A. Morrison: We are aware it has been tried in some jurisdictions, and I believe in the United States it has been thrown out and prohibited. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect, from what I've observed, that a charter challenge would come right off the bat. I leave it to the lawyers.

Fundamentally, in principle, I have no difficulty with a repeat offender being identified as a potential risk and subject to greater scrutiny, but from what I've seen, I question whether it would stand the test of a challenge.

Mr. Jan Westcott: If it were possible to make some progress on some of these other things that have been suggested—for example, the alcohol sensors—and to take advantage of technology where you could, then the need to do those kinds of more invasive things may never go away completely, but it certainly would go down a great deal. If there's a passive sensor that in a very benign way can provide the same kinds of things....

Again, I'm having a lot of difficulty believing that we—and it's not just Canada; it's a whole bunch of places—are unwilling to look at that. It seems quite reasonable, and it would take away from you having to go and do those other kinds of things that result in the ongoing challenges and legal processes that go on.

More and more, my life is run by my computer that sits on my desk, to make critical decisions for me. Why is that okay, but if we have this access to the same kinds of things over here, we seem reluctant to look at those? They may be the solution to getting to that really tough problem you're talking about: How do you find out?

Mr. R.A. Morrison: I understand the technology exists for a police officer to have a sensor at the end of his flashlight so that when he sticks it in the car, it will give a reading. It won't be admissible, but it certainly would indicate that the person had been drinking.

As TIRF indicated in its research, even with roadside checks, people who are borderline or even beyond the limit are getting through the system. They are not being picked up, because the officer doesn't have the ability to call for the check. This sensor might be a way to tighten up the system.

So that kind of technology, as Jan says, I certainly think our industry would support, subject to the legal challenges that are there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You speak of the ability or the time. It seems a lot of the police we heard testify complained of the amount of time it entails, after making a stop and processing. So your comments about streamlining are bang-on.

As well, many of the officers expressed a frustration that after actually having made an arrest, the court system wreaked havoc on the admissibility of their evidence. Their testimony was thrown out or the documents that were produced or generated in the course of an impaired-driving case were found to be inadmissible for the technical breaches that you hear of.

We are still awaiting some statistics we were going to receive from the Crown Attorneys Association about the number of cases that are actually dismissed as a result of these types of breaches. There was a real disparity between what defence lawyers were telling us and what crown lawyers were telling us, with all respect to defence lawyers. That's their job.

I have one final, very brief question. I started my remarks by talking about stigmas and the general feeling towards impaired driving having changed. How would you react to the insertion into the Criminal Code of the designation “vehicular homicide”, which they do have in some states, as opposed to “impaired driving causing death”?

• 1700

Mr. R.A. Morrison: Again, not being a lawyer and not having obtained advice as to the implications thereof, purely personally, I believe that if a person is drunk and driving a 3,000-pound missile that kills somebody, that is homicide.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'd like comments from anyone else. I know I'm just springing that on you.

Mr. Pollard, given your earlier comments, I suspect you might be in favour of that.

Mr. Anthony Pollard: Yes, I have no difficulty at all.

Mr. Jan Westcott: If you were driving a truck and that's what you did for a living, and if you were reckless and hurt somebody, you would expect to be prosecuted criminally. Again, everybody seems to be reluctant to see this as a crime. This is a crime.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That raises an interesting point I thought of. Aside from the fact that a judge is going to consider it an aggravating circumstance if a person is a professional driver, do you believe that, further to graduated penalties for higher readings, there should be an insertion into the Criminal Code that makes it a more aggravating circumstance if a person is a professional driver?

Mr. Jan Westcott: We've certainly seen a lot of progress in those places that have instituted graduated licensing for young people, just by way of example, where no alcohol is permitted. There's a view that that's making a considerable difference.

Would it have the same effect in a commercial sector? I'm not sure, but it's certainly something you'd want to look at. And again, it's not something that's never been done. In a number of states in the United States, a growing number—I just finished reading an article—that's the rule. There's no tolerance whatsoever.

Mr. R.A. Morrison: I believe that in the United States, if you're a professional truck driver, there is zero tolerance of alcohol.

Mr. Jan Westcott: Is it national?

Mr. R.A. Morrison: I believe you lose your licence.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

We should have those statistics in your offices by Monday.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: I'd like to thank the panel for being with us today. You've certainly provided us with a lot of information. Although I didn't hear all of it, I have your briefs. Certainly in view of the inclement weather, we very much appreciate your taking the time and effort to be here. It's not getting any better out there, so please drive carefully on your way home.

Thank you very much. That will adjourn the meeting for today.

And thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, for an excellent job.

An hon. member: You weren't here to see it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!