Bill C-16 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to clarify that the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph 253(1)(a) of that Act includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug. It authorizes 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 and also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily fluids to test for the presence of a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug in a person’s body.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Committees of the House

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House on Thursday, November 30, 2004, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Laval—Les Îles.

On November 30 we tabled this document from the citizenship and immigration committee. Let me say that the issues we at the committee tried to address are issues that have been longstanding concerns in front of this House.

One of the main issues that I was certainly very much interested in was the whole issue of revocation of citizenship for those who were not born in Canada. Under our current Citizenship Act, revocation of citizenship for naturalized Canadians does not conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I was delighted to see in the throne speech what the government laid out in saying that we are going to modernize our Citizenship Act. I was also glad to see that in the throne speech the government laid out that one of the founding principles by which it would govern was based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue we are talking about on revocation of citizenship pertains to all those Canadians who were not born in Canada. We are talking about nearly 6 million Canadians. We have close to 50 members of this House who were not born in Canada. This would apply directly to them.

We have been trying to deal with a new Citizenship Act since 1996. The first Citizenship Act that was considered in debate was Bill C-63, which was followed by Bill C-16, at which point in time I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration. As parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration, I could not at that time support the contents of Bill C-16 as it pertained to the revocation of citizenship.

I could not support Bill C-16 because I believe that something as important as citizenship, which strikes at the very identity of the 6 million Canadians who were born elsewhere, is of great importance and should be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At this time, I am sad to say, citizenship is not covered by the charter. Therefore, I had looked forward to sitting on the citizenship committee, whereby we could correct a longstanding injustice.

Madam Speaker, I may say that this situation applies to you as well, not having been born in Canada, and many other members of this House.

My battle has been to make sure that for something as valuable as citizenship rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies and applies also if the government wants to challenge the legitimacy of any naturalized Canadian's citizenship.

It is not often that a parliamentary secretary opposes a government initiative or, as a matter of fact, votes against the government's legislation and resigns over it, but that was one of those occasions, so when I returned in the last Parliament I decided to sit on the citizenship and immigration committee to address this issue in particular.

I am very pleased that the committee, acting in a very non-partisan fashion and with the good of Canadians in mind, went through the Citizenship Act and made a number of recommendations in our report. We recommended that the government table a new Citizenship Act.

First, those recommendations included one that there must be equal treatment of Canadian born and naturalized citizens. We cannot change the fact that some of us were born in Canada and some of us were born elsewhere, but we are all citizens. What we have in common besides our love for this country is the fact that our rights, and a right as important as citizenship, should be protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee made that recommendation in the report and it is worth emphasizing again: there must be equal treatment of Canadian born and naturalized citizens.

Second, referring to Bill C-18, there should be no probationary citizenship status.

Third, the legislation should enhance English and French as the official languages of Canada.

Fourth, for those who qualify, citizenship should be seen as right rather than a privilege. I think that is a very important concept, because there were those who said that citizenship is a privilege that can be revoked at a whim of the government. That is wrong. The committee unanimously agreed that it is wrong. I regret that some of the former ministers of citizenship did not see that point.

The next point was that no one should be denied or deprived of Canadian citizenship if doing so would render them stateless. This is important because we are signatories to international conventions in which we fight against statelessness. For us to be signatories to those conventions and then turn around and do this is wrong.

Another main point is that all determinations under the act should be made by an independent decision maker in a judicial process free from political interference. This point strikes at the very heart of our judicial system. It means that no politician, even a prime minister, should be able to deprive individuals of their liberties. That can only be done by the due process of law under the legal section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another issue we talked about was that while we get rights with citizenship, we also have responsibilities. That is an important concept. We often talk about rights but we do not talk about responsibilities, those responsibilities including people partaking in the democratic process and in the life of their community.

One of the very interesting things about this report is that we toured across Canada. During most of April, the citizenship and immigration committee went from coast to coast. We visited every provincial capital. We also visited Vancouver and Montreal, and for the very first time in its history, we visited the Waterloo region. The outpouring of support for the principles enunciated in this report was overwhelming.

