Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity speak on Bill C-201, which provides for a seven year minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death.
I share the concerns of the hon. member who sponsored the bill with respect to the problem of impaired driving and I also share the concerns of my constituents of Windsor-St. Clair who see impaired driving as a serious problem.
I see problems with this bill, one of which is its focus on punishment rather than on more efficient and productive forms of deterrence.
The Criminal Code was amended with respect to impaired driving in 1985. At that time the charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death were added to allow for more serious penalties in cases in which injuries or death resulted from impaired driving.
In the case of impaired driving causing bodily harm the maximum is 10 years, and causing death the maximum is 14 years.
At the same time other charges are available to the crown where there is a death involving the use of a motor vehicle and alcohol or drugs. The dangerous driving sections and the criminal negligence causing death sections of the code carry major maximum penalties. It is not uncommon for these sections to be used where alcohol or drugs have been involved in a motor vehicle accident.
In the early and mid-1980s federal, provincial and territorial governments really turned their minds to impaired driving, acknowledging it was a serious social problem. They did this in response to concerns in their own communities. This was because of the cold, hard facts that people were not deterred by criminal penalties and that people and property were being destroyed by the activity of those who drink and drive.
The question of how to deter people from pursuing this decidedly undesirable activity resulted in a concerted effort by governments, non-governmental organizations and even by the beverage alcohol industry to tackle the problem. In this case the beverage alcohol industry should commended because, unlike the tobacco industry which consistently denies there is any health problem in terms of using its products, the beverage alcohol industry recognizes there can be a downside to the use of its products when the use is excessive or when it is combined with other behaviours.
The focus was in part on the Criminal Code at the time. The code was refined with increased penalties and with a range of additional offences to make it more flexible, but also with a range of devices to allow easier prosecution.
The provinces also took steps within their justice administrative powers and in their highway traffic management jurisdictions to deal with the problems. For instance, mandatory licence suspensions are standard on conviction and in some provinces vehicles are impounded for the period of the suspension.
Governments and non-government organizations and industrial groups entered into public education campaigns which research has shown had an effect on the way we view drinking and driving. Although I am sometimes critical of other parties for using
anecdotal evidence, I think it is useful here in this sense. I think we all know examples of anecdotal evidence which support the research I am talking about.
We all know people who today without any embarrassment simply leave their cars at home and take a cab when they are out for a big night on the town or who engage in negotiations with their friends to ensure they have a designated driver.
This change in the attitude toward drinking and driving has been a very effective deterrent, better than any changes in the Criminal Code. We know this from the research that has been done.
I know, however, this has not abolished the problem and I dare say that in spite of some people's desire for a quick fix we will not solve the problem completely. Someone will always have an extra drink and always think they can still drive.
I raise this point to corroborate my belief that punishment is not the only way, indeed not the best way, to deter people and that we are not necessarily in Canada on the wrong path. It is easy to seize on a fixed minimum penalty as a solution to our problem.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. Does a fixed penalty cause any problems in the process? We already know it is not the most efficient deterrent. What we also have consider is that the minimum sentence removes judicial discretion which is necessary to allow courts to take into account the facts of each particular case. I suggest minimum penalties and removing a judge's discretion should not be handed out easily or glibly.