Bill C-247 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to authorize the use by a peace officer of a passive detection device to detect the presence of alcohol in the immediate vicinity of a person whom the officer has reasonable grounds to believe was, within the preceeding three hours, operating a motor vehicle or having the care or control of a motor vehicle. The enactment also provides that if such a device indicates the presence of alcohol, it establishes reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Sure.

Do you see any complications that would be present for any litigation that you're aware of from a bill like Bill C-247?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'd ask everybody to please take their seats.

It is a great pleasure to welcome Mr. Pruden from the Department of Justice, who is the counsel on the criminal law policy section, to talk to us about Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device).

Mr. Pruden, as I understand it, you will not be making a statement, because this is a private member's bill. You will just be taking questions from the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Understood. We have two laws, Bill C-226 and C-247, that are now being studied on that issue.

We're going to move to questions. The way it works is that different members have six minutes to ask questions.

We will start with Mr. Nicholson.

[Markita Kaulius, President, Families For Justice]

Dear honourable members of the justice and human rights committee, thank you for inviting me here today.

My name is Markita Kaulius, and I am the president of the Families for Justice society. Families for Justice is a non-profit organization made up of parents, family members, and supporters who have all had a child or loved one killed by an impaired driver in Canada.

My 22-year-old daughter, Kassandra Kaulius, was killed by an impaired driver on May 3, 2011. She was killed in a catastrophic collision, and was T-boned and crushed to death. She was struck on the driver's side door at 103 kilometres per hour by an impaired driver speeding through a red light at an intersection. My daughter was driving home after coaching a softball game and had the right-of-way to make a left turn. Kassandra lost her life because an impaired driver made the choice to drink and drive while being impaired. My world and that of my family was changed forever.

Impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada, and every year impaired drivers leave a terrible trail of death, destruction, heartbreak, and injury. From the point of view of numbers alone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime. When it comes to the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, impaired driving is clearly the crime that causes the most significant social loss to our country.

Research shows that drinking alcohol is the third highest factor for global disease in 2010, moving up from being ranked sixth in 1990.

When health and social costs for deaths, injuries, and damage are totalled, the costs related to impaired driving, including with alcohol and drugs, were estimated at over $20.6 billion a year in 2010 alone.

Among psychoactive drugs, alcohol-related disorders were the top cause of hospitalization in 2011. Globally, alcohol was linked to over three million deaths in 2012, slightly more than lung cancer and HIV combined.

The numbers of impaired driving incidents have fluctuated over many years, reaching a low of more than 76,000 incidents in 2006, before increasing again to a high of more than 86,000 in 2009. More recently, the number of reported impaired driving incidents was more than 72,000 in 2014.

Over the last 30 years, we have had education and awareness campaigns through advertising to educate the public, yet we still continue to see impaired driving as the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. On average, we're losing the lives of 1,250 to 1,500 people per year in Canada. On average, over 60,000 people are injured in a crime that is 100% preventable.

These figures work out to the deaths of four to six people a day, and 175 people injured each day. The destruction to families is life changing and permanent. Many families never recover from the loss of their child or loved one.

The proposed legislation responds to serious consequences expressed by various law enforcement agencies, experts, and victims organizations, including Families for Justice, who have been urging the government to improve law enforcement's capacity to detect drug- and alcohol-impaired driving.

While this legislation is important for the passive detection device, there is compelling evidence that illegal drug use and impaired driving results in impaired cognitive function, slower reaction times, difficulty concentrating, drowsiness, disoriented feelings, difficulty judging distances and making decisions, problems staying in one lane, greater difficulty maintaining a constant speed, and in having an increased collision risk. Under the current legislation, the Criminal Code does not grant the police the authority to obtain bodily samples from drivers, unless a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver has consumed alcohol.

A passive detection device could detect alcohol in the ambient air, which would allow officers to use a non-invasive procedure to test for the presence of alcohol by simply placing the device near the driver's face when he or she is speaking. This new method would not only empower police officers to better identify impaired drivers, but it would also have a deterrent effect and play a major role in reducing the number of impaired drivers who are choosing to get behind the wheel after drinking, despite the laws and deterrents that are already in place.

Drug-impaired driving is also a growing problem that largely goes unreported because of the lack of roadside measurement devices. Of all impaired driving charges, 97% are for alcohol and only 3% are for drugs. The situation will become more catastrophic if and when marijuana is legalized.

There need to be limits set on intoxication similar to those with alcohol. A 0.08 blood limit in alcohol is well known and is recognized in science-based evidence. This does not exist for marijuana. Alcohol and drugs can affect drivers' safety by impairing vehicle control and judgment. The police need consistent, strong, and fair enforcement measures to ensure that the increased use of alcohol and drugs does not impact road safety. Drivers who get behind the wheel while being impaired put themselves and everyone else at risk.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, in 2010, nearly as many drivers died in road crashes using drugs, at 34.2%, as those who had been drinking, at 39.1% .

