Bill C-32 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle while in possession of a controlled substance as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;
(b) to authorize specially trained peace officers to conduct tests to determine whether a person is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug;
(c) to authorize the taking of bodily fluids to test for the presence of alcohol or a drug;
(d) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood and causing bodily harm or death to another person;
(e) to clarify what evidence a person accused of driving with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood can introduce to raise a doubt that they were not committing the offence;
(f) to create an offence of refusing to provide a breath sample when the accused knows or ought to know that the accused’s operation of a motor vehicle caused an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person or death; and
(g) to increase the penalties for impaired driving.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

No, I don't. I think Bill C-32 will make the roads safer for the vast majority of people.

If it goes to court, will it be deemed to be a violation of their rights? Probably, but one that I hope would be acceptable, just the same as a breath test is. Because really all we're doing with the drug evaluation is paralleling the evidence that we gain through a breath test, the difference being that instead of using an instrument to obtain a breath sample for the blood alcohol concentration, we're using a trained police officer to gain the evidence of drug impairment.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

—a little later getting there than that, but they rushed this guy off to the hospital. Although his injuries were not fatal, he was injured, and they wanted to get him to the hospital.

In my office I have a number of people who have responded to me about their fear of Bill C-32 being so intrusive on the rights of individuals. Do you feel this bill is intrusive?

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks for being here.

I have an age-old problem in regard to all of this thing. I'll give you a true story, and I'd like you to respond to how it's different now and how Bill C-32 would make a difference to this particular scenario.

Caroline Bergeson was sitting on a two-lane highway, signalling to turn left. She had her signal lights on; unfortunately, she also had her wheels turned to go left. She was rear-ended by another vehicle, which knocked her in front of a gravel truck, which...I don't have to tell you the outcome of that collision.

The volunteer fire department, which is in a small rural community where this happened, was on the scene, waiting for the ambulances to appear. The driver of the second vehicle that hit Caroline was slightly injured, and they, the volunteer fire department rescue truck, drove him into the closest hospital.

A couple or three days later, the parents of Caroline were informed that after testing and checking of the body, there was no impairment whatsoever, no drugs, no alcohol in Caroline, so that would give them some peace of mind that she didn't have them. That wasn't a problem in terms of what had happened. The parents asked, “What about the driver of the second vehicle?” Testing was never done.

Today, would testing be automatic? Would testing be required of the second driver?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. It is Thursday, June 14, 2007.

The committee is continuing its examination of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Appearing before the committee as a witness is Corporal Evan Graham, national coordinator, drug evaluation and classification program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Thank you for attending again, sir.

From the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, we have Ms. Marthe Dalpé-Scott, co-chair of drugs and driving committee. I understand you are replacing Ms. Treacy.

[Brian Hodgson]

Thank you.

First of all, yes, the alcohol test committee is supportive of Bill C-32. Our only concern is that specific change in regard to the interval between successive breath tests.

I want to make it clear that my colleague Louise and I are only discussing the aspect of alcohol detection, which is a much simpler process than it is for other types of drugs. The technology that exists, has existed, and will exist is well tuned and adapted to measuring alcohol either at the roadside for screening purposes by use of a screening device or to confirm the blood alcohol concentration by means of an approved instrument. It's a very straightforward process. It's one that has to have strict protocols.

On testing drugs, I'm going to have to leave that to my colleague Ms. Treacy in terms of the testing at the roadside, because it's a completely different aspect.

If my colleague Louise has anything to add, perhaps she'd like to comment.

[Mitchell MacLeod]

No, that's not the way the criminal justice section sees it. Indeed, in my deep contemplation of moments ago, I was taking a couple of notes. What Ms. Treacy had spoken about was some testing that, let's say, is suggestive of a central nervous system stimulant, and then there's corroborative testing of the urine, and in that testing of the urine it shows there's cocaine in the urine. I think the conclusion the court is going to be asked to draw, or that people are going to be asked to draw, is that the detection of the cocaine in the urine is somehow corroborative that a central nervous system stimulant, and specifically cocaine, was impairing that person's ability to drive a motor vehicle.

We see that type of logic generating an unbelievable amount of litigation. It would be our view that you cannot necessarily draw the conclusion that the presence of cocaine in the urine is corroborative of either the fact that the person was under the influence of cocaine as the central nervous stimulant—it might have been a different central nervous system stimulant—or indeed that a central nervous system stimulant was the precursor to the symptoms that the drug recognition expert found. I think you're going to have court challenges at every step of that process, arguing about what symptoms are indicative of what drugs, about what the differential diagnosis is. If a person is exhibiting symptoms A, B, and C, yes, it could be a central nervous system stimulant. What else could it be?

Those aspects of it, in the view of the criminal justice section, are just part of what we see as a set of circumstances in Bill C-32 that are going to generate an unbelievable amount of litigation, and attendant costs, both in terms of resources and in terms of the time the cases are tied up in the system.

[Mitchell MacLeod, Executive Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having a first name that's a common last name often results in my being referred to as Mr. Mitchell. For the record, I'll say that actually MacLeod is my last name.

I would echo Ms. Thomson's comments with regard to both appreciating the opportunity to share our perspective here today with this committee on this very important issue, as well as indicating that our written submission, which has been provided to you, does encompass a broad range of perspectives from lawyers who not only occupy different roles in terms of being either crown attorneys or defence counsel but also encompass practitioners from across the country who operate in urban and rural environments and in public and private practices.

I sit as a provincial branch chair on the executive of our criminal justice section, and I can well attest to the lively debate and discussion that goes on amongst our group in coming to conclusions and recommendations that we present in our written submission to you. Indeed, I can say personally that in the ten-plus years I've had a substantial criminal law practice, I have operated and currently operate as both a defence lawyer and as a prosecutor. On some occasions I have stood on both sides of the courtroom on the same day.

I'd like to preface our main commentary by reiterating the common ground that I believe everyone in this room shares, and that is that the best interests of our society and of our citizens are served in reducing the incidence of impaired driving.

No numbers or statistics that we may see bandied about on this important issue will do really any justice to the value of a human life that might be saved if you, as a committee or our government, are successful in employing legislative changes or changes in policy that reduce the incidence, the frequency, of impaired driving on our highways.

We may represent a group of lawyers from across Canada, but we're all citizens, we're all members of the community, and no one would stand in the way of something as obviously beneficial to our society as a reduction in the amount of impaired driving and the tragedies that can often result from it.