This is a very important document that strikes at the very heart of what it means to be Canadian. I hope we can get legislation to incorporate both this report as well as all presentations to be heard from coast to coast.

Citizenship Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the issue of citizenship arouses passion among members of the House. Citizenship is something very emotional. It is not just an intellectual exercise. It is something that is very much a part of our being. Certainly, in my case it has taken me on very interesting journeys.

As was mentioned by the critic for the New Democratic Party, I had the privilege of tabling a bill in the House today on the issue of a new citizenship act. We had great cooperation from members of all parties, the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and members of my party.

Some of the comments I made this morning are very pertinent to this debate. One of my comments was that citizenship should be seen as a right for those who qualify rather than a privilege. We are talking about a right.

When it came to the issue of the lost Canadians, the committee was very strong in its recommendation. It recommended that any persons born in Canada who lost their Canadian citizenship as a child because their parent acquired a nationality of another country should be eligible to resume their citizenship without first becoming a permanent resident or without having to meet a residency requirement. The committee said that because what happened in a historical perspective was simply wrong.

It was mentioned before that what we are trying to do is to right a wrong. I am so gratified to see the near unanimous support that this concept has.

The bill was debated in the Senate and was passed twice unanimously by all the senators. The majority of members in the Senate are Liberals and yet the bill passed twice unanimously.

In previous studies of the Citizenship Act a number of proposed citizenship amendments failed: Bill C-63, Bill C-16 and Bill C-18. We heard testimony continually on those three bills and the feeling in committee in all cases was that this issue should be addressed.

I can give a fairly simple example to show how ridiculous the bill was. We have persons who were born in Canada between 1945 and 1977. If they were a minor and their father took out citizenship in another country these people automatically lost their citizenship.

I came to Canada in 1957. My wife had our daughter in 1986. Given the year my daughter was born, had I left the country after having become a Canadian citizen and gone elsewhere, let us say Hungary, she would be a Canadian citizen without having to have set one foot into Canada. Furthermore, my grandchild would also be a Canadian citizen.

Surely we can understand the frustrations of the lost Canadians. Surely we can understand their passion for wanting their citizenship back. Surely we can understand the feeling Canadians have that we want to right a wrong.

It was mentioned that Mr. Don Chapman put his case forward to the committee time and time again. He sought every opportunity to do that because he is very passionately a Canadian, never ceased to be a Canadian and still considers himself a Canadian. What we want to do is right that wrong. Charles Bosdet is in the same kind of situation of having his citizenship unjustly taken away from him and wanting it back.

However something good is on the horizon. The report that we tabled in the House was done at the request of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It was done so we could produce a new citizenship act that would get through the House of Commons. I commend the minister for asking for the committee's input. The committee was very strong on a number of issues but none stronger than on the issue of lost Canadians. The message is very clear. We want this fixed and we want to fix it quickly.

The minister has said that she will bring the bill back to us some time in February of next year and we as a committee look forward to making sure that the injustices that exist in the current act will be addressed.

I want to salute my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast who I saw at the committee many times. Even though we are on different political parties, we are all on the same side of the issue when it comes to Canadian citizenship.

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to keep the ball rolling in the debate on Bill C-16, which amends the Criminal Code and makes consequential amendments to other acts to deal with drug-impaired driving. The bill authorizes trained police officers to test whether a person is impaired by drugs or alcohol and drugs in combination. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily fluids to test for the presence of drugs or drugs and alcohol.

Let us look at the background of this bill. Currently the Criminal Code criminalizes alcohol- or drug-impaired driving and imposes greater punishments on repeat offenders. Under section 253 one cannot operate or assist in operating a motor vehicle if impaired by alcohol or a drug. Anyone who commits an offence under section 253 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

While drug-impaired driving is illegal, there is no “legal limit” offence for drugs. The police may not demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples for drug-impaired driving investigations. The police usually rely upon symptoms of impairment, driving behaviour and witness testimony. As a result, convictions for drug-impaired driving are very rare.

