Evidence of meeting #63 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was alcohol.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
From the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, we have Mr. Scott Treasure, their president-elect. Welcome, Mr. Treasure.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Peter Braid is their chief executive officer. Welcome, Mr. Braid.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We will be starting the panel with Ms. Arsenault.
Ms. Arsenault, please go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
I'd like to begin with a video. They always say a picture is worth a thousand words.
[Video presentation]
I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak to you on what to me is one of the most important decisions a government can make. I speak to you today not as a legal expert or an organization with vast resources, but as an ordinary citizen, a real victim, and a mother.
Thank you very much for watching that video. That video means a lot to me. It goes with my presentation. It's not only my heartbreaking story, but it's also the story meant to represent what four families go through every single day here in Canada.
On November 26, 2011, my young son Brad and his two good friends were violently killed by a drunk driver. Their fender mowed through my son's car from behind at well over 200 kilometres an hour in a 70 kilometres per hour zone. He drove through Bradley's little car. There was nothing left of my son. He had to be identified by his dental records.
The impaired driver was charged with three counts of impaired driving causing death, three counts of driving over .08, and three counts of manslaughter, for a total of nine charges. He was found guilty, convicted on all nine charges, and sentenced in August 2014 to an eight-year prison term.
Attaching manslaughter to this crime is extremely rare. My son's case was only the 13th time in Canada. The offender was eligible for parole on October 28, 2016. He became eligible for full parole in April 2017, which is only a fraction of his eight-year sentence.
The Canadian public has seen that sentences are already extremely low for impaired driving crimes causing death, and I strongly believe that we are deceiving Canadians with such a reduction of sentences. An eight-year sentence equates to 2.2. That's a mere fraction, considering the severity of the crime that resulted in the horrific death of three innocent young men. Most Canadians don't know that. They believe what they read in the newspapers or see on TV. Eight years, he went to jail for eight years. That's not how it's supposed to work.
It's very difficult for me to write or speak about my son Bradley. Every parent's worst nightmare is that knock on the door by that stranger in the uniform with his hat off.
I assume that you read my “new normal” in my written presentation. I am the mother of a murdered child and there is nothing normal about my life now. It's bad enough to lose your child through absolutely no fault of their own, but to lose your young son so horrifically is something beyond words.
The pain for my loss was in itself very difficult, and it took almost three years and 31 court-related appearances to get from the date of this tragedy to the date of sentencing. I knew that I could never bring my young son back, but I thought I could possibly do something positive that would prevent other mothers from going through a similar tragedy.
I hope everybody is able to read my written brief. My written brief is very thorough in explaining my strong arguments regarding mandatory minimums and deterrence. My focus is on impaired drivers who cause death.
As I see it, our existing situation is four to five deaths a day. We all know those stats. We all know almost 200 injured every day. I try to think why. I think those who know they shouldn't be driving imagine they will get home. The fact is, they most often do get home, and this only reinforces that behaviour.
The chances of getting caught are very low, and if they do get caught, the punishment is very lenient. That's why people who drive impaired think the risk is worth taking.
The probability of being charged if you are a driver who caused death is only 22%, and out of the 22% of people who get charged with impaired driving causing death, only 11% are convicted. I fell into that 11%. I'm considered lucky. I don't feel that lucky. I'll be honest with you. But 78% who cause death are never even charged. They walk free because of loopholes. The case is thrown out of court in the first five minutes. Sentences, on average, are between two and three years.
It seems our justice system perceives these tragedies as just that, an unfortunate tragedy or an accident. When you compare that with other crimes that cause death, it just doesn't make any sense to me. You would be hard pressed to find a Canadian who thinks that our sentences for drunk drivers who cause death are anywhere close to where they should be.
To me, it's very simple. The time does not fit the crime. Somewhere, somehow, accountability should play a part for such a serious crime, loss of life, and not only for the victims but for the general public.
I'll turn to Bill C-46 and what I see as deficient in this bill. What I find and what is most noteworthy to me is Bill C-46 contains most of the contents of former Bill C-73 and former Bill C-226 by filling in some of the loopholes, but it has completely removed the stiffer penalties for impaired drivers who cause death. It also reduces the punishments considerably for the first, second, third, and subsequent offences from what was proposed in these former bills. A $1,000 fine is considered a credit card fine in this day and age, and that's where this bill remains.
In Alberta, if you take one more fish than you're allowed or if you go fishing without a licence, the mandatory minimum is a $1,000 fine. It's the same for impaired drivers.
Essentially, this is the same legislation as our existing legislation from 2008, Bill C-13 regarding impaired drivers who cause death. Shouldn't the first instance be harsh enough so there is no second and third and fourth and until possibly a death occurs?
