JURI Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Recognizing that impaired driving continues to pose a very serious threat to the life and health of Canadians, the House of Commons asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the relevant Criminal Code provisions and make recommendations for change. This report outlines the process undertaken by the Committee to fulfill its very important mandate and explains the reasons for the changes recommended.
The detection of impaired driving by breath analysis became a part of Canadian criminal law 30 years ago. Although subsequent Criminal Code amendments, and concurrent educational and enforcement efforts may be credited with having stemmed the growth in the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries on Canadian roads, a review of current statistics reveals that the battle against impaired driving is still far from won. Indeed, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that, in 1995, 35% of fatally injured drivers in Canada had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of the legal limit.1 Although there are conflicting estimates of the annual number of deaths or injuries caused by impaired driving in Canada, it is clear that statistics alone do not reflect the needless human tragedy of lives lost and injuries suffered. Increasing public concern about the incidence of impaired driving in Canada and the resulting injuries and loss of life led to a full day of debate in the House of Commons in October 1997. At the conclusion of that debate, this Committee was instructed to prepare and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving. On 22 October 1998, the Committee reported to the House, committing itself to a detailed study of the legislation with the goal of making recommendations, in the form of proposed amendments to the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code.
On 3 December 1998, the Committee commenced its review of the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code, in response to the following Order of Reference from the House:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving in order to (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.
As part of its review, the Committee held public hearings on more than a dozen separate occasions, receiving evidence from over 30 witnesses holding a broad range of perspectives on the issues. A list of those witnesses is included at Appendix A to this report. Appendix B includes a list of agencies, organizations and individuals that responded in writing to the Committee's Issues Paper. The Issues Paper is also included at Appendix C. For ease of reference, the current impaired driving provisions contained in Part VIII of the Criminal Code are included at Appendix D. A Summary of Recommendations can be found at Appendix E and the Committee's legislative proposals are contained in a Draft Bill at Appendix F.
Provincial governments provided the Committee with important information about the wide variety of legislation and administrative steps taken in their respective jurisdictions. Chapter 2 of this report contains a more thorough discussion of some of those initiatives. A number of organizations and individuals involved in researching impaired driving and road safety issues also shared their technical expertise with the Committee, in the form of testimony, literature reviews and statistical data. Comments and suggestions were received from representatives of the hospitality industry and insurance interests, as well as non-profit safety-oriented groups. The Committee also heard from representatives of those involved in the criminal justice process, including victims and the police community, as well as Crown Attorneys and the criminal defense bar.
Over the course of this review, it has become increasingly apparent to the Committee that Parliament has limited legislative powers with respect to impaired driving. In the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction over criminal law, Parliament prohibits and punishes impaired driving under the Criminal Code, and sets out special procedures for obtaining the evidence necessary for prosecution. In addition to their constitutional responsibility for prosecuting impaired driving offences under the administration of justice jurisdiction, the provinces and territories have authority over driver licensing and highways. Over the years, a complex and interdependent scheme of criminal and administrative sanctions has been imposed on impaired drivers, in the form of fines, imprisonment, and driving prohibitions for Criminal Code convictions, combined with provincial/territorial license suspensions of varying lengths and conditions.
During this review, several provincial governments urged that the Committee not limit the existing scope for administrative penalties, such as license suspensions, which are often used to encourage participation in treatment for alcohol abuse or alcohol ignition interlock programs, in order to regain a driver's license. On the other hand, several witnesses were unhappy that sanctions were not uniformly applied across Canada. They asked the Committee to propose longer minimum prohibition orders and mandated assessment and treatment measures and/or the use of ignition interlock devices. While Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law may well permit expanding the range of penalty options under the Criminal Code, the Committee has attempted in its deliberations to bear in mind that the practical implications of doing so may fall almost entirely upon the shoulders of provincial or territorial governments.
1 "Impaired Driving in Canada, 1996," Juristat, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-002-XPE, Vol. 17, No. 12, p. 7.