Justice Committee on May 6th, 2015

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, you have the minimum sentencing. That's the minimum. What you're telling me is that at present they're actually giving out judgments that are higher than that minimum. I don't see that ever changing. Why should that ever change? Why should it fall back to the minimum? If the judge is sitting there and knows this is the minimum, and he feels that this character, because of what he or she has done, should not be at the minimum, he still has the ability to go higher. We haven't restricted the upper end.

But what we've done is make it very clear to people who think they're going to drink and drive, or who are taking driver training or are in any other such scenario, that there are consequences, and that this is the minimum, that it could be worse. But again, the goal here is to make sure that these people, when they're at 0.16, aren't out there next weekend and the weekend after, because they're going to kill somebody. You have to deal with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our final questioner is from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hoback, for being here today.

I'd need probably more time than this day has to offer to give my conclusions on impaired driving, but I'll leave it at this. One of the things that I think would be good for this bill—and I understand you're open to amendments—is to look at having a federal ignition interlock program. These programs are within a number of the provinces, but we don't have one federally. This may be an opportunity to look something, because it's a significant frustration for police when they have to continually go after a reoffender who may know their driver's licence has been suspended and they're not supposed to be driving, but they're driving anyway.

Would you be open to some type of amendment to that effect if it is in fact possible to do that?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I agree with you on that. Again, the goal here is to take these people off the roads, so if this is one way to do that, to me it's a small price to pay to have that put into somebody's vehicle to keep them off the road.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I still do drug and alcohol talks in the schools. I give some of my experiences to the kids, and I believe that most teenagers today are well informed of impaired driving laws. We've come a long way since the 1970s and 1960s when it was just about accepted behaviour. We've come a long way.

One of the other things that I think is important—and this goes to Ms. Péclet's statement—is that I don't think the sentence would be that harsh. I think that if you step into a vehicle and you're at 0.16 or more, you know you're at 0.16 or more. There is no question about it. The highest BAC reading that I ever collected as an RCMP officer was 0.43 in Kitimat in 1982. I will never forget it. He was at 0.43 and he was driving. The legal limit is 0.08. He was still alive.

[An hon. member]

He should have been dead.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Well, technically you're supposed to be.

But the other issue—and Ms. Boivin mentioned it, Chair—was the expediency of getting criminal records updated through CPIC. That can be problematic, but I think it's something that the police have to work at, as well as the courts. I don't know what we could do in that case, but it is problematic. I truly believe that one of the things we could do is to institute a federal ignition interlock program. I think that's probably one of the best things we could do.

I have nothing further to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Do you want to comment on anything he had to say?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Maybe just in closing, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There's going to be one more question for you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes.

Madame Boivin, you wanted a couple of minutes, so go ahead.

[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]

Again, it's something that did come up when we were discussing and debating it in the House. I think that as the committee identifies loopholes, you have the opportunity—I'm giving you my full blessing—to close those loopholes.

What I go back to is that my constituency and your constituents want to see this addressed. They want us to come forward with a good piece of legislation so that there aren't the loopholes, so that it has the intended consequences for the people who are convicted under the act. Again, if you have some ideas on how to close that loophole, I'm all ears, and I'm sure the government is too.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

So you wouldn't answer that it's outside of the scope of the bill or anything?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, I just want a good piece of legislation.

I want to make sure that when we move forward at the end of the day we can all take pride in what we've put forward and take comfort in knowing that we've saved lives and have taken these guys off the road or the waterways. I want to reiterate that there is the issue of the waterways. A lot of people think it's just about drinking and driving. Waterways are also a hazard that need to be addressed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Hoback, for coming today and talking to us about your private member's bill. There are no witnesses that have been called on this bill.

We have the Minister of Justice for main estimates on Monday for the first hour. We have set aside the second hour to what I was going to say is clause-by-clause, but it's “clause”. I understand that there are a number of amendments coming.

Committee members, make sure you get those amendments in, if you can, so that members of other parties can have a look at them. We will be dealing with this on Monday because I have to report it back to the House based on the extension that has been granted.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes. Time is of the essence now because of the coming summer season.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

We will suspend while we set up for our next meeting, which we're going to start right away, before 4:30, because all of the participants are here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 28, we're dealing with Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

We've had the minister present on this, we've had witnesses, and now we're doing the clause-by-clause. We are joined by our officials from the Department of Justice.

Thank you for joining us today.

If there are any questions about any of the four clauses—I believe there are four—as we go through them, let me know, and we'll have the officials respond. There are actually five amendments, but the amendments from the Green Party are identical, and Mr. Hyder is here to speak.

You can sit at the table, Mr. Hyder.

We will be removing Ms. May's amendments and going to Mr. Hyder's because he's here to talk about them. Just so you know the procedure as we go forward, we'll give Mr. Hyder a minute or so to talk about each of his amendments, and then we'll vote.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of the first clause, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

We have two amendments to clause 2.

Ms. May is not here, so it's out of order, in a sense.

By the way, all amendments that have been proposed are admissible .

Mr. Hyder, the floor is yours to talk about the amendment you're proposing to clause 2.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Wallace. I'll be Mr. Hyer today, with no “d”. There is no “d”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm sorry, Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Amendment PV-1 removes the quote “if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of the offence”, etc. The intention of our amendment is to remove the mandatory minimum sentence for this bill. The Green Party is against mandatory minimums, both in principle and in practical practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Hyer, I think you're at the wrong amendment, are you not? We're on clause 2.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Oh, yes. Let me refer to my brains—