Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 75 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 16, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-82, to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters), met this day at 10:08 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
We have appearing before us Minister McLellan on Bill C-82, to amend the Criminal Code, impaired driving and related matters.
Please proceed, Minister McLellan.
Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to be before you this morning to speak in support of Bill C-82.
As you may be aware, the genesis of this legislation is found in the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I think it is fair to say that parliamentarians reflect the experience of Canadian society with respect to impaired driving. Certainly, there are members of both chambers who have been touched directly or indirectly by the tragedy of impaired driving. I should like to acknowledge their personal commitment in moving this issue forward.
I have said publicly that I consider impaired driving to be a scourge within our society. The criminal law must play its role as part of an integrated approach which is needed to address this problem. I am committed to ensuring that criminal legislation fulfils its role by sending a strong signal that impaired driving will not be tolerated.
However, I harbour no illusion that criminal law, by itself, will eradicate this problem. Enforcement measures, driving licensing measures, treatment for addictions, education, and other preventive measures are imperative in the struggle to eliminate impaired driving. Governments, public and private organizations, families and individuals all have a role in making our roads safer.
Despite important progress on impaired driving over the past dozen years, much more remains to be done. In 1997, there were some 1,300 deaths from impaired driving in Canada. That is over double the number of people in this country whose lives are taken through the commission of murder in a given year -- 1,300 people lose their lives on the highways of this country due to impaired drivers.
Drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol kill themselves, their passengers and unsuspecting road users.
[Translation]
Despite important progress on impaired driving over the past dozen years, much more remains to be done. In 1997, there were some 1,300 deaths from impaired driving in Canada. Drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol kill themselves, their passengers and unsuspecting road users.
[English]
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began hearings on the issue of impaired driving in December 1998, and tabled its report on impaired driving on May 25, 1999. The committee's report made 17 recommendations for legislative and non-legislative measures. A draft bill annexed to the committee report contained nine provisions for Criminal Code amendments, reflecting nine of the recommendations that were made within the report.
The government wanted to deal with this important issue expeditiously and respond quickly to the standing committee's recommendations that were contained in the committee bill. Thus, Bill C-82 was tabled on June 7, 1999, and reflected the intent of the committee bill.
On June 9, 1999, with the agreement of the house leaders from all parties, the House of Commons sitting as Committee of the Whole voted to report Bill C-82 with an amendment to delete the provision that would have increased the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years' imprisonment to life imprisonment. The provision dealing with impaired driving causing death was introduced as a separate bill, Bill C-87, on June 10, 1999. Removing the provision on life imprisonment for impaired driving causing death and introducing it as separate legislation allowed for greater opportunity to debate the pros and cons of this issue while fast-tracking through the house the other provisions which had consensus.
Bill C-82, as it is before this committee, has one provision that would amend an investigative provision of the Criminal Code to assist peace officers in certain impaired driving cases, and seven provisions that would amend penalty provisions of the Criminal Code, thereby enhancing deterrence and ensuring that the penalties fit the seriousness of the offence.
Under the existing Criminal Code investigative provisions, a peace officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person committed a drinking and driving offence within the prior two hours may demand that that person provide a breath sample on an approved instrument or, under certain circumstances, a blood sample to ascertain the concentration of alcohol in the blood. Bill C-82 will increase the relevant time period to three hours, thereby providing police with greater flexibility when emergency circumstances delay the taking of samples.
With respect to penalty provisions, Bill C-82 amends the current provisions dealing with a person who leaves the scene of an accident found in section 252 of the Criminal Code. The present maximum for leaving the scene of an accident is five years' imprisonment.
Bill C-82 will maintain this five-year maximum where the accident does not cause bodily harm or death. In a case where the person leaves the scene knowing that there has been bodily harm to a person, the maximum will be 10 years' imprisonment. Where a person leaves the scene knowing that someone is dead or knowing that bodily harm has been caused to a person and is reckless as to whether death ensues, and death does in fact ensue, the maximum penalty will be life imprisonment.
While some persons who leave the scene of an accident are impaired drivers, some, while not impaired, may leave for other reasons. However, the behaviour of leaving the scene, particularly where there is a death or injury, is in itself egregious behaviour, and Bill C-82 will signal this.
Another provision in Bill C-82 will increase the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified from two years' imprisonment to five years' imprisonment. The disqualified driver may have been disqualified as a result of a conviction for impaired driving or for other reasons. The new provision will provide an incentive for disqualified drivers to stay off the road.
The remaining five penalty provisions of Bill C-82 are changes to impaired driving penalty provisions in the Criminal Code. The minimum fine for a first conviction will rise from $300 to $600. The last time Parliament raised this minimum was in 1985, and it is appropriate that the message be sent that impaired driving carries a significant minimum fine.
Bill C-82 also increases mandatory minimum driving prohibitions, upon conviction, for impaired driving. The prohibition from driving found in the Criminal Code is distinct from the driver's licence suspension that a province may impose under provincial legislation. The Criminal Code driving prohibition applies everywhere in Canada.
Right now, on first conviction, the minimum is three months and the maximum is three years. The minimum prohibition on a first offence will be raised to one year, and the maximum will remain the same.
However, in a province that has an ignition interlock program, a first-time offender may have the driving prohibition reduced to not less than three months, if the judge makes a probation order for ignition interlock use.
The ignition interlock bars the vehicle from starting until the driver provides a breath sample into a vehicle-mounted testing device that gives a pass reading. As I understand it, there are two provinces now that make fairly widespread use of this device. They are Quebec and Alberta. However, my expectation is that the use of this device and others will spread across the provinces in the coming months and years.
For a second conviction, the minimum driving prohibition will rise to two years from six months, and the maximum will rise to five years from three years. On a subsequent conviction, the minimum driving prohibition will rise to three years from one year, and the maximum will rise from three years to a lifetime ban. The mandatory driving prohibitions will be used together with the imposition of a fine and in cases where imprisonment is imposed.
Bill C-82 will introduce a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, that exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This will codify what many judges already do. It will establish a uniform level at which a high BAC reading will attract greater consequences. A new provision allowing a sentencing judge to make a probation order requiring the offender to use an ignition interlock device will be available where the province has a provincial program for ignition interlock devices.
A traffic injury research foundation study in Alberta has indicated that convicted drivers who use the ignition interlock were less likely to re-offend and had a higher survival rate during the study period than convicted drivers who did not use an ignition interlock device.
Bill C-82 will also make it possible for a sentencing judge to require an offender to attend a program for assessment and curative treatment. This sanction will only be available to a sentencing judge where the province has such a program. Provinces are not required to offer such programs. Taken together, the provisions in Bill C-82 will send a strong message to persons who, despite all the initiatives on the part of so many people in this country to date, still choose to drive while they are impaired. Canadian society should not -- indeed, I do not think we can -- tolerate impaired driving. The criminal law, society's strongest sanction, will be improved to ensure that deterrence is enhanced.
Combined with other consequences, such as provincial licensing measures and insurance costs, the changes in Bill C-82 will send, we believe, a strong signal that we are committed to eliminating impaired driving and the tragic consequences of impaired driving in this country.
[Translation]
I would now be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
I know that all of you have had the opportunity to read or review the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I think the committee report is remarkable in a number of respects. It speaks to what I think we are seeing more of before the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights, which is committee members being able to put aside partisan differences and work across party lines on a problem that has been clearly identified as of concern to society generally, and not only in this area.