In Canada, in 2012, there were 614 road fatalities where drivers had drugs present in their system, compared to 476 fatalities where alcohol was present. A change to the Criminal Code would allow the use of approved roadside screening devices to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the body of a person operating a vehicle. Currently, there are devices used in Australia and the European Union countries where police use roadside oral drug screening tests to detect the presence of drugs.

Drug-impaired numbers are under-reported because of the limited tools available for law enforcement to quickly detect the presence of drugs in the body. This leads to drug-impaired drivers often bypassing tests due to the inability of drug recognition experts, time restrictions on the tests, and second-guessing the presence of drugs in a driver, all leading to under-reporting of drug-impaired driving.

Roadside oral screening detection devices offer objective and time-efficient alternatives for the most commonly used illicit drugs.

Senator Claude Carignan has recently brought forward Bill S-230 for the addition of a drug detection device to aid the police in their duties in detecting drug-impaired drivers. This bill amends the Criminal Code to authorize the use of approved screening devices, as well, to detect the presence of drugs in the body of a person who is operating a vehicle or who had care and control of a vehicle. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily substances to determine the concentration of drugs in a person's body based on physical coordination tests and the results of analysis conducted using an approved screening device.

Adding a drug recognition device would also allow samples of bodily substances, be it oral fluid, blood, or urine, as required, to be taken to determine the amount of a drug in a driver's system based on the analysis with an approved screening device.

I wanted to mention that recently there were two very high-profile cases in the news where four members from two separate families were killed by impaired drivers.

On September 27, 2015, the Neville-Lake family from Vaughan, Ontario, lost their three children, Daniel, age 9, Harrison, age 5, and Milly, age 2, along with their grandfather Gary Neville. His wife and mother-in-law were seriously injured.

On January 2, 2016, the Van de Vorst family from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, lost their son, Jordan, and his wife Chanda, and their two grandchildren, Kamryn, age 5, and Miguire, age 2.

Both families were wiped out by impaired drivers who were twice over the legal limit to drive.

Sadly, many impaired drivers know there is still a chance they will not get caught when driving impaired and they continue to take a chance, get behind the wheel, and risk their own safety, and the safety of other drivers and pedestrians. The deterrent effect of the passive detection devise, as proposed in Bill C-247, would possibly prevent these types of collisions.

The impaired drivers in each of those collisions received a sentence of 10 years, which sounds like a long time, but that equates to about two and a half years per person's death. Take time off for good behaviour and early parole, and out of that 10-year sentence they will actually serve about two years or less for killing four people in each family. That works out to about six months in jail served per death.

On average, convicted impaired drivers are being given a two- to three-year sentence for causing a death in Canada, but the reality is the actual amount of time being served is a mere five to nine months out of a two- to three-year sentence. These types of sentences let Canadians know that they can drink and they can drive while being impaired, and if they kill someone in Canada they'll only receive a minimal sentence for taking an innocent life.

Admissions to provincial sentenced custody for impaired driving are more likely to be intermittent sentences than admissions for other offences. The most common sentence was the payment of a fine. About one in 10 received a prison sentence with a median of 33 days. That's all. Of all admissions to provincial sentenced custody for impaired driving, about four in 10 were sentences to be served intermittently. An intermittent sentence allows the person sentenced to custody to serve their sentences in separate time periods, usually on weekends. About four in 10, roughly 41% of admissions to provincial sentenced custody for impaired driving in 2010-11 were intermittent sentences, compared to 15% for all other offences.

Correctional Service Canada, which is responsible for inmates sentenced to two or more years of custody, reported just 70 admissions for impaired driving for 2010-11. This represented about 1% of all the admissions to sentenced custody to Correctional Service Canada.

Over the last five years we have seen sentences of anywhere between one day in jail, a $1,500 fine, to seven weekends in jail, to 90 days to be served on weekends only. All of these sentences were given out to people who were convicted of impaired driving causing a death. With criminal sentences like these, they sadly have become case-setting precedents for future court cases. These are absolutely no deterrent.

We believe that if a death is involved, there should be a minimum mandatory sentence of six years for causing a vehicular homicide. Those who lost their loved ones were given a lifetime sentence of being without their children and loved ones. The people who died were given a death sentence. The impaired drivers who caused these deaths are only serving a few months in jail for taking the lives of innocent people and changing the lives of families forever.

Currently in Canada, if you're convicted of causing the death of another person by using a gun or a knife, you will receive a jail sentence of seven to 10 years. Why are people who are killing someone by impaired driving serving sentences of so much less? Many vehicles in the hands of an impaired driver become a lethal weapon. A speeding vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver is like holding a 2,000-pound to 3,000-pound weapon between their hands, and a vehicle driven by an impaired driver does far more damage than a knife or a gun ever would.

These are no accidents. There are no accidents. These are collisions. Accidents happen due to mechanical failure or weather conditions. Impaired driving is a choice made by reckless individuals who make the decision to put others at risk on our roadways. What is required now is the modernization of our existing impaired driving laws, where those who commit these crimes of impaired driving causing collisions which result in injuries or deaths of innocent people will be held accountable for their actions.

