Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That will be five and five.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, impaired drivers kill innocent Canadians. No one in the House would dispute that fact which is so obvious. The question therefore is to what extent do our laws deter the impaired driver from getting behind the wheel of a car. I would like to contribute my perspective on this matter highlighting some

of my firsthand experience which I gained as a police officer who served in Calgary for 22 years.

First I can say with assurance that the current Criminal Code section 255(3) penalty for impaired driving causing death is not tough enough. When I say that it is not tough enough, I mean that the penalty is by no means an effective deterrent. I would argue that many lives would be saved if the penalty for impaired driving were increased, that is, through increased deterrence.

For my soft on crime friends, let me be precise as to say that the philosophy and definition of deterrence is just that, deterrence. The key instruments of deterrence are the certainty and severity of punishment. Deterrence prevents crime and saves lives. When potential offenders, considering the risks and severity of punishment, decide to commit fewer crimes, logically the number of people willing to commit crimes decreases as the danger of punishment increases.

Consequently the Criminal Code amendment presented today by my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley is not only good legislation but one which is desperately needed by frontline police officers, attorneys general and prosecutors for the crown to deter drunk drivers everywhere.

At present section 255 of the Criminal Code provides a 14-year maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death. The legislation proposed today would require a judge to prescribe a minimum seven year penitentiary sentence to any individual convicted of drunk driving causing the death of a human being.

I can relate a situation that happened in my own riding not too long ago where an impaired driver ran over a seven year old boy, dragged him down the road. The boy died. The driver looked at him laying on the road, got back into his car and drove away. The court case finally came about and the individual driving that car got only nine months. That is totally insufficient. It shows that the sentencing in Canada is far too lenient for impaired drivers.

Let me also say however that the criminal justice system in Canada is at a crossroads. Two competing visions of the future direction of the criminal justice system exist. One view which is promoted by socialists argues that the failure of the criminal justice system to stem the increase in the long term trend of crime can be remedied through the welfare state criminology. This view espouses the belief that the solution to criminal behaviour is to redirect resources away from the punishment of crime toward alternative measures and jailing.

With alternative measures, just exactly what is going to happen now with that provision on the books to an impaired driver and one that may even kill someone? If an impaired driver will receive nine months now for killing someone, what are alternative measures going to do? They argue that crime is a product of social conditions and that the most effective remedy is for the state to intervene through programs such as stepped up welfare payments and other tax funded social experiments.

Thirty years after the first programs of Liberal criminology and penology were introduced, violent crime has increased by 400 per cent. I cannot see why impaired driving causing death should not be considered a violent crime. Property crimes have increased by 500 per cent. And impaired drivers continue to maim and kill innocent Canadians. For this reason, it is time to change the course of our criminal justice system back toward a system that deters criminal conduct through rigid sentencing guidelines for serious crime. Impaired driving causing death certainly falls into this category.

If there is any doubt as to why this type of legislation is needed, consider the lenient sentences handed down by soft on crime judges. Let us look across the country. Regina v. Lewis, New Brunswick 1992: The accused killed a woman after crossing the centre line of the highway. The accused received a one-year sentence. Regina v. McLean, Ontario 1990: The accused struck a motorcycle and killed its rider. McLean received only a two-year sentence. Regina v. Elkas, Ontario 1990: Elkas rear ended a car and killed two people. Even though the accused had a lengthy criminal record, the judge ordered only a four-year sentence.

Let us look at some other facts. In 1994, 87,838 people were charged with impaired driving. Also in 1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving, which is three times higher than deaths resulting from murder. Ninety per cent of impaired drivers are primarily responsible for fatal crashes in which they are involved. Out of the 1,315 fatalities in 1993 in Ontario, 565 were alcohol related. The statistics go on and on and on.

I will conclude by saying that every member in this House has an opportunity to take some action on this type of crime. I would urge them to vote in favour of this bill.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in favour of Bill C-201, which as we have heard, is an amendment to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired drivers.

I do not want to go into the background. I know a lot has been said on this. There has been a lot of talk of victims. I think everyone in this room and probably people who are watching these proceedings, we all know of someone or some family who has been touched by this.

I will deal with a particular part of this bill. I have heard the criticism that any minimum sentence fetters the discretion of the

judiciary. As a general rule, I believe that is true. There is no question that we do not want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary.

Judges have to deal with all the facts. They have to consider all the evidence and then they will pass a sentence. That is why in our system of laws, as a rule we do not impose a minimum sentence. We impose a maximum. In the case of section 255 it is 14 years. However, we are dealing with the exception here. There are always exceptions. In law there is the old expression of exceptions to the rule.

