Bill C-590 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content)

This enactment amends section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish the possibility of imposing more severe penalties for offences committed under section 253 in circumstances where the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds one hundred and sixty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood and to raise the minimum penalties that apply to convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I assure you, I will be very conservative with the use of my time.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Steven Blaney. I'm here today as an MP.

I would also like to greet you, Mr. Chair, as well as the hon. members of the committee.

I am very proud to be with you today. I would first like to congratulate you on the work you're doing on Bill C-226, which deals with impaired driving. Right off the bat, I would say that the approach is non-partisan.

Today, we have the opportunity to advance legislation that will save lives. I think it's really politics at its best, and I'm very proud to be part of it.

I would also like to mention that Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu is here. He will sponsor the bill in the Senate.

If it is the pleasure of the committee, the bill will be referred to the Senate for further study until it is passed and becomes law.

The sooner we pass this bill, the sooner we can say, as parliamentarians of this legislature, that we have helped to save people's lives.

This bill is all about saving Canadian lives in a non-partisan way. You may find part of it was inspired by a former Conservative bill, with additions from the people of MADD, who are with us today. I salute their president.

The thing is that, when working on these files, you always meet with people who've unfortunately experienced the loss of a loved one because of impaired driving. It's the same thing for Families For Justice. I thank Markita and Sheri for being here today. We will have the chance to hear the witnesses in the second part.

You are all familiar with the bill. It's fairly simple. It has three legs. The first one deals with streamlining the judicial process, mainly in two areas: the bogus defence and the last drink. Over time, some loopholes have been used to prevent the law and the sentences from being imposed. It's time to fix those loopholes. That's the first part of the bill.

The second part of the bill is with regard to impaired driving. It suggests implementing mandatory minimum sentences. I know there are discussions on this, but I'll come back to it later on.

The third part is with regard to mandatory screening. This is an addition from the former Conservative bill, which came from a long discussion I had with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and after reviewing legal advice, namely from Dr. Hogg, with whom you are probably very familiar. He stated, clearly, that a public road is a place where the law should fully apply and that it is a privilege to drive a car. When I drive a car, I must have a driver's licence and respect the rules of the road, but I also need to be sober. Not meeting one of those requirements is not complying with the law, and at any time I am in a public place, especially on the road, a police officer should have the power to make sure I comply with the law. I'm not in my living room. I am on the road.

Dr. Hogg clearly demonstrated that this is fully compliant with the Charter of Rights, and that it is also very reasonable in a society like ours. Actually, it is done in many countries around the world. As you know, it has proven to be effective in saving lives.

We are losing three to four lives every day. I come from Quebec City. Last week we lost six members of our community as a result of a heinous crime. There are no words to say how horrible that was. However, this is almost happening on a daily basis in our country, and we can stop this. We can stop this by implementing rules that have been proven to save lives. That's what is in front of you.

Mr. Chair, I will continue in French and come back to one particular issue, minimum sentences.

During the last legislature, Bill C-590 and Bill C-652 were introduced by Randy Hoback and Mark Warawa, respectively, two Conservative colleagues I hold in great esteem.

First, I have a recommendation for an amendment to the bill. I would like to include in Bill C-226 the provision for vehicular homicide, which was set out in Bill C-652. We want to prevent reoffenders from hitting people on the road. I am making this suggestion because we have to do everything in our power through the legislation and the Criminal Code to really reduce the leading cause of death on the roads.

My colleague Randy Hoback, who introduced Bill C-590, told me that if a person is caught with double the allowable limit of blood alcohol, a more severe penalty should be imposed.

My remarks are for my Liberal colleagues, and I know they aren't always comfortable with minimum sentences. In April 2015, the hon. member for Papineau supported the private member's bill of my colleague Randy Hoback. I am truly taking a non-partisan approach. You will have realized, of course, that I am talking about Prime Minister Trudeau. At the time, he said:

As a result of this change [vehicular homicide], a conviction would carry additional weight, and hopefully provide a greater deterrent to would-be impaired drivers.

Dear colleagues, my question to you is, can we afford all these rhetorical discussions if we can save one life by making sure that someone spends at least one more year in jail instead of being on the road and risking the lives of others? That's what I pose to you.

I believe as parliamentarians we should send a strong signal to people causing death while impaired, while being under the influence of alcohol. We've seen in the past that the sentence for causing death has increased, but we have to encourage judges and tribunals to impose a fairly reasonable minimum sentence. I feel that four years is really low, but this is sending the signal that this is the bar. We need to push even further for maximum sentences.

Mr. Trudeau further wrote to Families For Justice regarding Bill C-590, a second private member's bill that was tabled by Randy Hoback. He said:

The bill will increase penalties against anyone who drives while severely intoxicated, and will also increase the penalties for impaired driving causing death.

Yes, we can support the bill in a non-partisan way. This is a bill that is crafted to meet one target, saving Canadian lives.

I'd like to give you an example.

