Public Safety Committee on Feb. 6th, 2017

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Tony, for this very open question. I must say, I was surprised to see that.... When I first thought of moving forward, it was actually our colleague Mark Warawa who told me that I should look into this area when I was an early pick for a private member's bill. Thinking about the work we've done in the past.... Yes, the Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour, the families, and the expert associations, and I must thank MADD for adding the prevention part. I believe it is important to somehow promote legislation that has science-based evidence, and it is proven that mandatory random testing is saving lives. I must tell you that there weren't many doors I knocked on where I didn't get support.

In Quebec, there is a special committee that Mr. Di Iorio probably knows very well,

the council that deals with road safety.

They've been advocating for those measures for years. Now we have the chance to do it by sending it back to the House with the amendments you feel are appropriate, and sending it to the Senate. Who knows, by spring we could have royal assent. We could put it as an accomplishment of this legislation, and it would be to the benefit of all parliamentarians. Every single member of Parliament will get credit for this legislation being adopted, because they will see that this is a Parliament that works and gets the job done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blaney, thank you for being here today. I applaud your efforts to reduce the amount of drunk driving we have. It's a non-partisan issue. I'm just not convinced that your bill is the right way to do it. One of the things you talked about was mandatory minimums, and how it would allow people to have the opportunity to get treatment while they are in prison. But the fact is that your government cut those programs. They don't have the opportunity to get addiction treatment when they are in prison, so they're still getting out and they still have mental health issues. I'm not quite sure how the mandatory minimums equate to getting treatment in prison. I wonder if you could share that with me.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you for your comment. It certainly is the hard way, but when you're in a federal facility, you are prevented from getting alcohol, so already this is a form of treatment, I would say. I strongly believe that rehabilitation programs are important. I've said today that I feel we certainly need to be more efficient in the way we are doing it. I visited a facility in my area, a detox centre, where recidivists or former prisoners have been benefiting from federal programs.

I want to insist that this bill, although not perfect, will bring great relief to the issue we're dealing with. In the past, there was a motion brought that Canada was a distinct society. We ended up saying that Canada was a distinct society within a united Canada. It was brought by the Bloc Québécois, but we, the government, the Conservatives and Stephen Harper, got the credit for it. Feel free to support my bill. You will get all the credit, and nobody will remember that I was the sponsor of it.

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

When we talk about random breath testing, comparisons are made to other countries. One of the previous witnesses we had talked about how in Canada fatalities in 1981 were at 62%, and by 1999 they dropped to 33%. They're lower now. Comparing it with other countries isn't necessarily comparing apples to apples, because we have already reduced it, in large part thanks to groups like MADD and public education campaigns. We need to go lower. There is absolutely no doubt that we need programs to do that, but it's difficult to show the evidence that this one tool would solve the problem.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

No, it's very clear. Look, it's proven. It's proven in every country of the world that, where they have implemented random testing, they have saved lives. We lose four people every day and we will save more lives by implementing random testing. That's proven.

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

What country only implemented random breath testing without other programs?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

There is a large list that I provided to you a month ago.

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

I know, but Ireland is an example.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I can provide it to you again. I don't have it at hand. I invite you—

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

Ireland implemented education and a huge budget for enforcement along with random breath testing. They didn't have anything before, so they did see a huge drop. But we haven't seen where that has been the only thing that has been implemented and that's shown as the only tool that can reduce drunk driving.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Are you telling me that you don't want to take the chance?

Are you telling me you will not support a bill that could save Canadians' lives?

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

I'm sorry, could you repeat what you said? You can say it in French; I didn't have my earpiece in.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I just find it awkward that you would not be willing to move forward legislation that will save Canadian lives.

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

I do want to put forward legislation that would save Canadian lives.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

There is one in front of you.