However, and as you'll see from our submissions, the measures we seek to employ to accomplish that goal must not just seem to be things that would reduce impaired driving or look like they might do so; they should and must demonstrably do so. These measures should and must be rationally and factually connected to the results we desire. They should and must be measures that respect and balance the fundamental rights of all citizens that are enshrined in our charter. They must not confuse a perhaps understandable desire for retribution or for an increase in conviction rates. It must not confuse those concepts with a reduction in impaired driving rates.

The position specifically is outlined in our fairly substantial written materials, and I don't propose to utilize our remaining time in going through each of those in any particular detail. I would like to highlight, though, a few of our points, and perhaps points that haven't been touched on by other witnesses here this morning.

In relation to an overall perspective, it's our position that each of the proposed amendments or sections in Bill C-32 invite a substantial amount of charter scrutiny, and as a result invite substantial and perhaps in some instances even a paralyzing amount of litigation. To anyone who might suggest that the criminal justice section's concerns about these proposals show perhaps a defence counsel bias, I can certainly say that in its current form these amendments are a defence lawyer's dream, at least from a trial volume perspective.

As a lawyer whose practice encompasses the defence of impaired driving cases, I can certainly say from a purely professional and self-interested perspective that I can see in these proposals many months, if not years, of substantial litigation in the pages of Bill C-32 as it currently exists. However, the public interest prevails in the Canadian Bar Association's perspective on these issues, and the criminal justice section perspective in particular. Thus, in our conclusion, we state that every effort should be made to try to implement measures that might reduce the incidence of impaired driving to avoid encouraging or causing a torrent of litigation and the negative impact that would have on the administration of justice generally through the vastly increased demands that litigation would place on our criminal courts across the country.

The increased demands tie up resources, funds, and time that can be devoted, in our view, to measures that more materially deter impaired drivers. Those are measures that keep them off the roads in the first place. Those are the measures that will ultimately most directly save lives. Those measures are accomplished through enforcement. It is our view that the perceived risk of getting caught trumps any perceived risk or reward in terms of what might happen after someone is caught. It is that perceived risk of detection, of getting caught, that ultimately will best serve the interest of reducing the frequency of impaired driving in this country.

On the issue of drug recognition experts, the use of roadside testing and later testing, and as well on the issue of eliminating or curtailing evidence to the contrary defences, I'll touch on just one part of our submission in that regard. In our view, those items should be non-starters, essentially without mandatory audiovisual recording of the events that are related to those measures. An audiovisual recording should be a condition precedent to any contemplated enshrinement of these provisions in the Criminal Code.

The ability to record these things is already widely distributed. In our view, it's not so much a technological challenge as it is a commitment to devote appropriate resources to setting up frameworks for audiovisual recording of the activities of roadside testing, drug recognition experts involved at later testing, and items related to eliminating or curtailing evidence of the contrary defences. A commitment to complete audiovisual recording of those items should be mandatory, in our view.

By their very nature, the activities of drug recognition experts, regardless of how well trained they are, involve significant subjectivity, and they cry out, in our view, for audiovisual recording. In our view, the availability of an audiovisual record of the activity of drug recognition experts, roadside testing, and later testing would significantly deter many from perhaps rolling the dice and taking their chances at trial. I can say from personal experience with my own clients that there's nothing like seeing themselves on the big screen to bring home the reality of the situation to a client.

In our view, the availability of an audiovisual record might help reduce the anticipated deluge of litigation on these subjective drug recognition experts' testing. Indeed, if the types of testing that these drug recognition experts undertake are as accurate and legitimized through training to the extent that we have heard from certain witnesses, then certainly an audiovisual record of the process would only serve to confirm that fact and offer assurances to the public and to the profession in that regard.

With regard to audiovisual recording and the elimination or curtailing of evidence to the contrary defences—the so-called two-beer or bolus drinking defences—the provisions in Bill C-32 shift the onus to accused persons to produce evidence that tends to show that the instrument or machine, or the operator of that instrument or machine, is in error. The provisions additionally limit greatly what types of evidence an accused person can adduce in support of the position that the machine is wrong or in error or that the operator is incorrect or in error. This, in our view, makes the defence in that situation virtually moot absent the availability of an independent audiovisual record of the process. An accused person is hardly going to be in a position many weeks or months after the fact to call any evidence that tends to call into question either the operation of the machine or the activities of the operator, unless there is an independent record of what the machine did and how the operator operated it. In our respectful view, that requires more than just a checklist that the operator may have filled out or checked off and more than just a slip of paper that the machine may generate in its own self-testing mode that says, “I've tested myself, and I'm working fine, thank you very much”.

There is widespread availability of the technology at police stations and detachments to do this. Where that capability doesn't exist, it's our view that there should be a commitment to make it available. In order for there to be any meaningful defence available to an accused person to call evidence that tends to show these things, we have to allow for an after-the-fact, independent appraisal of what occurred at the station with the operator and with the instrument or machine.

Last, I'd like to touch briefly on the portion of our submission on the proposed new offences that involve offences of, in the vernacular, “over 80”, causing death or bodily harm or refusal when an accused person knows or ought to have known that he or she had caused an accident that resulted in severe bodily harm or death.

We see those provisions as significantly problematic. It's the view of the criminal justice section that to equate the maximum penalties—life in prison for offences that involve actual proof of impaired driving versus, simply, evidence that the person has a reading of over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood or has refused to provide a sample—with moral blameworthiness in those circumstances is problematic and certainly invites significant charter challenge. We would suggest that it is not the reading of one's blood alcohol that “causes” death or bodily harm or causes the accident that causes death or bodily harm; it's the impaired ability to operate the motor vehicle that is the causal factor in those circumstances. And as we've pointed out in our submission, the virtually universal recognition that impairment of one's ability to drive occurs at readings of 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood really negates the necessity or efficacy that one might suggest would be achieved by adding an offence of over 80—again I put it in quotation marks—“causing” death or bodily harm.

Even more problematic, in our view, is the addition of an offence of refusal to provide a sample wherein death or bodily harm is involved. As pointed out in our paper, any time you import an objective test in those circumstances, which requires proof that the person knew or ought to have known that death or bodily harm resulted, that is problematic in the extreme. At the time, a person might refuse to provide a sample wherein death or bodily harm has resulted. That's obviously a time when a serious accident has taken place and persons who are asked for a sample may be injured or suffering from shock. That obviously may foreseeably impact on what they know or ought to have known in the circumstances, and it raises significant problems of proof.

