Justice Committee on May 6th, 2015

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

I expect you are well aware that there are numerous pieces of legislation that have been introduced and passed by your government that have been found to be unconstitutional before the courts, and that we have often criticized your government for introducing private members' bills that are unconstitutional so as to avoid the necessity of the constitutional review under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

My question for you is, have you obtained an opinion with respect to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimums contained in this bill?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

At this point in time, no. Of course, that came down between the time when it went through the House and being here today.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, to my colleague Mr. Hoback, let me say thank you very much for bringing this forward. This is a very timely piece of legislation. I don't know too many people in Canada who haven't been affected by impaired driving or who at least know somebody who has been affected by impaired driving.

I was hit by an impaired driver in October 1993. I was hit from behind by a gentleman driving a five-ton delivery truck. My head went through the back window of my pickup truck because I was launched into the intersection. I had stopped to let a little old lady cross the road. This individual had been counselled, as I found out after the fact, by defence lawyers. When I approached him and said that we needed to call the police to the scene, he wanted to simply pay for the damage to the truck and call it a wash. I could tell he was impaired at the time.

He fled the scene. He drove to the Transit Hotel in Edmonton, Alberta, and started consuming alcohol, thereby disrupting the chain of evidence. This is what happens with people who are experienced with respect to impaired driving laws. They know that they can be.... I think they are counselled by somebody who knows how to counsel them in that defence, and these are the kinds of things they do.

I am of the opinion that we should be adding a clause to the Criminal Code dealing with vehicular homicide. I know that we have other colleagues in the House of Commons who are thinking of looking at that kind of legislation. I'm wondering what your opinion is on supporting something like that. I could easily have been killed in that particular incident.

Insofar as your bill is concerned, the changes you're proposing here are obviously meant to bring more certainty and a sense of justice to the sentencing on these convictions, but are you at all concerned about the fact that sometimes we can't even get the convictions because some of the issues surrounding impaired driving are so difficult to prove and sometimes the evidence is so hard to prove in a court of law? It's one of the most onerous charges that a law enforcement officer, a police officer can.... It consumes your whole day and then some, especially when you get to court. Is this going to make the difference that you really expect it to make?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, there are a lot of things that I think we could be doing to make a difference. This is just one of maybe a number of things that we should be looking at as a bigger total picture to deal with this.

Those are the frustrations I hear from my constituents. On the example you've given me where somebody knows how to play the system or has a smart enough lawyer who knows how to play the system, I've heard different examples of that.

Is there anything in this legislation that's going to prevent that? At this point, no. Is there something we can do in the future to do that? Again, I rely on this committee to look at those types of opportunities, because people are upset with the gamesmanship that's going on with regard to drinking and driving.

As for the RCMP factor, they have to recognize, too, that if this person is at twice the legal limit it's worth their time and effort to proceed with this and go through the courts, because this person will do it again and again until you stop them or until they kill somebody or hurt somebody. That's why you need to have the legislation here to go after the people who are at twice the legal limit.

This isn't about a casual drinker who made a mistake. This is somebody who is two sheets to the wind and driving. They need to be dealt with, and the RCMP need to take that seriously. Whether it's the RCMP, city police, or provincial police, regardless, they need to deal with it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

As a former law enforcement officer, I can say that once you get into certain court situations it becomes so frustrating. You go through all the time and effort to charge somebody, go through the process, do the paperwork, and work with the prosecutor's office. When slaps on the wrist are handed out, it sends the wrong message not only to the public but to the crown and to the law enforcement officer.

I want to commend you. I'll be supporting your legislation as it is or with amendments.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

I'll share whatever time I have left with Mr. Goguen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have a couple of minutes, Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for bringing this forward.

There is quite a distinction between an occasional drinker and a habitual offender who is over the double, and I suspect the statistics you cited were what motivated you to bring this in at 0.16. I wonder if you've made any studies or comparisons to laws in the United States that deal with this by making a distinction with the doubled limit there or in France or.... Is this unique or is it something you've seen on other places?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, the resources weren't necessarily there to compare it to other countries.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's fair enough.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It comes back to what our constituents are asking of the Canadian legal system in regard to what they want to see and what they expect. I talk to constituents and I talk to people here in Canada, and this is a good starting point. If there's more we can do for it, that's fine.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Well, you did do some research, certainly, on the number of convictions where the people are well over double. You did recite that, so thank you for your efforts.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Exactly, and again, when you look at those statistics, they point to the need for something to be done.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

They're pretty telling.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is from the New Democratic Party.

Madam Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My sincere thanks to my honourable colleague for appearing before the committee.

You have given us a lot of statistics, which vary from province to province and from territory to territory. I apologize if you have already provided this information, but I would like to know what proportion of those convicted of this offence are young people. Do you have any statistics on age groups?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No. Unfortunately, I don't.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

As I was saying, it varies from province to province. Based on Statistics Canada data, we have to realize that young people between the ages of 19 and 24 are in an age group that will be very affected by this bill. In some provinces, the age can even go down to 16, depending on what the legal driving age is.

Don't you think that a mandatory minimum sentence for an 18-year-old might be a little much? Do you really think it is justified if an 18-year-old has not received the necessary education and prevention? He or she may have unfortunately made a mistake, or not, but if a minimum sentence was imposed, the court would no longer have the possibility to decide.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Well, I appreciate the question, because it's an excellent question. Again, that's why the 0.16 aspect of this legislation is there. As you will remember, I was talking earlier about the ability, when you have minimum sentencing, for the driving instructor or the people who are teaching students to drive to really drive home the impact of drinking and driving. Look at the advertising campaigns that are going on around Canada. Our young people are aware that they should not be drinking and driving.

If there is somebody who is at twice the legal limit, whether they're 16 or 19, they're well over, and there's no question about it: they should not be driving. Their friends know that and they know it themselves, yet they still choose to do that. If we don't deal with them appropriately, they will do it again and again. There's nothing worse than somebody young killing somebody else on the road. If we can have an impact and actually correct that measure for the young, hopefully when they go through the process and pay the piper, for lack of better words...it's a small price to pay for not killing somebody on the road.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I understand, but subsection 253(1) concerns only those who are at 0.08. If it's a second offence, it's 30 days of jail for someone who could be 18 or 19. You're telling me that you want to correct their behaviour by sending them to jail. I think that would be unjustifiable, and I think there are other ways—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No, I disagree with that. The reason I disagree is that this person, first of all, has been educated on the consequences, so it's no surprise. They know this. If they're questioning the fact that they are close to the limit, there's no reason to be behind that wheel. It's no surprise.

There are consequences, and you have to make sure they understand that there are consequences. If they still choose to break the law, then they break the law and they have to pay for it, and if it's 30 days or two years, that's what it is.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Okay.

I would like to know whether you have reviewed the case law, which indicates that the sentences handed down by courts have been relatively higher than the minimum sentences set out in the bill. I am not talking about a specific age group, but about judgments of the situation, the individual and the facts involved in the case. If a minimum sentence was imposed that was weaker than the sentences normally handed down by the courts, it could have the opposite effect and result in the case law trend going down instead of up.

Have you looked at what sentences were normally imposed in these kinds of situations? What is the difference with the sentences you are proposing in your legislation?