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

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You have a minute and a half. You might want to sell a vowel to Ms. Watts.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I have a couple of other questions, but I think they've been pretty well answered by the committee.

We've talked a lot about RBT and your position on sentencing, and so on. Is there anything else about the bill that you want to comment on?

5:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Andrew Murie

There's one thing I'd like to say, and it deals with your question on education. One of the most effective pieces of education has been around RBT. It kind of works with the three things working together. You go out and tell the public that the police now have this authorization. You publicly educate people. You have the police very visible. They do a lot of sobriety checkpoints and things like that. Then the numbers drop: the fatalities drop, the serious injuries drop, and the number of people charged with impaired driving drops rapidly.

Using education in the proper sequence can make it very effective, with enforcement, with legislative changes.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you.

I would note, Mr. Chair, that I encountered a testing site in my riding yesterday, but it was for the snowmobilers, and good for the OPP for doing some testing of snowmobilers. We don't want them to take their lives into their own hands or affect anybody else's life. This is a question of all vehicles. I have the same kind of testing on boats in the summertime in my riding. I just wanted to make that point for the record, too.

5:15 p.m.

President, Families For Justice

Markita Kaulius

It should be on planes, as well. We recently had a pilot who was impaired, I think.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Yes, that's a very good point.

5:15 p.m.

President, Families For Justice

Markita Kaulius

Could I also just mention, too, that—and I apologize—none of you got my presentation because it wasn't able to be translated in time. However, you will be getting it, and I ask that you please read it. I had to cut back so much of what I really wanted to say. So, I please beg...if you would be able to have the opportunity—

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

They will receive it for sure.

Mr. Dubé.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Chair, if I have your indulgence, I'll pass half of my time to Ms. Watts. Can I do this cross-partisan thing?

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

It's a kinder, gentler Parliament, very good.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

No, it's just because I feel it is very thorough. It's not often that we get a chance to speak to folks who have lived first-hand the issues that we deal with. There is an ivory tower side to this place, so certainly thank you, as my colleagues have said, for taking the time and having the courage to do this. It's very much appreciated.

I did want to pick up on something that has been mentioned a few times, and Mr. Clement mentioned it, as well: the question of education. The word “wilful” was used, and I think it is appropriate, unfortunately. Once this debate is over on this particular piece of legislation, and notwithstanding our conclusion, there are folks who will always make, tragically, that choice. I don't think we can ever get it 100%, right, and I think folks recognize that.

In terms of the work that both your organizations have done in trying to work on that education piece, what can we do, as parliamentarians, to feed into that and make sure that these crimes don't happen in the first place, because the damage is irreparable after that?

5:20 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Andrew Murie

There are a couple of things. We also work very closely with all the provinces, so some of the effective things that the provinces use are things that they can do under their highway traffic acts. It's worked very effectively in a number of provinces. There's vehicle impoundment. In a warn range of 0.05, they seize the vehicle and it's impounded for three days. It's been very effective with new drivers, young drivers, especially, because they're not driving their own vehicle. Those are the types of things.

MADD's been very involved in some technology developments. We have a system called the DADSS system, which is the driver alcohol detection system for safety. It basically can stop a driver from driving with an elevated blood alcohol level. That pilot will be on test vehicles throughout North America over the next couple of years. Again, down the road, you'll have the ability to put technology in new vehicles that stops anybody from driving impaired.

5:20 p.m.

President, Families For Justice

Markita Kaulius

Can I just comment as well? In B.C., the province that I'm from, in 2010 they implemented what's called the IRP, the immediate roadside prohibition. If an officer suspects that you may be driving impaired, that officer could pull you over and make you blow into a Breathalyzer to see if you are in the warn range, at 0.05, or if you are impaired, at 0.08.

It's been very effective. Fatalities have dropped by 43%. However, in saying that, in the past six years in B.C. alone, they have given out 170,155 immediate roadside prohibitions, administrative driving prohibitions, and 24-hour suspensions. That's only the ones that they have caught. They said that for every one they catch, they assume a hundred more get away. That's an awful lot of impaired drivers.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

For sure.

5:20 p.m.

