Debates of June 9th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee took a very serious look at the issue of impaired driving. To echo the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, and I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights since 1993, this was the first time since I joined the committee that I really felt that all parties were working together on a common cause, which was to try to improve the legislation.

My own objective was to come up with a way to reduce, as much as possible, the trauma of accidents involving drunk driving, accidents that often culminate in injury or death. We had to find some way of reducing this trauma as much as possible.

I have concluded that there is no perfect legislation. No bill will prevent these sorts of tragedies, but we must continue to look for ways of attaining our objective to the extent possible.

I said earlier that I really felt that all members were working together and that politics had been set aside. I must say that this is probably the last time I will support tabling a unanimous report with the government and opposition parties on such an issue. I say that because of the wording of the report, particularly with respect to what members, such as the member for Témiscamingue and I, were supposed to have said. I think this is the last time I will be persuaded to support tabling a unanimous report. The next time I will be tabling a dissenting report, and that is that.

How can the legislation be improved? Not through repressive measures. It is not with tough sentences. It is not with life sentences for offenders that we will achieve our objective.

Perhaps members opposite find that funny, but I would invite them to read what commentators and experts in the field have written. There are not many people that agree with the government and the opposition parties that a life sentence should be imposed for such offences.

I have, for a long time, understood this approach in the field of criminal law. I am lawyer and I have studied this issue. We will not achieve our objective of public safety by handing out exaggerated sentences.

One man in my riding brought this home to me, and I take the opportunity to thank him for his sound advice. He is Dr. Clément Payette, a physician in Saint-Félix-de-Valois, who, last December, lost his wife, Diane Olivier, in an automobile accident in which the driver was drunk. I had a number of discussions with this man, who has looked at the issue. He is now vigorously lobbying the Government of Quebec to have it change some things, but he said that life sentences or coercion would not ensure public safety on the road. It would be through prevention and education. There are now a number of things under way, and I will come back to this later.

After looking into the matter, I asked myself this question: What is the real problem with impaired drivers? The real problem is the repeat offenders. The real problem is not somebody's uncle who takes to the road with a glass or two too many under his belt. True enough, this is not right, and measures should be taken to prevent him from driving off.

The real scourge is the repeat offenders. We have to find a way to change the habits of these repeat offenders. What in the bill applies to them? It contains a notion—a Bloc Quebecois gain—called ignition interlock. I believe it is a device that can cause a driver who drinks and drives to change his habits. I congratulate the government, which included this in Bill C-82 for an initial offence.

This is not enough, however. We would have liked the provinces to have had more leeway to impose it on repeat offenders. The battle is not over. We will naturally be keeping at it, and examining the matter more closely. Probably we will have a look at first offender statistics.

I am convinced that, in the long term, it will be beneficial for the federal government and the provinces to pay for ignition interlock devices to be installed on offenders' vehicles, since millions of dollars are being spent—in Quebec some $200 million, I believe—on the victims of impaired driving accidents. I believe that, in the long term, there will certainly be a financial benefit.

The Quebec MPs who have addressed this issue realized that there is another problem, that of hit and run drivers.

I remember that there was the Taschereau case in the riding of the hon. member for Témiscamingue. The first time the committee raised the issue of hit and runs, members on the other side looked at each other in amazement, as if there were no connection between the two. It is true that there is no obvious relationship right off. We saw, as the bottom line, however, that there was indeed too great a disparity between sentences for impaired driving and sentences for leaving the scene of an accident and that the legislator needed to do something about it. I will return to this point a little later on, as the Bloc Quebecois had some success in this area as well.

The last point is on information and the message to be sent to the population. Here again, I believe that a message will be sent to the public with Bill C-82, and with the comments we added to the report. That is a positive point.

The first point has to do with the ignition interlock devices. When the bill is passed, subsection 259(1.1) of the Criminal Code will provide a judge with the possibility of imposing such a device for a first offence. This is an extremely significant advance.

The key point I wish to make today concerns hit and runs. Right now, in the case of a hit and run accident causing death, if someone leaves the scene of the accident knowing that someone has been killed, the Criminal Code provides for a maximum five year sentence.

As the Criminal Code now stands, an impaired driver who hits and kills someone can be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison. That is why the Bloc Quebecois members raised this point in committee. We said that there was a disparity between the two that had to be corrected.