Families For Justice have submitted over 117,000 names on a petition to the federal government of Canada. The petition is signed by Canadian citizens who are asking the government to implement tougher new impaired driving laws. In speaking with thousands of Canadians over the last five years, they also want to see longer prison sentences given out, based on the severity of the crime. We hope through tougher impaired driving laws this will be an added deterrent for the public. It will let Canadians know that if they choose to drink and drive and they cause a collision while being impaired, they will be held accountable for their actions and there will be serious consequences.

Bill C-247 also renames the offence of impaired driving causing death as “vehicular homicide as a result of impairment”. This bill calls the crimes what they truly are, vehicular homicides. A conviction should reflect the seriousness and the risks that accompany the decision to get behind the wheel, while preserving judicial discretion for judges.

There have been various transportation-related provisions to the Criminal Code that have been developed over many decades in response to specific incidents, scientific advances, and court decisions particularly relating to impaired driving. This approach has resulted in some of the inconsistencies, such as how offenders are sentenced following the conviction for impaired driving.

While some reforms have strengthened measures to combat impaired driving, they have also added to the complexity of the Criminal Code, which has affected the efficiency of investigations, prosecutions, and sentencing.

The proposed legislation would amend the Criminal Code to resolve inconsistencies and increase certain penalties to reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

Families for Justice supports the passing of Bill C-247. I hope everyone will support this bill. I recognize the need for the committee to assess the practical implications of this change to the law to ensure that the bill achieves its policy goals and ensures clarity in the Criminal Code.

We believe that police officers need to be given added tools to do their job and assist them in being able to keep Canadians safer and impaired drivers off the road. We believe that the initiative, which would increase the safety of our roads through a non-invasive procedure, should move forward.

Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, stands before you. It is an extremely important bill and you have the opportunity to make one of the most important decisions on the future laws of Canada. Bill C-247 will address the scope of the law and ensure that you not only have concrete laws against impaired driving, but also practical and effective ways of implementing those laws.

Today I urge each of you to look at what you can do to make communities in Canada safer. People deserve the right to their life and to get home safely at the end of the day without the worry of being hit by an impaired driver or killed.

In the interest of public safety for all Canadians, I ask that you support Bill C-247 and implement the passive detection device, as statistics show that we need tougher impaired driving laws in Canada.

Thank you.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having me here today and for considering Bill C-247.

I would like to start by discussing the impetus of this bill. Unfortunately, a teacher in my riding lost his life at the hands of a drunk driver. Shortly after I was elected, a constituent of mine asked me to do something to address this.

It should be noted that impaired driving is still the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. Besides being a concern in and of itself, Canada ranks poorly to similar jurisdictions with these rankings. This also has a demonstrable economic cost associated to it, some $20.62 billion.

This bill is made up of two parts. The first is to authorize the explicit use of passive alcohol sensors. The second is to change the criminal offence of impaired driving causing death and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams to vehicular homicide as a result of impairment.

Speaking to the first aspect, passive alcohol sensors are classified as passive instruments because they do not require the driver to perform any act such as blowing into a mouthpiece. These devices, often shaped as a baton or fitted into the end of a specially designed police flashlight or a clipboard, detect the presence and approximate amount of alcohol in a driver's exhaled breath by sampling the ambient air near his or her mouth.

I am aware this may raise questions of whether the passive will react to a driver who perhaps has spilled alcohol in the vehicle, but studies have indicated that the possibility of passives detecting alcohol from sources other than the driver is unlikely. The passive works best when held six inches from a driver's mouth, which would ultimately decrease the likelihood of detecting alcohol from another source.

Furthermore, the greater the distance between the passive and the source of alcohol, the more diffused the alcohol will be in the ambient air. Therefore, it is unlikely that alcohol from another source would be detected. If it is, the reading wouldn't be high enough to warrant further testing.

Finally, the concern about alcohol from a source other than the driver is equally applicable to the current practices. An officer who detects the odour of alcohol coming from inside a vehicle cannot necessarily identify its source. However, research suggests that police using passives are better at detecting alcohol and determining its source than police using only their unaided senses.

It should be mentioned as of late and due to advancements in technology that this is also a feature built into the approved screening devices peace officers already have. The second part of the bill was introduced as Kassandra's law, named after Kassandra Kaulius. I would like to bring to your attention that Markita is here with Families For Justice, but she is also Kassandra's mother.

By calling the offence a homicide, I believe parliamentarians will be sending the strong message that taking someone's life while impaired is reasonably foreseeable and can never be condoned. The current offence stating that death is caused after having been impaired implies less culpability on the driver's part. It suggests a degree of accidental consequence.

I am by no means suggesting that these drivers intended to take someone's life. However, by virtue of their having a licence, I am able to assume that drivers are rational drivers. It is legitimate to believe that rational drivers are aware that impairing their motor skills will put the safety of the general public into question.

Before concluding, I would like to address the constitutional validity of the bill. Any concerns arising regarding the possible infringement of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, having the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, have been taken into account in the creation of this bill. Our courts have consistently identified driving as a licensed and heavily regulated activity occurring on public roads. Therefore, a driver's expectation of privacy may be infringed or curtailed.