A man wiped out an entire family in Saguenay in August 2015. Some people here have had similar experiences and have transformed their grief into motivation.

Mr. Di Iorio, I admire you. I also admire your daughter's courage and her taxi project. These are very good initiatives. So it is possible to transform this grief into action to prevent other lives from being wiped out. That's precisely the purpose of the bill before us today.

As you can see, I sent a lot of documentation.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

Criminal Code

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although it is always difficult to follow the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content).

First of all I would like to say that I personally will be voting for the bill at third reading stage. However, I feel the need to repeat some of the very eloquent arguments made by the member for Gatineau, the official opposition's justice critic, and the member for Alfred-Pellan. They discussed some very important points that were completely ignored by the Conservative government. That is nothing new, as we have seen this repeatedly over the past four years.

This is a pertinent bill in that the issue of drunk driving is of concern to all Canadians. I am sure that all of us here in the House, and all Canadians, can think of examples of tragic events that have affected us directly or indirectly, within our family or in the community where we live.

Clearly we need harsher penalties for impaired driving, and the offence itself needs to be a more serious one. It was not so long ago that drunk driving was considered a minor offence, simply a car accident. It was not considered a criminal offence. I think that we on this side of the House can be pleased with the progress that has been made since that type of mentality was the norm.

However, there are certain approaches that are reminiscent of the Conservative government's old way of thinking. I am talking about minimum sentences. The hon. member for Gatineau said quite eloquently that such provisions could be counterproductive. For the past four years, the government has been adding minimum sentences to just about every serious offence. When we look at the U.S. experience, it is clear that minimum sentences show a lack of confidence in the judges and the justice system, and that they also come at a high cost to the community because the judges are prevented from taking the context of the offence into account.

When we are talking about drunk driving, the context is hard to deny. Someone who simply drank too much and lacked judgment must be held criminally responsible for his or her actions. However, if we look at all the other offences that have been brought in by this government and that are now subject to minimum sentencing, we can see that minimum sentences are often counterproductive, either because they do not leave room for potential rehabilitation or because they impose a general direction that later becomes automatically adopted. In other words, the minimum sentence becomes a standard, when the circumstances and the context might call for a harsher sentence. The justice system and the judges in whom the government is showing a lack of faith, might be tempted to go with the lowest common denominator, and they do it quite often, as demonstrated, once again, by the U.S. experience.

In that sense, we are opposed to minimum sentences, not because we think that criminals should not receive punishments that fit their crimes, but because the government has repeatedly gone down the wrong track by failing to put faith in our justice system. Once again, I want to make it clear that all of us in the House, or at least those of us on this side, believe that drunk driving is a serious criminal offence that often endangers the lives of others. I imagine those on the government side agree.

I would like to comment on another point raised by my colleague from Gatineau, who knows what she is talking about. Even if we had the strictest justice system in the world, if the government does not give the forces of law and order the resources they need, it will be very difficult to ensure compliance with Parliament's intention. If the RCMP and our police forces in general lack resources, if our legal system and our courts lack resources, we will have a flawed system that does not work well and does not have the technical means to enforce the sentences that fit the crimes.

The typical example that was raised by my colleague from Gatineau is the 50 or so cases where drivers were charged with impaired driving but then let off without ever going to court. Why? Too much time had passed between the time they were arrested and charged and their trial, so the case was thrown out. Is that responsible? No. These people were charged with a serious crime and society did not even have the chance to hear the cases and impose sanctions.

It is all well and good to say that we have tough laws and we want to make them even tougher, but if the legal system does not have the resources it needs, then tougher laws will be completely useless. This looks good on paper. On the surface, we seem to be doing our job, but when it comes right down to it, society is no better off.

Like the member for Prince Albert and the other members who spoke about this bill, I realize that there need to be tougher penalties for impaired drivers and that it should be left to our judges' discretion to impose those penalties. I agree that a person's faculties can be impaired by substances other than alcohol, and that is an issue we could consider.

I truly hope that, as much as possible, the legal system will continue to consider the serious consequences and harm caused by impaired driving in our communities and that sentences for these offences will serve more and more as examples. That is why I will be voting in favour of this bill at third reading.

However, I would have much preferred this bill to come from the government. We have so many private members' bills that should be part of the government's concerted law and order strategy, and impaired driving should be included in that in order to increase prevention and ensure that the issue of sentencing and harsher penalties is part of that established strategy.

I applaud the initiative of the member in question, but I would like to see a more elaborate strategy from the government on this issue. I have not seen that so far, which is unfortunate. Since I applaud the member's initiative, I will be pleased to vote in favour of the bill at third reading.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the justice critic for the official opposition, I have the honour of rising in the House on this Friday afternoon to speak to Bill C-590 on behalf of both my riding of Gatineau and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. First of all, I would like to say that we too support Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content). This bill seeks to establish more severe penalties for offences where the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and where driving under the influence results in serious consequences, such as bodily harm or even death.

