Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Safety and National Security 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu  Senator, Quebec (La Salle), CPC
Patricia Hynes-Coates  National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Andrew Murie  Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Sheri Arsenault  Director, Alberta, Families For Justice
Markita Kaulius  President, Families For Justice

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)) Liberal Rob Oliphant

Welcome, everyone.

We're beginning again our consideration of Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding offences in relation to conveyances, and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This is the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Before we begin with our first witness, I want to recognize a new member of our committee and make sure folks know René Arseneault, who is now a permanent member of the committee.

Welcome, Mr. Arseneault.

Senator, welcome to our table. I'm glad that you're joining us today.

3:30 p.m.

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu Senator, Quebec (La Salle), CPC

Thank you very much.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We're going to begin.

The first hour is over to the author of the bill. This is Mr. Blaney's time. He has about 10 minutes. I'm fairly liberal—small “l”—with respect to the mover of a bill who's worked hard on it.

You have about 10 minutes, and then we'll turn to the members for questions.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I assure you, I will be very conservative with the use of my time.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Steven Blaney. I'm here today as an MP.

I would also like to greet you, Mr. Chair, as well as the hon. members of the committee.

I am very proud to be with you today. I would first like to congratulate you on the work you're doing on Bill C-226, which deals with impaired driving. Right off the bat, I would say that the approach is non-partisan.

Today, we have the opportunity to advance legislation that will save lives. I think it's really politics at its best, and I'm very proud to be part of it.

I would also like to mention that Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu is here. He will sponsor the bill in the Senate.

If it is the pleasure of the committee, the bill will be referred to the Senate for further study until it is passed and becomes law.

The sooner we pass this bill, the sooner we can say, as parliamentarians of this legislature, that we have helped to save people's lives.

This bill is all about saving Canadian lives in a non-partisan way. You may find part of it was inspired by a former Conservative bill, with additions from the people of MADD, who are with us today. I salute their president.

The thing is that, when working on these files, you always meet with people who've unfortunately experienced the loss of a loved one because of impaired driving. It's the same thing for Families For Justice. I thank Markita and Sheri for being here today. We will have the chance to hear the witnesses in the second part.

You are all familiar with the bill. It's fairly simple. It has three legs. The first one deals with streamlining the judicial process, mainly in two areas: the bogus defence and the last drink. Over time, some loopholes have been used to prevent the law and the sentences from being imposed. It's time to fix those loopholes. That's the first part of the bill.

The second part of the bill is with regard to impaired driving. It suggests implementing mandatory minimum sentences. I know there are discussions on this, but I'll come back to it later on.

The third part is with regard to mandatory screening. This is an addition from the former Conservative bill, which came from a long discussion I had with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and after reviewing legal advice, namely from Dr. Hogg, with whom you are probably very familiar. He stated, clearly, that a public road is a place where the law should fully apply and that it is a privilege to drive a car. When I drive a car, I must have a driver's licence and respect the rules of the road, but I also need to be sober. Not meeting one of those requirements is not complying with the law, and at any time I am in a public place, especially on the road, a police officer should have the power to make sure I comply with the law. I'm not in my living room. I am on the road.

Dr. Hogg clearly demonstrated that this is fully compliant with the Charter of Rights, and that it is also very reasonable in a society like ours. Actually, it is done in many countries around the world. As you know, it has proven to be effective in saving lives.

We are losing three to four lives every day. I come from Quebec City. Last week we lost six members of our community as a result of a heinous crime. There are no words to say how horrible that was. However, this is almost happening on a daily basis in our country, and we can stop this. We can stop this by implementing rules that have been proven to save lives. That's what is in front of you.

Mr. Chair, I will continue in French and come back to one particular issue, minimum sentences.

During the last legislature, Bill C-590 and Bill C-652 were introduced by Randy Hoback and Mark Warawa, respectively, two Conservative colleagues I hold in great esteem.

First, I have a recommendation for an amendment to the bill. I would like to include in Bill C-226 the provision for vehicular homicide, which was set out in Bill C-652. We want to prevent reoffenders from hitting people on the road. I am making this suggestion because we have to do everything in our power through the legislation and the Criminal Code to really reduce the leading cause of death on the roads.

My colleague Randy Hoback, who introduced Bill C-590, told me that if a person is caught with double the allowable limit of blood alcohol, a more severe penalty should be imposed.

