Mr. Speaker, our highways are often the scene of slaughter. Several thousands of people are injured in highway accidents and many of them die. Drinking and driving is a terrible thing and I condemn those who dare to get behind the wheel of a car in an impaired state. After all, drunk driving is a criminal offence.
That being said, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley is today proposing a bill that is supposed to be a solution to the problem of drinking and driving, to the deaths caused by drunk drivers. Bill C-201 would amend the existing section 255 of the Criminal Code by providing for a minimum prison term of seven years for any person who causes the death of another person while impaired and having an alcohol reading over the legal limit. It is important to note that anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death is already liable to fourteen years' imprisonment and, in the case of criminal negligence causing death, to a life sentence.
At first glance, it would seem like a nice idea to support such a bill. However, when we look at the possible consequences of such an amendment to the Criminal Code, we are forced to conclude that this is the wrong remedy. In looking for a solution to the problem, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley is getting dangerously close to repression.
The penalty he is proposing is typical of his party's mentality: government by force. One of the favourite phrases of the Reform Party is: "Lock them up and throw away the key!" To hear them, every day brings a new crisis. The real crisis is misinformation and it has been with us since the Reform Party was elected. Its members peddle dubious ideas about criminality in the country, doctor statistics and start people worrying. The individual cases they tell us about do not reflect the reality around us. They exploit tragic situations to score make cheap political points.
The Reform Party grabs every opportunity to get more media exposure. They feel that by taking up the time of this House, they will project the image of a party that offers pragmatic solutions to the problems of our society.
They want to restore capital punishment for adults and teenagers. They want minimum sentences for repeat offenders, whatever their offences. They want to lower the age of adolescence from 12 to 10 years. They do not want 16-year olds to have the right to vote, but they want them treated as adults should they commit an offence. There are many preposterous examples. We only have to look at the Order Paper to realize that the Reform Party is getting desperate.
I expect one of them in the near future to propose that our child care centres be turned into detention centres for prejuveniles, since early signs of delinquent behaviour can be detected in kindergarten.
Bill C-201 is a good example of their lack of vision. By incarcerating for a minimum of seven years those convicted of impaired driving causing death, Reformers think that they will eliminate the endemic problem of drunk driving. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem of drunk driving can only be solved if all levels of government focus on prevention and education.
In this regard, it is important to point out that impaired driving offences continue to decline year after year. The number of people charged with impaired driving has been falling every year since 1985. This annual reduction is around 6 per cent. This drop is, I think, mostly attributable to the campaigns against drunk driving being waged throughout Quebec and Canada. These awareness campaigns have helped people understand that drinking and driving is socially unacceptable. It must also be noted that road checks do a lot to deter people from drinking and driving.
On the other hand, I seriously question the deterrent effect of increasing the minimum sentence. I would like to point out that a working paper prepared by the justice department on minimum penalties in general concluded that, on the whole, the public was not aware of which offences carry the minimum mandatory penalty.
The same document also shows that, as a disincentive, minimum mandatory penalties have very little impact on whether or not the offence for which a more severe penalty is considered will be committed. Robbery is a case in point. Worse yet, juries are said to be less inclined to return a guilty verdict when they know that the offence the accused is charges with carries the minimum mandatory penalty.
This means that the bill put forward by the Reform Party member will do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do. If indeed juries are less inclined to return guilty verdicts in such circumstances, they will necessarily acquit the accused, who will then be free as a bird. Ironically, in his attempt to put more people behind bars, the hon. member may end up facilitating their acquittal.
On the other hand, if convictions are secured, another serious problem will arise. Imposing a minimum mandatory penalty will make the prison population increase substantially. The hon. member seems to believe naively that detention centres will be able to accommodate this larger number of inmates. He is completely out of touch with the reality.
There is no way of knowing what impact his bill will have on the number of convictions that could result from the application of this provision. Let us not forget that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the hon. member intends to increase the minimum
penalty, he can expect the prison population to increase dramatically and the present infrastructure to fail to accommodate yet more inmates. Also, any increase in prison population will involve an increase in related costs.
Will the hon. member tell this House, in all honesty, how much his bill will cost, if passed, given that, in 1992-93, the average annual cost to keep an inmate in a maximum security facility was $56,000, and $110,000 in a medium security facility.
This money should be spent wisely. If money has to be taken out of the public purse, let it be used on eduction and prevention. Especially since prevention and education always come at a lesser price, in terms of both money and lives.
In conclusion, as regards the argument that judges tend to be too lenient regarding these offences, I refer hon. members to the decision made in March 1995 by the Quebec court of appeal in the Houle vs. Regina case.
The individual pleaded guilty to charges of criminal negligence causing the death of a person, criminal negligence causing bodily harm to four people, and driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level higher than the authorized limit.
In order to make a proper decision, Justice Delisle reviewed 158 decisions made by various courts of appeal in Canada between 1985 and 1995 regarding similar cases. He refused to reduce the sentence imposed, except to take into account the period of preventive detention. Marc-André Houle received the following concurrent sentences: five years in prison and driver's licence suspended for eight years for criminal negligence causing death; three years in prison and licence suspended for five years for criminal negligence causing bodily harm; one year in prison and licence suspended for six months for driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the authorized limit. The fact is that courts do apply the principles of sentencing with rigour. I continue to trust our courts of justice. Again, demagogy has no place in criminal law.