Public Safety Committee on Feb. 6th, 2017

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

Thank you, Larry.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blaney—Steven—for being here to discuss this very important bill. I think it's important that we continue, even in our efforts as members of Parliament, to highlight these issues. I'm sure there's not a community in Canada that has not been touched by a tragedy of this nature, so I want to thank you for bringing these issues to bear.

Let me first talk about the sentencing regime that you have suggested. It does target recidivism, obviously, by having these increased penalties.

Just unpack that a little bit for me. How do you feel that our recidivism rates can be reduced when you convict the impaired drivers the way that you want to convict them?

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

I thank you, Tony, for your question.

The main problem with recidivists is that they are a victim themselves in some way of a drug addiction, which is alcohol. They need support. They can get support with our rehabilitation system when they are in a federal prison. The problem we have experienced over the years is that we have seen some cases where recidivists would actually get their driver's licences back the day after they had an accident causing death. You will say this is not happening. I hope not.

What we need is to send a strong signal with those mandatory minimum sentences, and I gave the example of the current Prime Minister being fully supportive of it in the case of severely intoxicated drivers. We need to send the signal that Canada does not accept the fact that this is the largest cause of criminal death and that we want to join those countries that have put in place measures that are preventing those accidents, those crimes, from happening. That's why I've laid out some mandatory minimum sentences, depending on the nature of the accident, targeting impaired driving causing death.

One other thing that's in the bill, which I invite you to consider and to support, is the consecutive sentences. Again, this accident that took place took the lives of many and has to have consequences that fit the crime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blaney, like all my colleagues, I thank you for your work on this. Everyone shares the opinion that impaired driving has negative consequences. You are certainly very busy at the moment with other issues. So thank you for taking the time to look into this. It shows that you consider it very important.

I want to go back to minimum sentences, which is a very important issue. We could certainly debate it because we don't necessarily share the same opinion. I have read many studies that question the effectiveness of these measures.

Some say that the proposed measures could have an effect that isn't in line with your intentions. By removing the discretionary power of a judge, we could ensure that some people who drive while impaired and who are involved in accidents causing death would not even go to prison. Indeed the judge could find the minimum sentence too harsh in a particular case.

Aren't you afraid that by removing the power of judges to make their own decision, there is a risk of having an effect that goes against your intention and the intent of your bill?

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

Thank you for your question, Mr. Dubé.

Once again, I am pleased to take a break from the leadership race because I think this topic is a very relevant one. In fact, today I presented my themes on justice, with Senator Boisvenu's support.

To answer your question, it is complementary. This is consistent with my political actions in the past 10 years. In all sincerity, I want to emphasize that my political experience with Mr. Harper has made me very familiar with the plight of victims. I wasn't necessarily aware of this issue previously. Very early in my years as an MP, I had the opportunity to meet people who had experienced personal trauma. That does not leave me indifferent. That is why we have moved forward.

Going back to your question on minimum sentences, know this. Currently, a sentence for a charge of impaired driving causing death is approximately seven years or seven and a half years. The last sentence that was brought to my attention was seven and a half years. I suggest that we have a four-year threshold. That's really a floor. In fact, you might blame me for proposing a minimum sentence that is too low. Actually, I don't see how we could go lower than a threshold like that.

This sends a signal to our judicial system that a minimum threshold has been established and that, depending on the nature of the crime, it can go much further with the consecutive sentences, as proposed in the bill.

Know that I have full confidence in the judicial system. However, as parliamentarians, we have to send signals that reflect the public's disapproval and disgust toward a certain responsible inertia, even today, with the fact that four people will die on our roads. That's four deaths too many. From that perspective, it seems entirely relevant that we propose measures and minimum sentences that are very conservative.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

We are also shocked by the fact that these people are losing their lives under such circumstances. Unfortunately, we will have to maintain our disagreement about the minimum sentences. That being said, there is Bill C-73, which is a sort of precursor to your bill and was introduced by your government in the previous Parliament.

At the time, one of my Liberal colleagues put a question to the officials from the Department of Justice appearing before the committee about whether there were legal opinions on the constitutionality of the bill.

The question wasn't asked to express agreement or disagreement. You mentioned the slowness of the system on some occasions and the difficulty of being caught in it.

Challenging the constitutionality of the bill may delay its implementation. I think all of us have an objective to find a way to adopt policies that protect the population while being constitutional.

Given that you were in power at the time, are you able to complete what hasn't been possible during this period or provide us with your own opinion on the constitutionality of the bill?

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

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.

As you mentioned, two of the three main elements of this bill are the same as the one I introduced with my colleague Peter MacKay and which was the subject of legal confirmation. As for routine screening, I would say that it is a legal type of Kalachnikov. That's really what Mr. Hogg thinks. I've already had the opportunity to share this opinion, and I can provide it again.

This clearly shows—and also responds to Mr. Miller's question—that there is no violation of individual freedoms if, on a highway, a person is abiding by the traffic regulations, has a valid driver's licence and is intoxicated.

Obviously, it has nothing to do with someone in his living room on a Saturday night, on his private property and can do what he wants. However, being able to use public roads is a privilege we're given, but that comes with obligations. In that respect, the legal opinion of Mr. Hogg, who I am told is a very well-respected jurist in Canada, clearly established that there was—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

But in terms of—

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

—no reservations about this.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

—the Department of Justice, do you think you've been able to demonstrate the constitutionality of the bill?

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

We always make sure that bills meet—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Right.

That said, since I'm running out of time, I would like to touch on one last point. It will be my last question.