Indeed, looking at it a little further, whether a person at the time they're asked to provide a sample, which obviously is in a time period that is close in time to when this accident would have taken place...there's a fair question to be asked whether they're even in a position to assess whether their operation of a motor vehicle “caused” an accident as opposed to simply that they were involved in an accident. Those are two different situations, two different sets of criteria involved.

I thank you again for the opportunity to present a few of the aspects that are raised in our written submission. As you know, our written submission goes into further technical detail regarding case law and other aspects of the legislation that the criminal justice section finds problematic.

It is certainly a worthy societal goal. There's nothing in our submission, nor in my presentation here today, in which we wish to suggest that a reduction of the incidence of impaired driving is not a worthy endeavour. By the same token, we would suggest that these provisions overall do not provide a rationally connected set of circumstances in which the ultimate goal—a reduction in the amount of impaired driving on our highways—can reasonably be expected to be achieved.

I'll end my comments there and look forward to any questions you may have.

[Tamra Thomson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

The Canadian Bar Association appreciates the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill C-32. We're a national association of 37,000 lawyers across Canada. Our mandate includes improvement of the law and improvement in the administration of justice. It's in that optic that we have evaluated Bill C-32.

Our written submission represents that analysis of the bill. It was prepared by our criminal justice section. I think our criminal justice section is unique in Canada, in that its members comprise both defence counsel and crown counsel, so they bring that balance of views to their analysis of the bill.

I'm going to ask Mr. Mitchell, who is a member of the executive of the section, to present some of the highlights of the analysis of the bill.

[Dr. Douglas Beirness, Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am the manager of research and policy at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, also referred to as CCSA. I'm a behavioural scientist, and over the past 24 years my research has focused almost exclusively on impaired driving issues. With me today is Monsieur Jacques LeCavalier, former CEO of CCSA and a current associate and senior advisor. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to share our views on the issue of drugs and driving in Canada as you consider Bill C-32.

CCSA is Canada's national non-governmental organization established in 1988 by an act of Parliament to provide national leadership and evidence-informed analysis and advice on substance use and abuse issues in Canada. Accordingly, the issue of drugs and driving is of great interest to our organization, and we believe we're well positioned to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

My colleagues and I at CCSA believe impaired driving is an area of serious concern for Canada. We've addressed the issue in a number of publications, copies of which have been provided to the clerk. We've also agreed to work with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and Transport Canada to facilitate the goals and objectives of the strategy to reduce impaired driving. Collectively, our work reflects our level of interest and expertise in the area of drugs and driving.

In general, we at CCSA support the overall purpose and intent of the proposed legislation, particularly the requirement for drivers who are suspected of driving while impaired by drugs and/or alcohol to submit to physical coordination tests, such as the standardized field sobriety test, to submit to an evaluation of drug influence conducted by an officer trained in these techniques, such as the drug evaluation and classification program, also known as the DRE program, and to provide a bodily fluid sample for analysis. These provisions help to create a process comparable to that currently used for alcohol-impaired driving. However, there are a number of important considerations regarding Bill C-32 that we would like to bring to the committee's attention.

Our work on the issue illustrates the extent of the known risks posed by the impairing effects of drugs in traffic. At the same time, our work illustrates that relative to the knowledge about alcohol and driving, the knowledge base about drugs and driving is quite limited. To a large extent, this is because drugs and driving is a far more complex issue than alcohol. These complexities have hindered progress in the field, rendering tenuous any attempt at unequivocal statements about the magnitude of the problem of drugs and driving. As such, there's a dire need for credible scientific research to shed light on the true nature and magnitude of the problem of drugs and driving in Canada.

A difficulty that has persistently plagued research in this field is the detection and measurement of impairing substances in drivers. Whereas the presence and quantity of alcohol can be easily and reliably determined through breath analysis, no valid and consistently reliable comparable device currently exists to test drivers for other substances. Technological innovations using oral fluid samples hold promise for a device that will reliably detect the presence of certain substances, but practical devices may be many years away. Moreover, unlike alcohol where agreed upon levels of blood alcohol content consistent with impairment exist, such levels have never been established for other substances.

The alcohol crash relative risk curve, presented in a classic study by Professor Borkenstein back in the early 1960s, has yet to be established for other drugs. Hence, it's critical that tests to determine the extent of driver impairment accompany the collection and testing of bodily fluids for the presence of psychoactive substances.

My colleagues and I at CCSA have been working with the RCMP on an evaluation of the implementation of the DRE program here in Canada. Both Monsieur LeCavalier and I have taken the DRE course and we are very familiar with how this program operates.

You have previously heard from other witnesses, including Corporal Graham of the RCMP, that the DRE program is a systematic and standardized protocol to assess suspected impaired drivers for signs and symptoms associated with impairment by psychoactive substances. As part of our project we've had the opportunity to review the scientific evidence on the accuracy of the DRE program and have concluded that the ability of trained officers to identify the drug category responsible for the observed signs and symptoms in suspected impaired drivers is very good indeed, with measures of accuracy typically exceeding 85%. False negatives were not uncommon, but false positives were relatively rare.

A paper reporting the results of our study has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal, Traffic Injury Prevention. A copy has been provided to the clerk.

We've also examined drug evaluations of suspected drug-impaired drivers, conducted by Canadian officers trained in the DRE protocol in Canada. The findings demonstrated that the judgment of the evaluating officer concerning the category of drug responsible for the observed impairment matched the drug category in the toxicology analysis in 98% of cases. Again, a draft copy has been provided to the clerk.

In an ongoing study, we're investigating the reliability of the DRE protocol; that is the degree to which different officers are able to agree on the drug category involved for a given individual. To do this study we provided a randomly selected group of certified DREs with evaluation test results from 23 actual cases. The information provided included only the results of the test performed during the original DRE evaluation. Missing were the report of the arresting officer about driving impairment, the evaluating officer's narrative during the evaluation, and any admissions of drug use by the suspect. Using this limited set of information, our preliminary analysis showed that DREs were able to agree on the drug category involved approximately 75% of the time. Given that our experts were not able to observe the suspect first-hand, and only limited information was provided, we consider the results to be very good. In addition to demonstrating the reliability of the evaluations, the findings attest to the overall validity of the objective data collected as part of a DRE evaluation.

