Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-18. As was clear from the excellent speeches given by my colleagues, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill.
We feel, however, that impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence. Nonetheless, there are solutions other than revenge and punishment. In the supposedly most wonderful country in the world, a democratic country, Bill C-18 boils down to a system of fear. As my colleagues pointed out, the existing laws allow the courts to hand down adequate sentences.
As the Bloc Quebecois explained, this bill is not the solution. Passing Bill C—18 would be to ignore the very characteristics of this offence and create a significant imbalance in our criminal justice system.
Why not allow the courts to fully avail themselves of the leeway they now have under the criminal code?
As one of my colleagues so eloquently said earlier, 10 years is the maximum sentence which has generally been handed down by the courts. The maximum has been 10 years, when 14 was available. This 10 year sentence has been imposed by the courts for impaired driving causing death. Who is better placed than the courts to determine what sentence is appropriate? We are questioning the competence of the courts by forcing them to hand down a stiffer sentence, a life sentence, when they had the opportunity to hand down a longer sentence and did not do so.
Because of the courts and the existing legislation, impaired driving causing death has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in 1997-98. It is incorrect to claim that we are now facing a sharp increase in this sort of crime.
Supreme court justices Cory and Iacobucci were recently critical of the fact that Canada has become a champion of incarceration, and decried the overeagerness of federal lawmakers to embrace imprisonment as a solution to the problems of delinquency.
In calling for life imprisonment for people convicted of impaired driving causing death, the minister is ignoring the comments made by her own supreme court.
We believe that prevention is the real solution. Imprisonment must be a solution of last resort with respect to crime. In fact, the justice minister has not shown that she has exhausted all means at her disposal to address the problem of impaired driving and protect the people. She has chosen the easy way out: to increase prison sentences. She has adopted least effort approach of the Canadian Alliance, but she could have acted otherwise.
There are efficient tools other that incarceration to reduce the number of offences linked to impaired driving. In fact, in the last two years, in Quebec, we have seen a decrease of such offences because of the prevention campaign saying “Drinking and Driving is no Accident” and “If you drink, don't drive”. I think this campaign was successful, as evidenced by present results.
The ignition interlock system with breathalyser is a system with which Quebec and Alberta are presently experimenting. It is a system that can determine the concentration of alcohol in the blood by analyzing only a sample of the driver's breath and prevent ignition of the vehicle if the alcohol concentration is higher than a predetermined level.
Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces that impose ignition interlock systems as a condition for giving a conditional licence to drivers who have had their licence suspended by the province.
Treating an impaired driver who caused death the same way as a hired killer who committed a premeditated aggravated crime, who prepared his crime, would be using a double standard.
Should a friend, a relative who partied too hard and, through his negligence, caused a fatal accident, be treated as harshly as a killer who committed a premeditated and aggravated crime? Past experience says no.
It is impossible to treat this type of driver like a confirmed criminal. Should we treat him like a member of an organized crime group? I do not believe so. Certainly, both individuals have done something very wrong, yet their profiles are quite different.
Should an ordinary citizen who drank too much at a party, but is a good family man who was never involved with the justice system, be imprisoned for life?
How can the minister justify that an offender who killed in cold blood and in full control of his faculties be sentenced to a shorter prison term than a driver whose faculties were impaired by alcohol?
The federal government knows only one thing when it comes to criminal justice: excess. The law and order policy is very profitable, politically, and the Minister of Justice knows this very well.
Whether on the issue of young offenders or on the issue of impaired drivers, the Minister of Justice has shown her inability to manage complex problems without having to resort to dangerously repressive measures.
We are examining what seems today to be the most important issue in criminal law, the tendency of the legislator to misinterpret the public's state of mind and the belief that punitive legislation will satisfy those advocating dissuasion as the cornerstone of the criminal justice system as it applies to adolescents.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-18.
We must not lose our sense of direction. In 1998, there were no more road deaths and injuries, serious or light, in Quebec than there were criminal acts. The statistics bear witness: there were 47,000 criminal acts committed in Quebec in 1998, compared with 39,000 road accidents. On the 39,000 unfortunate accidents on the roads, the experts do not agree. The figures cited vary between 5% and 50%, making these statistics useless.
In the worst case scenario, road accidents still represent fewer than half the crimes. They say that there are 50% fewer crimes than there are accidents involving alcohol on the roads, and the government is proposing a bill to punish and to take vengeance out on the drunk drivers, ignoring the real criminals.
What can be said for sure, however, is that a road accident, even one caused by alcohol, is not the result of a conscious desire to do harm.
The Bloc Quebecois has often been criticized for systematically causing obstruction in Ottawa, simply to show that the federal system does not function. This criticism will not apply this time around, for its stand on sentences for impaired driving.
Quite the contrary. In this case, its firm position has helped curb the excessive zeal of those who promote zero tolerance. By the same token, it has helped set the whole debate in a more reasonable context where sentences for these offences will not be out of proportion, compared with crimes that are just as serious, but entail shorter sentences.
This is not a new problem for federal authorities. Year after year, they watch as the number of accidents caused by impaired driving reaches an alarming level. In 1997 alone, there have been in Canada no less than 193 fatal accidents caused by impaired driving.
Such statistics should have warned any responsible government that it had to examine how relevant its preventive and repressive measures and not vengeful measures.
That was precisely the mandate of a House of Commons justice committee, which has been reviewing for the last few months all the legislation that could have an impact on this issue, in order to make recommendations to the minister before the introduction of a bill amending current legislation.
But when the government is facing, as is the case right now, an ultraconservative and populist opposition like the Reform Party, which keeps demanding stiffer sentences to impose law and order everywhere, we run the risk of getting extreme solutions that do not always take the whole picture into account. Their main advantage is that they tend to placate a frustrated population whose thirst for vengeance is constantly played on by many demagogues.
When, on top of that, the governing party feels that it must absolutely increase its popularity among a group of citizens who applaud the opposition's uncompromising attitude, we end up with an unacceptable bill such as the one that gave rise to the Bloc Quebecois' unyielding and totally justified opposition.
Of course, it should have been obvious to its drafters that, notwithstanding the comments of those who promote drastic harshness, it would end up with fanatics calling for life imprisonment.
I am now addressing those who drafted Bill C-18. With lucidity and responsibility, they should have recommended to the lawmakers and the Liberal Party that such legislation never be passed.
Surely, a clear message must be sent to all those who are so irresponsible as to drive while impaired.
The Bloc does not object to this. We must continue to raise public awareness. We must continue to seek more humane and logical approaches to raise public consciousness about impaired driving.
I am convinced that, if the government reacted more realistically, more responsibly, Bill C-18 would be withdrawn.