My remarks are for my Liberal colleagues, and I know they aren't always comfortable with minimum sentences. In April 2015, the hon. member for Papineau supported the private member's bill of my colleague Randy Hoback. I am truly taking a non-partisan approach. You will have realized, of course, that I am talking about Prime Minister Trudeau. At the time, he said:

As a result of this change [vehicular homicide], a conviction would carry additional weight, and hopefully provide a greater deterrent to would-be impaired drivers.

Dear colleagues, my question to you is, can we afford all these rhetorical discussions if we can save one life by making sure that someone spends at least one more year in jail instead of being on the road and risking the lives of others? That's what I pose to you.

I believe as parliamentarians we should send a strong signal to people causing death while impaired, while being under the influence of alcohol. We've seen in the past that the sentence for causing death has increased, but we have to encourage judges and tribunals to impose a fairly reasonable minimum sentence. I feel that four years is really low, but this is sending the signal that this is the bar. We need to push even further for maximum sentences.

Mr. Trudeau further wrote to Families For Justice regarding Bill C-590, a second private member's bill that was tabled by Randy Hoback. He said:

The bill will increase penalties against anyone who drives while severely intoxicated, and will also increase the penalties for impaired driving causing death.

Yes, we can support the bill in a non-partisan way. This is a bill that is crafted to meet one target, saving Canadian lives.

I'd like to give you an example.

A man wiped out an entire family in Saguenay in August 2015. Some people here have had similar experiences and have transformed their grief into motivation.

Mr. Di Iorio, I admire you. I also admire your daughter's courage and her taxi project. These are very good initiatives. So it is possible to transform this grief into action to prevent other lives from being wiped out. That's precisely the purpose of the bill before us today.

As you can see, I sent a lot of documentation.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You have one minute left.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

To conclude, I invite the committee to focus on the victims. We're talking about human lives that would be saved and the need to send a clear and irreversible signal that driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs is a serious crime. We have an opportunity to impose minimum sentences, particularly in the case of repeat offenders who cause fatalities. It is possible to remove the mechanisms that clog our judicial system and prevent the exercise of justice. As we know, justice that is delayed is justice that is denied.

Lastly, we can take a tremendous measure in terms of prevention with routine screening. Lives have been saved in every country where it has been applied. With that, I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

We will now start the question period.

Mr. Picard, you have seven minutes.

February 6th, 2017 / 3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blaney, it's a pleasure to have you with us again today.

First, I would like to congratulate you and the others here today on your efforts toward preventive measures to save lives. I don't think there's any justification for doing otherwise. Your bill is expanded and developed. Having said that, I would like some clarification for myself and the committee.

For example, clause 320.14(1)(b) indicates that your bill proposes to eliminate the last drink defence. The 2012 Supreme Court decision in St-Onge Lamoureux can be mentioned here.

Could you please explain the last drink defence and how your bill is akin to the Supreme Court's comments in this respect?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Thank you for your question.

I would like to mention that we all, meaning parliamentarians, politicians and the government, are going to benefit from legislation that would help to save lives.

Part of my bill is intended to eliminate the last drink defence, which means that when drivers claim that they have a blood alcohol level of more than 80 mg per 100 ml of blood at the time of the test because they consumed a certain amount of alcohol immediately before taking the wheel. In other words, those drivers didn't have anything to drink all night, but just before leaving, they quickly drank one glass, got behind the wheel and had an accident. At the time of the accident, those drivers may not have been drunk, but when the police arrested them, they were. However, several of their friends stated that they hadn't had anything to drink all night except for right before leaving.

It has been shown that this defence is a way of circumventing the law and shirking responsibility. The claim is that the alcohol was not yet in the system at the time of the accident. Bill C-226 therefore also seeks to limit the post-driving defence. That's the other mechanism being proposed.

So I encourage you, if you haven't already done so, to invite representatives from the Department of Justice to appear. They will be able to give you further details about this.

This bill has been prepared by Department of Justice officials. So I am confident that the measures being recommended are fully in line with the constitutional requirements. The objective is to reduce the number of judicial proceedings so that a decision can be made and the victims and taxpayers are not penalized. We need to remember that when a case is brought before the courts, all taxpayers are forced to pay the costs.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

I'd like to go back to the Supreme Court issue.