As positive as your research findings are, it is also evident that the DRE protocol is not perfect. The data indicate that the accuracy of the DRE procedure varies according to the class of drug. Some drug types are simply more difficult to detect than others. The use of more than one drug and the use of alcohol in combination with other substances can mask some symptoms and exacerbate others, leading to a mis-specification of drug category. In such cases, there is no question that the suspect is impaired. It's merely a question as to which class of substance is responsible for the observed impairment. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the DRE protocol is the best procedure available to assess drug-induced impairment. Further research and evaluation is clearly necessary to better understand the role of drugs and road safety and how best to identify and deal with those who engage in this behaviour.

The DRE protocol is an evolving process. Further research and development of the DRE protocol will ultimately lead to improvements in the extent to which these procedures can be used to detect some drug classes. Our own research continues, and we're currently using existing evaluations to identify sets of key variables in the evaluation to help officers identify specific drug categories.

We also believe there's a necessity to focus on the issue of impairment, and it's fundamental to the overall intent and purpose of the legislation. The mere presence of a drug or a drug metabolite is not sufficient to demonstrate the driver's ability was impaired. The proposed legislation outlines a process whereby the investigating officer must establish reasonable and probable grounds of impairment of the ability to operate a vehicle safely before making a demand for a bodily fluid sample. This process eliminates fears raised through the media about the possibility of criminal impairment charges being laid as a result of a positive drug test that may not be linked to actual or recent drug use. The police must first establish that the driver's ability was impaired.

It is also our belief that the legislation should maintain a focus on public safety, by controlling drug-impaired driving, and should not be used as a means of drug control. In this context, we believe that the proposed subsection 253.1(1), which makes it an offence to have a controlled substance in the vehicle, is inconsistent with the concept of impaired driving. Simply being in the possession of a drug in a vehicle does not equate with driver impairment. In addition, this particular proposed subsection specifies controlled substance as specified in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, CDSA, some of which have never been shown to cause impairment—for example, anabolic steroids. We recommend that offences related to the possession of illegal substances be tackled through the CDSA.

In addition, to further ensure that the focus of the legislation is on impairment, there is a need to define a drug. To this end, we propose the definition of a drug used by the DRE program. They say a drug is any substance that, when taken into the human body, can impair the ability of the person to operate a vehicle safely.

Although there's sufficient evidence of the dangers of drug-impaired driving to warrant the measures introduced by this legislation, the evidence is also very clear that the combination of alcohol and drugs, even in small amounts, creates a level of impairment and risk greater than that associated with either substance alone.

In recognition of this, we would like to propose that impairment due to a combination of alcohol and drugs, or a combination of two or more drugs, be treated as exacerbating circumstances in sentencing, similar to subsection 255(1), which currently considers blood alcohol concentrations in excess of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood to be aggravating circumstances in alcohol-impaired driving offences.

Undoubtedly you have already recognized that Bill C-32 will require officers trained in both field impairment testing and DRE. There are currently 2,427 officers trained in the SFST and 153 certified DRE officers, with 97 officers in the process of certification across Canada. From personal experience, we can attest to the fact that the DRE training is demanding and intensive. It requires commitment, ongoing study, and practice. If this legislation is to have a beneficial impact on drug-impaired driving in Canada, there needs to be an ongoing commitment to the training of police officers in these techniques as well as to the continued development and evaluation of these techniques.

The introduction of this legislation and the training programs necessary to support it are bold steps needed to address a persistent and what we believe is a growing problem. But as you consider this legislation, it's important to recognize that enforcement is only one component of an overall strategy to deal with drug-impaired driving. There's a need to include prevention, adjudication, and rehabilitation as integral components of a broader strategy.

An effective overall strategy will also require coordination and cooperation with the provinces and territories that share responsibility for dealing with impaired driving. Provincial and territorial agencies should be encouraged to examine their own programs for alcohol-impaired drivers, such as administrative licence suspension, short-term suspensions, interlock programs, and rehabilitation programs, and ensure that appropriate options are available for drug-impaired drivers as well. In the absence of these changes, drivers will quickly begin to perceive drug-impaired driving as a less severe offence than alcohol-impaired driving, and this is clearly unacceptable.

As a final note, we'd like to recommend that due consideration be afforded to the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the legislation and the introduction of the DRE program. Evaluation is more than a simple process to determine the success or failure of a program. Evaluation serves to inform policy-makers such as yourselves as to where improvements may be needed to maximize the effectiveness of a program and where efficiencies can be introduced. In the area of drug-impaired driving, a commitment to ongoing monitoring and evaluation is critical.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to present our views on drugs and driving in Canada to the committee. Thank you for your interest. We look forward to your questions.

[Shirley Treacy]

All right.

Good morning. My name is Shirley Treacy. As I indicated, I am the current chair of the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science.

The drugs and driving committee is an advisory committee to the Department of Justice on drug-impaired driving matters. I am a forensic toxicologist with more than 20 years of experience in analytical lab work as well as court testimony. I am the section manager for toxicology services for the RCMP forensic laboratory in Winnipeg and I am the former national operational support manager for toxicology services for the RCMP forensic laboratory. I'm also trained in standardized field sobriety testing and in the drug recognition, evaluation, and classification program.

The drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science has appeared twice before, in both 1999 and 2005, when similar drug-impaired driving legislation was introduced. Now, as on these previous occasions, the Canadian Society of Forensic Science drugs and driving committee wholeheartedly supports the legislation contained in Bill C-32.

The role of drugs in causing drug impairment as well as injury and fatal motor vehicle accidents in Canada and throughout the rest of the world is well documented in the scientific literature. The brief that was provided as part of this lists a number of those references.

Currently there are two offences in the Criminal Code that relate to impaired driving. One of them is in paragraph 253(b), which has to do with the illegal per se law, the “over 80” charge as it relates to alcohol. Here the police can demand that a person blow into a screening device at the roadside when they suspect alcohol in the body. If the person fails that screening device, the police then have reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample for an evidentiary device—a breathalyzer, an Intoxilyzer, a DataMaster—and these readings can be used as evidence in court.

In the case of injury or if the person is unable to provide a breath sample, police can make a demand for a sample of blood, which is then collected by a medical practitioner and analyzed by the forensic laboratory for the presence of alcohol.

