Public Safety Committee on Feb. 6th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

We're going to turn now to Families For Justice. We'll do it alphabetically, so we'll begin with Ms. Arsenault.

You have 10 minutes between you. I tend not to give a warning about your time, so that will be up to you to work out.

[Sheri Arsenault, Director, Alberta, Families For Justice]

Thank you.

I want to thank everybody, and I realize there are time constraints. I hope that everybody was sent the link to a quick five-minute video, because that video was meant to depict truly what every family that has lost someone goes through. It's not meant to be just my own tragedy.

We all know safety is a non-partisan issue, and we know it's everybody's concern. I'm speaking to you today not as a legal expert, that's for certain. We're not a vast organization with a lot of resources. I'm just a regular Canadian citizen. Most important, I am a victim. On November 26, 2011, my son and his two friends were coming home when a drunk driver, who was about three times over the limit, went straight through my son Bradley's little car from behind. He drove literally right through his car at 200 kilometres an hour. I don't have to tell you how horrific this was. There was nothing left of my son. He had to be identified by his dental records. He was 18 years old. He had just graduated.

After that, the offender was charged. It took close to three years for it to conclude in court: 31 court appearances. We went through a preliminary trial. We went through a full trial. He was also charged with manslaughter. He killed three young men, and he was given five years for the manslaughter and three years for impaired driving causing death. It took three years for it to conclude, and this April I'm attending his hearing for full parole. He will have served, out of his eight years for killing three young men, approximately two and three-quarter years. Because he's a first-time offender, he will get out on full parole, most likely.

That's why I speak for the mandatory side of things. With the considerations for early parole, for day parole, and then full parole, the time served in jail is really not even close to the four-year mandatory minimum.

We all know that all kinds of people, all walks of life, are willing to get behind the wheel and drive drunk because the chances of getting caught are very low. There are not enough police resources to catch every drunk driver. People like to go out and celebrate. At my son's age, Friday night was a celebration, just because it was Friday. We know people like to go out and celebrate, but the chances of getting caught are so low, and when a terrible tragedy happens the sentences are very lenient.

It seems that our judges perceive a lot of it as a tragic accident, an unfortunate accident. That's how it's been told to me in many courtrooms I've been in for other families. They call it an unfortunate accident. Well, I don't call it that. This is now 2017, and I call getting behind the wheel while drunk “wilful”. To me, in this day and age, after 30 years of education, anyone who decides to make that choice is acting wilfully.

That was the one common theme I always found: the sentences are very lenient. With parole eligibility, there's not much time in there.

I'll just try to close quickly so my partner Markita can speak.

Someone over there said that victims are given so little consideration, and that is very true. Offenders have every right in the world. They have a right to an expert defence. They have a right to appeal. The victim has one right. My one right is to prepare a victim impact statement and present it. That is the only right I get.

The real victims—I'm family of a victim—have no rights. My son is in the ground.

In closing, impaired driving is of great public concern. We all know that. I know for a fact that Canadians all want stiffer penalties for this. I want our current government to take this opportunity. If it doesn't get done here, I know future governments will get this done, because it's necessary. We are losing four people a day and close to 200 are injured every single day in Canada.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Kaulius.

[Markita Kaulius, President, Families For Justice]

Thank you for inviting me to be here today.

My name is Markita Kaulius, and I am the president of the Families For Justice society. Families For Justice is a non-profit organization made up of parents, family members, loved ones, and supporters who have all had a child or loved one killed by an impaired driver in Canada.

My 22-year-old daughter Kassandra was killed on May 3, 2011. She was coming home from a softball game and had the right of way to make a left turn. Kassandra was struck in the driver's side door at 103 kilometres an hour by an impaired driver, and she was left to die as the impaired driver ran away from the collision scene. The driver was speeding through an intersection on a red light that had been red for 12 seconds. Kassandra lost her life because an impaired driver made the choice to drink and then drive while being impaired.

Impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Each year impaired driving leaves a terrible legacy of death, heartbreak, injury, and destruction. From the point of view of numbers alone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime. In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, lost work time, and rehabilitation, impaired driving is clearly the crime that causes the most significant loss in this country. Stats show it is costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath of impaired driving. When the health and social costs for death, injuries, and damages to vehicles are included, costs related to impaired driving from alcohol and other drugs were estimated to be over $20.6 billion in 2010 alone. Every dollar earned by the liquor industry costs the government three dollars in rehabilitation fees.

Many millions of Canadians continue to drink and drive because they can do so with very little fear of being stopped, let alone charged or convicted. Recent survey results indicate that one could drive once a week for more than three years before ever being charged with an impaired driving offence, and for over six years without ever being convicted.

Among those accused of impaired driving whose cases were handled by a criminal court in 2014-15, at least 16% had been charged in a previous impaired driving case within the past 10 years in the same jurisdiction, regardless of whether they were found guilty or not. Moreover, cases of impaired driving causing death or bodily harm are more likely, at 20%, to involve an accused who had prior contact with the courts for impaired driving offences. The same trend was observed in cases where the accused refused to provide a blood, breath, or urine sample, at 21%.

Over the past 30 years, we've had education. We've had awareness, and MADD continues to do impaired driving campaigns, but we still continue to see impaired driving as the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. On average we're losing the lives of 1,250 to 1,500 people per year in Canada, and over 60,000 people are injured annually.

This is a crime that's 100% preventable. The figures work out to the deaths of four to six people per day in Canada, and roughly 190 a day are injured. The types of sentences we've seen are criminal in themselves. We've seen sentences of one day in jail and 90 days to be served on weekends. We had a crime in Surrey where two girls were killed. One left six children orphaned. It was the gentleman's third impaired driving charge, and he got a sentence of a $1,500 fine and seven weekends in jail.

Those are no deterrents, and those are the types of sentences we see. These types of sentences let Canadians know that you can drink and drive while being impaired, and should you kill someone in Canada, you will only receive a minimal sentence for taking a life. We believe that, if a life is involved, there should be a minimum mandatory sentence of five years or more for causing a death. The crime is no longer considered an acceptable accident in our society. We agree that mandatory minimum sentences are not for all crimes, but they should be a strong signal for the public to know that, if you kill an innocent person, you will be held accountable for the crime that you have committed in killing that innocent person.

Some may argue that there was no intent because the impaired driver didn't plan to cause a collision on purpose. There are no “accidents” in impaired driving. Accidents happen due to weather conditions or mechanical failures. Impaired driving is a choice. It is a choice made by a reckless individual who makes the decision to put others at risk on the roadway and highway, and they leave a terrible trail of destruction and death.

The victims who died received a death sentence; the families left behind will serve a lifetime sentence. The individuals who caused these deaths are serving the least amount of time. A two-year sentence will get you about six months in jail, and then you're on parole. The victims who were killed received a death sentence. Neither judges nor lawmakers can make these families whole again; however, you, as members of Parliament, can and must work towards preventing the next tragedies.

Currently in Canada if someone is convicted of causing the death of another person by using a gun or a knife, they will be sentenced from seven to 10 years to life. Why is it that after killing someone in an impaired driving collision, our jail sentences are so much less?

Thousands of Canadians are dying each year due to impaired driving collisions. The shock, the loss, the grief, is just as strong as when a loved one has been killed by an impaired driver. These crimes are vehicular homicides; they are not accidents in any way.

As you can see on the screen, that is my daughter's car. She was hit at 103 kilometres an hour. Any vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver becomes a lethal weapon. A speeding vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver is like a 2,000- to 3,000-pound weapon, which they're steering aimlessly down a roadway. It does far more damage than a knife or a gun ever could.

Families For Justice has submitted a petition to the government with over 117,000 names asking for tougher sentences. We would like to see new impaired driving laws, including mandatory minimum sentencing for impaired driving causing a death. Currently, you can kill someone and you would get a $1,000 fine.