In R. v. Smith it was recognized, albeit a challenge under section 7, that the expectation of privacy must be assessed in regard to the nature of the activity:

Driving is a heavily regulated activity.... The police's goal is to catch the drinking driver at the roadside and not at the scene of the accident. Drivers expect to be stopped and questioned by the police concerning matters relating to the operation of their vehicles. That expectation is part and parcel of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the use of a passive alcohol sensor does not constitute a search, as courts have recognized that police have common law and express statutory authority to inspect a driver's documents.

That concludes my opening statement. I would like to mention that MADD Canada and my local police chief have both endorsed this bill as well.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today we're studying Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device). The sponsor, Mr. Sikand, is here today to testify, along with Markita Kaulius, who is the president of Families For Justice. It is a pleasure to have you here.

It's also a pleasure to welcome Mr. Di Iorio and Mr. Warawa to committee. I see them both here today.

We are going to begin. As you know, cumulatively, you have about 16 to 20 minutes to speak. I know, Mr. Sikand, you're going to speak for a little less time and Ms. Kaulius is going to speak for a little longer. Please proceed.

Criminal Code (passive detection device)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-247 under private members' business.

I want to advise the member that he will have three minutes left in his question and comment period the next time this item is before the House.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 21, consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, my colleague and my friend, for his advocacy in the community and his advocacy around community safety and road safety.

We have come a long way in Canada since 1921. That is when Canada first recognized impaired driving as a criminal act. Despite a sizable drop in impaired driving rates since the mid-1980s, impaired driving is still the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. Impaired driving continues to be a problem for governments and for communities and that is why we have a multi-pronged approach that has brought forward our justice system, community organizations, and the general public.

Through education, awareness, enforcement, and penalties, we have made great strides. The number of impairment incidents from 1985 have dropped significantly, by over 50%. In 1985 there were approximately 600 incidents per 100,000 of population. They dropped to less than 300 impairment incidents per 100,000 twenty years later. However, today, what we are seeing is that the rate of incidents is starting to grow. We need to have a new approach. It has to come from community organizations such as MADD, and I am glad that it is supporting this bill, Bill C-247, the passive detection device bill. These deterrents have been able to bring the rates down, and now it is up to us as a government to enact legislation that will help continue that trend.

The alarming fact, though, is that to see those rates start to decline we need to do something. We have some evidence that rates are starting to climb, especially with young women, and many of those rates continue to be in our 20- to 35-year-old grouping.

Young people have come a long way. Today, I know here in Ontario we have graduated licences so that as drivers become better drivers and have more education, they are able to make better judgment calls. One thing, though, for young people or anybody who has been out drinking or had a drink or two and who may make the poor judgment of getting behind the wheel, is the deterrent factor. It is knowing when they go out that there may be a RIDE program in place.

In the RIDE program, when drivers are pulled over the police officer will ask where they have been and whether they have had a drink or two. Many people have been to events and they say they will just take some breath mints or ensure they just use some freshener in the car to disguise the smell of alcohol. However, the passive detection device would make it much easier for police to detect whether there is alcohol in the car and be able to then move forward to doing a Breathalyzer test or to look for impairment. It will help the police with their jobs, but it is also a deterrent. When that awareness is there, those people out having a drink are able to make the right decision and not get behind the wheel of a car and drive.

The devastation has just been terrible. I know that many of us in our communities have spoken with families and friends and others who have been affected by people who have been seriously injured or lost his or her life in a car crash. This is just devastating. We have to think about it. Young people have to know how they can be affected by jail time, the heavy fines, a suspended licence, having an ignition interlock device put on their cars—all of these things. However, none of that really matters to the life that they will have to lead going forward if they have caused a serious injury or death, knowing that they were the cause.

I am so glad that the hon. member has brought forward the proposal of renaming the offence from “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular homicide as a result of impairment”.

The average car weighs about 4,000 pounds. That is a weapon. It is four thousand pounds on the road, travelling at 50, 60, 120, or 150 kilometres an hour. When that hits a person, it is a weapon. That is homicide. That will create a great deal of devastation in the community for so many people, so many families. I am so glad the member would like to have the name changed through his bill, Bill C-247. His advocacy will make a real difference in our country.

As I said, we have a commendable record. We have seen those rates drop. Now they have plateaued and have started to go up. We need a renewed initiative. Bill C-247 will help as a deterrent to bring those rates back down even more, because one death or one serious injury is just one too many.

I will be supporting Bill C-247. I want to see it go to committee so we can have a robust discussion and get into the meat of it so that we can do much better for our communities.

Again, I want to commend the member for all his hard work and advocacy for what it will mean for our communities, not only today but for many years to come.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in favour of Bill C-247. Impaired driving is an issue that affects all communities.

I am sure all members, on both sides of the House, know of a neighbour, family member, or one of their constituents who has been affected by a tragedy caused by impaired driving.

