Evidence of meeting #68 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ms. May, I know that sometimes I may be overstepping, but you know I also want to make sure whatever we do is legally correct.
In your amendment, you're using the words “while operating or having the care or control”. I just want to bring to your attention that “having the care or control of a vehicle” is included in the definition of “operating”.
I'm sure your intention isn't to create any confusion or to delete any portion, so can you just look at that before...?
5:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In preparing these amendments, certainly we're aware of the change in definition, but we use this wording for greater clarity and to assure that when we're going forward we know exactly what the person who has consumed alcohol and drugs after driving is actually doing in terms of using and operating a motor vehicle or any other conveyance.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, so it's intentional. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Nicholson.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'm not speaking for the government, but it seems to me that what it was trying to do was to deal with the possibility that somebody who gets into an accident, for instance, will tell the police they've had a couple of drinks since the accident because they wanted to calm down. I had to ask one of the solicitors for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and she said she had done many, many impaired driving cases and had hardly heard of this. I didn't practise criminal law for that long, but I remember a couple of cases where that's exactly what happened: somebody is allegedly impaired, they get into an accident, they call the towing people around, and then when the police come to see them they're having a couple of shots because they say they want to try to relax after the terrible thing that happened to them. This definitely complicates the ability of the police to do this. Again, I believe what is proposed in this legislation, and I support that. Whether or not the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has ever seen a case like this, I know myself that I have seen a couple cases where people have made that claim, and it was good enough to get off the impaired driving charge.
5:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to getting drunk drivers off the road, and for being much stricter around drunk driving. But I was just going to say the burden of proof falling on the accused could, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association pointed out, affect people who are in marginalized segments of our society. Having to obtain their own toxicologist report to be able to respond adequately with a reverse onus of proof may leave them unable to provide a defence.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion, colleagues?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we will move to CPC-8, which is another one from Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Warawa, it's the same issue as previously, on the definition of the offence.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
It's changing the name of the offence from “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular homicide”. So moved.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
LIB-3 is basically a grammatical error. A conveyance cannot be in an accident with another person because a conveyance is not a person. The amendment is specifically removing “another” and just putting “a person”.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Under the current Criminal Code provisions, it's an offence to drive while prohibited from doing so. That is, if a driver is disqualified from driving under a provincial law because of a criminal conviction, or if a driver is disqualified because of a conditional or absolute discharge under section 730. As it's currently worded, Bill C-46 captures the first situation but not the second. This was inadvertently omitted from the bill. I'd just like to include it, to make sure both parts of it are captured.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We move to CPC-9, which is attempting to amend the same lines as NDP-2. If CPC-9 is adopted, NDP-2 cannot be moved.
Mr. Julian.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Basically, NDP-2 seeks to replace lines 13 and 14, and line 16 on page 18, where CPC-9 is changing lines 11 to 23 on page 18. A line can only be amended once. If CPC-9 is adopted—and I would note that CPC-9 is the same subject that has been rejected multiple times—NDP-2 then could not be moved in its current form, because it would be the same lines conflicting with what we would have amended. Does that clarify?
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. Thank you.
It may be no surprise to you that I will be voting against CPC-9.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think I can safely predict how everyone will vote at this point.
On CPC-9, Mr. Warawa.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
As has been pointed out, we'll be moving to amend 320.19. It's mandatory minimum sentences for repeat impaired drivers and failure to blow.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I am going to cite Mr. Boissonnault and Mr. Fraser, who both very eloquently spoke against mandatory minimums just a few minutes ago. What we are endeavouring to do with this amendment, NDP-2, is to take the mandatory minimums out of the legislation, for a number of reasons.
I'll recall to the committee that Ms. Sarah Leamon, when she was testifying here, said the following around this issue of mandatory minimum sentences:
We are seeing that the sentences are being increased substantially. Also something that really struck me when I was reviewing this bill were these new aggravating factors that are now meant to be considered. Some of them...lack definition and clarity. I am a bit apprehensive about how [they] are going to be employed by our courts. They are going to dissuade people from entering a...guilty plea when they might otherwise do so. That...[creates] delays. When an accused person feels they have nothing left to lose, then they are more likely to run that trial, and it does take an immeasurable amount of resources to do that.
I also want to cite two other quotes, Mr. Chair, first from the MADD Canada report that was produced in December 2015. It's an organization that does tremendously good work in the community, as we all know. They said the following:
The media, politicians...often argue for increasing sentences as a means of deterring both the offender...and others who might otherwise engage in the conduct.... However, research during the last 35 years establishes that increasing penalties for impaired driving does not in itself have a significant specific or general deterrent impact. Rather, the evidence indicates that the perceived and actual risk of apprehension (certainty of sanction) and to a lesser extent the swiftness with which the sanction is imposed (celerity of sanction) are the key factors in deterrence.
Finally, I'll quote the Prime Minister, something I do from time to time. The Prime Minister did say prior to the last election, in referring to mandatory minimums:
It's the kind of political ploy that makes everyone feel good, saying, “We're going to be tough on these people”, but by removing judicial discretion, and by emphasizing mandatory minimums, you're...not necessarily making our communities any safer.
Also, around the same period in 2015, in an interview with Tom Clark in The West Block, he said, “we have concerns” about the “overuse and, quite frankly, abuse of mandatory minimums.”
For all of those reasons, I'm offering NDP-2 on behalf of Alistair MacGregor.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Well, I take the point, and obviously we did have a discussion earlier about mandatory minimums. However, what this amendment does in effect is that it replaces the minimum with a maximum, which is problematic in my view. You're saying that for a first offence, it is a fine of not more than $1,000. That would be the mandatory minimum that we're talking about. We're taking the discretion away from the judge to say, well, in this case you actually should have a fine greater than $1,000, for all kinds of reasons or aggravating factors or other things that need to be taken into account.
I can't support this amendment. I think the minimums that are in place now are well known at law, and known by the public. They strike the right balance and have proven to be effective. While I don't agree with raising the mandatory minimums, I certainly don't agree with making those minimums now the maximums.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Julian, if the intention was to delete the mandatory minimums, which I understood from your statement, is there a reason you didn't provide an amendment that would simply delete those lines, as opposed to trying to replace them by saying “not more than”?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We believe that accomplishes the same end. That's why we were intending to cap it.
Though Mr. Fraser is technically correct, there are other provisions of this bill that provide for additional punishments, for lack of a better word. In that sense, what we would be doing is removing the mandatory minimums but still providing for very robust consequences.