I heard a number of my colleagues in the House mention that impaired driving is still a scourge even today in 2015. It is still a problem. People go out and they still think that they can drive a vehicle, which can actually be considered a weapon. A vehicle can cause considerable damage. Nevertheless, some people seem to think that they can get behind the wheel of their vehicle after they have been drinking, no matter how many drinks they have had.

The New Democratic Party obviously has a zero tolerance policy for impaired driving. We believe that even more can be done. Members may ask if I think that Bill C-590 will solve this problem. When members introduce a bill, they usually want to make sure that it accomplishes what it is supposed to. In this case, the member obviously wants to send a clear message, but I hope that the bill will do more than that because it does not seem that people really understand. There are many repeat drunk drivers who unfortunately do not seem to care about the Criminal Code.

Is Bill C-590 going to make every single Canadian understand the concept of zero tolerance once and for all? I highly doubt it. First of all, I doubt that this bill is that well-thought-out. Whether the Conservative member introducing this bill likes it or not, it definitely should have been fine-tuned a little more. For now, with this parliamentary session coming to an end and time running out, it is a half measure. Clearly, the person who introduced the bill had good intentions in relation to its objective, but he is not a legal expert. Few witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to talk to us about Bill C-590, so the member left many questions unanswered.

We realize, and people from the Justice Department also realize, that this bill has a few gaps in it that should have been fixed before it was introduced. This is perhaps another reason why these kinds of files do not usually come from backbenchers, but rather the government, because they involve complex policies. Certain sections of the Criminal Code can lead to disputes as well as some confusion.

The main confusion here relates to a question I asked my colleague across the way when he first introduced the bill. When most offenders are first stopped by a police officer on the side of the road, they are asked to take a breathalyzer test. Knowing the penalties for someone who has more than 160 millilitres of alcohol in their blood, would the person not be better off to simply refuse to take the breathalyzer? Of course, refusing the test carries its own penalties, but, Mr. Speaker, since you are a lawyer like me, you know that those penalties are much less harsh than the penalties that would apply under Bill C-590 if it passes.

Someone who is very drunk would certainly have greater incentive to refuse to take a breathalyzer test, rather than giving the Crown evidence that they are above the new limit that comes with this new sentence.

As justice critic for the New Democratic Party, I have always believed that when we are drafting bills it is not a matter of taking a tough-on-crime approach—as the Conservatives love to say—but a matter of taking an intelligent approach. We need to ensure that the measures we take will truly achieve what we claim they will.

For example, if Bill C-590 passes, we could see games being played. As I mentioned in committee, in January or February this year, a judge in the riding of Gatineau dismissed some 30 impaired driving cases because the cases had not been tried within a reasonable amount of time. This made the news, and many people were shocked.

On occasion I go through my riding to talk about drunk driving and how, despite all of the awareness campaigns and the harsher sentences in recent years, people still do not seem to get the message. The problem is that the Conservatives have made all kinds of amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code.

Criminal justice experts, such as crown prosecutors, defence attorneys, police forces, judges and all stakeholders, tell me that there are so many delays in these cases that the Crown and the defence end up playing games.

Since sentences are more severe, the defence is less likely to negotiate a plea bargain with the Crown and more likely to go to court in all cases to avoid certain new sentences. This creates a tremendous backlog in our courthouses. Gatineau is not alone in this. We see it all across Quebec and Canada.

This backlog should not be the one thing preventing us from taking action. However, as we in the New Democratic Party often say, if the government wants to introduce new sentences and a new way of doing things, it has to give the police the tools they need. For example, there should be more officers on the ground so that offenders can be arrested. The government also has to ensure that our justice system can handle these people and hold their trials within a reasonable period of time instead of allowing unreasonable delays due to a shortage of judges, crown prosecutors and courtrooms.

Taken together, these elements result in an extremely dysfunctional system. Courts are begging for help, but nobody is responding. All the government does is give them new laws that they have to adapt to and interpret within the context of other laws. This complicates legal situations and sometimes results in the opposite of what the Conservatives are trying to achieve. Lots of people manage to slip through the cracks in the system. How many times have I read in the paper that somebody has been caught for the fifth time and been sentenced to the equivalent of a slap on the wrist?

One serious problem that the Conservatives have not yet fixed is the fact that criminal records are not always up to date because the RCMP lacks resources. We know there is a way to emphasize recidivism before the courts, but the criminal record and the history have to be properly identified. If they are not, the Crown cannot work miracles. It cannot say that a particular conviction has not yet been entered on the record but that the individual was convicted in such and such a year. That is not how it works. Sometimes there are more basic problems to fix.

This will not stop us from supporting Bill C-590, which is well-intentioned. Unfortunately, it certainly is not the answer to all our problems when it comes to zero tolerance for drunk driving.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to blood alcohol content. This bill, from the member for Prince Albert, would allow for stiffer penalties for impaired driving where the offender was severely intoxicated. Specifically, the changes would apply to convictions where an offender's blood alcohol concentration exceeded 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the offence. As the justice critic for the Liberal Party, I have recommended that my caucus colleagues support this bill.

Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. Every life taken by a drunk driver is an avoidable tragedy. Getting behind the wheel while impaired is a reckless and selfish personal choice, and its predictable results cannot be undone.

Across the country, the number of bodily injuries and deaths caused by impaired driving continues to be unacceptably high. It has been a perennial and vexing problem in my province of Prince Edward Island, and I know that the same can be said for the home province of the member for Prince Albert.

I will say a few words later on about some creative strategies my province is trying, strategies that could be used beyond the simple solution of amending the Criminal Code, which seems to be the default tool of choice for just about everything for the government.

In spite of the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences, I can support this legislation. By targeting drivers who are severely intoxicated, Bill C-590 would send a public message about the category of drivers who pose the greatest statistical risk.

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that impaired drivers with a blood alcohol content of over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood represent close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents. When we are talking about this crime, I do think stiffer penalties may be an effective deterrent, since many people who get behind the wheel while impaired would not be prone to criminality in general.

Impaired driving is a crime people have taken more seriously over the years, in large part due to the advocacy of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. My hope is that keeping a focus on this issue in Parliament can continue the cultural shift toward social condemnation of impaired driving. This is a crime where stigma is the real deterrent.

Far fewer people drive while intoxicated today, so we see that behaviours can change, and we see evidence to this effect. According to StatsCan, the rate of impaired driving causing death dropped 29% in 2011, reaching its lowest point in over 25 years. The number of incidents of impaired driving causing bodily harm also fell to half of what it was 25 years before. Of course, half the number of incidents is not good enough. Behaviours need to keep changing.

Everyone in the chamber understands what I am talking about. Every Canadian community has been touched by impaired driving.

Coming from Charlottetown, the way impaired driving has touched me is in the case of my neighbour, Kristen Cameron. This young lady used to babysit my children. She was a very talented and promising young hockey player who was recruited on a hockey scholarship to play in the United States. She excelled in the United States and was actually named to the all-American team for female hockey. She went on to share her talents as a coach at Mercyhurst College, one of the premier women's hockey programs in the country. During her time as a coach, she was driving her bike when she was struck by a drunk driver and rendered quadriplegic.

Unlike many stories involving drunk driving, however, this one, while it involves a tragedy, does not have a particularly sad ending. Kristen continues to inspire through her sheer determination. She is about to be named to the Canadian Paralympic rugby team. She is certainly someone who continues to make all Prince Edward Islanders proud.

Across the country, there are too many stories of lives lost or changed forever by impaired driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, estimates that there are somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 impairment-related crash deaths in Canada every year, which is 3.4 to 4.1 per day.

Then, there are the injuries. In 2010, MADD estimated that there were approximately 63,821 individuals injured in impairment related crashes. That same year, according to Statistics Canada, police reported 121 incidents of impaired driving causing death, though my understanding is that number only refers to the number of charges. According to Transport Canada, alcohol use was a factor in almost 30% of deaths from vehicle crashes during the 2003 to 2005 period. As I said, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

What would Bill C-590 change? This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create higher minimum sentences and allow the imposition of more severe penalties for impaired driving where the offender is acutely intoxicated. Again, we are talking about a blood alcohol content of over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. To put that into perspective, I understand that that would mean approximately 8 drinks for a 160 pound individual.

Bill C-590 would also create minimum penalties for convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. The specific changes are as follows. Currently, if someone is caught with blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, a summary conviction fine of $1,000 applies. With a level over 160 milligrams, it is an aggravated circumstance in sentencing. With Bill C-590, if the level is over 160 milligrams, it would be a minimum $2,000 fine, twice the current amount. In addition, the penalties on indictment would be much more severe, with a minimum fine of $2,000 and a minimum of 60 days in prison. The maximum period in prison would also be doubled, to ten years, on indictment. A second or subsequent offence would carry a minimum of 240 days in prison, which is again double the current amount.

These changes in Bill C-590 have been amended since the House last considered this bill. The change at committee was to retain a summary conviction option for acute intoxication. That change came out of concern for creating a loophole whereby drivers would simply refuse samples, which carries a lower penalty. The change that we settled on does not make for a perfect law, but it is an improvement that will affect some offenders.

I commend the mover and his colleagues on the justice committee for making amendments that have improved this bill and provided a mechanism for prosecutors to exercise discretion in such a manner as to avoid the one size fits all consequences of minimum mandatory sentences.

I would like to say a word about the situation in Prince Edward Island, where we have a chronic problem with drunk driving. That is in spite of guidelines within our provincial courts that make incarceration automatic in virtually 100% of DUI cases, regardless of the blood alcohol content reading. Along with Saskatchewan and the territories, we have one of the highest rates of impaired driving in Canada, I am sad to say.