You talked about citizen initiatives for people who are affected by these situations, which is obviously very important. Education is also very important. You also talked about the fear of being arrested. For people to get caught, the police need to be able to enforce these laws. Education, the police and all of this is a matter of resources. Unfortunately, your bill can't necessarily do all of this.

In closing, perhaps you could talk about the need for resources so that the police can do their job and, above all, educate the public. Education is an important aspect of this.

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

Thank you. I agree with you, but if a roadside checkpoint were set up, pursuant to this bill, which you have the power to pass, every driver could be tested. Effectiveness is shown to increase even when the resources stay the same. It would therefore be possible to stop people, who, as I was saying earlier, were trying to mask the signs of their intoxication. Those individuals would lose their licences because they were inebriated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Mr. Di Iorio, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blaney, fellow members, and representatives of MADD and Families for Justice, I want you to know just how valuable your contribution here today is. Your initiative and efforts are admirable, indeed.

You referred to the experience I had and continue to have, and the way to change that experience. Tomorrow, across the river, in Gatineau, my daughter will lead public consultations on the subject on behalf of the Quebec government. The issue continues to solicit a lot of hard work.

I went through every stage of the experience, but, of course, I'm not here as a witness. The only stage I didn't have to deal with was death. I know that people here today have had to deal with it, and my thoughts are with them. Every stage has consequences and causes pain.

As you know, I'm a lawyer. I have questions, therefore, about the legislative provisions and policy.

In the experience my family and I went through, many things affected me, one being the little regard given to victims. I had to get involved on a professional level, and I would say that being a lawyer made a difference. Had I not been a lawyer, my daughter's assailant would not have been found guilty or sent to prison. Too many elements would have escaped our attention, and our family would've had to hire a lawyer.

Even though I am a lawyer, I did at one point question whether I should have hired another lawyer. Being fortunate enough to have friends and colleagues who supported me, I didn't have to do so in the formal sense.

Mr. Blaney, you introduced a private member's bill. You used to be a minister and part of cabinet. I have a vision of what a comprehensive solution to the problem could look like. The current system has huge gaps in terms of the way victims and families are treated and the support they receive. That has a direct impact on prevention.

You were part of the government for a long time. Why are you not introducing a more comprehensive solution? I'm not quite sure as to why, but you are repealing or moving some of the sections. First, I'd like you to address that and, then, discuss what a comprehensive solution might look like.

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

I want to begin by applauding your compassion for victims and recognizing the understanding you have of this issue on a personal level, unfortunately.

Just recently, in fact, I was speaking with victims, and one of them told me that they felt as though they were not being heard and that their input was not wanted. I am very proud of Senator Boisvenu's work on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I think we have a collective responsibility to address these issues.

I am calling on you because you belong to the government party. A victims bill of rights was introduced. Now it is time to give full force to the principles of consultation, respect consideration, and compensation it sets out.

This bill merely marks the beginning of a new chapter. Clearly, we must do more to support victims. Something I often hear is that individuals who commit vehicular homicide should be punished appropriately. Currently, a sense of injustice exists because sentences are seen as being too lenient. Driving while under the influence is considered a crime. The Criminal Code says so, in fact. As I see it, one way to give victims what they need is to introduce minimum sentences.

This private member's bill is extremely ambitious, particularly in comparison with a bill that seeks simply to establish a tree day, and I say that with all due respect. This piece of legislation is very ambitious, but it relies on the work done in this area.

Again, systematic breath testing will represent a major step towards achieving that overall vision. The legislation before you today, Bill C-226, is a step in the right direction, meaning a step towards a more comprehensive solution that improves the situation of victims.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate what you said, as I forgot to mention it. My comments are also directed at Senator Boisvenu.

I want to stay on the topic of victims, but first, I'd like something clarified. Did you ask your caucus for its support on this bill, and if so, did you get it?

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

Yes.

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

Your caucus supports your bill, then.

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

When my bill was introduced, our justice critic, Mr. Nicholson, gave it his full support.

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

Congratulations are in order.

Now, back to victims. I want to tell you why I am so adamant about support for victims. The perpetrators of these crimes have no regard for life.

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

Forgive me for interrupting, but this is a private member's bill. We, the members of the Conservative Party, have the freedom to support or oppose private member's bills involving moral issues. That's entirely normal. I just wanted to clarify that.

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

The perpetrators of these crimes have little regard for the safety, well-being, and lives of others. As long as the suffering endured by victims is not front and centre, the severity of the crime is diminished. That is why I place so much emphasis on victims issues.

The public needs to be made aware of what victims experience. They are victimized first when the so-called accident occurs and again when it comes time to go through the judicial process. In fact, it is not an accident, because an accident happens at random, but a crime of this nature is not at all random. There isn't even a term to describe this type of crime.

I am asking you this question as someone who used to be a minister and has intimate knowledge of how government works. Are there methods we can develop to tackle this kind of crime?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Sorry, Mr. Di Iorio, but you're out of time.

Thank you very much.

We'll continue with Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the discussion because at some point in our communities, everyone has experienced the death of individuals, some children, through somebody's choice to get behind the wheel.

I have a couple of questions. When we look at the repeat offender, at how many times they have gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle when they've been drinking, some of the statistics that have come out have been horrendous in terms of how many times they've been before the courts, and they keep driving. I have no issue with the minimum mandatory for repeat offenders causing death.

I want to talk a little about the breath test. If we look at this practically on the ground, we're looking at roadside only, correct?