I was here last week speaking to this committee about victims' rights. We saw the standing committee in the House of Commons issue a virtually unanimous report. This speaks to the good work that the members of the House committee do and their ability to come together when they identify issues of broadly based societal concern. While I realize I am here this morning before the Senate committee, I wish to acknowledge the important work the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done in this regard. I know this is also obviously an area of great interest and concern to this committee.
The Chairman: I should point out, though, that working together regardless of party lines is what the Senate does most of the time.
Ms McLellan: That is true. It is just more exceptional in the lower house.
Senator Carstairs: Madam Minister, my questions are less specific with respect to the bill and more philosophical, I suppose.
One of the difficulties we have identified over and over again is the recklessness on the part of those who have had a prohibition against driving applied by the courts, and who insist that it is their right to drive an automobile in any case. While I know that we are implementing even more prohibitions and those over longer periods of time, my problem is that I do not know how we will enforce the new sanctions. How will we prevent young men and women -- unfortunately in greater proportion, young men -- who think the world is their oyster, the car is their charm? Even if they have been found guilty of having consumed 16 beers and have had their licences suspended by the courts for three or even five years, they do it anyway.
Ms McLellan: You have identified, senator, a very important challenge for all of us. As I said at the outset, I do not think any of us pretend that the Criminal Code or provincial licensing prohibitions will magically solve the problem of basic irresponsibility on the part of some people within our society. Laws will never effectively make irresponsible people responsible. What the Criminal Code provisions do is send a very powerful signal in terms of where we, as a civil society, stand in relation to those acts of irresponsibility. That is very important.
If one persists in driving after prohibitions and licensing suspensions, and is incarcerated for some period of time, one is obviously off the roads. We hope that this person receives treatment and therapy to help deal with the underlying factors, including addiction, which led to the irresponsible acts.
As I say, the Criminal Code is only part of a multi-faceted strategy. We need better education. We need better information. In our families and in our communities, we need to do more to help young people, especially, understand that, to be a responsible member of a civil society, there are certain things you simply do not do. If you to them, as a member of a civil, organized society, you will be expected to the take responsibility for that irresponsibility and be held accountable.
I do not pretend that this will solve all our problems, nor should anyone think of it in that way. We need a multi-faceted strategy that begins with better research, more education, more information and more involvement with families and communities in the identification of those young people who may be in trouble, either through drug or alcohol addiction, and other kinds of problems that might be prone to reflecting this kind of irresponsibility.
My stepdaughter is just 18, and she and her friends sometimes go to the local bar. What I am struck by is how responsible those kids are because they always make sure that one of their friends is not drinking and he or she can drive, or they take a cab, or they call a friend who has been at home that evening to come and pick them up. We have to ensure that more young people, especially, understand that that is responsible, civil conduct. That is what we expect of all Canadians, be they 18, 28 or 48. We all have a role to play here.
The Criminal Code is there to send a very powerful and sharp message if people persist in acting in irresponsible ways. Sooner or later they have to be held accountable.
Senator Carstairs: As someone who spent 20 years teaching high school students, I know that they are far more responsible in this field than we ever were. They have a system of designated drivers, and I cannot remember anyone in my generation ever doing that. It is a very positive thing. More of them are learning how to drive through driver education courses, which I think more practical than being taught by a parent. However, I do not think we spend enough time in our high schools or in driver education programs teaching kids about the Criminal Code, and specifically the drunk driving provisions. Is the federal Department of Justice doing anything in that regard? I realize education is a provincial matter, but there are ways around that.
Is the federal government doing anything to encourage the 10 provinces and the territories to move toward the use of ignition interlock devices?
Ms McLellan: It is fair to say that we must leave most of the education in this area, especially relating to drug and alcohol education, up to the provinces and up to local police forces who run programs of one sort or another. They go into the schools and show the students videos. They bring victims and family members of victims of drunk driving into the schools. They bring some of the accused, those who have been found guilty of drunk driving, into the schools to talk about their experiences and the horror of what they caused in someone else's life.
It is largely done by local police forces, by the RCMP, where they police, and by the provinces. We provide them with as much information and research as we have at our disposal to help them in those presentations, but as I understand it, we do not do very much of it ourselves. Perhaps we should look at how we can work more closely with the provinces and local police forces in this area.
Education, as you all know, is an area that the provinces guard jealously, and that is their right, but I do think there may be ways that we can work more closely with law enforcement officials and the provinces to do a better job of helping young people understand the consequences of drunk driving and how the law may treat them now and in the future if they are convicted of drunk driving.
We want to encourage other provinces to adopt these programs, such as the ignition interlock device and perhaps others. My deputy is meeting with his counterparts in the next few weeks, and I have asked him to specifically talk to them, in light of this proposed legislation, about their desires in provinces, other than Quebec and Alberta, to move forward and about what they are doing.
Other provinces are taking other approaches. For example, I am meeting with the Attorney General of Manitoba at 11:30 this morning, and this is one of the issues he has on the agenda for discussion. They have taken a different approach, and a very tough approach. They will impound drunk drivers' cars, as I understand it, at the roadside.
Mr. Yvan Roy, Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: Yes, at the roadside.
Ms McLellan: Provinces are taking a variety of approaches here, but we want, as a federal government, to put this on the table for all our provincial and territorial counterparts and see if we can develop a more seamless system. The Criminal Code would be part of that system to deal with this unfortunate problem which, in spite of 20 years of good work on the part of many in this country, does not seem to be abating.
Senator LeBreton: Madam Minister, as I said in the Senate yesterday, I congratulate you and the government for this initiative.
You would almost think that Senator Carstairs and I were in cahoots with our questions because she had raised some of the issues that I had in mind.
On the enforcement issue, in our personal case, the sentencing judge said something that I thought was very profound. He said that a car is a beautiful object, but in the wrong hands it is a lethal grenade.
You just said something very important. You referred to a "seamless system." In the last three and one-half years, while working with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I have come to recognize that as one of the problems they are trying to solve. There appears to be a tremendous lack of coordination between what happens in the various jurisdictions. The amendments to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C-82 will cause those provinces and territories to look at their judicial systems.
My question is related to education, but not the education of our students. It is related to the education of the people who are in our courts -- our judges, Crown counsel and the various people who work in the court system. One of the reasons I am so supportive of this bill is the fact that there are minimum sentencing requirements. If you look at some of the sentences that have been passed down to drunk drivers, the minimums for serious injury and death have not even reached the minimums that are now part of the amendments to the Criminal Code.
How will you as Minister of Justice, and how will the Department of Justice and the federal government, get the word down through the system to the various courts? I know that they are in the legal profession and will certainly read the new requirements, but in our courts, in the legislatures, and in the public there are still people who do not view drunk driving as a criminal offence. They view it as a social problem. Do you have any plans to educate the various officials who work in our courts so that they will understand that this must be treated as a criminal offence?
Ms McLellan: You raise a very important question. One does have to change attitudes generally, and that should include members of the bench and the bar.
As with all new legislation, various kinds of education programs are developed. They are run by the judges themselves, but they are, in my experience, always very open to working closely with us and provincial counterparts to develop programs that help both new judges and sitting judges understand changes in the law, why we have made certain changes in the law, and why we think those changes reflect the views and values of Canadian society at any given time. At the end of the day, however, it is up to individual judges, seeing the accused person, hearing the Crown's case, hearing from the victims and the victims' family, to make determinations in relation to a finding of guilt or innocence, and then sentencing.