In 2012, our provincial government did something about it, with three significant changes to the law. First, first-time offenders must have ignition interlocks installed. Second, offenders caught with children under 16 years of age in their vehicle will have to use ignition breathalyzers for two years. Third, the government introduced tougher rules for impounding vehicles. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was very supportive of those changes.

In addition, Prince Edward Island has introduced special discrete licence plates for police to recognize the vehicles of repeat drunk drivers, as well as a campaign for people to call 911 if they observe impaired driving. Again, Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported these changes.

There are potential solutions to problems other than amendments to the Criminal Code. We have seen promising results. From 2013 to 2014, the number of convictions for impaired driving decreased by nearly 20%. We need to do better, but I am pleased to see progress and I am hopeful for the future. In 2013, we had 297 convictions for impaired driving, and in 2014, we had 241. Compare that to 628 convictions in 1989, and 1,570 convictions in 1980.

I would encourage parliamentarians from all parties to take a look at these measures on the island and consider whether they could be useful in their respective regions. The parties in the House disagree on many issues, but the need to stop drunk driving in Canada is not one of them. That is why I will be supporting Bill C-590.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan in Laval, whom I have represented for four years, to talk about a private member's bill, Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code provisions on blood alcohol content.

I would like to begin by telling my colleague who introduced this bill in the House that I will support it at third reading, and I will explain why we on this side have taken this stance.

In light of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' recent study of this bill, New Democrats believe that Bill C-590 is a step in the right direction to combat the scourge of drunk driving.

In essence, Bill C-590 amends section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish the possibility of imposing more severe penalties for offences committed under section 253 in circumstances where the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, which is double the amount that now constitutes an offence. It also raises the minimum penalties that apply to convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

As a young mother of a two-year-old little girl, as a woman and as a New Democrat, I truly believe that drinking and driving is a very important issue. I also think that all parliamentarians in the House care deeply about this issue.

I do not mean to speak on behalf of all parents here, but I am sure that every father, every mother and every grandparent cares a great deal about the health and safety of their children, their family, their fellow citizens and the general public.

I am quite confident that everyone here in the House wants to address the problem of drinking and driving, and Bill C-590 is a step in the right direction.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. However, I do have some wonderful colleagues, like the member for Gatineau and the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who are members of that committee. I looked at their work and the work done by my other colleagues, because I am always interested in what is happening at committee, and everyone wanted to ensure that these new measures were designed to eliminate the scourge that claims too many Canadians' lives every year.

I support the bill, but I know that it has some shortcomings, which is rather unfortunate. However, as I said, it is a step in the right direction.

Although Canada has very tough laws and penalties for impaired driving, more than 750 motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists were killed every year between 2003 and 2005 in traffic accidents involving drunk drivers. Even one death is one too many, but this is more than two people per day. That is far too many, and we need to implement measures to address this problem.

This is a relatively conservative estimate, since in some cases it was not possible to determine whether the driver had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Some road safety organizations estimate that the number of victims is actually much higher.

Although the exact number of victims is in question, no one doubts that impaired driving causes a large number of injuries and deaths that could be avoided.

My colleague's bill, Bill C-590, seeks to decrease the number of injuries and deaths by amending section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for offences committed under the Criminal Code in circumstances where the offender's blood alcohol content exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol.

As I mentioned previously, the bill also seeks to raise the minimum penalties that apply to convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

I sincerely believe that we need to do more to combat impaired driving.

The NDP examined the measures proposed by the member for Prince Albert, and saw that they were a step in the right direction towards effectively fighting the scourge of drunk driving.

However, there remain some questions about minimum sentences, even though we had already raised them. The minimum sentences in this bill are substantially shorter than the current sentences that are imposed for these offences. I mentioned a few of this bill's flaws, including these shorter minimum sentences. I will talk later about why this matters.

For example, in 2011-12, the mean length of imprisonment was 277 days for impaired driving causing bodily harm, and 959 days for impaired driving causing death. Why are the proposed minimum sentences important and why do we need to discuss them? There is a tendency for a minimum sentence to become the default sentence, except in the worst cases. In other words, the minimum sentence ends up being the norm rather than a sentence reserved for less serious crimes. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that defence lawyers will ask for the minimum sentence, unless the Crown can prove that their client's crime warrants a special punishment.

As I said, we absolutely must do more to address drunk driving. There are a number of things we can do as parliamentarians, but also as citizens in our communities.

I want to reiterate the question my NDP colleague asked about the type of consultations that were done with regard to the bill introduced by my colleague from Prince Albert. I would have liked more details on who was consulted on the bill. I know that MADD Canada works very hard on the issue of drunk driving. Everyone acknowledges the exemplary work that it does, but it would be good to know how MADD feels about this bill. It would also be good to get feedback from the many stakeholders across Canada who work on this issue that is so very important to our constituents. This is important input if we want to have leadership and crack down on drunk driving.