The second offence is in paragraph 253(a) of the Criminal Code, which has to do with driving impaired by alcohol or a drug, so in fact there is already a provision in the Criminal Code for drug-impaired driving. However, it is not as effective as it could be, since the police officer must provide evidence of both impaired driving behaviour as well as the presence of the drug causing impairment. You need both of those things.

Currently the second piece of information—the presence of a drug causing impairment—can only be determined through the driver's voluntarily participating in roadside sobriety testing, voluntarily giving a statement as to his drug consumption or voluntarily providing a bodily fluid sample for drug analysis. Most often this would be blood or urine. Note that I am emphasizing that these are all voluntary, and therefore few are compelled to comply.

Unlike the situation with regard to alcohol, there is no per se law for drugs, and there is no simple comprehensive roadside testing available to prove the presence of drug in a suspected drug-impaired driver. Available existing roadside screening tests conducted on urine or saliva are limited to the possible detection of just a few classes of drugs. These tests are presumptive only, non-specific, and do not measure impairment.

The drugs and driving committee does not support roadside testing for drugs by police officers. We feel that all drug testing, both screening and confirmation, should be conducted in a forensic laboratory by skilled analysts.

A drug-impaired driving case can only be proven by the totality of the following: one, observed and documented altered driving behaviour that alerts the police; two, roadside sobriety and drug recognition testing; and three, the demand for the collection of a bodily fluid. This bodily fluid sample would then be analyzed for the presence of drugs in a forensic laboratory.

Bill C-32 will give the police the authority to demand that the person perform the roadside sobriety test and drug recognition test, if appropriate, as well as to demand the collection of a bodily fluid. With these three things in place, these proposed legislative changes would safeguard and exclude those drivers who use prescribed medication correctly for therapeutic uses. Ethical use of drugs prescribed by a physician and dispensed and monitored by a pharmacist should not lead to impairment.

It is important to note that the mere presence of a drug in the driver, whether it be a prescription, a non-prescription, or an illicit drug, would not lead to a charge of impaired driving, since his or her driving would not have alerted police. Please remember that not all drugs will cause impairment, nor will they affect one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

In the United States, the issue of drug-impaired drivers has led to the establishment of the drug recognition evaluation or DRE program in most states. The DRE program was adopted in 1988 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, and is managed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It represents a structured 12-step procedure for assessing suspected impaired individuals and allows for the detection and documentation of symptoms of drug use and the effects.

The DRE program is based on the scientific fact that each family of drugs has its own set of clinical indicators. There are seven classes. They look at things like pulse, blood pressure, body temperature, muscle tone, and examination of the eyes. These can be learned, and tests can then be administered to look at the set of clinical indicators. This then allows the DRE-trained officer to identify a particular family or families of drugs causing impairment.

In addition, part of the DRE protocol is to have the individual complete a number of divided attention tasks to check for a deterioration in the ability to perform these tasks. Because driving is a complex task, it requires persons to divide their attention to do both physical and mental functions at the same time. Persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol will have difficulty in dividing their attention. In fact, they have a tendency to focus on one task, while ignoring others. For example, a person might concentrate on maintaining speed but would have trouble or be negligent in monitoring a lane position. Any deterioration in the ability to perform the divided attention tasks will be documented as part of the DRE protocol. This is used to assess whether or not a person is impaired.

The DRE approach also establishes the necessary probative cause for the collection of a biological sample for toxicological testing. If and when the DRE-trained officer identifies a family of drugs as causing impairment, the DRE can then demand a bodily fluid sample to test for the presence of the drug.

At this point, collection of the bodily fluid, which is usually urine, is the last step. It's step 12 of 12 steps. The urine sample is collected and then analyzed for the presence of drugs by a forensic laboratory.

The toxicologist's main role in this type of impaired driving investigation, and by that I mean where a DRE evaluation is completed, is to corroborate the finding of the DRE-trained officer. Therefore, if the DRE finding is not supported by the drug analysis, the toxicologist cannot corroborate the DRE finding and the case will not proceed to trial.

This process is outlined in reference 7, which is entitled “The Drug-Impaired Driver: The Drug Recognition Expert Response”.

At present there are 46 U.S. states that use this process to detect and prosecute drug-impaired drivers. This program has been scientifically validated both in the laboratory and at the roadside. Since the proposed legislation will detect the abuse of both pharmaceutical and illicit drugs, it's application is not restricted to illicit drugs.

In addition to the impairment caused by alcohol and other recreational drugs, there are many other medical conditions that can cause driving impairment, such as, for example, things like uncontrolled diabetes, epilepsy, and stroke. The DRE procedures are designed to help police officers identify medical disorders that can cause impairment. As a result, the DRE-trained officer would seek medical assistance for this person rather than incarceration.

Thank you for your attention.

[Brian Hodgson, Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I sent a letter to the chair of the committee, Mr. Hanger, on May 24. I hope it's been distributed in both French and English. It sets out our views and our concerns with respect to one particular aspect of Bill C-32, and that's the change of the interval between successive breath tests, reducing it from 15 minutes down to three minutes.

Just as a preliminary background, I should indicate that the alcohol test committee is a special committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. This committee was established way back in 1967 at the time when the first legislation was being introduced, the “over 80” legislation. The committee deals specifically with issues related to alcohol testing.

The committee is responsible for creating protocols for breath-testing programs across Canada, developing performance standards, evaluating breath-testing equipment, and establishing training standards for police officers using this equipment. In addition, the committee is the principal scientific advisor to the Department of Justice on matters relating to breath alcohol testing. I would add that any new instrument or device that's meant for police use here in Canada under the Criminal Code must be approved by the Minister of Justice, who will do so only upon the recommendation of our committee.

The committee standards for evaluating instruments are found at the website for the society, www.csfs.ca. The committee has a very rigorous protocol for evaluating instruments and devices for accuracy, precision, reliability, and specificity.

In regard to the current Bill C-32, the committee has a concern about reducing the interval between successive breath tests from 15 down to three minutes. The alcohol test committee recommends retaining the 15-minute interval between successive breath alcohol tests. This procedure produces two readings that are independent of each other but close enough in time to achieve acceptable reproducibility. The courts can be assured that the subject's blood alcohol concentration is truly what it is when two independent tests reveal the same conclusion within the acceptable boundaries of variability.