We won out in the report, which contains the following: “Given that greater harm gives rise to greater penalties for impaired driving, the committee suggests that section 252 be amended to provide for similar penalties in those circumstances where the collision leads to injury or death”.

This is a direct reference to a hit and run. The report calls for similar penalties. What does this mean? It means that impaired driving causing death should carry the same sentence as a hit and run accident causing death. I am not making this up. It is in the report. The committee wanted similar sentences.

Following the Bloc Quebecois' comments, we won on one point. The minister decided—or she will later in the evening—to withdraw the section of the bill providing for life imprisonment for impaired driving causing death. It will stand at 14 years.

However, this does not change the thrust of the report, which still seeks similar penalties. The opposition parties, the wind from the right—sometimes it comes from the west, sometimes from the maritimes, but a wind from the right always blows in from somewhere—refuse to include the similar penalties sought in the report.

In committee of the whole I will move an amendment. What we are looking for is equivalence, nothing more and nothing less than what the report says. It is a unanimous report of the committee, which I signed.

Today it is being interpreted in such a way that I am being told, “No, the bill provides for a life sentence. You will have to live with that, hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm”. But that is wrong. We fought for equivalence. We settled the issue of equivalence.

I am very happy the minister finally understood from the comments I made and from the pressures that came from the Bloc Quebecois, and decided to withdraw the section on life sentences, to which crown attorneys are opposed. The great majority of litigators and those who follow court cases are against a life sentence for such an offence.

They applaud the fact that the minister is withdrawing the life sentence and leaving the 14 year sentence, but the principle of equivalence must be applied, otherwise the opposite will occur. The maximum sentence will be 14 years for impaired driving causing death. However, with Bill C-82, a person leaving the scene after hitting someone with their car will be liable to imprisonment for life. It does not make sense.

I hope members of this House will wake up when I move my amendments and will adopt them, even if it means reviewing all sentences together in September. If the House decides that it is prison for life that is required in the case of impaired driving causing death, and if voters in all ridings in Canada and Quebec agree with that, it will mean equivalence with a hit and run accident causing death.

I had a professor who used to say that the Criminal Code read like a story, that it held together from beginning to end. It is true. However, with the bill before us there would be different sentences for two similar offences. That does not hold together.

As a lawyer, I cannot agree with that. Members might think that I am not in a good mood this evening, but I have done a lot of work in this area. I understand that everyone wants this bill passed. I also know that there were negotiations among the House leaders, but each party is represented by a House leader. Perhaps the elements of sentence concordance and equivalence in the sentences were not put on the table.

I hope there are people of goodwill who understand the importance of having this equivalence between the sentences for impairment and hit and run accident so that the amendments I will be making may be accepted.

I am pleased with the work done by members, including the member for Temiscamingue, who gave me a hand on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am pleased to have pushed the government to do its homework on some points of law. I am happy to have succeeded in convincing the minister to remove from clause 3 of Bill C-82, for the time being, a life sentence with respect to impaired driving resulting in death.

I am also pleased to have sold the government on the idea of including the new concept of ignition interlock devices in the Criminal Code. It was not easy to get the idea across to the government or to the other parties, but it was finally included in the committee report.

As I said earlier, I am pleased to have been a kind of deflector to the wind of the right, which blows in sometimes from the west, and sometimes from the maritimes, and to have cautioned members against going overboard. The Criminal Code needs to be looked at as a whole, and sentences must be appropriate to the offence.

I feel I was successful in several areas of the mandate given to me. It is not over, however. The debate will continue. I hope that all those listening to us in debate now, or who will follow part of the debate in the House this evening, the lawyers and other specialists, will make their demands known and clearly indicate to members of this House if they feel they are on the wrong track in some areas.

When we address this issue again, I trust that all hon. members will be well informed and will have some understanding of the common sense that lies behind the Criminal Code.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this evening's debate. It is probably one of the finer moments of this parliament. We hear voices from all corners of the House, all political parties saying that they want serious steps taken to remove people who drink and drive from the streets of Canada. This has to be one of our finer moments.

What we are debating and what will be passed later today will result in lives being saved in our country. The sooner we pass this legislation the better it will be. For that reason I will keep my remarks brief, but I do want to say a number of things.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how old you are, but I suspect you are at least close to my age. I remember when I was growing up that it was considered to be macho or manly to drink alcohol and drive a car or a truck. That was the rule of the day and pretty well everybody I knew did it.