This bill deals with sentences for offenders, but we cannot forget that there is work to be done before things get to that point. I cannot stress this enough, but when it comes to topics that are this sensitive, it is often important to educate people. Whether we are talking about young drivers taking the wheel, starting their classes or applying for a licence, it is preferable for parents to get them started with good habits. We need to look at everything we can possibly do. We also need to ensure that people who already have a licence understand the negative impact that drinking and driving can have as well as all the potential consequences for our society. We cannot forget that education plays an important role in this issue.

I also want to mention that I am a young mother and that I have since become more interested in these issues. I think that is how it normally works. We all want to ensure that we do a good job of raising our family. As a young mother I must say that I really sympathize with all the victims and families of victims of drunk driving. It is never an easy thing. No one can understand what it means to lose a loved one, regardless of the circumstances.

I think that a fairly funded justice system would truly help them through the process. We can never forget the families, friends and loved ones of the victims of drunk driving.

I would like to make something clear. This bill does not specifically target young people. We need to avoid stereotypes here. It is very important that we not stereotype our youth. In this case, I think we really need to be careful. We need to remember that the statistics on young people and drunk driving have improved a lot in recent years. I think that is the result of the great work being done by parents and society in general.

In closing, I would like to thank all those who worked on this bill when it was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as well as my colleague from Prince Albert. I also want to acknowledge the incredible work done by our justice critic, my colleague from Gatineau, and her deputy critic, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. They worked very hard on this issue.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for agreeing to trade his scheduled private members' business time with me, so that I could rise before my scheduled surgery next week. It is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for unanimously passing Bill C-590 at committee stage.

The committee amended Bill C-590 to address its concerns that the bill's very significant penalties, particularly for first offenders, could lead to many cases where the driver refuses to provide a breath sample because the penalty for refusal has only a mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000. The amendment passed by the committee classifies the offence of driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.16% as a hybrid offence. On indictment, the penalties would remain as proposed in the bill. On summary convictions, the mandatory minimum fine for the first offence would increase to $2,000, which is double the minimum fine for impaired driving. For a second and subsequent offence, the minimum penalty would be 30 days in prison.

The amendment would ensure in most cases where drivers have a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.16% but there is no injury or death that a $2,000 fine combined with a mandatory prohibition on driving for one year would be a sufficient deterrent. Further, very severe penalties on indictment would be reserved for the most serious cases where a motor vehicle operator's blood alcohol concentration is well above 0.16% or the driver caused significant property damage.

According to Stats Canada, almost half the fatally injured drivers in Canada had a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. This level of impairment has had a devastating impact on our youth as they make up 31% of the alcohol-related deaths.

A June 2009 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on alcohol use among fatally injured drivers also found that the bulk of the impaired driving problems lie with those drivers having a blood alcohol content over the current Criminal Code limit of 0.08%. Although the drivers with high blood alcohol content represent about 1% of the cars on the road at night and on weekends, they account for nearly 50% or half of all the drivers killed at those times.

My home community of Prince Albert, as most communities in our nation, has been scarred by the toll of this selfish but preventable crime.

In July 2013, Taylor Litwin and Brandi Lepine, who was pregnant at the time of the accident, were both killed when a 21-year-old drunk driver slammed into Taylor's vehicle. Brandi, who initially survived the crash, was able to give birth to her daughter Aurora before she succumbed to her injuries. The driver who took the life of these two ladies is to be sentenced this fall.

In May 2012, Prince Albert lost a strong community leader, Mr. Ben Darchuk. Ben was the owner of an auto glass business that is located next to my old constituency office location. The 22-year-old driver who pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing Ben's death received two years less a day at a provincial correctional centre for his sentence. He also received a three-year driving prohibition and was ordered to pay a $100 surcharge.

Bill C-590 would target these young drivers with high blood alcohol content by increasing specific penalties for their actions. The goal is to prevent these drivers from getting behind the wheel as they cause a greater number of fatalities and are more likely to be repeat offenders.

As time at the end of this Parliament session is quickly running out, I therefore ask that we pass Bill C-590 as quickly as we can to give the Senate enough time to deliberate and pass it before the fast-approaching summer is upon us.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're done now with Bill C-590. I will report that back to the House tomorrow.

We do now have visitors coming to see us at five o'clock for those who can hang around. They are from the delegation from the Parliament of Ukraine. You have a notice on who's coming. They are a fairly senior legal group that wants to come to see us. If you could hang around, that would be great. If you can't, I fully understand.

We will suspend until five o'clock.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Just so I make sure I understand your answer, you're saying that the majority are first offenders and as such would not be too familiar with the system. That being said then, isn't there a danger in the case of the people we want to get with Bill C-590, with the jurisprudence that the Supreme Court of Canada just set with the Nur decision concerning the mandatory minimum sentence? Because isn't there a chance that maybe somebody who could have pleaded something to the court, maybe a bad decision... We've all been young at some point in time and....

I'm not saying that it is okay to make this mistake. It is a mistake that may cost dearly.