In this legislation, you are quite right that we have imposed minimums in certain circumstances. I think that will help in terms of sending a signal as to how seriously we view this issue.
We will be working with provincial attorneys general. We will be working, wherever appropriate, with the judges through the National Judicial Institute which is the main vehicle for judicial education in this country. We will be working with provincial judges and their association to help them understand why we are doing this.
I think there has been significant change over the past 20 years. As we were saying earlier in relation to Senator Carstairs' question, most young people today act quite responsibly. They do not get into a car after having had a few drinks in a bar. They have a designated driver. They take a cab or do whatever. One is starting to see that significant societal change and a condemnation of irresponsible conduct. I think that, too, will become part of the values of lawyers and judges, simply as the years go by.
Over the past 20 years we have seen a major transformation in how drunk driving is viewed; however, we still have some way to go. Ongoing education must be there to ensure that judges and lawyers, especially, understand that this is a very serious problem. It is not only a social problem. In some cases it is, but in some cases it is a health problem. It is an addiction issue, but it can be, in many circumstances, also a criminal issue and one with which the criminal law must deal on behalf of society. We must constantly make that point and help those who interpret the laws and dispense justice in this country understand that we believe these amendments reflect where Canadian society is at in terms of the horror and the senseless loss of life in this country because of the irresponsible act of drinking and then getting into a car.
Mr. Roy: I believe that the very exercise through which we are going this morning, with the media present, is extremely helpful.
I have been in the business of drafting laws for eight or nine years. My mother is not affiliated with MADD, but twice in the time I have been doing this work she has asked me to speak to my minister to try to get this type of legislation in place before the summer. People read the papers and know what is happening.
With respect to minimum sentences, our studies show that the most important deterrent is the certainty that we will catch offenders. Senator Carstairs spoke of people who continue to drive even though they are under a prohibition which could result in a jail term. The best deterrence for such people is the knowledge that we will catch them.
Generally speaking, we are doing a better job with respect to drunk driving than with other offences, but we at the federal level think that we can do better. That is why we continually meet with our counterparts in the provinces, trying to move them in the direction of having the kind of enforcement that will send that message. Once a person is in the system, the system deals with them appropriately. As the minister was saying, there is the social problem and there is the criminal problem. Parliament and the Minister of Justice are trying to bring balance to the system so that, on a case-by-case basis, it will be possible for judges, prosecutors and defence counsel to have a solution tailor made for each individual.
Once a person is in the system, the system deals with them appropriately. As the minister was saying, there is the social problem and there is the criminal problem. Parliament and the Minister of Justice are trying to bring balance to the system so that, on a case-by-case basis, it will be possible for judges, prosecutors and defence counsel to have a solution tailor made for each individual.
However, first and foremost, we must catch these people and send the message to others that we will. Progress has been made. Indeed, statistics show that drunk driving has decreased since 1985. We have not yet achieved our goal, but we are moving in the right direction. If the measures in Bill C-82 are properly publicized, as we are doing, and if the provinces are on side, as I think they are, we are doing something meaningful in this area.
Senator LeBreton: The fact that this bill was fast-tracked through Parliament sent a very important signal, especially at this crucial time of the year, before summer and high school graduations.
I speak at high schools, and I agree with Senator Carstairs that most of our young people are responsible. Our young high school students are our future lawyers, judges and Crown counsels.
There is no question that we will not completely eradicate the problem. There will always be those fools who do not care about society or laws.
Your comment that we have to catch these people first is a good entrée into my second question. I recognize that much of this is governed by provincial regulations and does not come under the Criminal Code per se. Specifically, I am referring to the use of interlock devices. As the minister pointed out, the statistics prove that they are working in Alberta. They are now being used in Quebec and Manitoba. As well, vehicles, even if they belong to other people, are being confiscated. Therefore, the onus is not only on those who drink and drive their own vehicles, but on those who allow others to drive their vehicles.
I believe that applying these new minimum sentences will keep many drunk drivers off our roads.
There are many new technologies available now. With passive alcohol sensors, for example, police officers can detect alcohol in a car simply through an open window. Can the federal government take the lead and encourage the provinces to use these technologies? Everyone is concerned about individual rights, but if a police officer suspects that someone has been drinking, surely the rights of the people whom they may kill override the right not to take an alcohol detection test.
When you have this on the agenda with the provinces and territories, will you give them some advice in the area of catching offenders before they do kill someone?
Ms McLellan: The strategy of the federal government is to work as closely as possible with our provincial colleagues, who are on the front lines. They administer the criminal justice system. They are the ones who are responsible for policing in their provinces and in the local communities.
When the RCMP do that, they are under contract to the province, so the province has jurisdiction. They are on the front lines, and we are respectful of the fact that they live every day with the pressures of how to enforce laws to catch these people. There are resource issues, education issues, and a host of others for law enforcement agencies in the provinces in terms of ensuring that the laws we pass at the federal level are enforced.
As I have said, if this legislation is passed by the Senate, as soon as my deputy meets with his provincial counterparts we will begin working with them to identify areas in which we can encourage them to move forward. For example, we must suggest to provinces which do not employ it, that the ignition interlock program is a way to prevent people from drinking and driving. It is very difficult for people who have been drinking alcohol to drive a car fitted with this device. That, in and of itself, is often enough to convince them to walk or to take a cab, a bus, or some other means of transportation.
This will require close work with the provinces, while appreciating that they are on the front lines and must deal with the daily pressures of law enforcement and prosecution.
As you are probably aware, Senator LeBreton, there is something called STRIDE, which is the acronym for: Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving. Perhaps Mr. Pruden can speak about that.
Mr. Hal Pruden, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: In 1990, the Ministers of Transport in the federal-provincial-territorial areas met and mandated that the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators should develop a strategy to reduce impaired driving. This organization constituted a working group which involves officials from Transport Canada and from provincial ministries. As well, there are representatives from insurance organizations, safety organizations and the police.
Over the years that group has made a number of recommendations and suggestions, many of which have been implemented by most provinces, some of which have been implemented by a few provinces. They suggest and encourage the provinces to develop countermeasures to impaired driving which, over the years, they feel have been successful.
That strategy was renewed in 1995. I believe it will run until 2001. The object is to reduce impaired driving. They believe it has been quite successful. They have not included the suggestion for the use of passive alcohol sensors. Police in Canada may look at using that tool without a Criminal Code amendment. There is that possibility. I believe it has been used in the United States to some degree.
You also mentioned new technologies. As I understand it from the forensic scientists who advised the minister with regard to the approved screening devices and with regard to the approved instruments, new digital technology is available in some of the approved instruments already being used under the Criminal Code. It is expected that, as further instruments and devices come on stream, some will be used. The technology is available and it is being used in some places.
Senator LeBreton: Thank you, Madam Minister. This is a very important act.
Senator Grafstein: I am curious. Why the preamble, and why the words "enhanced deterrence" in the Criminal Code. I thought the Criminal Code, of its essence, was a deterrent. In other words, that is a nice political statement, but I thought the Criminal Code was supposed to separate itself from political issues to deal with intrinsic social values.
Ms McLellan: Mr. Pruden tells me that the language found here is the language of the motion that went to committee.