As I rise and address the House today, I am thinking of the hundreds of stories involving impaired drivers who caused accidents that killed or seriously injured someone in my riding.

I cannot help but support a bill whose aim is to prevent impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel, a bill that recognizes the moral responsibility of drivers when they are facing justice.

It is a complex bill that I believe merits the attention of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for it is important to take the time to understand all the implications associated with this change to the Criminal Code. This is an important step in putting an end to drunk driving. While the bill may not be perfect in its present form, its objective deserves to be examined in committee.

Under the current legislation, the Criminal Code does not grant the police the authority to obtain bodily samples from drivers unless the police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver has alcohol in their body. A passive detection device can detect alcohol in the ambient air, which would allow officers to use a non-invasive procedure to test for the presence of alcohol by simply placing the device near the driver's face when he or she is talking or breathing.

I am hopeful that this new method could not only empower police officers to better identify impaired drivers but would also have a deterrent effect and play a major role by reducing the number of drunk drivers that are choosing to take to the wheel night after night despite the laws and deterrents that are already in place.

My riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges is one of the fastest growing ridings in the country in large part because of the thousands of young families choosing to settle in the peaceful and safe environment that it offers. Even so, the roads our children play on, put their basketball nets on, play street hockey on, and use to ride their skateboards and their bicycles are still filled with those who make the decision to take the wheel while under the influence of alcohol. As such, I strongly support the principle behind a bill that would empower police officers to make our streets safer for our children through a non-invasive procedure.

This does not only apply to my own community. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Youth, I am particularly aware of the shocking number of young victims of road accidents across the country that are caused by drunk drivers. There are far too many unfortunately to recount here today but I can tell the House this. In my own riding I have in mind for example a young jogger who was struck by an alleged drunk driver in the municipality of Hudson in the summer of 2015. The driver of the car was only 23 years old. The victim was in some respects lucky, because she survived. Even though she survived and she shared her story as a warning to other young people, she has had to endure 15 operations to date and could be waiting years before getting the hip replacement that she needs to continue her progress. She currently uses crutches to walk and has since had to abandon her dream of becoming a police officer. The driver of the car is facing multiple criminal charges.

Examples like this show why we need more deterrents. The deterrent effect of the detection device as proposed in Bill C-247 could have prevented this accident, because as long as impaired drivers believe that there is still a chance they will not get caught they will continue to take a chance, get behind the wheel, and risk their own safety and the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.

As a result of a successful public awareness campaign, it is clear that most, if not all, drivers know that it is against the law to drive under the influence of alcohol.

Progress has been made in the past 30 years as a result of better laws, harsher penalties, enforcement measures, and awareness campaigns launched by Éduc'alcool, Operation Red Nose, and the Call 911 campaign run by Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada.

Despite these initiatives, drivers continue to get behind the wheel. In the the Vaudreuil—Soulanges RCM alone, more than 340 drunk driving incidents are reported annually. Every year, between 1,250 and 1,500 people are killed and more than 63,000 people are injured in collisions caused by impaired driving. This means that alcohol and drugs are responsible for 43% of all injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents.

According to MADD Canada, impaired driving causes almost twice as many deaths as all other homicides combined. Deaths and injuries resulting frm impaired driving are even more tragic because they are caused by a crime that is completely preventable. Why do so many drivers drive under the influence of alcohol? That is a good question. They know that they will not be caught.

Bill C-247 is largely supported by stakeholders across the country, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, which has endorsed Bill C-247, citing the benefits of passive alcohol sensors.

Also, according to the 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, “although the threshold for suspicion is not high, there is research indicating that many impaired drivers are able to avoid a demand for a breath test when stopped by the police because the officer does not detect the smell of alcohol or symptoms of impairment”. This goes to show that despite the initiatives and the progress achieved in the last decade, the ability for police to use passive alcohol sensors could have a great impact on reducing the number of alcohol-impaired drivers on our roadways.

Bill C-247 also renames the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular homicide. This change would denote greater moral culpability for the impaired driver. A conviction should reflect the risks that accompany the decision to get behind the wheel, while preserving judicial discretion for judges. Because of this, this bill needs to go to committee. That is why I support the passing of the bill: to place it in the committee's capable hands. I hope everyone can support this. I recognize the need for the committee to assess the practical implications of this change to the law to ensure that the bill achieves its policy goals and to ensure clarity in the Criminal Code.

I believe that an initiative that would increase the safety of our roads through a non-invasive procedure should move forward. I support moving Bill C-247 to committee in order to address the scope of the law and ensure we have not only concrete laws against impaired driving, but also practical and effective ways of implementing those laws.

The adoption of Bill C-247 represents that important step in making our roads safer for our communities. This is an objective that every person in the House should be behind and should make a priority.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-247, a bill that would add ambient air alcohol sensors to the arsenal of tools that our police officers use to detect impaired drivers and to keep our roads safe. All of us in the House have lost far too many friends and others in our communities to impaired driving. As a country we have been losing ground in this fight for over a decade.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates that impaired driving kills three to four Canadians every day. It also injures 175 more each day. That is more than 1,000 Canadians killed each year and more than 60,000 injured. As shocking as these statistics are, I know each of us in the House also knows, in our own communities, at least one story that puts a face on these tragic numbers.