Bill C-46 does add a small increase depending on your blood alcohol, a raise of $500, and they did add in mandatory breath testing. On random breath testing, I recognize that there is a 20% reduction in deaths quoted by MADD and Dr. Solomon regarding other countries, but this is over a very long period of time, 10 to 20 years. I would suggest that there is more to it than just the component of random breath testing. To me, there are many sides to this coin and over all those years there have to be many other variables included that have factored in.
I would like to know what the sentences are for drunk drivers who cause death in these countries. I believe other variables over such a long period of time such as cultural change really factor in too. With the legalization of marijuana, is this government prepared to give our police forces the resources they need? How will it affect the civil liberties? How will it affect our already overflowing courtrooms? These are the questions that I wonder about.
I will tell you random breath testing would not have helped in many cases that I know. It would play no part to me in hard-core drinkers. The offender who killed my son and his two friends admitted in his parole hearing he drove drunk over 300 times in a five-year period. He drove once or twice a week. When he killed my son and his two friends, he was considered a first-time offender. First time caught is what I call that, and most hard-core ones are like him.
We can't expect random breath testing to be the only answer. We can't assume our police will catch everyone. In 2012, only 5% of impaired drivers who were caught tested at .08, but 64% of those tested at double or more, and those are the ones who kill. There is no certainty or severity in this bill to recognize loss of life or to deter others.
Overall, Bill C-46 is considered to be very deficient in changing the behaviours of hard-core, habitual impaired drivers. It would not significantly reduce deaths, at least not until there's a cultural change, and that could take decades. This bill does not recognize causing one or multiple deaths as a serious crime.
Because I know my time is almost up, I'll speak briefly on mandatory minimum sentences.
Five-year mandatory minimum sentences would greatly strengthen the deterrence goals in sentencing. It would provide a level playing field for judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers, while still leaving a wide area of discretion between minimum and maximum for consideration, such as mitigating and aggravating factors, rehab, etc. A five-year mandatory minimum sentence would not be considered too severe or cruel, considering parole and statutory release dates. Sentences for impaired driving causing death would be commensurate with other serious offences, so it would not be viewed as an accident or an unfortunate tragedy.
On deterrence, the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for impaired drivers causing death is needed, because I believe it would provide a strong general deterrent example to the public that saving the lives of our loved ones is significant, and both the certainty and the severity of the punishment are effective in deterring crime. Deterrence is critical.
Finally, we all know that impaired driving is the number one cause of criminal deaths in Canada: four a day. A car is a deadly weapon. Safety is a non-partisan issue and protecting Canadians should be our government's priority.
On June 16, 2015, the day that Bill C-73 was introduced, the former justice minister, the Honourable Peter MacKay, sat me down in a private office here in Ottawa, looked me in the eye, assured me he did not anticipate much opposition to this legislation, no matter who formed government in the fall, and said, “It's a good bill, Sheri.”
I was very optimistic when the new government was formed in 2015. I wrote to all 184 Liberal MPs in January 2016 by email and I hand-delivered a letter. I even blogged my optimism on my website. I have this letter and my blog to hand out. I received six replies. Truthfully, that alone was heartbreaking.
To me, it's inconceivable that impaired driving causing death is not taken more seriously when it comes to punishment. I ask that you review Bill C-46 with an open mind and with a particular reflection on the impacts: the deaths, the injuries, the victim impacts, the costs on our society, and the respecting of Canadians' clear demands for harsher penalties. I strongly recommend that the committee support an amendment for the reinstatement of the mandatory minimum sentence for impaired drivers who cause death, as was provided in Bill C-73 and Bill C-226. We are all just sitting ducks, every one of us here, including our children and our friends. We are candidates for the next horrific death at the hands of an impaired driver. This is 2017, and it's a choice. In fact, it's wilful.
Sadly, I feel like a nobody. Every day I wake up with the realization my son is gone and it seems that victims don't matter. We have no accountability, no justice, and no deterrence.
I'll close with the hope that special attention be paid to the words of the late Arnold Chan, MP for Scarborough—Agincourt, who stated that all MPs should forget their ideologies and work together to get things done for Canadians.
Thank you very much.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, and of course our deepest condolences on the loss of your son and all that you and your family have gone through. I know that it's on all our hearts.
We will go to Mr. Treasure and Mr. Braid.
4:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Brokers Association of Canada
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, honourable members. I'm very pleased to be here today on behalf of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, or IBAC, to contribute to our public discussion on Bill C-46. As a former member of the House of Commons, I must say it's a pleasure to be here although somewhat strange being on this side of the table. Let me also take the opportunity to thank each of you for your public service.