Senator Grafstein: I see. Is it not a departure from what we in this country have always thought of the Criminal Code, that is, that it is a document that is free of political rhetoric? The Criminal Code is a deterrent, principally.
Ms McLellan: The Criminal Code is fundamentally about deterrence. It is about fundamentally defining in a civil society those acts which we believe should be condemned through the application of criminal sanction and punishment of one sort or another.
It is fair to say in this case that the preamble underscores the point that impaired driving was viewed by the House of Commons and the standing committee as being a matter of seriousness where perhaps society, as Senator LeBreton has already pointed out, has not made the progress that we would like to see in understanding that this is completely unacceptable conduct.
Senator Grafstein: Every offence in the Criminal Code is unacceptable.
Ms McLellan: Indeed, but as Senator LeBreton has pointed out, there are still some who somehow view impaired driving as a less serious offence. If you take a life when drunk behind the wheel of the car, that is somehow considered less serious than taking a life when you go into a bank with a gun and shoot someone. I think most Canadians would say they do not see much difference.
Senator Grafstein: Let me deal again with my notion about the Criminal Code as a final but important instrument in determining social conduct. I always tend to approach Criminal Code amendments as being the ultimate amendments. Steps taken in society must be graduated. If we have exhausted all other reasonable steps, the Criminal Code comes into play, because we do not believe in over-criminalizing conduct. We agree on that.
Ms McLellan: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: Let us have a brief review, Madam Minister, because I find an inconsistency in your evidence and in that of your associates.
In 1985 we saw the last amendment to this particular provision. Since that time, you say statistics indicate a decline in incidents. The only statistic in your statement is that there were 1,300 deaths from impaired driving in 1997. Has the situation become better or worse since 1985 without a Criminal Code amendment? If so, why? If not, why? I am talking about statistics.
Then, Madam Minister, just to complicate the question, could you tell us in what provinces and in what regions things are worse or better? Are there some areas with more serious problems, so we can examine whether it is necessary, according to the premise of this bill, to intensify the deterrence?
Ms McLellan: Let me reassure colleagues that there have been amendments to these provisions since 1985. We have not increased the fines since 1985, but there have been amendments to these sections of the Criminal Code since 1985.
You raise an important question. While the actual numbers of those killed and injured on our highways from impaired driving has gone down, it has not decreased to the extent that many had hoped from the past 20 years of intensive education and information on the part of a large number of Canadians, including alcohol companies, distillers, breweries, groups like MADD and PAID and SADD, and by attorneys general all over this country, federal, provincial and territorial.
We still have 1,300 deaths. Separate and apart from the horror of the injuries and the maiming, 1,300 people die every year in situations that are 100 per cent preventable.
The House of Commons agreed that it was time -- in spite of the so-called "improvements" and there have been some -- to take a stand in relation to a crime which is completely preventable. For many, this crime displays a level of irresponsibility that is hard to accept.
Senator Grafstein: I understand your argument. It has been well made. I want to make the other case for a moment. There is another related social issue in Canada on which we do not focus. I have not looked at this recently and I am just trying to do my own research, but Canada has probably the highest incarceration rates in the western world. We increase the number offences in the Criminal Code; we increase the penalties; we throw the convicted persons in jail; and then we seem to think, as a result of all those actions, that we are solving intrinsic social problems.
In response to Senator LeBreton's questioning, you said something which I thought was very sensitive. It related to alternate means of preventive tests and modern techniques.
Last night I watched television for several hours. As we all do, I flipped through the channels. I saw four beer commercials which said in effect it is great to be drunk. People were in a drunken frenzy, celebrating the drinking of beer. I saw five commercials glorifying cars that were travelling at higher-than-average highway speeds. I saw two inserts on the sports channels dealing with auto racing where a car was in effect demolished, obviously with loss of life.
You as a cabinet minister have indirect authority to deal with advertising in Canada on television. It strikes me that there is an inconsistency. We want to use the Criminal Code as a battering ram to stop the horror, to send a strong message, but meanwhile, in response to Senator LeBreton's questions, quite frankly, you say you do have not the jurisdiction because of the split jurisdiction. The federal government does have jurisdiction with respect to advertising on television. Yet, that is what I saw last night. As a drunken driver enters a car, he or she is obviously influenced by what he or she has seen on the television screen.
It seems to me that there is a disconnection here between the desire to incarcerate, on the one hand, to solve a social problem, and, on the other, the lack of coordination of the instruments at hand to seek to increase education, both at the federal level and, as Senator LeBreton quite rightly says, with these modern digital tools at the provincial level.
On the whole, when I listen to your evidence, particularly the evidence of Mr. Pruden, we are making remarkable strides.
Ms McLellan: We are making progress.
Senator Grafstein: I have a terribly contrarian view that, when Parliament rushes or fast-tracks an amendment to the Criminal Code, we should take a harder, slower look at it, notwithstanding the very emotional and moving statements made by Senator LeBreton yesterday. I quite admire her for that. However, our role is to sit back and ask why an amendment is being fast tracked.
Yes, these amendments are popular, but that should not be our main criterion for change. We have intrinsic social values to address here. Considering our incarceration rates, I am of the view that throwing another 1,000 prisoners in jail will not necessarily solve the problem.
Ms McLellan: I will let Mr. Roy respond to some of that, but let me say first that I do not think anyone here is suggesting that the Criminal Code in and of itself, nor incarceration as one of the possible sentences or penalties, will be the answer to the challenge of drunk driving. I have tried to make it plain from the outset that we in the Department of Justice see this as a multi-faceted approach. The Criminal Code, ultimately, is the most serious tool we have by which society can send a very strong message about that which is unacceptable.
I would agree with you that the best way to deal with the challenge of impaired driving is to prevent it in the first place, as it is with all crime. That speaks to the kinds of things we have been talking about here: Research, education, information, families, support in the communities, and early identification of people who have trouble with addictions and getting them into treatment programs. All that works better than the Criminal Code for the simple reason that, by the time you get to the Criminal Code, someone has been hurt. Someone's life has been taken. Someone's family has been irretrievably scarred for the rest of their lives. Therefore, we want to do all those other things too. The Criminal Code is an instrument of last resort, certainly in areas like this where one is dealing with, in at least some cases, addictions that should be identified and dealt with at a point before someone is allowed to get into a car and drive.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we see incarceration as the simple solution to the challenge of impaired driving. It will always be up to the judge to decide what period of incarceration is appropriate and, in some cases, whether incarceration is appropriate at all. In fact, judges will have the power to direct to curative treatment programs. They will have the power to direct that ignition devices be used where those programs exist. However, that is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We have talked already about the desire to work with the provinces to see those expanded.
You raise important issues about the messages young people get through television and advertising and magazines and videos and other things.
Senator Grafstein: It is not just young people.
Ms McLellan: It is general. There are rules and regulations restricting what distillers and breweries are able to display presently, and the kinds of messages they are allowed to send to the viewing audience. Work is being done with the breweries. They appeared before the standing committee and talked about the kinds of programs they run. It is fair to say that they recognize their challenge in society, understand the challenge, and want to act responsibly. In fact, there may well be things that we should be doing with them to ensure that they do a better job of sending their message, which is, "Yes, we sell a product, and we would like you to buy this product, but there are only certain circumstances in which you should use this product." They have tried to send that message, but I am sure that they would agree themselves that more can be done.