The hon. member has struck on one topic that has become a problem in this country: Too many people are careening around on the roads in an impaired state. According to the most recent statistics, approximately 88,000 people were charged with impaired driving. More important, more than 1,400 people in 1994 lost their lives as a result of impaired driving. To me the telling statistic is that this is three times higher than the murder rate in terms of victims.

The argument could be made that we do not have a minimum sentence for murder so why would we want to impose one on impaired driving? The answer is quite simple. We recognize that murders are committed for various reasons. Some are premeditated but more often they are crimes of passion; they are done on the spur of the moment.

Impaired driving involves two steps. One is putting yourself into the position of being impaired and that is not an act of passion. That is not an act that happens on the spur of the moment. That is something that in most cases people can control. I do acknowledge there are people in our society who have addiction problems, but people have some degree of choice in whether or not they will drink. They ought to realize before they start drinking that they have a vehicle somewhere in the neighbourhood.

Once people get into that impaired state they lose all judgment. As a result we see there is a problem on the roads and highways in this country. In 1994 it caused 1,400 people to be killed, not by a crime of passion, not by somebody who got into a state on the spur of the moment, but they were killed by someone who ought not to have been behind the wheel. As I said earlier, we all know someone who has personally been affected by an impaired driver.

There were 1,400 people in 1994, three times the number of people who were murdered, acts of passion, being killed. It is a problem. We do move to address problems in this House. We are required and it is our duty to address problems. I commend the member for moving to do it.

I want to deal with the whole question of minimum sentencing. Whether seven years is appropriate or not, I am not certain. Whether two years is appropriate or not, I am not certain. But this is a situation that we have to deal with. This is a signal.

There are those who suggest that we could use the money we are going to spend incarcerating people on an education campaign. Education campaigns on this have been going provincially for years. There are road checks, spot checks, the RIDE program in Ontario. They have reduced it some. Every year there are various ways of dealing with it. Some people are either immune to it or not affected by the education programs, whichever. The end result is we have to take a more extraordinary measure to tell people they have a choice as to whether they are going to drink. We have to tell people to think about it before they climb into that car if they have had a drink because they are the risk on the road.

The time has arrived for this place to send this bill to committee and let the committee decide whether seven years is too severe, or maybe three years is more appropriate, perhaps one year. In principle, without any equivocation I believe that we have to look at a minimum sentence.

This is not saying to the judiciary that we want to fetter their discretion. This is saying to the judiciary that we believe this is an extraordinary circumstance and we believe we have to tell them what the parameters are at the bottom and at the top rather than saying just what the top is.

People in this country want this. This is not falling into a trap. It is an exception to the rule. It is an exception to our normal rules of jurisprudence but this is an exceptional problem and sometimes we must take extraordinary measures.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first on a question of timing, I am going to try very hard to leave a little time for my colleague the member for Skeena to say a few words. However if we fail, we would like to receive a one-minute warning from you, Sir, at five minutes after the hour so that there are five minutes left for the sponsor of this bill, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code in the case of impaired driving causing death. This is a bill that Canada really needs. It is long overdue and it deserves the support of members from both sides of the House.

I respectfully ask that all members dispense with partisan beliefs in order to pass this bill. With this in mind for the remainder of my intervention in this matter, I will refrain from any political implications of any type. All I ask in return is for hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same so that we can avoid the usual political sniping that seems to plague our deliberations.

I firmly believe that the subject before us now transcends political differences and should unite us in a common cause. This is not a bill reflective of any given political party. It is a bill that seeks only to protect Canadians. Nothing more and certainly nothing less is asked for.

We have all heard the horror stories associated with driving while impaired accidents. They are called DWI. The yearly carnage which is altogether senseless and tragic must end. I do not delude myself into believing that the passage of this bill will entirely stop people from dying in DWI accidents. However, it will go a long way to giving the family and friends of victims some semblance of closure and the idea that justice was served.

This bill's greatest value may also be in its deterrent value to new drivers. They are the ones who can be educated on the perils of driving while impaired whereas those who are repeat offenders would only be stopped by the punitive sanction of a minimum seven-year sentence.

Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving will say that the status quo in sentencing can no longer be tolerated. They have seen too many tragedies and buried too many loved ones.

We have all heard the stories. Each member in this House has one and I will share yet another. His name was David Peters, a local boy, 25 years of age who was somebody's son, brother and friend. On June 24, 1989 he drove his motorcycle down Albion Road, south from where we are. A car travelling at a high rate of speed crossed the dividing line and hit him head on. He was killed instantly and the driver, as well as the passengers in the other vehicle, were taken to hospital with various injuries.

The driver was subsequently charged with impaired driving causing death. In the end, however, he walked free and received no custodial sentence. David Peters family and friends were crushed. A life had been extinguished and they deserved at the very least to see the perpetrator punished. Still, they resigned themselves to the fact that this cruel scenario plays itself out time and time again every single year.