I grew up in southern Alberta. I do not know whether it is that different from most parts of Canada but a lot of people made a lot of money by going up and down the highways collecting beer bottles out of the ditches. Imagine how many people must have been driving and drinking with beer on the seats of their cars. They would finish their beer and throw the bottle out of the car window and people would go up and down the highways collecting beer bottles. I suppose they collected pop bottles too, but from what I can recall most of them were collecting beer bottles.

There must have been thousands and thousands of people driving up and down those streets drinking while they were driving and chucking the empties out of the window. If they were eventually stopped by the police they would not have an empty case of beer sitting in the car.

It is fair to say that those days are over. I would not say that it never occurs or that people do not drink and drive in that fashion any longer. But I know how unpopular it is now to see someone who has been drinking prepare to drive away from a house party or a gathering. People actually say “I do not think you should drive. Are you okay to drive? Should you be driving?” In some cases they stop other people from driving.

It has not even been one generation but we have come a long way. We are a much brighter society today when dealing with drinking and driving. This legislation will take us a whole lot further.

I am delighted to be part of this debate and part of this process. I want to pay tribute to one of my colleagues, the member for Sydney—Victoria, who has worked on this legislation with representatives from all political parties to bring us to this point today.

In order to move this legislation expeditiously through the House of Commons we have had to make some changes to the bill. One of the major changes is to take out the provision that says that a person who is convicted of impaired driving and takes someone's life will end up spending the rest of his or her life in jail. That is a pretty strong statement and a lot of people think we should talk about it a bit more. We decided to take it out of this piece of legislation and we will revisit it in the fall. When the House of Commons returns we will reconsider whether we should proceed along this rather harsh line.

I am familiar with other countries that have taken steps we would normally consider to be quite harsh. A few years ago I visited a family in Norway. There was some drinking going on at the dinner parties but there was always one person who did not drink a single ounce of alcohol. That person was the designated driver for the group. There were probably two or three people in the group. That person would drink pop and if somebody else in the group wanted to have a couple of glasses of wine or whatever, that was fine because they were not driving.

I said to them that they were obviously very serious about the issue of drinking and driving. They told me “If we get caught driving with alcohol on our breath, we do not have to be impaired, just with alcohol on our breath, we will go directly to jail for three months”. They go directly to jail and that is it. They do not go to court or anything. The policeman drives them to jail and there they are for three months. I suspect for most of us to disappear to jail for three months would cause us a problem with our jobs. People say “The risk is just too much, so I am not drinking and driving”.

Does it stop every single person from drinking and driving? I suppose not, but it certainly acts as a deterrent for most people. We could say that it is almost zero tolerance for drinking and driving. People who drink and drive in Norway do not even have to be intoxicated, they do not have to be impaired, they go directly to jail. That is for the first offence. I forget what the punishment is for the second offence. Maybe it is torture, I do not know, but it is obviously pretty serious stuff. We are not going quite that far with this legislation.

We are saying that we have listened to the police forces across the country. We have listened to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We have listened to our constituents. We have listened to victims rights groups. We have listened to groups across the country. They are all saying that they want parliament to send a clear message to the courts of Canada, to those people involved in our legal and justice systems, to get tougher on those who drink and drive and therefore take a lethal weapon into the communities of Canada.

That is what it is all about. If an intoxicated person who is not totally in control of his or her facilities jumps into a typical car or truck, it is like driving around with a great big cannon. It is a dangerous object.

On the tragic side, I suspect most members of parliament know someone close to them, either a family member, a close friend or a neighbour, who has been impacted by someone who was drinking and driving. I can think of personal friends who have lost children, spouses or partners as the result of someone else drinking and driving and ending up killing them as the result of an accident.

Perhaps even worse, they are those people who have been involved in very serious car accidents because of some else's drinking and driving and have ended up spending the rest of their lives as quadriplegics or being severely injured with a head injuries or something else. They live very difficult lives through no fault of their own but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and someone who was drunk and driving a vehicle struck them.

This is something that society ought not to accept. We do not condone, but we have to get a little tougher and say to folks that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. This legislation will act as a deterrent.