Under Bill C-16, a three-step protocol is given, allowing police to intervene if they believe someone is driving while drug impaired. Clause 2 of the bill would allow police to demand standardized field sobriety tests where there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in his or her body. These are physical coordination tasks administered roadside which measure whether a driver can multi-task. It would also allow police to demand drug recognition expert evaluations where the officer reasonably believes that a driver committed a drug-impaired driving offence. These are administered at the police station by a trained evaluation officer. Last, clause 2 would allow police to demand a sample of a bodily substance if the evaluating officer identifies that the impairment is from a specific type of drug.

Under Bill C-16 the result of an evaluation by an evaluating officer may be admitted as evidence in a criminal proceeding involving driving under the influence of an illegal psychoactive substance. Research indicates that 5% to 12% of drivers may now drive under the influence of cannabis and that this may increase to as much as 20% for male drivers under 25 years of age in British Columbia.

An examination of blood samples, driver records and crash records of 227 fatally injured drivers in B.C. showed that 11% involved alcohol and drugs and 9% involved drugs only. The most frequently found drug was, as members can guess, THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. The Vancouver police have concluded that the involvement of drugs in driving is a significant factor adversely affecting highway safety and consequently should be of major concern to all Canadians.

A criminal case wrapped up last month in Surrey involving a youth who crashed his Ford Mustang into a rock fence in the 6,200 block of 264th Street, killing two of his passengers, both 16 years old, and seriously injuring a third one. According to a toxicologist, the young man had 144 micrograms of THC per litre of his blood. A level of 35 micrograms would affect a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle; his level was more than four times that.

However, despite the evidence, the Crown was unable to obtain a conviction for driving while impaired by marijuana. It was simply too difficult under the current law. It is shameful for the lawmakers in the House.

The youth still has his driving licence and the parents of the deceased must watch this young man drive past their homes knowing that he was responsible for taking the lives of their sons. It is a pity.

The government has chosen to decriminalize marijuana without first ensuring that the necessary training, the tools and the ability to prosecute people for drug-impaired offences are in place. This legislation comes as an afterthought to the government. It is a delayed response to the intense criticism levelled against it by my party and other groups.

But even with Bill C-16, the training of law enforcement officers in the techniques to conduct field testing will not be complete until as late as 2008. The Liberal government of course intends to decriminalize marijuana long before that. Officers should be trained before the government proceeds with decriminalization.

According to data provided by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, only 0.8% of marijuana users are charged with possession. That is less than 1%. Based on those numbers, there seems to be little excuse for rushing into decriminalization before the police are ready to deal with it.

As well, of the $11.9 million in funding being spent to address drug-impaired driving, some funding should be allocated for research into new technologies that would assess drug impairment on site, such as those that currently exist for detecting the presence of alcohol in blood.

In October 1995, ICBC sponsored the training of approximately 30 police officers in the field of drug recognition. This was the first course of its kind to be held in Canada. The intent of the drug recognition expert or DRE program was to give police officers the skills to detect and prosecute drug-impaired drivers. ICBC saw a need for this program because B.C. studies indicated that impairment due to drugs was involved in 15% to 20% of all driver fatalities.

So far the program has been extremely successful. Hundreds of 24 hour driving prohibitions have been issued to drivers affected by drugs. Several criminal court charges for driving while impaired by drugs have also been approved, resulting in court convictions. Since 1995, 15 of the original DREs have become DRE instructors. In March 1998 another DRE course was held in B.C., bringing the total number of DREs to over 50.

The government appears determined to proceed with loosening the laws concerning the use of marijuana. Decriminalization of marijuana, especially without an effective national drug strategy in place, will undoubtedly result in increased use, especially among young people.

The Conservative Party supports legislation that improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug-impaired drivers for testing. We are concerned, however, that Bill C-16 would not train enough police officers in detection methods soon enough. As it stands now, sufficient officers will be trained only by 2007 or 2008, long after the Liberal government intends to decriminalize marijuana. That is not effective legislation.

Officers should be trained before decriminalization, not after. If we decriminalize the use of marijuana and then start training police officers, what is going to happen on the streets? There will be more accidents, more deaths and more innocent lives lost. That is not acceptable.

