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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We'll move to a vote on amendment CPC-2.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to amendment CPC-3.
Amendment CPC-3 is again in the name of Mr. Cooper, so I call on Mr. Warawa.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Which...?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Exactly, and it's to be consistent with the previous amendment here. Going back to what Mr. Fraser says, we have responsibility to put the limits on how much a judge.... These are the guidelines. Once or twice over the years I've been asked: “Why do you have only five years? The judge may want to give more than five years.” I say, well, it's our job to provide guidelines. These are reasonable guidelines as well, which is the case that my colleague, Mr. Warawa made. We are, then, in favour of this one.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I think the comments for the previous two motions pretty much apply to this one, from my perspective anyway. I think the existing penalties are sufficient; I'm not comfortable with increasing them. I am comfortable that our courts are able to make the distinctions and judgements appropriate to the conditions.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we move to amendment CPC-4.
As a note to colleagues, amendment CPC-4 is in conflict with CPC-5 and CPC-6. If amendment CPC-4 is adopted, CPC-5 and CPC-6 cannot be moved, as they amend the same sections of the act. If amendment CPC-4 is defeated, we will then move to amendment CPC-5.
Mr. Warawa.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
We have now moved on to impaired driving causing death of another person. The comments made were that the existing penalties at sentencing were adequate.
The committee heard from Markita Kaulius from Families for Justice. Markita's daughter Kassandra was killed while going to a baseball game. She was a very talented, bright young woman. Her vehicle was struck by an impaired driver who ran a stoplight at the intersection of 64th and 152nd Street in Surrey. I think Ron would know that area. My understanding is that the impaired driver had been charged with impaired driving just prior to this accident, so the deterrent of being caught was not a deterrent.
If the previous amendments had been adopted in the Criminal Code, that impaired driver would possibly not have been on the road. We all know that being charged and convicted of impaired driving would not be representative of the number of times the individual might have driven on the road impaired prior to that charge and conviction. The two are very different stats.
The importance of making sure that Canadians are satisfied or that Parliament appears to be representing the desires that there be justice.... Somebody who is driving impaired likely has been driving impaired many times previously and in this case has caused the death of another person. The usual sentencing is seen, particularly by the families—the victims who are left—as very inadequate.
I've never heard, ever, that there has been a maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death. What Families for Justice and other Canadians are asking for is that in this case, when somebody has been driving impaired.... The likelihood of impaired drivers being on our roads is going to be increasing; this is what we're hearing from experts. Whether that's true or not, the responsibility of the justice committee today is to provide clear guidance for Justice so that if an individual decides to drive impaired and causes the death of another human being, there is adequate maximum sentencing and also adequate minimum sentencing.
I would disagree with previous comments that existing penalties are adequate, and I believe that reasonable Canadians would disagree with that. On the first offence, therefore, it is a serious consequence.
If somebody receives a five-year sentence, it's not five years. There is a five-year sentence to be served, likely incarcerated in a federal institution. Anything over two years—two years plus a day—is federal, and the individual would likely, at one-third of sentence, be able to apply for release and likely would receive release, but for the full five years that person would be under some sort of observation. It is reasonable, I think, if somebody has caused the death of another individual, and particularly to the optics of justice, that Canadians would agree with the Criminal Code and we would deal with the tension that is in the Canadian public.
I think, then, that the amending motion is very appropriate.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, I have a legalistic thing that I have to get out there, which I should have said before Mr. Warawa started speaking.
Mr. Warawa's motion, in the name of Mr. Cooper, is perfectly receivable—don't get me wrong. The issue is that it also touches subsection 255(3.2), amending subsection 254(5). Basically, it deals with a refusal to comply, and CPC-13 deals with the orders that a police officer needs to give if somebody refuses to comply. CPC-4 cross-references sections of CPC-13. For example, under proposed subsection 255(3.21), it talks about somebody “who commits an offence under subsection 254(5) [and] who provides samples under subparagraph 320.271(c)(ii)”. This relates to CPC-13, so my belief is that the two are linked.