I acknowledge the hard work done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. I recognize the work of the committee in listening to people who are knowledgeable about this area, both in terms of victims and in terms of people who work in the courts, the legal and justice systems, and deal with people involved in these types of offences.

What are some of the amendments to the code we are considering tonight? It will increase the mandatory minimum fine for a first offence to $600. For some people that is a deterrent but for a lot of people it is not much of a deterrent. It is not that big a deal if an average income earner has to pay a fine of $600.

It will increase the driving prohibition order of not more than three years and not less than one year for a first offence or a prohibition of not less than three months, with the balance to be served by complying with an alcohol ignition interlock program where available. That is a pretty serious.

It will provide for a driving prohibition order of not more than five years and not less than two years for a second offence and not less than three years for a subsequent offence. That is getting serious and I like that a great deal.

There is one point we can all agree upon. If we look at an average community paper in Canada, there is always a section on court news which reports what has happened in the local court for that day. I am always struck by the number of people up on drinking related offences, in particular drinking and driving related offences. We have to say as a society that we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour.

The legislation will ensure sentencing judges consider a blood alcohol concentration level of two or more times the legal limit to be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. In other words, if a person had three or four glasses of wine and is caught, that is one thing. He or she is obviously kind of a dangerous person. However, if a person has had a whole case of 24 beer that is something else. It is obviously a more serious situation. This legislation will recognize that.

It will allow the sentencing judge to require the use of an alcohol ignition interlock as a condition of probation where available. It will allow the sentencing judge to order persons convicted of impaired driving to undergo assessment and to recommend a treatment as a condition of prohibition in those jurisdictions where treatment is provided.

It will increase the maximum penalty available upon indictment to five years. It will increase the penalty to a maximum of ten years imprisonment where the accident causes bodily harm, and life imprisonment where the accident causes death. This is where we have some further work to do.

It will allow a police officer to demand a breath or blood sample from an individual on reasonable and probable grounds that he or she has committed an impaired driving offence within the preceding three hours.

If we walk up to a person who has been drinking we can normally figure that out pretty quickly just because of the smell. Alcohol has a certain smell. We can tell if the person has been drinking scotch, beer or wine. The people drinking probably cannot tell because they have consumed the stuff. For those people who are not drinking, like a police officer, it does not take much to figure out that a person has been drinking. If a police officer thinks a person has been drinking and can clearly smell alcohol from the vehicle, the legislation say that the officer has the grounds to request a breath or blood sample.

I could talk about this matter all night. I feel very strongly about it, as do all my colleagues. We are anxious to get the legislation passed. It is time for society to say we are sophisticated enough that we will not tolerate people who put the lives of other people at jeopardy because they drink. It is as simple as that. To do that we have to increase the penalties very severely so that if a person is convicted he or she is penalized severely, and if the person takes someone's life he or she will be very seriously penalized.

One point in the legislation that I worry about is that many of the treatments or suggestions in terms of appropriate sentencing refer to where available or where possible. If one of the conditions of sentencing is the seeking of treatment for an alcohol problem, some alcohol treatment facility has to be available. If we tell people they have to do this or that as a way of breaking the habit, it behooves us as a society to ensure that those treatment facilities are available. That is another challenge we have to confront.

I conclude by saying that we are into the graduation time of year when a lot of young students from high school, college, university and other institutes graduate. A fair bit of drinking often occurs around these celebrations. For years and years we cringed at graduation time because we knew that one morning we would wake up and there would have been a horrible car accident with a number of young people killed because of drinking and driving while celebrating graduation.

It was as regular as clockwork year after year after year. A number of schools have taken a dry grad approach and made a point of the whole issue of drinking and driving. As a result it occurs a lot less today than it has in the past. Thank goodness for that but it still occurs.

It occurs in the summertime because people are out celebrating, enjoying themselves and partying. When a lot of people party they drink excessively and they are out driving boats and Sea-Doos. In Kamloops they actually drive Ski-Doos in the wintertime on the river, but that is another story. They are impaired and intoxicated when they do a lot of things and that is wrong.

On behalf of all parties we are trying to send a clear message to people that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I am pleased to be part of this discussion tonight and look forward to expeditious passage of the legislation so that it becomes law as quickly as possible.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the heels of the previous speaker and all speakers who have participated in the debate. I commend each and every one of the participants who have taken part tonight and those who have taken part in the extensive consultations and efforts that were made to bring the legislation to fruition.