Thank you for the explanation and summary of the two different types of defence, the last glass and the large quantity that can be taken. The Supreme Court still had very specific positions on this kind of defence.

How does your bill fit with these positions of the Supreme Court?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

The bill was drafted so that it responds to the Supreme Court's concerns.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Have any of your clauses in particular been drafted to harmonize with the Supreme Court's comments?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

As I said, sometimes there is an abuse of process. The bill was designed to ensure that we avoid abusing judicial processes, while still fully respecting the rights and freedoms of everyone.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Let's change the subject. Let's talk about taking samples and refusing to comply. Can you comment on that? What is your understanding of what the criminal intent is?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Can you clarify your question, please?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

There is a debate among jurists concerning the criminal intent required for the commission of an offence to refuse to comply with an order to take a breathalyzer.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

These are basically the same provisions as the ones in the actual act. There is only one difference in the bill.

Imagine that a person is driving his vehicle and a police officer wants him to be screened. Screening tests can't be used in court. Currently, the police officer must be able to show that the person seems to be intoxicated in order to screen him. As we know, repeat offenders, reckless drivers and people with addiction problems are able to hide the signs.

As for what you brought up, this bill maintains the same presumptions at the police level. On the other hand, it allows police officers to be able to ask a person to show that the alcohol level is lower than the allowable limit, whether the person shows signs of being intoxicated. It will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of road blocks in a phenomenal way and will allow us to intercept people who, although they hide their intoxication, are a danger to public safety.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

I have to choose between two questions because I have only about a minute left.

I would like to better understand the mechanics of the driving prohibition order. For example, convicted individuals must serve a prison sentence and are prohibited from driving for three years. They don't always serve their full prison sentence.

Does the prohibition begin before or after they are in prison? Does it start at the beginning of their incarceration? I'd like to clarify how the driving prohibition order works.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

I'm quite flexible on these issues. These are provisions. As I said earlier, the bill is fairly complex, and we must give ourselves some time to study it.

I invite you, as parliamentarians, to provide the time needed to properly align this bill with provincial legislation to enable the provinces to properly implement the terms and conditions in this regard.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Chair, since I have only 25 seconds left, I'll give it to my colleague opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Picard.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Now we'll have Mr. Miller and Mr. Clement.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blaney, it's good to have you here. I'm sure nobody's going to be too hard on you here today.

I want to first give you credit for dealing with an issue that is ongoing in Canada, and certainly Canada isn't the only country. A lot of innocent lives have been taken because of some people's bad choices.

I want to point out your bill. There's a part of it that I will get to that I have a problem with, but I don't have an issue with minimum sentences. If you commit some crime—and this is a crime when it happens—you should expect to have a minimum sentence. In general, I fully support harsher sentences for people who commit this, as well.

A number of civil rights groups have reached out to me, and probably to other members around the table, about the bill's component for random breath tests. They've all implied that this would be an infringement of the constitutional rights. You have a lot of good stuff in the bill. My question is this. If it came down to whether your bill became law or not, would you consider amending it by taking that portion out of the bill?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Miller—I will not say Larry today—thank you very much. You have raised a very important and critical point. My answer to you is that this bill is built, I would say, like a chair. Taking out one leg of the chair impacts the whole efficiency of the bill. This bill has a strong deterrence part—the mandatory minimum sentences—that has many benefits. I would say that if a person represents a threat to society, the longer this person is behind bars, the longer this person can get rehabilitation or help for, I would say, overcoming what I would call, probably, an addiction.

That's the first part.

The second part is, as I've mentioned, the streamlining of the process. We may have the best laws in town or in the world, but if our judicial system is jammed by bogus defence, there's a denial of justice.

A third aspect is this. How can we make sure that, from the start, we prevent those people—and I could include myself—from driving while being impaired? Well, all the questions lead to one answer. The only way we can prevent someone from getting the key of his car and turning it on is through the fear of being caught by the police.

We are human beings. It has been shown that the most effective prevention to keep someone who is intoxicated from driving is the fear of being stopped by the police.

That's the core and everybody agrees. That's why this bill got such overwhelming support from police officers, from families, from justice, from MADD. It is clearly demonstrated. They will be probably able to explain in a way better manner than I can that if you feel you could get caught by the police when driving while being impaired, you won't do it.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Thank you. I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Clement.