They are actually now taking quite a proactive approach, at least in some provinces such as my own, of going into the schools and delivering education messages in relation to impaired driving and the importance of, if one chooses to drink, drinking responsibly.
The question you raise is one that the president of the United States has addressed recently as a result of the tragic shootings in Columbine High School in Colorado. He has directly engaged Hollywood in discussions of the kinds of messaging they send through films and television shows to young people about the glorification of violence.
It is true that in our society, through movies and advertising, but probably more particularly through movies, we glorify fancy cars and high-speed chases and going out and having a few drinks, a fancy martini or whatever, and then getting into a fancy, souped-up car.
We must all do a much better job of acknowledging that censorship is an issue here. There is, as well, the freedom of expression argument that no one should take lightly, because freedom of expression is one of our fundamental political values.
Having said that, it is a case of asking people to be responsible and to act responsibly, and that includes people who make movies, magazines, videos and television commercials. Although the causal connection is hard to draw directly in many cases, we know all of that has an influence.
I do not disagree with you, senator. The challenge for us is to ensure that not only young people, but particularly young people, get the right balance of messages and have an opportunity to sort through that information and understand what is a value and what is not.
Senator Grafstein: The RIDE program in Toronto, which only happens for a month, has a more dramatic impact in terms of stopping impaired driving than any other program I have seen.
Ms McLellan: That is an enforcement issue. You are absolutely right.
Senator Grafstein: Yes, and that is happening without a Criminal Code amendment.
Ms McLellan: It is part of an integrated enforcement strategy.
Senator Beaudoin: Our difficulty here is that criminal law comes under federal jurisdiction, as does procedure, but the administration of justice is provincial. That is what we must work with. I have no difficulty with that. We make speak ad nauseam about whether or not we are going too far. We all agree that we cannot solve everything by incorporating it into the criminal law. This is not only a criminal law problem, it is also a social problem, an educational problem, and so on. In my opinion, in our country, that applies to many of the offences listed in the Criminal Code, although this one is more clear cut.
However, we are always faced with the same dilemma. The provinces are not on the same wave length, yet they have full jurisdiction. That is the way the Constitution is drafted. It is up to us to find a way to solve this problem.
Every year, in August, the provinces hold an interprovincial conference where all the attorneys general of the provinces get together to discuss various issues.
Ms McLellan: We also meet with them once a year. We have an annual federal-provincial-territorial meeting. That will be held in the fall.
Senator Beaudoin: That is the forum where these issues should be discussed. We may work in the field of criminal law, but other aspects of life touch on this problem, whether they are social, education, or whatever, and those also need to be addressed. In my opinion, the criminal aspect of this issue is only one part of the problem. I have been surprised to hear that some judges consider this to be a purely societal problem. I believe that, although it may be a social problem, it is also a problem in terms of the administration of justice.
Ms McLellan: Yes. I do not think we disagree with you. There is much work to be done. I will ensure it is on our agenda in the fall when we meet with the federal, provincial and territorial attorneys general. I am sure my provincial counterparts will have comments on the implications of these amendments in respect of their enforcement and prosecution activities. In the next few weeks, my deputy will be raising this issue with his provincial counterparts.
Mr. Roy: At the level of officials -- and, this is true at the higher levels, too -- the provinces are not reluctant to work with us. They are perfectly aware of the problem, and we are working very closely together. The proposed amendments have been accepted by the provinces. They want to work with us.
At some point in time, however, there arises the issue of the financial means to implement some of the measures we would like to see implemented. That is a different issue altogether. The provinces are on side and they want to work with us. I want to make sure that is well understood and that it is on the record, because it is very important.
Senator Beaudoin: That is good news.
Senator Fraser: I have a question and an observation on the matter of advertising. I should like to re-emphasize the point you made that advertising is an element of free speech. The Supreme Court has confirmed that fact and that it not lightly be tampered with. It is already subject to some constraints.
In this particular case, I see a possible parallel with the prohibition of advertising on tobacco which has been in effect for quite some time now, yet the rate of youth smoking has gone up, not down. I am not sure that focusing on advertising is the soundest way to go.
I am interested in the provision for treatment orders. Can you tell us how many provinces have provincial treatment facilities, what is done now, and whether there is any data available on follow-up to those treatment orders -- that is, any treatment orders that are uttered now? Do people actually go for treatment, and is the treatment successful?
Ms McLellan: Perhaps Mr. Pruden can tell you which provinces have treatment programs. I know that Saskatchewan and Manitoba do have such programs.
Mr. Pruden: Those provinces for which section 255(5) of the Criminal Code has been proclaimed in force will have curative treatment programs.
Senator Fraser: Do you know which they are?
Ms McLellan: Yes. They have been proclaimed in force in Alberta, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Pruden: Even among the unproclaimed provinces, some will have treatment. For example, one of the suggestions that has been made to the provinces is to have the driver's licence from the province reinstated after it has been suspended for a drinking and driving crime and to have the person assessed and treated. It is being suggested to many of the provinces that they move in that direction through STRID, the Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving.
Senator Fraser: This is all relatively new terms of government programs and we do not have any trend data.
Mr. Pruden: The curative treatment has been there for both the proclaimed provinces and for those that are not proclaimed to have the curative treatment discharge under section 255(5). Some of those have already moved to have assessment treatment. Some have made it mandatory that this be done prior to driver licence reinstatement.
Senator Fraser: Could you furnish us with any information or data that you have on this? It is a subject that I find interesting, and it relates to some other work.
Mr. Pruden: I do not have the data myself but perhaps we can obtain it through Transport Canada.
Senator Bryden: I find it difficult to question even the principles of this bill because I so much support the purpose of reducing or, if possible, eliminating the future occurrences of the terrible tragedy one of our colleagues had to endure. However, I have some concerns, and they do not relate to that purpose. My concern is whether, in some instances, the use of the criminal justice system is the best way to accomplish that purpose.
What evidence is there that increasing maximum sentences for this type of offence reduces the occurrence of the offence?
Ms McLellan: I will let Mr. Roy deal with that question but, generally, within the context of the Criminal Code, one could argue that the increase of the maximum sentence speaks to the seriousness with which we, as a society, view a particular kind of conduct. If one attaches a maximum sentence of, say, 14 years as opposed to two years less a day, you are sending a powerful message in terms of where members of this civil society -- that is, Canadians -- stand in relation to that conduct, and how we will treat it within society if it takes place and leads to the injury of others.
Therefore, I believe maximum sentences do have that important effect in terms of helping Canadians, unambiguously one hopes, understand the relative seriousness of various kinds of conduct.
Senator Bryden: Do we have any indication that once you hit a certain level, five years in jail or five years prohibition from driving your vehicle, that increasing the term to 10 years, or to life, reduces the incidence that you are trying to prevent?
Mr. Roy: As the minister indicated, the signal that is given is that the seriousness of the offence has been increased in the eyes of Parliament. That, in and of itself, is a signal to the courts to impose, in the appropriate case, the right sentence. If you are asking whether their evidence clearly established scientifically, therefore, that there is that complete and perfect connection between the two, the answer is no. As I said in a previous intervention, what is more important, according to the studies, is the ability of the state to catch these people.
Senator Bryden: Exactly. That is the point. There is evidence that certainty of detection, certainty of being caught, virtually eliminates this and other offences. That has been proved in other countries.