It is truly a very important response to what can only be deemed a national tragedy. It has been a very long and arduous process to arrive at the point where we are today. More important, it has been a long and arduous process for victims and groups like MADD, the Canadian Police Association and many others that constantly kept this issue at the forefront. Finally there has been a legislative response.

I acknowledge those groups and the efforts they made. The Victims Resource Centre was another group that was instrumental in bringing forward important issues at the committee level. It was very helpful in facilitating the testimony of many victims.

The victims themselves were those who had the most impact and had the most direct testimony to give. It was helpful and extremely useful in the formulation of many of the legislative initiatives which will be very instrumental in helping to protect Canadians and hopefully in helping to prevent some future tragedies on our roads and highways.

There have been many references to the fact that there are few members, and in fact few Canadians, who have not been touched at some point in their lives by some tragedy stemming from impaired driving, such as the hon. member for Chicoutimi, our party whip and the deputy leader of our party from Saint John. This tragic list goes on and on. Senator LeBreton is another example of someone who was very directly affected in this regard. She has been a very strident advocate of necessary changes to this legislation.

The remarks of my hon. colleague from the NDP were quite apt. Summer is approaching. Celebrations are afoot. Families are spending time together. I understand the House will be recessing soon and people's thoughts turn to vacation. Sadly a lot of drinking is often involved in those occasions.

If we can give any gift to Canadians, if we can participate in an effort to educate and respond in a responsible way to drinking to prevent tragedies and further carnage on our highways, this is perhaps the best and most telling thing we can do.

The efforts that have been put into the legislation hit some snags. The non-partisan nature of this legislation is very much borne out by the comments we have heard today. It is the implicit and intrinsic good found in the legislation which allows us to pass it quickly and to deliver it to Canadians in a meaningful way, which is what will happen.

Much has been said of the statistics that attach. One of the most chilling statistics I heard during the deliberations was the fact that 13,000 deaths and 90,000 injuries yearly were related to impaired driving. That breaks down further to 4.5 Canadians killed or 125 severely injured daily on our roads and highways as a direct result of impaired driving.

The statistics go further. We know that the human effects are not borne out by cold statistics. It is much like the sterile atmosphere we find in a court room where victims are often sitting there trying to make some sense of what has happened, some semblance of understanding of the effect it has had on them. These statistics are useful in demonstrating the need for a legislative response, the need for a strong deterrent message borne out by the legislation.

Changes have been brought about as a result of legislative initiatives and tougher sanctions. When I speak of sanctions I am talking of monetary penalties, periods of incarceration and periods of suspension or prohibition on driving. All three are very important cornerstones or underpinnings of the legislation.

Because of the statistics and the need for a speedy and expeditious response, I believe the provisions we see before us will have an effect. I suspect their impact will be immediate in the sense that some of these provisions in particular empower police officers to do their job in a more efficient and protective way when it comes to dealing with the problem of impaired driving.

I am speaking specifically of the ability now for a police officer to take a sample outside of the two hour time limit which was a static period of time that often left officers, victims and Canadians generally feeling very frustrated that police were being curtailed in their efforts to deal with impaired drivers on our roads and highways. There is obviously more that can be done. There have been lengthy discussions about some of the changes that we will not see as a result of Bill C-82.

It is very important to highlight some of the very positive aspects. Those aspects have been touched upon by previous speakers, such as the increases in fines and in prohibitions.

Some provinces in their provincial jurisdictions have taken their powers to the point where they are now seizing vehicles. I believe that this is a very important step. By taking away the car it removes from the offender the actual instrument of death. I believe that also sends a very important message. It is a message of deterrence and a message that this type of activity will not be tolerated because the stakes are too high. The human cost, the loss of life, the injuries and the life altering end results of impaired driving, is what all of these provisions are aimed at attacking.

There are increased penalties and an increased ability for judges to mete out sentences that are more reflective of society's abhorrence of this type of offence. It is also reflective of an overall attitudinal adjustment or shift in the way we have viewed this type of offence. For some reason, for far too long this has been somehow an acceptable behaviour. Perhaps acceptable is casting too broad a net, but it has been tolerated by our courts and our judiciary. Generally, we have not viewed this in the serious light that we should.