It has been said before by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley but it deserves to be said again. Victims should not pay the penalty for impaired driving. Here are some government statistics that members heard a little of already to show how much of a problem this has been.

A 1992 Ottawa Sun editorial pointed out that over 13,000 people in that one year were killed or injured because someone drove while impaired. In 1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving. This is roughly three times the number of people murdered in Canada but one could argue that it is essentially the same thing. It is murder. Think about that number, 1,414 people.

If this Chamber were made four times larger, it still would not hold all those people. In 1993, of the 1,315 people who died on Ontario roads, 565 were alcohol related deaths. Sentencing for this crime, especially if it involves a fatality, is too lenient. That is the rationale behind this bill.

There is no ulterior motive save to bring justice to the families of victims and the sentencing of offenders.

I would like to close on that note and again urge members to put aside politics and vote, please, in support of this bill.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I know my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley would like to say a few words in closing the debate.

I know my friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley brought this bill forward in response to a very horrific accident which happened in his riding. It had very clear implications for my riding because a father and his two children were killed in an accident by a drunk driver who had previously been charged twice for the same offence.

This victim, Mr. Jim Ciccone, lived in Prince Rupert for many years. The victims of this particular accident are not just Mr. Ciccone's family, relatives and friends. It is the whole community of Prince Rupert because he and his family were well established in that community. There were very valuable members of the community, well known and well regarded. I cannot communicate how important this family was to the community.

In one thoughtless evening of drinking and driving three members of that family were killed. The people of Prince Rupert and I am sure the surviving members of the Ciccone family waited to hear what would happen as a result of this. When the sentence was announced it was three and a half years, just a little more than one year for each life that was taken by an individual who had a record of disregarding the law and driving while impaired.

What do we say to Mr. Ciccone's family when that kind of a sentence is given? Is that what their lives were worth? The question we have before us today is, are we in the House actually prepared to do something about this or are we just going to continue to talk about it while these kinds of horrific accidents take place and lives are lost?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley will now close the debate.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-201.

I close the debate on Bill C-201 on behalf of all the victims of drunk drivers and on behalf of the families of victims who have died at the hands of a drunk driver and, unfortunately, on behalf of people who will in the future become the victims of drunk drivers.

Impaired driving is an issue which touches every single region of our society. I would hazard to say that there is no one in the House tonight who does not know of someone, a family, a relative who has not been a victim of impaired driving. This issue touches everyone.

Many provinces in Canada have taken positive steps to deal with drunk driving. They have taken some very positive steps and we are happy to see that. But there have been no steps made at the federal level, no changes in the Criminal Code that would send a message out to the people of Canada that the Parliament of Canada takes impaired driving seriously, that reflects a zero tolerance toward impaired driving. The time to take that step is now with the passing of this bill.

Since introducing Bill C-201 in excess of 25,000 signatures have come into this Parliament and to the office of the Minister of Justice supporting this bill.

I did a walkabout on Sparks Street yesterday and talked to over 20 people. The media was there. We wanted to see what the person in the street had to say about it. There was 100 per cent support for this bill.

The Liberals know that this bill is supported by millions of Canadians who are fed up with the weak manner in which drunk drivers who kill are treated in the courts in this country.

This bill is also supported by numerous anti-drunk driving associations across the country, most notably MADD Canada, Canadian Students Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, the Nepean Association Against Drunk Driving. This bill deserves the attention of the Liberal government.

As was pointed out earlier, and I am really saddened by the action on behalf of the government, but yesterday, purposely in this House, there was an attempt at circulating disinformation among the Liberal members. That was talked about by those who spoke earlier. The disinformation attempted to convey the message to Liberal members that MADD Canada did not support this bill.

I am absolutely ashamed of the people responsible over there who sent out this letter in a deliberate attempt to misinform the members and sabotage this bill on the very eve of the vote. They clearly knew, because we dealt with this in the spring, that MADD Canada's association with 110,000 members across this country, were 100 per cent in favour of supporting this bill. However, because they knew that this bill has broad support among the Liberal members, they attempted, through a disinformation program, to sabotage this bill. I am ashamed of that and ashamed for them.

Bill C-201 is not the magic bullet to eliminate impaired driving but it is an important first step. Other measures need to be pursued in order to stop this crime. Let us get this bill to the justice committee so that witnesses can be called and this bill can be discussed and receive the attention it deserves.

In closing, I would say to every Liberal member who is thinking about voting against this bill, if there are any, to ask yourself the question: Can you face the family of a victim of an impaired driver and tell them why you will not support this bill? I ask them to ask themselves that question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, conforming to an order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

It being 6.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.)