In speaking with other Canadians over the last five and a half years, I know they also want to see tougher prison sentences handed down, because they recognize that the current education campaigns are just not working. We're having too many deaths.

Families For Justice has received support from the RCMP in Alberta in K division, the RCMP in E Division, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, the Edmonton Police Service, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They all support us in our efforts to bring about changes to Canada's impaired driving laws. Those are the organizations and the very people who are faced with the reality of impaired driving and who deal with the aftermath.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to ask that you wrap it up. I hate to interrupt you, but I do know that the MPs will want to ask you some questions.

[Markita Kaulius]

All right. This is difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I know.

[Markita Kaulius]

Today I wholeheartedly request that each of you take the responsibility and look at what you can do to make communities safer. Every Canadian citizen deserves the right to their life and their liberty and the expectation that they can return home safely at the end of the day without the worry of being killed by an impaired driver.

Bill C-226 is an extremely important bill. As members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security you have the opportunity to make one of the most important decisions on the future laws of Canada.

We feel that Bill C-226 should be a non-partisan bill, and it should be passed in the interest of public safety for all Canadians. We owe it to the families who have lost loved ones to rededicate ourselves to the task of finding the most effective measures to finally put an end to impaired driving on our roads.

Canadians are counting on this government to not give in to the temptation to simply talk tough in the wake of past tragedies. They're counting on you to stop the next crash, the next injury, and the next death. That means having the debate our country needs, founded on the evidence and guided by the lessons of other jurisdictions and focused on effective deterrents. It is time we measured our progress not in years passed, but in future lives saved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Let me say that it's difficult for anyone to come to a parliamentary committee to testify. We're a kind of intimidating lot. We don't mean to be.

You were all superb witnesses, so thank you very much. These are deeply personal stories. Thank you for your time.

I'm going to ask the committee about the possibility that instead of having a round of four seven-minute questions, we have four six-minute rounds, and then we can end on time. Would people agree to that?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Then we can do one tour.

We'll begin with Mr. Picard.

My apologies. We'll actually begin with Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Picard.

First, I want to thank all of you for coming and sharing your stories. I want to extend my condolences.

As a mom, I can't imagine going through what all of you have been through, and then sitting here. Your advocacy is much appreciated. I want you to know that all of us want to come up with the best policies and legislation that will truly have an impact to reduce drunk driving. I think you said it. In this day and age, it is wilful.

I want to ask MADD. In your submission, you talked about the mandatory minimums, and how you didn't think they would have an impact on reducing impaired driving. Can you briefly speak to that?

[Andrew Murie]

When you look at it, this is a very challenging question for our organization, because every victim of impaired driving wants longer penalties for the offender that has killed their loved one. We support that. We have seen that sentences have been going up on a general basis. It's not uncommon now to see double digits in a penalty.

We also base our whole organization on evidence and policy. We can't find any deterrent effect for minimum mandatory penalties. That's one. The other issue is that in our legal analysis we don't believe it would withstand a charter challenge.

However, we continue to support a system where there are longer penalties. The greatest frustration in the system is that it's impossible to explain as an organization that the same circumstances result in a wide variation in penalty. Somehow that piece needs to be dealt with so that there's a reasonable respect. When there are multiple people killed, it's a repeat offender, those aggravating factors need to be taken into consideration and appropriate penalties given out.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'll pass it over to Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

First of all, you have my admiration for your fight and the cause you are defending. I can assure you that I looked at your video, not between two meetings, but in a quiet place at home. I took the time to look at all of this.

For sure, we all want to prevent death at any cost, but obviously, we missed some of them. Here we are with a bill that proposes minimum sentencing with an expectation of sending a message somewhere.

I would like to put for your consideration the fact that, for example, in one case we say minimal sentencing may be avoided if people would follow a proven treatment program. What is your take on that?

[Sheri Arsenault]

It's loss of life. We're looking at somebody basically using a car as their weapon. It's up to a 5,000-pound weapon. There's some point where punishment and rehabilitation.... Just rehabilitation alone, to me, does not send the strong message out to the public that this is not acceptable. We are burying our children.