For example, early one morning last April in the greater Victoria area, an impaired driver got behind the wheel of his pickup truck. He was speeding through an intersection when he struck a police cruiser driven by Constable Sarah Beckett. Having joined the RCMP at age 21, Constable Beckett was just 32 when she died last year leaving behind a husband and two young children.

Charges were filed against the driver last week, and I hope that justice will be served. While we know that nothing can make Constable Beckett's young family whole again, we must do everything to prevent the next tragedy, and that means deterring the next impaired driver from getting behind the wheel. Today's bill offers police one more tool with which to do that.

As it stands today in the Criminal Code, officers must have “reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body” before they can demand a breath sample. That suspicion can be formed in many ways, from the smell of alcohol to slurred speech, or simply by an admission from the driver. The front line officers I have spoken with are good at their job, but they know that impaired drivers still slip through, and the research bears this out.

A 1999 study in the United States found that officers there missed 9 out of 10 drivers in the range from 0.05 to 0.08. That is high enough for roadside penalties in most Canadian provinces. That same study found that officers still missed half of the drivers over the criminal limit of 0.08 blood alcohol content. Detection rates have improved over the last 15 years and I, for one, tend to believe that Canadian police would outscore their American counterparts, but still a 2009 study by our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concluded as follows:

—current methods of enforcing the law lead police officers to apprehend only a small percentage of impaired drivers, even at roadside traffic stops designed to detect impaired driving.

One solution proposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and used in other jurisdictions is to provide officers with passive or ambient air alcohol sensors to help them screen for impairment. There are benefits beyond just increasing the detection at roadside checkpoints. As we know from other debates on this issue, the evidence on what makes an effective deterrent is clear.

What deters the next impaired driver, what saves lives is not the fear of a crash or a jail sentence or getting caught, instead it is the perceived risk of being pulled over. The publicity surrounding the introduction of a new tool to detect impairment will no doubt increase that perceived risk of detection, and may make some people think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking.

The front line officers I have spoken to, in Victoria, Ottawa, and elsewhere, have insights that deserve to be heard by Parliament as we study this bill. Four to five million drivers are stopped each year. Less than 1% of those give breath samples, but each test creates delays for drivers and risks for officers. In the winter, drivers are sometimes asked to exit their vehicle, so that the test can be done inside a police vehicle. Police are rightly concerned about the safety of drivers when these tests occur on the shoulder of a busy road.

In other words, any tool that can increase the detection rate and reduce false positives not only has the potential to deter impaired drivers and save lives but also has the potential to make roadside stops safer and more streamlined for drivers and officers alike. With that in mind, I find it difficult to argue against dedicating time at committee to study this bill in more detail.

There are questions about police resources, questions about the accuracy of these new sensors, and of course, questions about whether the use of this new tool might be challenged under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are important questions that deserve further discussion and study. Therefore, I am pleased to support this bill now, in principle, and hope that the appropriate committee will soon be able to give it the study it deserves.

I feel compelled to say, as I did when we debated a related proposal from my hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party, that there is a tremendous need for action on this file on the government side of the House.

Successive federal governments increased the penalties for impaired driving offences in 1985, 1999, 2000, and 2008. At first, stiffer penalties sharply reduced the rate of impaired driving offences. However, progress has been stalled since 2000, despite two rounds of increased penalties.

Six years ago, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights completed its study on impaired driving. It showed that in 2006, the latest year for which data was then available, more Canadians were killed by impaired driving than in any year since 1998, and it was the third consecutive annual increase in fatalities.

That report stated as follows:

...impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada....

...despite our collective best efforts and intentions, it is apparent that the problem of impaired driving is worsening in Canada and we are losing ground in our efforts to eliminate the problem.

Those words remain equally true today.

More recent data available to us now shows that the problem continued to worsen after 2009.

Using data up to 2011, Statistics Canada reported this:

The rate of impaired driving increased for the fourth time in five years...and was at its highest point in a decade.

The evidence is clear. We need more than just harsher penalties. We need an approach that is evidence-based and focused on prevention, on saving lives. This means better training and support for our police officers. It means smarter investigative tools so that families are not denied justice by a technicality. It means taking a clear-eyed look at which penalties work and which ones do not. It means collaboration between the federal government and the provinces and territories on public education and best practices, and it means assessing the latest technology to detect drug-impaired driving.

We have been losing ground for a decade in the fight to end impaired driving. We have lost far too many lives in our communities, and we urgently need real action from the federal government. I hope that action is forthcoming.

Let me assure those on the government benches that when their plan is brought to Parliament, they will always find support and help from New Democrats. However, as we await government action on the fight to end impaired driving, I am happy to support further study of this proposal from my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville. I want to thank him for his work on it, and I look forward to seeing the results of committee consultations very soon.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Families For Justice, as a group of Canadians, who have lost loved ones to an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient, and they want the crime to be called vehicular homicide.