The Liberals are putting the cart before the horse. They have failed to recognize the need to lay the groundwork before proceeding with the decriminalization of marijuana. They have not even studied the consequences of decriminalizing marijuana to the extent of the quantity they have allowed. The Liberals are in the process of risking increased marijuana usage and opening up the possibility of an increase in deaths on our highways. Canadians expect better from the government.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to speak to Bill C-16, the drug driving bill.

As some in the House may know, my community of Surrey is currently overrun with marijuana grow ops. Organized crime has moved in and is operating in my constituency. That is why this legislation is of such critical importance to my constituents. The key points of this legislation are as follows.

One, drivers suspected of being under the influence of a drug will by law have to submit to a roadside assessment test administered by a police officer. Two, if drug impairment is suspected, the individual must be detained at a police station and submit to another drug impairment assessment and a sample of bodily fluids may be taken for testing. Three, the penalties for failing to submit to testing for drug impairment would be equivalent to the penalties currently in place for failing to submit to an alcohol breathalyzer test.

We all know of the wonderful work done by advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, on the subject of driving while impaired by alcohol. This has helped to bring into focus the terrible damage done to society by alcohol impaired driving that happens every day across Canada.

Over the past few decades, drunk driving has gone from a socially unacceptable but tolerated norm to a cause for shame and serious penalties from our justice system. Our police conduct spot checks. There are radio and TV campaigns urging people not to drink and drive. There are rules for advertising alcoholic beverages. There are courses taught in schools. There are role models. There is peer pressure.

Alcohol impaired driving, while certainly still a significant and very important issue, does not suffer from lack of attention. The same is not true for driving while impaired by a drug other than alcohol. While groups such as MADD do work in this area, there remains much to be done.

There is, for example, no scientific consensus on the threshold drug concentration level in the body for drug impaired driving as there is for alcohol. Length of time of use, tolerance, metabolism, height, weight, body fat, et cetera, all may have an effect on whether a drug might be impairing a driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

It gets even more complicated because we are dealing with so many different kinds of drugs. With alcohol, the comparison is the same wherever one is and whatever the drink. Alcohol is alcohol, whether it comes from beer, wine or spirits. Drugs, on the other hand, come in all shapes and strengths, which makes setting a threshold standard for actual impairment much more difficult. Different drugs have different effects.

Fortunately a good deal of work has been done by law enforcement officials on these and other issues surrounding the detection of the drug impaired driver. It is not a stretch to suggest that the biggest form of impairment our law enforcement officials find on the road, outside of alcohol, is cannabis.

We do not have the vast studies and statistics for drug driving that we do for the alcohol impaired, but what we do know is that people driving under the influence of drugs are just as dangerous and just as potentially deadly as those who are impaired by alcohol.

I single out cannabis not only because it is the most prevalent drug in use on our roads, especially in my riding, but also because the government has introduced Bill C-16 as a companion bill to Bill C-17, the legislation decriminalizing small amounts of cannabis.

One of the chief complaints when the government last tried to introduce legislation regarding the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana was that nothing was being done about drug impaired driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Canadian Professional Police Association in particular at the time noted the bill contained no measures to increase police powers to combat drug impaired drivers.

Despite the government's attempt to rectify past mistakes, there are still a few problems with this bill. One of the main concerns I have with this legislation is that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Bill C-17 seeks to decriminalize small amounts of cannabis, and that would lead, by any reasonable conclusion, to an increase in cannabis-impaired users on our roadways. But Bill C-16 does not foresee the completion of training for law enforcement in the techniques to conduct field testing for drug impairment until 2008, so we unleash more cannabis-impaired drivers on our roads with Bill C-17 without giving our law enforcement personnel the proper training to enforce this new law immediately.

The bill authorizes police to demand a standardized field sobriety test when they suspect an individual is driving while impaired by drugs. It also allows for a sample of bodily fluids to be taken at a police station if impairment is suspected. This is simply allowing the police to make the same demands of someone suspected of drug-impaired driving that they make of someone who is suspected of alcohol-impaired driving.