They can get rehabilitation while in prison. To me there are two factors that are the problem here. One is that right now there is a mandatory minimum. It's a $1,000 fine. It does not at all seem to compare to other crimes that involve death and loss of life. For some reason, for this crime people just want to talk about rehabilitation, but it doesn't send that message out to the rest of us, the public, that this is taken seriously.

The second problem I find is that our judges seem to have a too wide view of discretion. They have a very complex job. I understand that. In one part of Canada, it might be a 10-month sentence. Elsewhere, for the same crime under almost the same circumstances or the same circumstances, it may be a three-year sentence.

Mr. Murie said he's seeing double digits. There have been three cases I know of that have hit double digits. There are four a day, so it's not that it's very popular to be in double digits. What is popular is the two- to three-year sentence. That's what I see. I see it all the time. I've seen three cases that hit 10 years, and that's in the last year.

[Markita Kaulius]

You work that out. That's three or four cases, and that's per four or five deaths. You break that down, and now with time off for good behaviour and early parole, they're actually serving about six months per death. That's it, six to nine months.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Clement.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you. I must echo my colleagues. As a dad, I just can't imagine what you've all gone through, but thank you for having the courage to be here and to be part of our public testimony. It's very important.

I think it was you, Markita, who talked about the education programs. This is not new stuff and we've been at it for decades now. I do take note of the fact that something isn't working with some people. We can talk about alcohol as a disease, and I get that, but something isn't working when people make this choice and the consequences.

Do you have any other thoughts on this and what we can do?

[Markita Kaulius]

When we were out collecting names on our petition, I made a point of asking the public, “What do you think of our justice system?” I'm embarrassed to say this and I apologize for saying it, but the number one answer that we got from everyone was “Our justice system in Canada is a joke.” I asked, “Well, why do you say that?” They said it was because we don't hold anybody accountable for anything. It's like a revolving door at the courthouse. When you go to a trial, it's not the accused who is on trial anymore; it is the investigation that is on trial, whether the police officer crossed the t's and dotted the i's, whether the machine was calibrated properly, or whatever.

Then we get the sentences that are so low that, I have families telling me how revictimized they are when they go through the justice system, the courts. They come out of the courts and ask, “How is this happening in Canada?” I don't have an answer. I say, “We're fighting, trying to change this.” We're talking about 1,200 to 1,500 people a year who are losing their loved ones to this crime that is 100% preventable. We have had the education and awareness, but everybody knows that if you cause a death, very little is going to happen to you. They're willing to take the chance.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I take your point.

Do I have a minute to ask Andrew a question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Having been a lawyer and being married to a lawyer, I'm going to tread on eggshells here, but the Canadian Bar Association has said, “In our experience, current legislative powers for police to deal with drinking and driving are adequate.”

Then they talk about RBT and they fret that it's going to lead to charter litigation, which would cost money, I suppose, and so forth. They do make the point that the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some degree of charter infringement using section 1 as their basis for that, but they say that the law must be, “narrowly circumscribed to achieve its goals”.

I just want to get your comments on that. You've obviously had to deal with these kinds of issues and lawyerdom's response, so I give you the floor.

[Andrew Murie]

As an organization, we knew that mandatory screening with RBT had been very effective in other jurisdictions. We wanted to make sure that it would respect our charter here. That's why we did our own legal analysis. Then we sent that to Peter Hogg for his own interpretation of it, and it was only at that point in time that we felt very comfortable.

Will it get challenged? Absolutely. Parliament is going to have to depend on section 1 for sections 9 and 10(b) of the charter. On section 8, with the searches at airports, and so on, nobody has ever challenged it. I think there's no real question about any charter infringement there, and the court's decisions in the past have been very strong on road safety, public safety, especially when it comes to impaired driving. We have no doubt that it will be challenged, and we have no doubt that it will be upheld.