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

Okay. In terms of the constitutionality, we had a number of witnesses who appeared before us who spoke to that fact. We had the Privacy Commissioner and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and they all talked about the fact they did not believe that this would pass. I know you have one—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

If I may, it is proven that the legalization of marijuana could take even more lives on the road. I would be very careful. This is an honest effort to save lives in terms of alcohol, which has been approved by every single organization that is involved in the fight to reduce the loss of lives on the road due to alcohol. Moving forward with legislation that could take even more lives with drugs, I am not sure that is really respectful towards all the families who have lost a loved one because of alcohol.

I believe we have a moral responsibility as parliamentarians to stop the political game at times and do what is needed in this country to save Canadian lives.

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

I agree with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Blaney, that's the end of this round of testimony.

We'll take a break for a couple of minutes and give people a chance to thank Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Then we'll have the change of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will regather for our second hour. I very much thank our witnesses, both Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and Families For Justice for joining us.

We're going to be doing the two presentations back to back and then have questions from MPs. We're going to begin with MADD. I understand that Patricia is going to begin and then Andrew will go second. Take it away. Thank you.

[Patricia Hynes-Coates, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

First of all, I want to thank you for this opportunity to come here to speak on behalf of MADD Canada, my family, and victims of impaired driving. My name is Patricia Hynes-Coates. I'm the national president for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Like so many volunteers who've reached out to MADD, I too have lost a loved one. On August 16, 2013, my stepson, Nicholas Coates, was killed by an impaired driver. He was riding his motorcycle to work that day when he was struck by a pickup truck. The man who struck Nicholas had been drinking the night before and the morning of the crash.

Nicholas was a son; he was my stepson. He was a brother, an uncle, a fiancé. He was a hard-working, remarkable young man. He was a civil engineer. He was only 27 years old. Nicholas's loss has devastated so many people. It has forever altered our family, his friends, and his community. His death was completely senseless. There's no way to describe the pain that Nicholas's whole family is going through or how deeply it is felt every waking hour. It feels like a lifetime since I've heard his laughter or seen his smile, yet it still seems like it was only yesterday. We are left with only the broken pieces of who we once were.

The day we brought Nicholas to his final resting place, his dad and I vowed that his life would not be lost in vain. We promised him that we would fight this fight to combat impaired driving, and we promised him that we would bring changes so that no other family would have to suffer a loss from this senseless crime.

It is that promise to Nicholas that has led me here today. I am here to provide a voice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I am here to speak on behalf of Nicholas and victims of impaired driving. As a mom, a grandmother, and a wife, I know fully well that once we lose someone, we can't bring them back. I live in constant fear for my other children, for my grandchildren, and for the lives of all Canadians, so I am here to encourage the government to move forward with mandatory screening as outlined in Bill C-226. Giving the police the authority to conduct mandatory screening will significantly reduce impaired driving rates. This is one of the most effective tools we can introduce to prevent road crashes and save lives. The introduction of mandatory screening in Canada will be a major step forward in our fight to stop impaired driving.

I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of my family, and I would now like to turn this over to our CEO, Andrew Murie.

[Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer, National Office, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

First of all, I'd like to thank your national president, Patricia, for her courage in sharing her story and for being here to represent thousands of victims of impaired driving across Canada.

MADD Canada has submitted two documents to the committee for consideration, giving full detail on our background positions.

In my remarks here today, I will focus specifically on what we consider the most important issue in Bill C-226, and in fact what we consider to be the most important impaired driving countermeasure available, random breath testing, or as we like to refer to it, mandatory screening.

The other measures in the bill that we support are evidentiary and procedural changes which, if enacted, would address some of the technical concerns with the existing law, questionable court decisions, and other obstacles to effectively enforcing and prosecuting impaired driving. Fewer impaired drivers would evade criminal responsibility due to factors unrelated to their criminal conduct, and those convicted would be subject to more onerous sanctions.

With regard to Canada's record on impaired driving, in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States released a report indicating that Canada has the highest percentage of alcohol-related crash deaths, 33.6%, among a study of 20 wealthy nations. This is an embarrassment for our country and a clear indication that our federal government needs to move forward on impaired driving legislation.

