Justice Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Peter Braid]

I would suggest it would be both. I think both are very important.

[Scott Treasure]

I would say, in this particular instance, determining intoxication is the key piece. You have prescription driving occurring. You have distracted driving occurring.

I think what ultimately needs to be looked at is the level of risk and the level of intoxication. We need to be able to identify that, and I think that's a training issue for sure.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Okay.

Speaking of resources and training that's being provided to law enforcement officers, do you have any opinion as to how that should be provided to law enforcement? Do you think the federal government is supposed to go through the provinces and municipalities to make sure that is put to effective use?

[Peter Braid]

I remember from my previous job that municipalities are creatures of the provinces. That would appear to be the appropriate approach.

It's clear that we're moving into a new world, and change is coming. I think it's important that our police services who do such excellent work across the country are supported through this process, have the right training and the tools, and that consumers and members of the public are also educated about the change that's coming.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Are there any further comments? No?

Okay, those are my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have approximately five minutes left with the panel, so I'm going to take some very short questions from different members.

I know Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Fraser identified short questions that they wanted to ask.

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all those giving testimony today.

Ms. Arsenault, over the years I've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of victims of crime. One of the consistent things they would tell me—it was pretty consistent—when they were told that the individual who was convicted of committing a horrific crime against them or their family was getting out in a few months, or they had to start attending the parole hearing to try to keep the person in, is that they were being victimized again by the judicial system.

Would you agree that unless there are substantial penalties for people who commit these horrific crimes that this will have the effect of victimizing the victims again?

[Sheri Arsenault]

I've been revictimized for three years, not even counting the loss of my son—the court dates, everything.

Just when you think you can start forgetting about the man who killed your child, you get that letter from the Parole Board that they're up for parole. You're thinking, “What?” It's hard to make sense of it even in your head.

Victims only have one right; we have one right. Well, the real victims have no rights—they're dead. As victims' families, we have but one right, and that is to write and prepare a victim impact statement. Just doing that is revictimizing. Everything about it is revictimizing.

That is probably one of the things that I hear the most about from parents I attend court and sentencing and trials and all that with. It is the revictimization in court and then through the parole system.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I want you to know, and everyone agrees, that you have made a difference in this area. Thank you.

[Sheri Arsenault]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser and then Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks.

Mr. Treasure, maybe you can help me. I think you indicated in your testimony that insurance rates go up pretty significantly if people are convicted of impaired driving. I'd like to hear some examples. I'm assuming that in some way this information being made aware to the public will act, at least in a small measure, as perhaps a deterrent, or make somebody think before engaging in such activity.

I'd like you to give an example, because I've heard anecdotally about how that can impact people's ability to get insurance, or the cost. I'd like to have on the record how much we're talking about here.

[Scott Treasure]

I think that's a specific piece of information that's going to vary from province to province and if you're looking for a specific example, we will get that to you. We will have to provide that to your analyst after our testimony.

Ultimately, an impaired conviction has an immediate impact on the insurance rates of the individual. Depending on the province, you're looking at potentially a doubling of those rates, and then ultimately, you can have a really difficult time finding insurance rates at all, which ultimately would impact your employability and your ability to drive at all.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

With regard to the interlock device, with this bill, there would be no waiting time in order to install the interlock device for those who choose to do so or at least it's an option instead of the three-month waiting period.

Do you have any comment on that or how insurance rates could be impacted based on the fact that the interlock device is there in the vehicle?

[Scott Treasure]

Obviously, those types of devices that don't allow for drinking and driving or impaired driving are going to reduce risk, so that would definitely play into the premium rates available and the ability to get coverage, and that would definitely impact rates.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

If you could get us the rates, that would be very much appreciated. You could send that to the clerk.

Mr. Cooper, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Braid, in your testimony, you cited general statistics about the impact of mandatory breath testing in deterring impaired driving. You cited, in particular, the Australian experience and particularly cited statistics from Victoria. I'm a little skeptical about the Australian example inasmuch as it was one of the first jurisdictions where mandatory breath testing was imposed. It was one of the first measures that was taken to crack down on impaired driving and, yes, it did have an impact in reducing impaired driving.

Mr. Treasure referred to a 1984 Operation Red Nose and other checkstop campaigns that occurred in this country that also saw, following the establishment of those sorts of checkstops and breath testing, a real reduction in impaired driving. Yesterday, Mr. De Luca from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—and it's not often I agree with the position of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—made a very valid point, which was to say the question is not whether mandatory breath testing has an impact in reducing impaired driving, because statistics show that it does, but the question really is does it reduce or have a benefit compared to the existing system, which is selective breath testing.

When you look at Victoria, not only are you looking at the fact that it was introduced a long time ago, but also in Victoria, I understand they have booze buses and other measures wherein the police are out on the roads every single day, with seven or eight of these vehicles, and literally millions of people are stopped and go through these checks. That, again, is very different from anything that is likely to occur in Canada if Bill C-46 becomes law with mandatory breath testing.

I'd be interested in your comments.

[Peter Braid]

I understand your question. As the Insurance Brokers of Canada, we're part of an international network. We have peers in other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I took the opportunity to reach out to some of my colleagues from those other associations and I found the information and the background from my colleague in Australia was particularly compelling.

I appreciate concerns from the Civil Liberties' perspective. All I can say is that based on the reading and the research I've done where jurisdictions have implemented mandatory breath testing, it has had a positive impact on reducing rates of impaired driving and deaths resulting. As a result, I would suggest that there are public policy reasons to strongly consider random breath testing in Canada as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have time for one short question.

Mr. Sikand, do you have one last question?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hi, Sheri.

Yesterday you and Markita raised the banner—the same one I have on my wall in the office but it was longer—and both of you made a very poignant statement, that you can't change your situation but you're here because you want to help us. That really resonated, because we're here as well because we want to keep Canadians safe. We still know this is the leading cause of criminal death, but I really believe the measures in this bill will help capture more people and get them off the roads.

Do you agree that this is a good first step?

[Sheri Arsenault]

As I said already, when you wear my shoes and you've been through the court system and you've been through it all, you look at anything that would help and you're kind of thankful for that. Again, just for accountability, there needs to be some form of justice in this great country of ours. When it comes to this, there is no more horrific way to die than the way my son died. That's why as much as I don't want to see these tragedies occur in the first place, when they do—and they will—there has to be something on the side of deterrence to tell the general public to expect a harsh sentence or penalty if they engage in this behaviour.

I'm happy with anything and everything, but there's that one side that a lot of families are missing, the justice piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Ms. Arsenault, Mr. Treasure, and Mr. Braid, for your testimony today. It was very helpful and very compelling.

We thank you for your time and your service.

We're going to break briefly and ask the other panel to please come up so we can hear from our final panel of the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will reconvene this session of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with our third panel of the day on Bill C-46. We welcome today Mr. Douglas Beirness, who is the senior policy adviser, subject matter expert on impaired driving from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

Welcome, Mr. Beirness.

[Dr. Douglas Beirness, Senior Policy Advisor, Subject Matter Expert Impaired Driving, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction]

Thank you.