An interval of only three minutes, as proposed by Bill C-32, produces two readings that are interrelated or, in scientific terms, are duplicates of each other. Thus an external factor, such as mouth alcohol, that may contaminate the first sample can also affect the second sample, since it is taken so soon after the first sample.

Although some approved instruments have a built-in mouth alcohol detection system, these systems are not foolproof. They may be able to detect high concentrations of mouth alcohol, but low residual amounts may go undetected. Thus a mandatory 15-minute pre-test waiting period is required before the first test. But Bill C-32 contains no such provision.

The current 15-minute interval is ample time for any potential mouth alcohol to dissipate. If the first sample is contaminated by residual alcohol, this residue will be gone completely 15 minutes later when the second sample is taken.

Some researchers have argued recently that better agreement can be achieved between successive tests if they are taken close together, such as three minutes apart. They argue that a longer time period, such as 15 minutes, can result in wider discrepancies between readings, because alcohol is being eliminated, thereby changing the blood alcohol concentration, leading to a discrepancy greater than normally permitted and necessitating a third sample from the subject.

However, the amount eliminated during the 15 minutes is forensically insignificant and is not likely to be a major factor when a third sample is required.

Indeed, this research has demonstrated that the larger variable by far in duplicate testing lies with the quality of the breath samples provided by the subject. Over 80% of the variability can be attributed to the quality of the breath sample, which is called the “biological” or “sampling” component.

On a practical level, very little will be gained by reducing the interval to three minutes.

For example, in my own personal experience, in the last five and a half years I have examined over 600 files—621 to be exact—for the City of Ottawa Crown Attorney's office. I found that only 10 of those cases, which is less than 2% of the total, involved three or more readings. A shorter time interval might have alleviated the need for a third reading. I stress that it might have, since it was not at all certain that the discrepancy could be attributed to the time interval and not to the major variable of biological or sampling problems with the subjects themselves.

Finally, touching on the other change proposed in Bill C-32, under the category of “evidence to the contrary”, as you know, Bill C-32 proposes to eliminate the so-called two-beer defence. An accused person will stand and testify that he or she only had three bottles or four bottles of beer over the course of a period of time. If by calculation the blood alcohol concentration is under 80, he or she is therefore not in violation of the Criminal Code. We suggest that the 15-minute interval offers a more rigorous determination of a person's blood alcohol concentration when confronted with questions under the “evidence to the contrary” provisions of section 258 of the code.

Two independent tests, both confirming that the blood alcohol concentration is over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, offer more reassurance to the courts than two closely linked duplicate or interrelated readings when the validity of the test procedure is being challenged and defence counsel allege that the blood alcohol concentration may be under 80 either at the time of the testing or even back at the time of the offence.

I want to add that I realize the two-beer defence causes a lot of consternation, because it's the opinion of an accused person versus what instruments say in terms of the blood alcohol concentration. The committee is supportive of the new changes to Bill C-32 in that regard because the recollection of a subject is completely unscientific. It's the subjective recall of a person as to what he or she may think he or she drank during the evening in question.

Things came to a head in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Regina v. Boucher in which the emphasis was apparently placed on what the evidence is from the accused person. In my viewpoint, the Supreme Court almost ignored the readings from the approved instrument. To my mind, it is an unscientific approach to matters and, from our viewpoint, it's untenable.

We welcome the changes in terms of the “evidence to the contrary” aspect. But it doesn't necessarily solve anything because the new creation of evidence to the contrary will now shift focus on to the instruments, the way they operate, and the way they are operated by personnel.

Mr. Chairman, I brought an approved screening device here today, called the Alcotest 7410 GLC, which is widely used here in Canada. I also brought one of the approved instruments used here in Canada, the Intoxilyzer 5000C, which is used here in Ontario and in some other parts of Canada. I also brought some brochures on that instrument, plus another instrument called the BAC DataMaster C, which is used here in Canada. I've also brought brochures on two new instruments that are currently before the minister awaiting approval. Those are the current generation instruments.

These instruments are all automated instruments. They require operator involvement. But when strict protocols are followed and the instrument is working properly as per the recommended procedures, then the tests obtained, especially when they're 15 minutes apart, provide conclusive proof of the person's blood alcohol concentration at the time of testing. Of course, it raises the question of what the blood alcohol concentration was at the time of the offence, but that becomes another issue.

Finally, in terms of the current situation in the courts with the two-beer defence, from our viewpoint that is a legal issue, it's not a scientific one, because the recollection of a person who obviously is going to have an interest in what he or she can remember is not scientific.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. This committee is deliberating on Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Our witnesses today are the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, Mr. Brian Hodgson, Louise Dehaut, and Shirley Treacy, chair of the drugs and driving committee; the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Mr. Douglas Beirness and Jacques LeCavalier; and the Canadian Bar Association, Mitchell MacLeod and Tamra Thomson.

I'm going to start, as they appear in the order of our agenda, with the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. Who will be presenting?

Mr. Hodgson, the floor is yours.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Wednesday June 13, 2007, and concluding on June 21, 2007, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that can be made one day a year, not on Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day, but this day, the 10th sitting day before June 23. It is a motion that can be made to allow the House to sit late into the evening.

I know that many members, when they look at that portion of the calendar and they see possible extension of sitting hours, they think that means we get to leave early for summer vacation, but that is not what it means. What it means is that under the Standing Orders of the House we can potentially sit and work late to get as much of the people's business done as possible because there are very important priorities for Canadians.

I will bear my soul here and say that it was not always my intention to move this motion. It was my hope that it would not be necessary. I was hoping that we would be making good progress.

For example, Bill C-52 in particular, the budget implementation bill was a bill which we believed we had an understanding with the other parties; in fact it had been shaken on by the member for St. Catharines, the member of the Liberal Party for Scarborough and others that it would be over to the Senate by June 6. Somewhere along the way the Liberal Party sought to treat it a little bit differently and as a result we are still debating it here almost a week later than the date we thought it would be over at the Senate. As a result of course we have lost considerable time to deal with other priorities for Canadians.

I want to talk about what those other priorities for Canadians might be, but first I want to focus on that number one priority which is Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill. As we have heard from many people in the House today, if that bill does not pass by the time the House rises for the summer, if that bill has not been dealt with, there are a number of financial priorities on issues that are very important to Canadians that will be lost, because it is a bill that reaches back to the previous fiscal year to spend funds. Those funds have to be allocated. The bill has to be passed and receive royal assent in order for those funds to be available in that fashion. If not, they are lost.