While MADD Canada strongly supports and promotes new legislation that focuses very specifically on deterrence, we need to deter people from driving when they've consumed too much alcohol. We need to deter people before they cause a crash that kills or injures someone. What we need to do is to authorize police to use mandatory screening.

Before proceeding to the merits of mandatory screening, I need to correct some misperceptions about the term we have talked about, “random breath testing”. Random breath testing best practices mandate that all vehicles are checked and that all drivers stopped must present a breath sample. RBT operates the same way as mandatory screening procedures at airports, at Parliament Hill, courts, and government buildings. Some witnesses have claimed that RBT will open the door to police harassment, discrimination, and the targeting of visible minorities. We have found no such concerns about police impropriety in the RBT research literature or in practice.

With regard to Canada's current system of what we call SBT, selective breath testing, only drivers reasonably suspected of drinking can be tested. Studies have shown that the SBT system misses a significant portion of legally impaired drivers. They miss 90% of people with blood alcohol concentration levels between 0.05 and 0.079, and they miss 60% of drivers with BACs over our current legal limit of 0.08.

In its 2009 report, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights stated that the current methods of enforcing the law lead to police apprehending only a small percentage of impaired drivers, even at roadside traffic stops designed to detect and deter impaired driving. This does not speak well for the deterrent effect of Canada's impaired driving laws.

As a member of Parliament, Mr. Bill Blair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, stated in Parliament on June 9, 2016:

The realization that they cannot avoid giving a breath sample at roadside will have a very significant deterrent effect on people who may choose to drink and drive. I would like to advise the House that this deterrent effect has been demonstrated countless times in many other countries.

I'd like to use the example of Ireland. When Ireland brought in RBT in 2006, they had 365 fatalities. In 2015, that number had dropped to 166, a 54.5% decrease. There were 907 serious injuries in 2006. In 2015, there were 365, a 59.8% decrease. There were 18,650 charges in 2006. In 2015, there were 6,900 charges, a 63% decrease. Not only does it save lives, not only does it stop serious injuries, it also reduces the volume of impaired driving charges in our courtrooms. Any witness who comes forward saying it will clog up the...it just doesn't happen. It never has. It never will.

Canada would likely see crash reductions in the range of about 20% because Canada has adopted a lot of the measures that some of these other countries have adopted as well. There's still room for significant improvement in Canada as well. We estimate the 20% reduction would prevent more than 200 deaths and stop 12,000 serious injuries in this country.

We also estimate that RBT, in its first year in Canada, would save the system $4.3 billion. We've done a number of surveys on public support for RBT. The interesting thing is once RBT is enacted, public support goes up. Australia brought in RBT 1985 to 1990. By 2002, 98.2% of Queensland drivers supported RBT. There is already broad support for RBT in Canada. In a 2009 survey, 66% of Canadians supported legislation authorizing police to conduct RBT. In 2010, an Ipsos Reid survey found that 77% of Canadians either strongly support or somewhat support the introduction of RBT. When informed of RBT's potential to reduce impaired driving deaths, 80% agreed that RBT is a reasonable intrusion on drivers in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our legal director, Professor Robert Solomon, concluded that RBT would be found consistent with the charter. Dr. Peter Hogg concurred with our charter analysis. More importantly, Dr. Hogg independently concluded in a formal written legal opinion he sent to MADD Canada that RBT would not violate the charter. It is essential to put RBT in the context of accepted screening procedures routinely used at Canadian airports. In 2015, an estimated 131 million passengers got on and off planes in Canada. It is not uncommon for them to take off their shoes, their belts, their jewellery, carry-on items swabbed for explosive residue, be scanned for weapons, and submit to pat-down searches. It is not uncommon to wait 10 or 15 minutes to be subject to these screening and search procedures. Such procedures are accepted because they serve a public safety function.

Put bluntly, far more Canadians are killed in alcohol-related crashes every year than by attacks on airplanes. Like airport procedures, RBT is consistent with the charter. In conclusion, MADD Canada would strongly urge Parliament to show leadership and enact the RBT provisions in Bill C-226.

Thank you.