Previous speakers have touched on an important point. When a person's life is snuffed out through a careless act and a preventable crime occurs, the responsibility is there for our judges, our judicial system and our legislation to respond in a very strict way. That is what the legislation attempts to do. It puts more teeth into the Criminal Code. It is a more proportional response to the offences that alter people's lives and leave people dead, injured and shattered as a result of these types of offences.

We seem to have a much different tone in the debate here in the House of Commons than the very arduous one that took place at the committee level. The emotion that was invoked in those discussions and deliberations was quite reflective of the response and the need to respond on this particular issue.

Sentencing judges now have very proactive tools at their disposal. They have the ability to require a convicted impaired driver to have an interlock device. This is a very innovative approach. It will take away the ability of drivers to start their vehicles unless they provide a breath sample through an instrument that will be attached to their vehicles. The car will not start without the provision of a breath sample. That technical device interprets and reads the blood alcohol concentration in a driver's breath before the car will actually start. This type of approach is very innovative and positive in terms of allowing impaired drivers to get on with the rehabilitation.

We talk a great deal about the deterrents, the need to annunciate this type of offence and the need to respond in a harsh way. However, we cannot lose sight of the rehabilitative steps that have to be taken because this affects so many people. We can attend any provincial court in any province or region in the country and time and time again, when those arraignments are read, a disproportionate number of those offenders will be before the courts for impaired driving offences. Statistically, we know that these offences are still occurring at an alarming rate. One can only hope and pray that the steps we are taking here with the legislation that is now before the House will in some way start to curb those numbers.

I think the numbers bear out that we are starting to see a decline. It is a slow decline but it is steady. The attention that has been brought to bear on this issue and the efforts that have been made in committee go a long way to achieving some of these gradual steps that are occurring.

The interlock devices are but one attempt at this rehabilitative process that I spoke of. Another step is the mandatory treatment aspects that are now in the hands of a sentencing judge which gives a judge the ability to mete out a sentence that requires a person convicted of impaired driving to submit to counselling.

This counselling aspect ties in with what is an obviously inextricable element to impaired driving because many of the offenders have an alcohol addiction problem or a drug addiction problem. This is another often overlooked element of impaired driving. Many of those who take a risk and get behind the wheel are impaired by other substances which may be prescription or illicit drugs. These substances still have a very impairing effect on the driver which often results in tragedies; accidents and deaths on the highways.

Drunk drivers should be required to submit to a form of counselling wherein they would receive treatment for what is sometimes and has been deemed on many occasions to be an illness and an addiction problem. It is the repeat drunk driver, the hard core drinker who repeatedly takes a risk, who is responsible in the majority of cases for the death, carnage and loss of life and limb on the highways.

There are very proactive attempts and very deterrent oriented effects found within the legislation. Mr. Speaker, you are very aware of the issue and have spoken in this place on occasions on this issue as well. I think it is something that Canadians have waited a long time for. We are hopeful.

I commend all members of the committee and the Minister of Justice for recognizing that this as a priority issue. We are thankful that now, through the co-operative efforts and the negotiations that are literally, as the House leader of the opposition has said, taking place at the 12th hour, that we are able to bring forth this legislation in a timely fashion.

One of the elements that is missing from this legislation that was previously included in the report and in the draft legislation is the ability of a judge to hand down a sentence of life imprisonment where a person's impaired driving causes a death. I personally have strong feelings about the deterrent message that this would send.

We know that the sentencing range for this type of offence was previously punishable by incarceration of up to 14 years, but the benchmark appears to have been in the range of 8 to 8.5 years. I suggest that if we raise the ceiling to life imprisonment, we will see judges respond appropriately and proportionately across the country and ratchet up those sentences to reflect society's abhorrence of this. This would also send the message that this type of offence is no different than murder.

When I say murder, I am talking about the current murder provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for and permit sentencing judges to impose life periods of incarceration for manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and second degree murder which do take into consideration culpability. Alcohol, of course, is obviously the mitigating factor and, I would suggest, an aggravating factor in the determination of an appropriate sentence.

Because of the shocking statistics and because of the human cost and human element to this, I feel that empowering judges with this range of sentencing is an important part of the legislation. Sadly, we were not able to include that in the current legislation. However, I have the written and verbal assurances of the government House leader and the Minister of Justice that all efforts will be made to have this included.