I have two concerns. One is that using the Criminal Code and increasing penalties beyond the point where it comes to people's attention that this is a wrong thing to do and it will hurt the person as individual, acts as some sort of false excuse for members of our society to say that, if they do that, they will go to jail for life. I learned a long time ago that what you said, Mr. Roy, is that the most significant deterrent is: "We will catch you."
My other concern is that of the bills we have dealt with, both private and public in this committee lately which relate to the Criminal Code, almost every one deals with increasing the penalties. The solution seems to be to increase the penalties. My concern arises from the fact that the U.S. has reduced its crime rate by building and filling prisons; building billions of dollars worth of prisons. Their prisons are mostly filled with young blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. All of these people will be dumped back on the streets, starting very soon. It will fill at one end and be dumped at the other end. If anyone wishes to take a look at that, it was brought to my attention in the last two issues of Atlantic Monthly. It is now called the "correction construction complex," the biggest industry in the United States.
I see this happening due to all kinds of factors, but particularly because there has been a swing to the right in the sense of law and order, and that Canada is heading in the same direction. We already have all kinds of proof of that, and if you check the population of our prisons, proportionately they are overpopulated with minorities, particularly aboriginals.
That is my concern, and I address this to Senator LeBreton: I agree that we want to stop this behaviour, but we must do it in the best way possible, without falling into step with what is happening in the U.S.
Ms McLellan: That is a very good point. It is a complex point and one that we all need to think about and talk about more. However, we are not building more penitentiaries. Our prison population is going down. For example, recently the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Gladue case, sent a very important signal regarding our overuse of incarceration as it relates to aboriginal peoples, not for violent offences, but for non-violent offences, property offences, where aboriginal people cannot pay the fine so they end up in jail.
An important part of the youth justice legislation is to get all those young people who commit non-violent, relatively minor property offences, out of detention, and have them dealt with more effectively with community-based strategies, and not have them doing four weeks or six weeks, or whatever, which is the average sentence in a youth detention facility.
The message in this country has been received by most, and certainly by us on this end of the table. There are those who seem to think that, by simply making the criminal law tougher, and putting more people in jail for longer, that you will solve some very difficult and often heartbreaking social, economic and, ultimately, legal problems. We know that there is not that kind of simple solution to these complex issues.
I do not believe Senator LeBreton or I are suggesting that there is anything here that speaks to a simple solution. What we are acknowledging is that the Criminal Code is part of an integrated strategy to deal with the criminal conduct of impaired driving. However, as I said earlier, our real emphasis as a society must be on preventing more deaths, preventing more victims, and that means you spend a large amount of time up front and, hopefully, if we get that right, we do not need to use the Criminal Code as often.
However, I will say this: The option of jail should be available. When all else has failed and people still get behind the wheel of a car and kill, ultimately it is a matter for the criminal law in this society.
Senator Bryden: We are not building more jails, and that is good. My point is that, since my appointment, which was only five years ago, I have noticed a considerable pressure coming from our society for higher minimum sentences and longer maximum sentences, and that being reflected in the justice system. I believe as it is influenced by what is happening in the U.S. and by other elements.
Ms McLellan: I point to the introduction of conditional sentencing in our Criminal Code by my predecessor, Allan Rock. Conditional sentencing speaks to an acknowledgement of the fact that there are better ways than putting people in jail to deal with certain kinds of non-violent offences such as community supervision.
However, there have been some problems with the implementation of conditional sentencing because some judges have given rapists, and those convicted of manslaughter, conditional sentences. That was never the intention of this government, nor that of my predecessor.
We hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will send some direction on that. They heard five cases just last month on that question.
It is always a case of balance. Yes, some laws will be toughened, as we learn that certain kinds of conduct are becoming more prevalent, more pervasive, such as child pornography and inciting hated. That may be considered to be an aggravating circumstance in certain sentencing situations, because that sends a signal about the kind of society we want. We will not tolerate the incitement of hated against people of colour, or different ethnic background or language.
However, there is also acknowledgement of the fact that we must take other steps, and conditional sentencing would be an example.The Supreme Court's advice to us in Gladue would be another example. I count on this committee to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Senator Andreychuk: I would be on the side of Senator Bryden on all of the issues, and particularly on young offenders' legislation. However, I recall when the first piece of legislation on suspended drivers was embedded in the Criminal Code. The comments from department officials that time -- and I go back 30 years -- was that this is a crime that is exceptional and different from all of the other crimes because the average person identifies with drinking in a way that they do not identify with drugs and with other crimes.
The minimum sentence is a signal to all of us, and it shapes so many in society. Am I correct that that is still one of the issues?
Mr. Roy: Certainly, that is true.
Senator Andreychuk: Has society still not understood the message about drinking and driving?
Mr. Roy: Progress has been made, there is no question about that. We should be happy about making progress on that front. Much more is needed.
With this bill and other measures that have been explained by Mr. Pruden, more progress will be achieved.
Senator Andreychuk: I know than, when we took licences away, that became the best educational tool. It had the greatest impact on the average person in society. That is when the concept of designated drivers started.
If we raise that threshold, it sends a message to people who do use alcohol which is a significant portion of Canadian society. One cannot say that about cocaine or marihuana.
This is an exception to what I think is a fundamental problem. That is why I am not on Senator Bryden's side of that issue, but I agree with the rest.
Mr. Roy: There are particular reasons why some of the penalties provided by law are changed in this package. Indeed, the only one where a minimum penalty is increased, from $300 to $600, is one that was put in place in 1985. That is the amount of money a first offender will have to pay with respect to drunk driving and other related offences. It is only in those cases that the minimum is increased. That is to keep the parity between what was a stiff sentence in 1985, and what should be a stiff sentence in the year 2000.
With respect to the other amendments, I could comment further as to why the government believed, and obviously the committee that drafted this piece of legislation, it was necessary, in the circumstances, to make the changes that are proposed.
I cannot agree more with Senator Bryden's comments.
Senator Moore: Mr. Roy, we have heard it said by the minister that approximately 1,300 deaths occur, per year, as a result of impaired driving offences. Is there a breakdown of that figure as between drivers of family vehicles and drivers of commercial vehicles? Is there any consideration to doing random testing of operators of commercial vehicles for use of drug or alcohol while operating their vehicles?
Mr. Pruden: The Traffic Injury Research Foundation, headquartered in Ottawa, keeps a database for fatally injured drivers.
I do not know that they have a database that would break down other individuals who are passengers of those impaired drivers or who are other road users.
Senator Moore: What does the 1,300 figure represent?
Mr. Pruden: That represents the impaired driver, the passenger of the impaired driver and other road users, on bicycles, in other cars, or on foot.
Senator Moore: Do we know who caused those 1,300 deaths, whether they were drivers of family vehicles, or commercial vehicles?
Mr. Pruden: I am not sure we would have a statistic for the passengers of the impaired driver or other road users, but for the fatally injured impaired drivers, I do not have the exact figures.
Senator Moore: Can you give me an approximate number?
Mr. Pruden: The figure for commercial vehicles as opposed to non-commercial vehicles is relatively small. My recollection of a Traffic Injury Research Foundation, TIRF, report in, I believe, 1996 or 1997, is that the number of impaired drivers who were in commercial vehicles tended to be smaller, proportionally, than one might expect, given the representation in the general population of commercial drivers.
Senator Moore: I am waiting for some hard numbers. Can you give me that percentage?
