Mr. Speaker, some people share the perception that Canada is soft on impaired drivers, that our laws are weak, that our enforcement is inadequate and that our judiciary is unwilling to impose harsh sentences.
No one will deny the tragic consequences of impaired driving. Certainly, as the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley indicated, there is hardly anyone who has not been touched or who does not know of an instance of an impaired driving tragedy striking in their community or among their family or friends.
When such a tragedy occurs we should focus on the responsible party, on his or her actions, not necessarily on the law. The assumption is always the same, that a tougher law with a more severe penalty would have deterred the driver from drinking and averted the tragedy. This is not the case.
The causes of impaired driving are complex and the solutions to this serious social problem are not simple. One cannot merely increase the harshness of penalties for offenders and expect this alone will stop people from drinking and driving. Impaired drivers are not a homogeneous group. A variety of measures are needed. For example, while fines or jail sentences may deter some people, alcohol dependent persons may be less susceptible to deterrents when sanctions are severe. Treatment might be a more effective approach in such cases.
In the course of the government's review of the problem of impaired driving in the mid-1980s the experiences and research of many countries were examined. All the evidence suggests that legislative amendments must be considered in the broader context of an overall legislative and prevention strategy to deal with the problem of impaired driving. No single measure can provide the answer.
Legal sanctions for example can only provide a partial solution. Increased law enforcement which accordingly augments the perceived risk of apprehension and punishment may have a greater deterrent effect than increased penalties.
Research conducted since 1985 indicates that changing the prevalent social acceptability of drinking and driving has been a more effective preventive measure than any changes in the law or the degree to which it has been enforced.
While there has been a significant reduction in impaired driving since 1980, I know that impaired driving continues to be a problem in Canada. That problem can be attributed largely to a group of high risk drivers who believe themselves to be above the law and immune to tragedy, disaster or detection.
The great majority of Canadian drivers appreciate the risks to themselves and to public safety and have embraced the message both federal and provincial governments continue to promote, that drinking and driving is a serious crime and a serious social problem.
Changing the law and the severity of the penalties is not a silver bullet. It is not the magic solution that will solve all our problems in dealing with impaired driving.
I do not mean to suggest the law does not have an impact on impaired drivers. Canada has in place strict laws and tough penalties. The Criminal Code comprehensively addresses a variety of impaired driving offences and sets out a range of punishments in accordance with the severity of the offence.
Moreover, the impaired driving provisions provide one of the very few examples in the Criminal Code where a minimum sentence is provided. The following minimum punishments are provided for the offences of impaired driving, driving over .08 and refusal to provide a breath or blood sample. For the first offence the fine is $300; for the second offence, imprisonment for 14 days; for each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a minimum of 90 days.
Maximum punishments are also prescribed. Where the offence is punishable by summary conviction the maximum punishment is
six months imprisonment. For indictable offences, the maximum term of imprisonment is five years.
The minimum punishment for a second conviction is 14 days imprisonment and a mandatory driving prohibition of 6 months. A person convicted of a third or subsequent impaired driving offence, driving over .08 or refusal would be subject to a minimum penalty of 90 days imprisonment and up to six months on summary conviction or five years on indictment and a mandatory prohibition for driving for a minimum of one year and up to three years.
The Criminal code also provides that upon conviction for an impaired driving offence, a mandatory prohibition from driving will be imposed. For the first offence, a minimum of three months is imposed. For the second offence, six months is imposed and for subsequent offences, a minimum of one year is imposed.
Upon conviction for impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, the prohibition from driving may be up 10 years. These prohibitions are in addition to any provincial licence suspensions which may be imposed in accordance with provincial highway traffic legislation.
Impaired driving causing bodily harm is an indictable offence and carries a maximum of 10 years in prison and a maximum 10-year prohibition from driving and an unlimited fine. The offence of impaired driving causing death carries a 14-year maximum term of imprisonment and a 10-year maximum prohibition from driving and an unlimited fine.
The penalty imposed on a person in respect of an accident in which death or serious bodily harm has occurred is based on fault. In other words, the impaired driving must be the cause of the bodily harm or death, and therefore the penalty should be proportional to the seriousness of the act that caused the death or bodily harm. This is why there is no mandatory minimum sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.
The bill before the House today would amend subsection 253(3) of the code to provide a minimum of seven years imprisonment and would retain the present maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
I cannot support such an amendment. I applaud, however, the hon. member's intention to raise awareness about the tragedies caused by impaired driving and to further deter such criminal behaviour. A minimum sentence will not in my view accomplish this. It is inconsistent with the sentencing principles and the philosophy within the Criminal Code.
Moreover, there is a great danger that the minimum sentence proposed will become the ceiling rather than the floor and all sentences for impaired driving causing death will hover around seven years rather than permitting judges to properly exercise their discretion and frame the sentence to address the severity of the crime, with the offender's impaired driving record and countless other factors taken into account in sentencing.
Upon proclamation of the sentencing bill, Bill C-41, passed by the House less than a year ago, the Criminal Code will include a statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing. As a fundamental principle, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.
In addition to this fundamental principle, the Criminal Code will set out additional principles which will apply in the sentencing of offenders convicted of any code offence including impaired driving offences.
These principles include that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances in order to promote consistency of sentences that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances be considered.
The code will also set out the purpose of sentencing. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute along with crime prevention initiatives to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society where necessary; to assist in rehabilitation of offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to the victims or to the community; to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.
With these principles entrenched in the Criminal Code we should not need to spell out for judges the sentences that must be imposed in particular circumstances. We have given them the guidance to exercise their discretion.
Moreover, we should not support piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code. When the government proposes code amendments after comprehensive study and consultation, we are often criticized for singling out certain provisions for amendment rather than undertaking more fundamental reforms.
The amendment proposed in Bill C-201 seeks to impose a minimum penalty on a single provision of the code, impaired driving causing death. No similar amendments are proposed for other offences, for example impaired driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, or dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death. Therefore I cannot support the proposed amendment.
I have a letter from Mothers Against Drunk Driving giving six reasons why the bill ought not to be supported. I commend this correspondence to hon. members who may feel otherwise.