Some of those examples are ones which we have heard about today. The one that is at the top of my personal list is the $620 million in the budget for the patient wait times guarantee trust. This is money that is allocated to assist provinces in addressing what is one of our number one priorities—actually one of our top five priorities; I should put it that way—from the last election. That priority is to achieve a patient wait times guarantee, to help people get the kind of health care they need on a basis that is reasonable, that is practical, that is clinically sound.

For too long we saw patient wait times under the previous government actually double in length. We have this much vaunted Canadian health care system that we all purport to believe in, but if we really believe in it, we have to see that it works. An important part of it working is that Canadians should receive the health care that they need on a timely basis. That is what the $612 million is specifically aimed at.

The provinces are very anxious to receive these funds. It means a great deal for a lot of provinces. In my own province of Ontario that means $200 million plus of real money that Ontario needs for its health care system. The same thing, together with other elements, will mean for the province of Nova Scotia for health care $639 million including the transfer there. There is similar money throughout the country.

We are talking of significant funds. There are other elements in the budget. Much of that transfer will not be lost, as I said, because it is in the main budget funds, but the patient wait times guarantee money, that $612 million, is money that will be lost if we do not deal with that on a timely basis.

Another one that is very important is the $1.5 billion for the clean air and climate change trust. That is to help the provinces implement their plans to reduce greenhouse gases. It is very important.

On January 4 of this year, the Prime Minister addressed Canadians and identified what our priorities would be in government this year. One of those major priorities was to take real action on the environment. We have just seen that at the G-8 summit. In the summit declaration Canada's approach is an approach that is drastically different than it was for 13 years under the previous government when greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically regardless of the commitments it took on. Now we have a national plan that results in real reductions, an actual plan that does that in both the short and medium term but also very importantly in the long term.

It is that approach by the Canadian government that was hailed as an example not just by world leaders, by other G-8 leaders, but by journalists from around the world, by special interest groups. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a statement heralding Canada's approach as a model. The reason it is held out as a model and an example is it is an approach that can be used regardless of how lousy one's track record may be. This is important for a lot of the major emitters that had not been part of the arrangements up until now or did not have obligations under Kyoto to implement, major emitters like China, India, Brazil and the United States, to get them to the table and realize that if we are going to take on the challenges of addressing greenhouse gas emissions and turning around the risk of climate change and what it can potentially do to our world, we are going to have to take action in the long term. That is the approach of Canada that is being held as a model.

An important critical component of that approach is to engage and involve the provinces and ensure that they have in their hands the resources they need to be able to deliver. A big part of that is that $1.5 billion of ecotrust money, the clean air and climate change trust money. I underline that if we do not get Bill C-52 passed in time, that money will be lost.

This is where the delay and obstruction that the Liberal Party in particular has been conducting has been very harmful to the interests of Canadians who care about the environment, and in fact even those who do not care about the environment, because even if people do not care about it, it does affect them. It is important for all Canadians that they have that healthy environment.

Another example of the money that could be lost if Bill C-52 is not approved, if the Liberal obstruction is successful, is the $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway project. This is state of the art technology so that people can have better health care, taking advantage of technology to improve our health care system. This is something that is very important for the provinces to be able to deliver on the health care for Canadians, for their residents. Again if the Liberals are successful in their delay and obstruction plan this is something that will be lost if the bill is not dealt with and does not receive royal assent in the near future.

There is another one that is of particular of interest to me because it does affect residents in my part of Ontario. In fact the announcement was made in York region where I live and where my constituency is. That is the $225 million to protect endangered spaces, working in conjunction with groups like the Nature Conservancy of Canada to acquire sensitive lands that otherwise might be lost to development, or if not to acquire them, to put in place the kinds of conservation easements to ensure that they will be protected in their natural state for the foreseeable future, for as long as our legal regime remains in place, which is basically for as long as life continues as we know it. That money is very important but that money and the potential to protect those endangered lands will be lost if we cannot get the budget implementation bill passed in the appropriate time.

I also want to talk about the $30 million going to the Rick Hansen Foundation. Rick Hansen is the man in motion, a great Canadian who rolled his wheelchair around the world. He is a very strong personality and a great activist for his cause of spinal cord research. He suffered an injury but he showed that it did not hold him back and he did his around the world tour. I think it was in 1984 when he started his tour, which was an inspiration to all of us. The ongoing work of the foundation from the money he raised then is important. There is $30 million that we would like to see dedicated to that foundation. That $30 million would be lost if the Liberals have their way and they delay and obstruct this bill past the deadline we are dealing with.

For all of those reasons, the budget implementation bill is very important, not just because we want to see it passed, and that is a good reason, but there are actual, real consequences with a ticking clock, because of the fact that a significant amount of the funds are anchored in the previous fiscal year before March 31. That means we have to pass it before the books are closed. Basically we have to get royal assent. We have to get it all the way through before the folks here on Parliament Hill go home to their ridings for the summer. In order to do that, we want to see the potential to deal with this bill for as long as we need to.

I might add that we had hoped to be debating many other bills but the Liberals have chosen to delay this budget implementation bill in every way possible and for as long as they can, as we have seen in the House today and as we saw last Friday and so on. We have tried other measures to speed things along but they have stepped in to block them every time.

The other important bill that we need to deal with is Bill C-23, a Criminal Code amendment. Our justice agenda is very important, and Bill C-23 is a bill to update the Criminal Code provisions. It has come back to the House from committee and it is now at report stage. We would like to deal with that quickly but we will need some time in the House.

Similarly, we are expecting to see Bill C-11 on transport come back from the Senate with amendments. We will need to see whether this House agrees with those amendments or not. Bill C-11 is an important bill that has been around a long time, as members can see by the number, and we have been waiting for about a year to deal with it.

We also have Bill C-31, the election integrity bill. It is in the Senate and the Senate has indicated a desire to make some amendments to the bill. We and, I think, all parties would like to see that bill in this place, or at least three of the parties in the House would. The bill was amended at committee and we, as the government, accepted the amendments proposed by the Liberals and the Bloc.