IBAC is the national voice of property and casualty insurance brokers and a strong advocate for insurance consumers. Through our 11 member associations, we represent over 36,000 brokers who are small-business owners and community builders in virtually every city and town across the country. IBAC also has the important role of advocating on public policy issues that affect insurance brokers and consumers, and it is through this lens that we appear before you today.
I would like to state at the outset that IBAC strongly supports the objectives of this bill: reducing impaired driving and improving road safety. Every day insurance brokers deal with the aftermath of traffic accidents caused by impaired driving and they can attest to the physical, emotional, and financial devastation that result from such incidents. Ms. Arsenault has just shared her own very personal and powerful story.
We are optimistic that the measures contained in Bill C-46 will make a difference in road safety. Bill C-46, as you know, proposes mandatory alcohol screening, which has proven to be very effective in several jurisdictions, for example, Australia, which brought in random breath testing over 30 years ago. The results speak for themselves. In the state of Victoria alone, the proportion of impaired driver fatalities has dropped dramatically from 49% in 1977 to 15% in 2014.
We are also in favour of measures to close loopholes, which allow some impaired drivers to avoid penalties, and in favour of the enforcement of stiffer penalties to act as deterrents. The legalization of marijuana of course raises a number of concerns with respect to drug-impaired driving. Many in society expect that marijuana use may become more prevalent and socially acceptable, so there could potentially be a corresponding increase in drug-impaired driving.
There are still many questions surrounding the impact of drug-impaired driving on the insurance industry. Specifically we look forward to seeing further research and testing of reliable detection tools to support the enforcement of this legislation. As the policy picture becomes clearer, the insurance industry will make the necessary adjustments.
Again, we support the initiatives that will reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by impaired drivers and believe that the following considerations will be of utmost importance: one, increased penalties and the removal of defence loopholes; two, further research into roadside tests for drug impairments; and, three, public awareness campaigns. We are confident that with stronger laws and regulations in place, real progress can be made.
Thank you for your time and your attention. It is now my pleasure to pass the presentation to Mr. Scott Treasure, the president-elect of IBAC.
4:55 p.m.
President-Elect, Insurance Brokers Association of Canada
Thank you, Peter.
Before I start, I want to thank Sheri for sharing her difficult and moving story in relation to the topics we're discussing tonight. It puts my own trepidation about coming before you guys into the proper light, considering the challenges that she goes through every day.
I'm here today representing IBAC as president-elect. I've been an insurance broker and active in my professional association in Alberta for many years. Our members see first-hand what our clients go through as a result of impaired driving. That's why emphasizing road safety and driver responsibility is an important part of the work we do.
Brokers in Alberta and across the country participate in a number of initiatives against impaired driving of any kind. For example, many brokers support and volunteer with Operation Red Nose during the holiday season, ensuring that drivers have access to a safe and sober ride home. Since its creation in 1984, Operation Red Nose has become the most important road safety campaign against impaired driving in Canada.
In Ontario, brokers sponsor the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police drive safe campaign, aimed at increasing public awareness on impaired and distracted driving. In addition to the devastating injuries, loss of life, and serious criminal penalties, there are also significant financial and insurance-related consequences, which provide additional deterrents.
While auto insurance coverage varies from province to province, if you are illegally operating a vehicle, as is the case with impaired driving, all policies limit the liability to the statutory minimums and accident benefits. All other coverages are denied. You will also be subject to drastically higher insurance premiums, and in the case of repeat offences, you may find it hard to even get insurance coverage at all.
When coverage is denied, it is important to have supporting evidence. Alcohol-impaired driving is relatively easy to quantify through a Breathalyzer test. Drug impairment is more subjective. It is not clear that there is an accurate and reliable test currently available, and until the science evolves and precedents are set, there could be a period of uncertainty in the insurance world.
I only call a couple of examples into play here. Obviously, you're aware of other jurisdictions that have legalized and have gone slightly different ways when it comes to the blood concentration level of THC. Within those, I believe the fear is that there could be significant court challenges with that blood concentration level. Oregon, I believe, is not using the blood concentration level at all. I think Colorado is looking to more roadside safety.
The other pieces are statistical uncertainties and stressing the importance of accurate data collection in those jurisdictions where it has been legalized. On the idea of of marijuana-related deaths or marijuana-related accidents, in my industry the more important piece would be who's at fault in those accidents. That's an important piece that we need to keep in mind.
In the meantime, education is critically important, and I encourage the government to put as many resources into this as possible. I know that brokers will continue to actively contribute to increasing public awareness of the dangers of both alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired driving. Like everyone else, we want to get impaired drivers off the road and, better yet, prevent them from driving in the first place. We believe the proposals contained in Bill C-46 will contribute to that outcome.
Ultimately, whatever the legislation is, our industry and the thousands of brokers across Canada are equipped to help Canadians with these changes.