If we are not able to pass legislation in this session, which appears unlikely, we will enter a stand alone bill that would permit the insertion of this particular section into the Criminal Code empowering judges with the range of sentencing up to life imprisonment. We will introduce that this week and then return in the fall to again have an opportunity to bring that section to fruition and have a debate here in the House of Commons.

One expression I believe that was used by the parliamentary secretary was a reference to Russian roulette and the obvious risk that congers up in one's mind when one talks of impaired driving and getting behind the wheel while impaired and the endangerment to others' lives. It is an apt statement.

There was a provincial court judge of Sunnybrae, Pictou County, Judge Clyde F. MacDonald who sits in the Glasgow provincial court who often used to say to impaired drivers who appeared before him that their actions were no different when they got behind the wheel of a car and drove down a highway than pointing a loaded gun at every car that came on to meet them.

I think that graphically illustrates the danger that is involved. One only has to pause for an instant and think about that scenario when we are driving home at any time of day and thinking that the car that is coming to meet us at a high rate of speed, speeding down the road, that several thousand pound piece of metal could veer off into our lane and take our life or the life of a loved one. Sadly, that is the reality of what takes place in far too many instances.

At the justice committee we heard from a young woman by the name of Sharleen Verhulst who lost her beloved sister in a tragic impaired driving accident. She has turned the negative energy that would flow from that and the absolutely tragic circumstance into a very positive action. She has taken her message, her very powerful presentation, to the committee, to high schools and groups across the country. She has made very useful suggestions to us, as did many other groups and individuals who appeared before the justice committee. They all made a very positive contribution which is reflected in the legislation and in the report that we have before the House.

The death of a victim is final, chilling and culpable. There needs to be greater accountability and responsibility on behalf of those who are willing to take the risk. This legislation is extremely positive. I have very little to say about it in a negative way.

The only criticism I have is that in some instances it may not go far enough and in some instances I question the resources that will be allocated to allow for the enforcement of some of these provisions. I speak mainly here of a lack of resources that are currently available to our municipal and federal police enforcement agencies.

There is also a degree of semantics and a degree of language that surrounds this discussion. Many of the victims, including Ms. Verhulst, were insistent that we do not refer to impaired driving accidents as accidents because they are not accidents. There is this degree of culpability. There is this degree of intent when a person recklessly consumes alcohol, gets behind the wheel of a car and assumes that risk. They do so at their own peril and at the peril of any innocent bystander who may then come into contact with them.

Vehicular homicide is perhaps a more appropriate phrase and a more appropriate way to describe this type of offence. This legislation is going to come into effect this summer, and we are thankful for that. However, as has been previously stated, there is still more work to be done. There is more work to be done in empowering police to respond appropriately.

We in the Conservative Party would very much like to see police officers being given the ability to take an automatic breath sample at the scene of an accident where there is reasonable and probable grounds to believe that alcohol is involved. We would like to see a greater emphasis and experimentation for alcohol sensors and that type of technology. We would also like to see greater training for police officers to recognize drug impairment.

With all that said, I believe this is a positive step that we have seen. It is a non-partisan issue that we have all anticipated in and embraced. I am very thankful to have been a participant in bringing the legislation this far. We look forward to working with the groups that have been so instrumental in the introduction.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)

[The Chairman]

Order, please. The House is now in committee of the whole on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters).

(On clause 1)

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in my speech, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 1.

I move:

That Bill C-82, in clause 1, be amended by substituting, at line 16, page 3, the following:

“offence and liable to imprisonment not exceeding 14 years if”.

With this amendment, line 16, which currently reads “offence and liable to imprisonment for life if”, would be replaced by “offence and liable to imprisonment not exceeding 14 years if”.

As I said earlier, this would mean parity between drunk driving causing death and a hit and run accident when an individual is killed. This is all in keeping with the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The report indicated that an effort was being made to find similar sentences and penalties, given that the death of a person is the death of a person, whether it is caused by impaired driving or results from a hit and run.

[The Chairman]

Is it agreed the amendment is negatived?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

[The Chairman]

It is an instruction to this committee that the bill be amended by deleting subclause (2) of clause 3. Accordingly, I declare subclause (2) of clause 3 deleted.

Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Clause 3, as amended, agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 6 carry?