Unfortunately, the Liberals in the Senate had a very different view of how the bill should work from the Liberals in the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate are actually getting rid of the House of Commons Liberal amendment on how to deal with the lists and the disclosure of information to political parties. They actually changed it to a position that was identical to what the Conservatives had originally proposed at committee.

As a result of the Liberals in the Senate deciding that they do not agree with the Liberals in the House of Commons, it means that we as the House of Commons need to deal with that bill one more time once the Senate has dealt with it.

We are waiting for that little ping-pong game between the Liberals in the Senate and the Liberals in the House of Commons to come to an end. When it does end, hopefully we can achieve a resolution on which we can all agree to ensure that future elections will proceed with a greater degree of integrity and probity, something that is very important to all parties and all members of this House.

Another bill that has come back after a long stay at committee is Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act, a very important bill on health matters and something we would like to deal with.

I know of one bill that the opposition House leader, the member for Wascana, has been very generous in showing a willingness to fast track and deal with very quickly and we are hoping to have it at report stage in the House very soon. I think we are in a position where we can do that very soon. I know other parties want some level of scrutiny so the very generous offer of the opposition House leader was one that we took up, but not everybody did. We can seek to get it passed through as many stages as possible in the House as quickly as possible. The bill I am talking about is the one dealing with Olympic symbols. I would like to see it dealt with on the House of Commons side and then go to the Senate.

That is an important bill for the folks who are putting together the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. It is important because it deals with copyright, trademarks and the like. We all know how challenging it is to put on these kind of games in this day and age and the ability to protect copyrights, to deal with merchandise and to generate that revenue to support the athletes, the games and the legacy venues that will be constructed as a result of that is important to the people who are involved, whether it be the athletes, the organizers or the people in those communities who will benefit from the legacies.

We are also waiting on other bills, such as Bill C-51, the Nunavik Inuit land claims, and Bill C-59 on video piracy. Bill C-59 was just introduced but the newspapers are saying that it is an important bill because it would create some meaningful consequences for people who engage in the illegal video taping of major films with the ultimate objective of putting them on the black market to sell them illegally without the copyright rights to it. That is something that has been hurting the film industry.

In places like Vancouver and Toronto, in fact all across the country, the film industry has become very important, but those places in particular. It is important that Canada maintains its credibility within that industry and that we support our artists and the people who give value to that intellectual property and that we show leadership as a country in protecting it.

In the future, as we move away from manufactured goods and products to the kinds of services that have more to do with intellectual property, we need to be seen as real leaders in that regard. As I said, media reports are suggesting that all parties actually support Bill C-59, which is why we would like to move it quickly.

Another bill that we recently introduced would support the Red Cross/Red Crescent in the adoption of a new symbol. We need to do that here in Canada through legislation because of a charter that exists. The bill would create an additional non-denominational symbol, which is the Red Crystal, that can be used through ratification of a treaty. If the Red Crescent symbol or the Red Cross symbol creates some discomfort with the local population, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society would be able to use the Red Crystal symbol as an alternate symbol, which is why as a country we need to recognize and ratify that it would have all the protections under the Geneva convention so that anyone would respect it. However, there would be consequences if people misused the symbol in trying to conduct an offensive military operation. The symbol would need to be used for the purpose intended, which is to protect and save lives in difficult scenes around the world.

All of the bills I have spoken about are on the House calendar. Some are in front of us and we would like to deal with them but others are still at committee.

I did not even speak to the first nations land management, which is a bill that was launched in the Senate.

We would like to see the passage of some bills that are still in committee and which we would like to see back from committee. We thought some would come back a little bit sooner, such as Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The committee has been doing clause by clause on Bill C-6 for almost a month now. I am glad to see that the committee is being that attentive but it is a bill that is important and we would like to see it.

The bill that I hope the committee deals with soon is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. I have spoken about the importance of justice and making our streets and communities safer. It was one of the five cornerstone priorities of the Conservatives when we ran in the last election. It was restated on January 4 by the Prime Minister as another priority.

I should acknowledge that we have had some good progress on getting some of those justice bills through the House but it was not easy. Some of them, like Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory penalties for gun crimes, stayed at committee. If one were to listen to politicians speak, one would think there is a consensus on the importance of mandatory penalties for gun crimes. Even the Liberal Party in the last election had that as one of its key elements in its platform.

However, when it came to committee, things were a little bit different. The Liberal Party actually gutted the meaningful parts of the legislation and it held up the legislation at committee for 252 days. Fortunately, that time is past and, thanks to the support of the New Democratic Party, we were able to put some teeth back into that legislation and make it meaningful. The legislation now contains some meaningful mandatory penalties for those gang members and crooks who want to terrorize our communities with guns and commit violent acts. They will face real consequences. When they commit an offence like that they will go to jail. There will be no more “get out of jail free” card and no more house arrest as a solution. They will actually serve real jail time for some of those offences. Where there already were mandatory penalties, they will be tougher and stronger mandatory penalities so that we can take real action.

I know these are important justice issues for Canadians, and that the gun legislation is a part of it, but the other bill that we are waiting for from committee is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. It is very easy to deal with impaired driving on alcohol right now because we have breathalyzers and standards. However, a much more difficult element is driving impaired through the use of other illegal substances, such as controlled or narcotic substances, or, in simple terms, drugs. People who use and abuse drugs and then proceed to drive a vehicle are just as impaired, if not more impaired, as someone who has consumed excessive alcohol. The consequences in terms of the risk to other drivers on the road are just as great. It can change the lives of a family if someone were to die or become injured. The lives of a family could be absolutely shattered when an accident occurs because of that kind of behaviour.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Period. But under the Criminal Code, it says very clearly—let me read it:

Where a peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, as a result of the consumption of alcohol, an offence under section 253, the peace officer may, by demand made to that person forthwith or as soon as practicable, require that person to provide then or as soon thereafter as is practicable

--and then it goes on about breath samples, etc.

Bill C-32 is amending that section, and it's amending it by saying:

If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours had alcohol or a drug in their body while they were operating a motor vehicle...the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol

The reasonable and probable grounds in the Criminal Code were linked to the fact that the person had committed, was committing, is committing, or at any time in the previous three hours committed an offence under section 253. In Bill C-32 we've removed the connection between the reasonable grounds—

Our courts have clearly defined all of the criteria for “reasonable grounds”, depending on the circumstances that meet the test of reasonable grounds. We've removed the connection with committing an offence under section 253. That's a glaring problem.