The petitioner call on Parliament to support Bill C-226, driving impaired act; and Bill C-247, Kassandra's law.

Criminal Code

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured and pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and join in the second reading debate of Bill C-247 introduced by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I will begin by offering congratulations to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his passion and commitment to this very significant problem in our society.

He and I have had the privilege of having a number of conversations about the various approaches and concerns he had with respect to impaired driving. He has shared with me some of the stories, as he did today about Kassandra's death, but other things have compelled him to respond with this private member's bill, and I want to commend him for his passion and commitment in bringing this important issue forward.

The social impact of impaired driving in Canada cannot be overstated. We have heard a number of statistics, but it is important to actually break those down into the impact it is having on families and communities across this country.

Each year, on average, nearly 1,500 Canadians lose their lives as a direct result of a decision some Canadian has made to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. That means, on average, that each and every day in this country nearly four people lose their lives, and there are very few families and no communities that have not been impacted by this terrible crime. As has already been stated, impaired driving is the number one leading cause of criminal death in Canada.

As my colleague the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has indicated, we have seen some improvement over the past number of decades in societal condemnation and in the number of impaired drivers we see; but there is so much more work to be done.

It is important to reflect on why we have seen some of those reductions. I was actually a young police officer in 1979 when the first roadside screening program was established in the city of Toronto, the RIDE program, which is now “reduce impaired driving everywhere” but began as “reduce impaired driving in Etobicoke”. As young police officers, we were sent out with the task of randomly pulling over vehicles on the street to determine if their drivers had been drinking and driving.

That program had two very important purposes. The first purpose was to detect the people who were driving impaired and to hold them responsible for their conduct. However, perhaps most importantly and most impactfully, it had the effect of sending a very clear message about society's condemnation of impaired driving, the seriousness with which we as a society and our police and courts took this offence. It also created a stronger impression among the population that this was a crime, a crime that would be dealt with effectively, a crime where we would increase the likelihood of detection, where there was a greater certainty of consequences and that those consequences would be significant and serious enough to deter that criminal behaviour.

We have also seen some additional tools and technologies that have enhanced our ability to be more effective in those roadside stops. For example, many years ago, roadside screening devices were developed that enabled police officers to administer a test on the basis of reasonable suspicion of those people who we believed had been consuming alcohol prior to operating a motor vehicle.

If I may, I will explain to my colleagues a little bit how that is done. I actually got a fair bit of experience at roadside RIDE spot checks as a police officer in Toronto. I think for the last 20 years, I have spent every New Year's Eve standing along the roadway with a number of other police officers pulling over cars.

When we do that, as a car is going through the spot check, the police officer will stop the driver and make certain observations and certain inquiries. Among the observations, the officer will will try to detect the scent of alcohol on the driver or glassy eyes or slurred speech. We would ask those drivers if they had been drinking alcohol.

If we make observations that cause us to be suspicious that the driver has been consuming alcohol—and it has to be a reasonable suspicion, not a mere suspicion but not at the level of reasonable, probable grounds—police officers are empowered in law to make a demand for the driver to submit to a roadside screening test, the consequences of which can lead to other things I will speak of. However, because we stop literally thousands of cars in an evening in this way, the opportunity to detect if the individual has been consuming alcohol is somewhat limited.

The experience of police officers across this country in conducting those all important random stops has been that people do not not admit to having consumed alcohol or the signs of consumption are not obvious. We know that many people avoid detection, notwithstanding the enormous amount of resources and effort being put into making a difference in our communities. It is quite obvious to those of us who have worked out on the streets in our communities and seen the carnage, seen the impact it has on families, seen the literally thousands of people who have lost loved ones to impaired driving, that we must do more.

Our current court system is processing nearly 60,000 criminal cases each and every year related to impaired driving. In addition to that, there are literally tens of thousands of injuries as a result of the decision that some people make to drink and drive. We must do more. The private member's bill brought forward by my friend from Mississauga—Streetsville gives the police authorities one more tool to enable them to do their job.

Bill C-247 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to specifically authorize the police to use a device referred to as a passive detection device, often referred to as a passive alcohol sensor, at the roadside in an effort to better detect impaired drivers. These sensors are able to detect alcohol in the ambient air. It does not require that the driver blow into a machine. It can provide police officers with a reasonable suspicion that would enable them to make a demand for a roadside screening device to be administered.

Not two weeks ago there was another private member's bill brought forward in this House by the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. In that bill, he made a number of very important proposals. Many members, representing all parties, stood in this House to express their concern about the need to do more with respect to impaired driving. I would submit that the private member's bill that we are speaking to today is along very similar lines. It is one additional and important tool that may enable us to keep our communities safe.

Historically, there have been a number of things that we know can make a difference in preventing crime in our society. One of the most significant things that we can do as a society is to increase the likelihood of detection and conviction for those who would choose to commit a crime. We know that the offence of impaired driving often goes undetected even at roadside screening sites where the police are randomly stopping cars. We know that the proposed private member's bill would increase the likelihood of detection.