Isn't there a potential risk--and we should see these things coming--that an absolutely pathetic case will go before the courts and lead to a situation where stricter minimum mandatory sentences may be deemed unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or considered to be cruel and unusual punishment under sections 7 or 12? I do not remember the exact number of the section concerned.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent.

In fact, you mention a hybrid offence punishable on summary conviction. That is what we understand.

I would like to put a question to the Department of Justice expert.

Last week, we shared a fairly important point with the sponsor of the bill. We indicated that there could be all kinds of shady goings-on in the wake of his bill.

For instance, take the offence of refusing to breathe into a breathalyzer when asked to do so by the police; this will mean that the individual would have a far lesser sentence. So there could be attempts to avoid the impact of Bill C-590.

What does the department have to say about that? Is there not a type of injustice there? Indeed, word will get around. This will make Bill C-590 completely useless. Repeat offenders and people who drink very heavily will spread the word so that they do not go beyond the 160 milligram threshold mentioned in Bill C-590. They could simply and consistently refuse to blow into the breathalyzer.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It says replace lines 13 to 21 on page 1 with the following:

of blood

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and

(i) in the case of a first offence, to a fine of not less than $2,000 and to imprisonment for not less than 60 days, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 240 days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable

(i) in the case of a first offence, to a fine of not less than $2,000, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days.

The rationale is that while we all support higher penalties for those who drive with a high blood alcohol concentration and for those who drive while impaired and cause bodily harm or death, there are concerns regarding the specific proposals for change in Bill C-590.

Accordingly where proposed in this amendment subclause 1(1) of the bill proposes an indictable offence for having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 160 with a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 plus 60 days imprisonment and 240 days on the second offence.

The concern is that these very significant penalties, particularly for a first offender, could lead to many cases where the driver simply refuses to provide a sample because the penalty for the refusal offence has a mandatory minimum penalty of only $1,000. This was raised by a number of members of the committee during the examination with witnesses last week.

Part (a) of the motion therefore proposes that the offence of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 160 would be a hybrid offence, so on indictment the penalties would remain as proposed in the bill and on summary conviction the mandatory minimum fine for a first offence would be $2,000, which is double the minimum fine for impaired driving, and for a second or subsequent offence the minimum penalty would be 30 days in prison.

By making these changes we believe that in most cases where the driver has a blood alcohol concentration of over 160 but there's no injury or death the $2,000 fine combined with the mandatory prohibition on driving for one year would be a sufficient deterrent. The very severe penalties on indictment should at the discretion of the prosecution be reserved for the most serious cases, for example, where the blood alcohol concentration is well above 160 or where the driver caused significant property damage.

For those reasons, Mr. Chair, we're proposing and we'll support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll call this meeting back to order for our next hour. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 8, 2014, we're dealing with Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code on blood alcohol content.

Mr. Pruden is joining us from the Department of Justice, if we have any questions at all.

This bill is a private member's bill. It has one clause. To get started, I will call clause 1.

(On clause 1)

Mr. Dechert, I know you'd like to speak to this. The floor is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

I'm just curious. Again, being practical, aren't you afraid that somebody who drinks so much might decide not to do the test? Because they'll try anything, and I think you put your finger on it. They have all of the tricks. Usually people, unless it's really bad luck, and normally if it's bad luck the person knows or should know or whatever.... But these guys who we're really trying to get off the roads, those who are a public danger—and there are many of them—know all of the tricks in the book.

When I look at Bill C-590, I can picture somebody recommending to them to just not blow in the alcootest, because they're better off with just a refusal. They don't go into the whole system.

I understand where you're coming from. We all have examples. Again, I repeat how much I despise that there are still people who drink even a glass and get behind the wheel. At the same time, we have to be practical, and I'm not sure this bill going to do exactly what it's supposed to do. I'm not sure we'll be able—all brilliant minds that we are around the table—to amend it to what you're trying to do. I see so many loopholes in different aspects that I'm afraid that it won't change much. That's my point.

Have you looked into the fact that there might be a possibility that people will say from now on to just refuse to blow in the alcootest and you'll be better off?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for being here this afternoon to talk about something that's very serious. It's dear to my heart but also dear to many Canadians across Canada. It is about the ability to get drunk drivers off the road and to actually put in place better legislation to do that.

As for what Bill C-590 does, it is an act to amend section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for offenders who have a blood alcohol content of twice the legal limit. In this bill, we're not going after those who have had one glass of wine or are maybe in and out of the 0.05 or 0.08, depending on what province you're in. This is actually going after people who are two sheets to the wind: they are seriously drunk and they're getting into a motor vehicle and doing great harm when they do that.

As I said when we first discussed this in the House, I am very open to ideas on, suggestions for, and amendments to this bill. This is not just my bill. In a lot of ways, this is your bill. I look forward to the committee making this bill a stronger bill by doing just that, so that the result is something we can take pride in and have some confidence in, knowing that we've made the roads, streets, and waterways in Canada safer.

