Mr. Speaker, before oral question period, I was trying to show that Bill C-18 should not be passed because it is not in keeping with what the justices of the supreme court and provincial superior courts, some legal scholars and all justice committees have said in the last few years about prison terms being useless in reducing the crime rate.
According to the justices of the supreme court, there are way too many prison terms handed down in Canada. Offenders are often sent to prison when other measures could have been better for them and, in particular, could have protected society better. I was just beginning to give examples to show that Bill C-18 is not consistent with the Criminal Code structure we have be using for years.
I gave several examples, one of which I will repeat so that the Liberals can understand that something is wrong with this bill.
Here is the example I gave. I talked about a drunk driver, who was clearly negligent, who had decided to drive after having a drink and who hit and killed someone. This is extremely serious. This is a crime. However, this person could receive a stiffer sentence than a hired assassin who deliberately set out to kill someone. The hired assassin could receive a reduced sentence for becoming an informer; he will often be accused of a lesser and included offence and get off with a shorter sentence than the drunk driver who has killed someone.
There is a principle of law called mens rea, whereby it must be established the individual acted with the intent to kill. It is not the case here. He did not intend to drive off while under the influence and kill someone. I realize, however, that some recidivists should get harsher sentences, but the Criminal Code already provides a 14-year prison term in such cases.
The judges have already tried recidivists, individuals as they are referred to in the lingo of lawyers, who have a criminal record one mile long. There was one case in Canada where the judge handed down a 10-year prison sentence for impaired driving causing death. There is only one such case in all of Canada. Judges therefore have the necessary leeway to hand down sentences of up to 14 years.
The other example I gave had to do with reckless driving causing death.
The Criminal Code provides a 14-year prison term for reckless driving if the same driver kills someone while deliberately driving recklessly. He was not impaired, but drove recklessly. He is not accused of impaired driving, but of reckless driving causing death. The maximum sentence provided by the Criminal Code is 14 years.
Having reviewed the jurisprudence concerning this section as well as the sentences handed down for reckless driving causing death, we find that the Canadian appeal courts imposed prison sentences averaging 19 months for this type of offence.
How can the minister justify the fact that an offender who killed somebody in cold blood by driving a car dangerously will receive a lesser sentence of imprisonment than a driver who was impaired by alcohol? I want the minister to give a logical response to that. I want her to tell me how that makes sense.
Moreover, let us not forget that imprisonment is a last resort solution to any delinquency problem. Again, the Supreme Court, whom I quoted extensively in the first part of my speech, was very clear on that subject.
I will quote once again what the justices of the supreme court said. They said this:
In the past few decades many groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and/or that it should be reserved for those convicted of only the most serious offences.
The Minister of Justice has not demonstrated that she has exhausted all the means available to her to deal with the issue of impaired driving to protect the public.
Instead, she decided to choose the easy solution by proposing to drastically increase the term of imprisonment set out in the Criminal Code. She opted for a Reform policy when she could have acted differently. To win a few easy votes, she decided to play with the criminal justice system and upset its balance. This shows a lack of courage on her part.
We must look at the whole picture. It is an extremely serious problem. What is the main objective of any legislation on impaired driving? To try as much as possible to make people understand that impaired driving is a criminal offence a serious one.
We did this last June through a series of amendments. Let us wait and see the results before amending the Criminal Code again.
While impaired driving is a serious offence, there are other effective alternatives to incarceration that can minimize its impact, including the use of alcohol-ignition interlock devices. There are two provinces where this device is in use, Alberta and Quebec.
At the committee stage, it was the Bloc Quebecois that sold the idea of this device and convinced the committee members that it had to be included in the legislation so that provinces wanting to offer such a program could do so.
The Bloc Quebecois won its case for a first offence. The first time an individual is arrested for impaired driving he can, in order to reduce the period of his driving license suspension, have his car equipped with an alcohol-ignition interlock system.
However, in terms of prevention and education and especially in terms of reaching the first objective, namely changing the driving habits of drinkers, we would have liked, in the case of a repeat offence, the driver or the repeat offender to be compelled to have his car equipped with an ignition interlock device.
The government took the easy way out by proposing these amendments.
I could go on all afternoon about impaired driving and the implications of the changes the minister wants to make through Bill C-18. I am sure whoever was in the Chair would pay as much attention as you are now, but my time is limited.
I think I have demonstrated to everyone that the justices of the supreme court and of superior courts, legal experts, psychologists, chairs of parliamentary commissions and committees who studied the issue all found that incarceration does nothing to change bad habits and lower the crime rate. Education and prevention as well as effective and active measures the provinces can implement the answer.
Members also know what the Bloc Quebecois thinks of this bill. I checked to see what reporters and columnists covering Quebec courts thought about this issue.
In June 1999, La Presse , which surely cannot be called a separatist newspaper, ran an article with a catchy headline “The Bloc is blocking”.
For once, Mr. Pierre Gravel was of the opinion that we were doing our work by creating a filibuster to stop Bill C-82 in its tracks, because, among other things, the bill provided life sentences for impaired driving causing death. He agreed with us that this was absurd.
He said this about the Bloc Quebecois. “On the contrary, it is its”—meaning the Bloc Quebecois'—“firm attitude that put a damper on the over-zealousness of the proponents of zero tolerance”—meaning the Liberals.
Today, there is another editorial, by Mario Roy, entitled “Drinking and driving: let's not lose our heads”. It is clear he is talking about the minister, because she lost her head a long time ago.
What does Mr. Roy say in this editorial? He says that the minister is making a mistake. He also says that, having consulted legal experts and watched what goes on in court, he can tell her bill makes no sense. He gives several examples. I will read this one because it is a good one.
Those who follow court proceedings know the real purpose of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with manslaughter.
Members opposite explained that they chose the life sentence because the Criminal code provides for life sentences in the case of manslaughter, and killing someone when driving under the influence is just as serious as manslaughter.
Speaking of what those who follow court proceedings know about what the Criminal Code provisions dealing with manslaughter stipulate, Mr. Roy added:
The crown prosecutor and defence counsel often resort to plea bargaining, sometimes with the approval of the jury, even in cases of horrible, cruel and premeditated murder.
Manslaughter is a lesser and included offence as compared to premeditated murder.
The Liberals equate an impaired driver who hits and kills someone with a murderer who planned the crime. The driver did not plan to kill. Unfortunately, he had one drink too many, and what he did was criminal, I agree, but those opposite are comparing him to a murderer who planned his crime in advance. This journalist finds that unacceptable, and justifiably so, especially after consulting those who am familiar with the courts.
I was reading in Le Droit this morning that certain Quebec lawyers are critical of the minister's approach in this matter. Worse yet, the chief of police in Aylmer is opposed to it and says it makes no sense. He wonders whether it will be applicable and applied by the courts.
I know that the minister, and especially the government House leader made a deal with some of the opposition parties in June to let the bill pass. I also know that a number of members on the government side oppose this bill.
I know that the member for Brome—Missisquoi, a former president of the Quebec bar association, does not support giving a life sentence to an impaired driver who has caused death. I would hope he will be man enough to rise and criticize the Minister of Justice's backward approach, which, clearly, will never achieve the objectives sought.
Stiffening the sentence and putting people in prison for life is not going to change the habits of drinkers who get behind the wheel at the end of an evening.
The holidays—Christmas and New Year—are coming. They should think of their relatives, friends and colleagues at the office party. Some of them will be driving while impaired. If they kill someone, should we treat them as criminals? Perhaps, but not in the same way as a hired killer.