Director, Alberta, Families For Justice

Sheri Arsenault

I'm just wondering if I could say something very briefly on deterrence. Nobody wants these crimes to happen in the first place. That is the truth. General deterrence, to me, helps protect the general population from committing a crime similar to the one.... To me, if the ultimate goal of good sentencing is to reduce crime, then the general deterrence component of sentencing is most effective because it focuses on all of our society. That's why I believe it's so important that first-time offenders have a mandatory sentence because it reflects to everyone that it's taken seriously.

Just one more quick thing. I know we're pushed for time. I think it's unlikely that a five-year or a four-year mandatory minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death would be challenged under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because I don't believe that this sentence would be considered too excessive, too stringent, or unnecessarily cruel for vehicular homicide or manslaughter. It would be commensurate with other mandatory minimum sentences given for similar violent crimes.

I just had to get that out.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

Ms. Watts.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Thank you very much. I appreciate all the work.

Just to note, Markita, the photograph you had was on our courthouse steps. Those were of all of the people who were killed, and we didn't have enough shoes to lay out. It was unbelievable.

Andrew, you made a comment that you were not supporting mandatory minimums, yet you want the sentencing to reflect the severity of the crime and continuity of the sentence. To me, that's the polar opposite, because I would think that those two should fit together.

5:20 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Andrew Murie

Well, they don't. One of our fears of a mandatory minimum is that it becomes the asking level for the offender in various serious crimes. Four people are killed in an impaired driving crash, and the defence asks for the mandatory minimum. That's where the discussion starts. We don't believe that's the right level to start, even though it's the minimum. We want those penalties to be a lot higher, especially in that kind of tragedy when a number of lives are lost. We believe that, as the penalties are going up way too slowly, the five years don't reflect the damage that's done. We also don't want Parliament to be in control of the minimum penalty because any time you need to change it to reflect society's viewpoints, it needs to be raised.

If we had the ideal situation, it would almost be a grid system whereby all the aggravating factors are taken into consideration and there's such a small margin between tragedies where the circumstances are almost the same, that there's less judicial discretion, but you're still moving that bar upward.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Di lorio.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During my daughter's ordeal, I was offered the possibility of removing her from life support. I found that to be a very cruel moment, but when I think about Nicholas, Cassandra, and I'm sorry, Madam Arsenault, I didn't get your son's name...?

5:25 p.m.

Director, Alberta, Families For Justice

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Bradley. I fully realize you never were given that cruel option so all my thoughts are very heartfelt towards you and your continuing suffering. I want to commend you for what you're doing on a daily basis.

You mentioned things like this is not an accident. I'm still at a loss as to why a sophisticated society like ours cannot come up with the proper terminology. It's 100% preventable. I keep emphasizing the fact about the victims because if you realize there's a real victim, and you're confronted with the victims....

People did that to you. They were never confronted with you except in a very minor role. You mentioned a victim statement. I believe that has to be emphasized. That has to be amplified. That has to be given a real role, because if people are faced with somebody, and the people they harm, I think that would certainly create another level of consciousness that we currently don't have.

I commend Mr. Steven Blaney for his efforts and his journey in carrying on with this bill. But for a moment I would like you to set it aside because what I want to hear from you is about a comprehensive approach. We have a problem in this country, and it's not a small problem. It's 1,500 people dying. If this was a war and we had lost 1,500 people last year, this Parliament would be paralyzed. It would be the sole focus of what we'd be doing.

I want you to consider this in your answers, please. My question is therefore not about Bill C-226. It's about your preference in having the government using all the tools at its disposal and coming up with legislation dealing with this.

My own daughter, who survived, is initiating public hearings tomorrow across the river. Why? Because she's working with the provincial government, and they have tools we don't have in a private member's bill. I would like to hear you on your preference in having our government adopting legislation on this matter.

5:25 p.m.

Director, Alberta, Families For Justice

Sheri Arsenault

I believe there are many sides to this coin. The random breath testing is one side. Stiffer penalties is one side, also more education. I believe we have to change our cultural behaviour regarding drinking and driving.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

But if I may, I want to hear you on your preference in having the government take action on these matters. That's what I need to know from you.

5:25 p.m.

Director, Alberta, Families For Justice

Sheri Arsenault

I would like you to attack it from all sides.