I would suggest that the correct means is to also look at CPC-13, and that our vote should encompass both CPC-4 and CPC-13, because CPC-13 can't be adopted in the absence of CPC-4—unless it's amended, which you can do. If CPC-4 is amended, referencing sections of CPC-13, and then CPC-13 isn't adopted, we have a reference to something that doesn't exist.
I should have given this ruling before. Again, I apologize.
Mr. Julian.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We are going to a vote in about half an hour, as I understand it. What is the normal committee practice on this?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We normally ask for unanimous consent to continue, and then about 12 or 14 minutes before the vote we walk over.
Can I have unanimous consent to continue, irrespective of the bells?
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Chair, your recommendation is that we deal with CPC-4 and CPC-13 together.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That would be my recommendation, because they are kind of interlinked. I think the parliamentary counsel agrees.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Perfect.
Mr. Warawa, do you want to also speak to CPC-13? I want to give you the chance to speak to CPC-13, because you didn't get that chance.
Or Mr. Nicholson....
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I don't mind.
It's certainly consistent and sets out the procedure under which this would apply. I concur with—and have great empathy with—the people who have come forward, including Ms. Arsenault, who was here. They made a very powerful case.
As my colleague pointed out, we are looking at five years, and they are eligible for parole in 20 months. These are people who have been out drinking and killing somebody. It's not like this is out of line.
Again, I think we can take up the responsibility to provide guidelines, and that's exactly what we are doing here. Mr. Cooper, who, unfortunately, was unable to be here, was very passionate about that, and working with these individuals. He has asked us to put this forward here, and we concur on that.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Again, the intent of the legislation is to reduce impaired driving, and I think the way to do that is to ensure that we have the tools in place for law enforcement to catch people who are impaired drivers.
I agree with Mr. Nicholson that in many cases it wouldn't be out of line for that type of sentence to be imposed. The question is whether to do it by actually adding a mandatory minimum. There is no mandatory minimum, I note, for manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death. We leave it to the court's discretion to impose a sentence that is fit and proper.
I therefore oppose this motion.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
I concur with Mr. Casey, and I understand Mr. Warawa's point entirely. As a non-legal member of the justice committee, and approaching this from a legislative perspective, I am also mindful of the effect that guidelines set across the land. We did hear from a number of witnesses that mandatory minimums don't have the effect that we would all like them to have on people's behaviour, and that the front-line idea of being caught is much more of a deterrent.
I ran on, and fundamentally believe in, the ability of judges to be judges, and to have judicial discretion. For that reason, I can't support CPC-4, CPC-13, CPC-5, or CPC-6.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. Thank you.
Right now, we are on CPC-4 and CPC-13, so we'll take note of your comments for future votes on CPC-5 and CPC-6.
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Warawa or Mr. Nicholson, did you want to close?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I'm quite sure that members of the committee are aware that impaired driving causing death is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. I think back to a story from when I first was elected in 2004. There was a young girl who was killed on a street in Langley. There were two girls, both on bicycles. They were hit from behind by an impaired driver who was returning home, a longshoreman. They were both thrown into the ditch, and one died. If that person had been convicted of impaired driving, and if that impaired driver had been dealt with appropriately with an amendment like this, there's another life that would have been saved. Markita Kaulius's daughter likely would have been saved, and so would that little girl.
As I say, it's the number one cause of criminal death. With our abilities in health care, our medical advances, we're able to save the lives of people who in the past, not that long ago, would have died. There are so many more who are injured seriously because of impaired driving.
This isn't a deterrent; it's a safety mechanism. The courts presently are bound by precedents. Providing guidelines to the courts in Canada would provide an increase to the precedents that have been set with current sentencing.
I'm hearing from my colleagues across the way that they believe the current sentencing is adequate. What I'm hearing from Canadians and have heard for the last 13 years is that sentencing is not adequate and that they want it increased.
Thank you.