Thank you for your time. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you to the witnesses. Most especially, thank you to Ms. Arsenault for her powerful testimony.
We've had an opportunity to meet a number of times. It is difficult to imagine a more horrific set of circumstances than those that resulted in the death of your son and two others in 2011. Three young men who had bright futures ahead of them were taken away in an instant by an impaired driver. I know, coming from Edmonton, that incident really has had a lasting impact on our entire community and northern Alberta. I want to commend you for your advocacy. It takes a lot of courage in the face of such a tragedy to be able to come here and speak publicly about this important issue that obviously has forever changed your life and the life of your family. Thank you for that.
I want to express my concurrence with your recommendation that this legislation be amended to include a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for impaired driving causing death. That is actually one year less than the six years provided for in Bill C-73.
I was going through the Criminal Code and I noticed that there are at least 50 mandatory minimums currently operative in the Criminal Code. They include, among other things, a five-year mandatory minimum for discharging a firearm recklessly, which is very serious, but at the end of the day, no one is dead necessarily in that incident. Here we have impaired driving causing death, which would obviously seem to be more serious. I note in your written report that you quote the Minister of Justice in answer to a question in question period wherein she says that her government is not opposed to mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious of crimes.
Would you not say the fact that there is a noticeable absence of a mandatory minimum is inconsistent with that statement? The government in a lot of ways copied and pasted what was in Bill C-73 but then removed one of the most important provisions to hold those responsible accountable.
5 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
Absolutely. That's one of the main things that I and many others who are in my shoes cannot figure out: why the loss of life by an impaired driver by vehicle is not considered serious. It is not commensurate with other crimes where there is loss of life. It's perceived as an accident and that it won't happen again. Well, there are four a day and close to 200 instances every day where people are rushed to the hospital. It should equal other serious crimes where there is loss of life.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
In response, one might say the maximum sentence is life. However, in the death of your son and two others, based upon the conviction on impaired driving causing death, it was what, a three-year concurrent sentence?
5 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
It was a three-year concurrent sentence.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
It's a big difference. The maximum is life for impaired driving causing death. I know of only one instance of it, and four or five other instances over many years. I could pass this information out. We're talking about people on their 19th time, and then they finally kill someone. It's hard to understand why it happens over and over again. They never get even close to giving a life sentence in this case.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
In essence, when we're talking about the most serious offences involving impaired driving, this bill actually doesn't strengthen the Criminal Code; it maintains the status quo, and in same cases, actually rolls back.
5 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
Yes, to me in this bill it stays exactly the same as legislation from 2008 regarding penalties and fines, except for that increase of $500. If you are double over, a $1,000 to $1,500 fine, to me, in this day and age is a credit card fine. It's what people call a joke. They can borrow that money from their friends to pay that.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Yesterday we heard the powerful testimony from Markita Kaulias. She, like you, is a mother who lost a child to an impaired driver, and like you, she came before our committee to implore this committee to amend Bill C-46 to include at least a minimum mandatory of five years for impaired causing death. Another recommendation that she brought forward was to change the term for that offence from “impaired causing death” to “vehicular homicide”.
I see my friend Mr. Sikand is here, and Mr. Sikand introduced a private member's bill that's a little more complicated than that, but it included amending the Criminal Code to change the definition to “vehicular homicide”. Is that something that you would like to see in the amendments to this bill?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
I would like to see it called what it is. That's what it is: vehicular homicide, or manslaughter. It's a tragedy, but it's not an accident. For people who drive drunk, and when they're caught, whether they've killed someone or they just get caught at a roadside stop, it is not the first offence. Most people are habitual; they drink and drive, and when something bad happens, it should be called what it is. I would completely agree with that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you all for being here today and sharing your thoughts with us. It's much appreciated.
Ms. Arsenault, I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Cooper, in particular in extending my most profound sympathies to you and your family for all you've been through, and to express the thanks of all Canadians for the advocacy that you do in bringing attention to this important matter, and the courage it took to turn a tragedy into something that you are going to try to get some results on. I think it's important that you continue to do the work you're doing. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it as a member of this committee.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
You raised a really important point regarding mandatory minimums and you talked about other countries. I'm wondering if there has been a comparative study in other countries on mandatory minimums and the impact they would have on impaired driving convictions causing death. Do you know if that exists right now or if that kind of research has been done?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
No. I did fire off an email to the CEO of MADD once, and he didn't reply. I wanted to know, because I believe that the random breath testing, when it's been in place for 20 or 30 years, other factors go along with that, and cultural change. I want to know; I'm curious too, but I have limited resources. I have the Internet. I keep looking. I'm very curious to know if there's stiffer sentencing in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, that work hand-in-hand with mandatory screening or random breath testing.