What we'd be doing is that offenders who are at twice the legal limit would be “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years”. Penalties for the first-offence conviction will now result in a minimum fine of $2,000 and a minimum 60-day prison term. In the case of a second or subsequent offence, the minimum term of imprisonment will be 240 days. Those with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit who harm or kill someone will be additionally penalized with a minimum fine of $5,000, a minimum of 120 days in prison for a first offence, and a minimum of a 12-month term of imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence.

To share some stats, according to Statistics Canada, almost half of fatally injured drivers had a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. This level of impairment has had a devastating impact on our youth, as they make up 31% of alcohol-related deaths. I don't think there is one person in this room who can't relate to that statistic. When I went to high school, we heard of different schools throughout the district that saw youth killed before their prime because they were drinking and driving.

The June 2009 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on alcohol use among fatally injured drivers indicates that the bulk of impaired driving problems lies with those drivers having a blood alcohol content over the current Criminal Code BAC of 0.08. That's a startling fact, when you think about it. This isn't about somebody who maybe had one little drink too many and is over 0.08. We're seeing very severe consequences when they get over that 0.08 or 0.05 factor, depending on where you are.

Among the tested drivers in Canada, 62.9% showed no evidence of alcohol, and that's a good sign; 37.1% had been drinking, and that's a bad sign; 4.3% had a blood alcohol content below 0.05; 2.6% had a blood alcohol content from 0.05 to 0.08; 9.4% had a blood alcohol content of 0.081 to 0.160; and 20.8% had a blood alcohol content over 0.160.

In other words, 81.5% of the fatally injured drinking drivers had a blood alcohol content over the current limit of 0.08 up to 0.16. High blood alcohol content drivers, such as those with a blood alcohol content over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, are drunk. There's no question that they're behind a wheel and there's no question that they should not be behind the wheel. Your friends will recognize that at this level of alcohol.... These are the people who are doing the most harm on our roads. Of course, this represents a disproportionate number of fatally injured drinking drivers.

Drivers with a high blood alcohol content represent about 1% of the cars on the road at night and on weekends, yet they account for nearly half of all drivers killed at those times. That's 1%, but half the deaths. Limited resources would seem to be best deployed to target the 81.5% of the fatally injured drinking drivers who are already above the 0.08 threshold. The worst offenders are already driving with a blood alcohol content two or three times the current limit. Drivers with the highest blood alcohol content constitute the most significant danger on the roads or waterways, and they should still be a priority.

Section 255.1 of the Criminal Code states that if an impaired driving offence is committed by someone whose blood alcohol content exceeds 0.16 at the time the offence was committed, it will be an aggravating factor upon sentencing. This reflects the fact that driving with a high level of impairment—over 0.16, or double the current legal limit—is generally indicative of a serious problem.

Even if a driver with this level of impairment is being detected for the first time, it is likely that this is a hard-core impaired driver. In other words, the only thing we don't know is how many times he's been drinking and driving before they caught him. Of course, this is due to the fact that rarely is that time the first time he has driven while under the influence of alcohol.

In Saskatchewan we've experienced an increase in police-reported impaired driving incidents in each consecutive year from 2006 to 2011, according to Stats Canada. Furthermore, in 2011, Saskatchewan had the highest number of such police-reported impaired driving incidents, at almost 700 per 100,000 people, among all of the provinces. In other words, over the course of five years, the number of police-reported incidents has increased from around 500 incidents to 700 per 100,000 people.

Bill C-590 targets drivers with a high blood alcohol content by increasing specific penalties for such drivers. The goal is to prevent these drivers from reoffending, since high-risk offenders cause the greater number of collisions, with higher fatality rates, and are more likely to be repeat offenders.

On a personal note, this became an interest to me because right next to my office in Prince Albert was a guy by the name of Ben Darchuk. He ran Ben's Auto Glass and employed roughly 10 to 20 people in his business. Ben had just bought a new boat, and on May 20, 2012, he was going to head up to Christopher Lake for the long weekend. His family had already gone up to secure a camping site. He hooked up to his boat and was heading up to the lake to meet with his family. He didn't get there. He was hit by a 22-year-old who was over 0.08 and who was also on cocaine. Ben was killed instantly. Ben is survived by his wife Leanne and two daughters and a son. He never got a chance to use that new boat.

You can look at that impact on Prince Albert and at impacts around the country, where everybody has an example like that. I can call on another example of a lady in Prince Albert who was pregnant and was killed by a drunk driver. She was 17 years old. They managed to save the baby.

There are too many examples of this type of scenario happening on our streets and on our roads. I don't want to say just “our roads”, because it's also our waterways. I want to stress that. A boat is a motor vehicle. This is not just about cars. A lot of people think they can have one or two beer, or five or ten, and go on a boat or a Jet Ski and think they're safe. They aren't.

What we're trying to do here is very simple, and I look forward to amendments to make this bill even better. The goal is to get these people off the road. We need to do that. We have to make sure that they don't do harm and get the proper counselling and treatment so they don't reoffend.

Mr. Chair, I'll end it there. I'll entertain questions.