Mr. Pruden: I do not have that report in front of me.
Senator Moore: Can you get that figure for us?
Mr. Pruden: Certainly.
Senator Moore: What about my second question? Is there any thought to doing random testing of operators of commercial vehicles for the use of drugs and alcohol?
Mr. Roy: It depends what you mean by "random." Right now, it is possible. Probably most of us around here have been caught in one of those traps set by the police for the purpose of checking out people to see if they are under the influence or not. It is certainly possible to do that with respect to the people you are talking about.
Senator Moore: Is it done?
Mr. Roy: If you want to go beyond that, some constitutional law issues may have to be examined. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the types of programs that we are familiar with to be constitutional. They have bent over backwards to allow the state to conduct those checks for the very reason we need the kind of legislation we have here, that is, the problem caused by impaired driving and the very difficult task for the state to catch these drivers.
Senator Moore: We have those mandatory random stops quite often on the weekends or leading into the weekend. Do the policing authorities also do those types of random checks on operators of commercial vehicles?
Mr. Roy: I do not know the answer.
Senator Moore: Can you find that out?
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Bryden: Mr. Pruden, you indicated that someone keeps statistics about the number of drivers who are killed while drunk or impaired, could you expand on that?
Mr. Pruden: Yes, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation receives from all the jurisdictions in Canada information about alcohol involvement with fatally injured drivers. They get the reports on all driver fatalities and they are able to then have the figure of alcohol-involved driver fatalities. They are also able to separate drivers who had a blood alcohol concentration above 80 milligrams, which is the legal offence level.
Senator Bryden: Are you referring to those drivers who died?
Mr. Pruden: Yes.
Senator Bryden: I think I heard you say that the percentage of commercial vehicle drivers who died when they were impaired is smaller than the general population. Would that be because they drive large trucks?
Mr. Roy: Probably.
Mr. Pruden: That could be so.
Senator Bryden: In New Brunswick, we often read that there has been a head-on collision between a passenger van and a Kenworth hauling hogs, and everyone in the van is killed and the driver in the truck suffered minor injuries.
There must be another way to compile the statistics.
Mr. Pruden: There may be an analysis of those statistics in the report that TIRF has done that will address those issues. For example, employment requirements may also make a person less likely to drive their big truck under the influence than they might be after drinking and driving a family vehicle that is not used for work purposes.
Senator Bryden: I know it is now possible to electronically scan commercial vehicles, without stopping them, just as they do with trains, to determine if there are hot spots in bearings, if there are soft spots in tires, if there is a click in the universal joints, or to determine if there is anything generally wrong with the vehicle which would affect its safety. I do not know if you can crank that up one more notch and determine if the driver is full of booze.
Commercial vehicles in my province are stopped regularly for weight checks so that they do not destroy the roads. It might be possible to empower those people who check to see if the trucks are carrying an appropriate weight, to get the drivers to blow into a little machine to determine their level of impairment.
Senator Lewis: The first clause of this bill deals with section 252 of the Criminal Code, the section regarding leaving the scene of the accident. I notice the code refers to an "accident." The minister used that term today.What is an "accident"? An accident might have implications of an act of God. Is there any definition of what an "accident" is? Have there been any court rulings on it?
Mr. Roy: The wording that you have in Bill C-82 is certainly no different from what we have in the code right now.
Senator Lewis: I know that.
Mr. Roy: It has received quite extensive interpretation from the courts. It does not take much for an incident to be an accident and, therefore, in law, for you to have to report that it has taken place. Fortunately, the representatives of the state -- prosecutors and the police -- do not charge every time a couple of bumpers touch each other and the person does not stay on the scene for the purpose of reporting what has taken place. By and large, they do not charge in those circumstances.
An "accident" is defined as being simply two things that touch each other -- in this particular case we are talking about motor vehicles, usually cars -- and it is sufficient for the legal obligation to be triggered for you to report what has taken place, irrespective of whether you have seen that there is a lot of damage or not. Having said that, there is also in provincial legislation, the traffic highway codes, the same kind of a provision, and the authorities have a choice to charge under one or the other, or not to charge at all.
The change that is being proposed in this bill is to increase the maximum penalty when there are particular circumstances that have come to the attention of one of the parties, again irrespective of whether you have caused the accident or are the victim. The law does not distinguish between the two. It does not require there be negligence or that someone be drunk. The simple fact of the occurrence is enough for the legal obligation to be triggered.
Senator Lewis: I think we all assume that we know what is meant by the word "accident." You referred to a vehicle coming in contact with something else, but what about a vehicle that overturns? I do not want to quibble over this; I am just curious. There must have been interpretations on it over the years because it has been in the code since the beginning of time.
Mr. Roy: There is a tremendous amount of jurisprudence on this that can be found from all sorts of courts. To my knowledge, the issue has never reached the Supreme Court of Canada. It is really fact-driven -- no pun intended. At the end of the day, it will depend on the particular circumstances. I would have thought that a car that overturned on the highway would fall in the category of an accident and, therefore, your failure to make the appropriate report could very well be caught by the section that is already there. I would have to check the case law to see if there are cases on that.
Senator Grafstein: Do have you a breakdown, by province, of the 1,300 figure?
Mr. Pruden: I do not have it here, but I could obtain that if the Traffic Injury Research Foundation can provide it.
Senator Grafstein: I assume it will be broken down provincially.
Mr. Pruden: It is generated from the provinces, so I think it is available.
Senator LeBreton: I actually have the Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics.
Senator Grafstein: What is the breakdown per province?
Senator LeBreton: The numbers are as follows: 560 in British Columbia; 434 in Alberta; 179 in Saskatchewan; 147 in Manitoba; 1,164 in Ontario, and I unfortunately had two members of my family be part of that statistic; 900 in Quebec; 120 in New Brunswick; 111 in Nova Scotia; 17 in Prince Edward Island; 33 in Newfoundland and Labrador; 14 in the Yukon; and 5 in the Northwest Territories; for a total of 3,684. That was in 1995.
Mr. Pruden: Those are not all alcohol-related.
Senator Grafstein: That adds up to a lot more than 1,300.
Senator LeBreton: Excuse me, I was reading all fatalities. The total for 1995 was 1536: 274 in British Columbia; 210 in Alberta; 83 in Saskatchewan; 64 in Manitoba; 481 in Ontario; 299 in Quebec; 48 in New Brunswick; 59 in Nova Scotia; 10 in Prince Edward Island; 15 in Newfoundland and Labrador; 2 in the Yukon; and zero in the Northwest Territories.
I looked at some figures the other day and saw that, even though the number of incidents of drinking and driving has gone down, the number of deaths and injuries has not significantly gone down, so there is obviously a huge problem that has not been solved.
Mr. Pruden: Do the statistics you have there show alcohol- involved deaths, or are they based on the number of drivers or crashes?
Senator LeBreton: It was the number of fatalities, and then the percentage that are alcohol-related. The last column I read was alcohol-involved.
Mr. Pruden: I would suggest that the 1,300 figure is likely to represent the situation where the drivers involved in the impaired-driving accident were "over 80" as opposed to simply alcohol-involved. The figure of 1,300 applies to a different year.
Senator Moore: Can you give us the provincial breakdown?