We also know it is important to reinforce societal condemnation of impaired driving. We can do that through public education. We can do it by advising people of the risks and consequences of driving impaired. I can give an example of when the increased likelihood of detection and consequences made a real difference to the safety of our communities.

In many jurisdictions across this country, drivers under the age of 21 are required to drive free of all alcohol and are subject to administrative suspension if they choose to drink and drive. The likelihood of consequences at the roadside screening events has had a very significant effect on drivers under 21 right across this country choosing not to drink and drive. It has changed the societal attitudes among those young people about drinking and driving and has made our roadways safer. Anything that we can do to improve the decisions that people make about not drinking and driving will make our roadways safer.

In the limited time that I have, I also want to make some reference to the other important element of Bill C-247, which proposes to change the name of two impaired driving offences. This bill proposes to rename two impaired driving offences, specifically the offence of impaired driving causing death and the offence of “over 80” causing death, to vehicular homicide as a result of impairment. I think there is cause to consider both of these recommendations. I look forward to having the opportunity to bring this matter before the justice committee for further discussion.

I believe it is very important that this House do everything possible to respond to the tragedies that families and communities have experienced as a result of impaired driving.

I want to take a final opportunity to commend the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his commitment, and I want to assure him of all our commitment to do everything possible to make our roadways safer for all of our citizens.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-247.

At the outset, let me congratulate the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his impassioned speech. While I will not be able to support the bill for reasons that I will explain momentarily, I do want to acknowledge that this legislation is well intentioned and that the objectives of the hon. member are noble.

Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. In 2016, that is simply unacceptable. However, that being said, it is important to acknowledge that over the last several decades, Canada has come a long way to combatting impaired driving. Indeed, over the last two decades, the percentage of motor vehicle deaths involving impaired drivers has decreased. In some year-to-year comparisons, there have perhaps been increases, but the trend line is clear and they are going down. While that is not a reason to celebrate, it is evidence that the combination of public awareness, policing efforts, and legislative changes over the last several decades are having a positive effect.

Nonetheless, there continues to be people who drink, drive, and cause carnage on our roads. These are people like Johnathan Pratt. He was someone who, in 2011, killed three young men outside of Beaumont, Alberta. Pratt was more than three times over the legal limit, driving 199 kilometres an hour down a highway when he rammed into a vehicle occupied by the young men, effectively crushing them to death.

Then there is Roger Walsh, someone who killed a wheelchair-bound woman while he was impaired and behind the wheel. This was Walsh's nineteenth conviction for impaired driving.

The vast majority of Canadians understand that impaired driving is dangerous, that it is illegal, and most importantly that it is wrong. The vast majority of Canadians not only understand those facts, but are heeding the message and choosing not to get behind the wheel while impaired.

However, there are some who continue to do so. There is no one profile of an impaired driver. There are many instances of people who rarely drive impaired, or perhaps someone decides to do so one fateful night and in turn causes injury or death on the road. However, a big part of the problem in terms of those who are causing carnage on our roads is that they are regular, repeat, hard-core drunk drivers.

The question that we must ask as parliamentarians is, how do we deal with a relatively small number of people who are causing a disproportionate amount of grief, death, and injury on our roads? The answer is that we need to ensure that those types of offenders are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, some of the laws on the books today are simply not doing the job to the degree that they ought to.

That is why I was very pleased to see that my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-226. Bill C-226 contains some important measures to hold serious impaired driving offenders accountable. It would impose a mandatory minimum for an impaired driver who causes death. It would increase sentencing for impaired drivers who cause bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years. It would also allow for consecutive sentencing for impaired drivers who cause multiple deaths to ensure that every victim of impaired driving is accounted for.

When it comes to holding regular, repeat, and hard-core drunk drivers accountable, unfortunately, unlike Bill C-226, I believe that Bill C-247 falls short. While Bill C-247 falls short in this regard, it would impose a form of random breath testing, passive alcohol sensors. Certainly I would acknowledge that Bill C-226 does not contain passive sensors, but I have some reservations about any form of random breath testing.

Under sections 8 and 9 of the charter, it would most certainly run afoul. It is quite arguable that it could be saved under section 1 of the charter, and I believe there would be a reasonable chance that it would be saved. However, the issue is what impact it will have in reducing the number of impaired drivers and deaths on our roads. The evidence is mixed on that question.

Indeed, there is some body of statistical evidence that indicates this type of testing has no more impact in reducing impaired driving than things that are currently employed by law enforcement, such as checkstops. Indeed, in the city of Edmonton in the last few years, one thing that had the biggest impact in reducing impaired driving was the city posting signs saying that if people see impaired drivers, they should phone 911. Therefore, I think we have to perhaps look at other alternatives to random breath testing. What is more, I believe this legislation just does not cut it when it comes to holding the most serious offenders accountable for impaired driving.

It is on that basis that I regretfully will not support this particular bill. However, I want to commend the hon. member for bringing it forward, because it is an important debate and an important issue that Parliament must continue to address.