Mr. Pruden: That is from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation. They might have extracted that from their information. I should also point out that, in 1987, according to the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, in the over-80 blood-alcohol concentration group of fatally injured drivers, as a percentage of all fatally injured drivers, regardless of alcohol or no alcohol, the percentage was 43 per cent. By 1996-97, this had gone down to 34.9 per cent, which is a significant decrease in that period of time. There was a significant change in that, largely in the 1980s and into the early 1990s.
Some people will say that this happens because there are better roads, better hospitals and better vehicle designs. In reality, however, these three factors redound to the benefit of non- drinking drivers and drinking drivers equally. Hence, we do have to look at the alcohol countermeasures that have been brought about in Canada by governments and by organizations in explaining this drop as a percentage of all drivers killed.
Senator Grafstein: Has the percentage of alcohol-impaired drivers gone down as an absolute number in terms of overall deaths by all means on the roads? I am still not clear about what the statistics are telling us.
Mr. Roy, it is important for us to consider statistics, that we think are verifiable, in considering amendments to the Criminal Code. The statistics are obviously questionable and may be based on value judgments. The first test to my mind is to determine if there is a statistical problem. I am not talking about individual tragedies. I am as sensitive to individual tragedies as anyone. I am talking about this as a national issue that requires a national instrument.
I am still not clear about what these statistics are telling us.
Mr. Pruden: I think the minister said that, despite the progress, we still see an unacceptable number of deaths.
Senator Grafstein: I am taken by what Senator Bryden and other senators said about how to get at the core of problem. One way is to get the bad guy, but what is the best way to do that?
I agree with Senator Bryden that one of the first ways of "getting" the bad guy is to make sure that the first time that person confronts the system, he gets a serious warning. Perhaps what we have done here is not address that issue, the issue of first offence. Instead of being fined $600, why should that individual not be fined $2,000? That would say to a driver: Wait a second, this is a serious issue.
I am back to what Senator Andreychuk said, and I agree with her. Alcohol is different from other things because we all imbibe, or at least that is what the national statistics say. Most people imbibe at some level. The question is: When does it become acceptable and unacceptable in terms of getting into a vehicle?
The RIDE program in Toronto works because we know that, from November 1 to December 31, people attending Christmas parties or other functions have designate drivers or they take cabs. Everyone works out a process, and it works.
Is this first offence penalty, in a monetary sense at least, a first shot at curbing the problem? Instead of being fined $600, maybe it should be $2,000. That would send a message to a first offender. I know that $600 would do nothing for me, but $2,000 would send a clear signal.
Mr. Roy: This figure of $600 was arrived at by the committee in the other place. We started at a minimum of $300. As I said previously, this has not been changed in 15 years.
Keep in mind when you are looking at a figure like this that we cannot have a penalty, monetary or otherwise, that people will not be able to pay. What will happen is that the prisons will fill up once again because the offender gets time in default. We must be careful, collectively, about imposing minimum penalties that people will not be able to pay.
From what we know, two things make an impression on those drivers. One is disqualification. When you have to leave your car in the garage for a year, you have to think twice about driving while intoxicated. I am not sure that $600 would make a big difference to those people.
The second thing that is of importance for many people in Canada is how steep a fine they will be required to pay. In a number of places in this country, $600 is a significant amount of money. Trying to keep the balance in this system is a difficult task.
My view is that $600 made sense because, over a period of 15 years, it reflects an increase of 5 per cent per year. It doubles over that period. It was a very steep penalty in 1985 and it should be that in 1999-2000, without it becoming an incentive for people to go to court to fight these cases as best as they can, or to be in a position where they cannot pay the fine and be better off by serving the time, which is not what we are attempting to achieve with a measure such as this.
Senator Bryden: We are trying to encourage our young people not to do this. To take an individual's wheels away on a first offence is probably the biggest disincentive to drinking and driving.
Senator Carstairs: For a 19 year old, you better believe it.
Senator Grafstein: That is a good idea, but the question is statistical. Of the 1,300 or 600, how many are young? What is the age breakdown?
Do you have that figure, Senator LeBreton?
Senator LeBreton: I do not have that with me. Interestingly, I understand the highest group is young men between the ages of 22 and 25, not teenagers.
Senator Grafstein: Of the 1,300, what percentage would that be of the total problem?
Mr. Pruden: I can get that from the information. They did point out that young people up to age 18 are not over-represented, given their representation in the general population. Some young people do commit this crime, but they are not over-represented amongst drinking drivers.
Senator Grafstein: What are the age categories in that group of 1,300? If we have that information, then at least we will have a sense of whom we are directing the penalties towards.
I agree with Senator Bryden that if a 17-year-old loses his or her licence, that is a life sentence. To someone who is 25, losing a licence may not be a problem.
Senator Andreychuk: Of all the men who came into my court, it was always the 25-year-old men who treasured that car more than the 18-year-old men. The 18 year old still did not own a car. He had to borrow it from his father.
Senator Grafstein: How many of these people are over 50, for example?
Mr. Pruden: Relatively few. There is a real drop-off past the age of 45.
Senator Grafstein: This is a youth issue.
Mr. Pruden: Approximately 90 per cent of drunk drivers charged in Canada are male. That statistic is similar for the fatally injured.
Senator Grafstein: What is the mean age?
Mr. Pruden: I believe it is 19 or 20 through to the age of 45. They represent the bulk of impaired drivers.
Senator LeBreton: There are more of them between the ages of 22 and 25. Those statistics are all interesting, but that is not really addressed in this bill.
The Chairman: I am interested in the language of the bill. In clause 1 we see:
Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident...
By the way, cattle seem to rate above herds of sheep or horses. In clause 5 we see:
...the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or of railway equipment.
Why is "railway equipment" not included in clause 1?
Mr. Pruden: We must keep in mind that Bill C-82 is reflective of the draft bill of the committee.
The Chairman: You are blaming it on the House of Commons?
Mr. Pruden: I am saying that the standing committee chose to reflect in its bill the existing wording in the Criminal Code. When "railway equipment" was added to the drinking and driving provisions in the late 1980s, changes were not made to the "leaving the scene" provision at the same time.
The Chairman: Clause 1 states that every person commits an offence who has charge of a vessel which is involved in an accident with another person, a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or cattle. This law would not apply to the captain of a vessel who was drunk and steered his vessel on to a reef, spilling crude oil onto the coast of Nova Scotia?
Senator Carstairs: I believe that another part of the Criminal Code would apply to that.
I, too, am curious as to why cattle are included but not horses. I suspect that is the way the original law read.
Senator Grafstein: To be clear, did the minister say that the preamble did not come from the department but from the other place? Are you comfortable with the preamble?
Mr. Roy: Preambles are part of the law. With all due respect, this particular preamble does not say much more than is already in the Criminal Code. It speaks in terms of deterrence. That is already in section 718. It speaks of the proportionality of the penalty with the offence committed. That is also covered in the Criminal Code.
That does, however, tell the courts, when they have to interpret this legislation, what parliamentarians had in mind when the legislation was passed. It will not be found in the copies of the Criminal Code that we all have, but it is certainly part of the law.
Senator Grafstein: Madam Chair, if we decided to remove the preamble, would the bill have to go back to the other place?
The Chairman: Yes. That would be an amendment.
Is it the wish of the committee that we now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, unless any senator has a particular difficulty with any clause, I move that the committee dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and report the bill without amendment.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator LeBreton: I very much appreciate much the support of all senators, as well as parliamentarians in the other place, save one. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.