Refusal to submit to this testing would become a criminal offence, punishable by the same penalties currently in place for failure to submit to an alcohol breathalyzer test.

My colleagues and I support any legislation that improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug-impaired drivers for testing. As I noted earlier, however, we are concerned that this legislation does not train enough police officers in detection methods before 2007 or 2008, long after the Liberal government intends to decriminalize marijuana.

A key component of any anti-drug-driving initiative must include significant funding for research into new technologies that would assist officers in detecting drug-impaired drivers on site, such as currently exists for alcohol. I would encourage the government to earmark such funding and work with the provinces to help develop these new technologies to make catching and prosecuting drug-impaired drivers easier.

The cannabis epidemic is sweeping my constituency and the entire lower mainland of B.C. and now we have the government about to decriminalize small amounts for personal use.

If members will pardon the pun, it is high time the government brought in legislation of this nature giving our law enforcement officials the tools they need to fight drug-impaired driving.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support Bill C-16. Although there are some aspects of it that concern me and to which I will refer, on the whole it is a bill that is long overdue.

Probably all of us have been affected either directly or indirectly by impaired driving. I would like to think that no hon. members who serve in the House have done it, but I am not naive enough to think that is true. I would like to hope that none of us have taken that dreaded phone call that tells us a family member or a friend or the child of a friend has had his or her life cut short because of a driver impaired by alcohol or drugs. I am not unrealistic enough to think that is true either.

A Quebec study found that more than 30% of fatal accidents in that province involved drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. I have no reason to think that it is any different in my province.

Every day innocent lives are lost. I was reminded of that almost daily when I drove to my office in Mission and saw a roadside memorial to a vibrant, gifted young lady of 18 who was the victim of an impaired driver. Her twin sister, her family and our whole community have changed and will never be quite the same.

As legislators do we not have a moral obligation to do all that we can to address this scourge that is the leading cause of death of our young people? Sadly it is a problem that is not going away.

A study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that in the previous year nearly 20% of Canadian drivers admitted to having driven a vehicle within two hours of using a potentially impairing drug. We are not talking just about illegal drugs, but other drugs as well. Prescription drugs and even over the counter drugs can impair one's ability to drive safely.

The Ontario student drug use survey conducted in 2003 found that about 20% of students reported having driven within one hour of having used marijuana at least once in the previous year. No, the problem is not going away.

Bill C-16 would provide us with one more opportunity to remind Canadians of the lethal danger of impaired driving. The bill is not about making drug impaired driving a criminal offence. It already is. In fact, the Criminal Code provides for severe maximum penalties, even life imprisonment if it causes the death of another person.

The problem with our current law lies in obtaining proof that the individual is under the influence of drugs. Until now, law enforcement officers could only offer descriptions of driving behaviour, or hope to find a witness willing to testify. A driver could only be tested for impairment if he or she volunteered for testing. The honour system is not working. Bill C-16 would allow officers to do an evaluation of an individual and if necessary, demand a sample of bodily fluids such as blood, saliva or urine.

Briefly, this is how it appears the process would work when the measures proposed by Bill C-16 are fully implemented. There would be three methods of evaluating a suspected impaired driver. The first, called standardized field sobriety tests, is done at the roadside and consists of such tasks as standing on one leg, or walking in a straight line, or other multi-tasking challenges, hardly a scientific method.

If the individual fails these simple coordination tests, leading the officer to reasonably assume that an offence has been committed, step two follows at the police station. This step is called drug recognition expert evaluation. It consists of, among other things, a physical examination in which a trained officer looks at the individual's pupils, checks vital signs and searches for injection sites. If after this evaluation of 45 minutes or so the officer still has reason to believe the individual is under the influence of a specific drug, only then will the third most scientific method be used when a sample of a bodily substance will be taken and tested.

I have to admit that this sounds pretty good on paper, but will it work? It behooves us to ask if we can foresee any obstacles or problems with this new testing protocol. Let me ask some questions.

First of all, do we have enough trained officers to do the tests? Actually, we have had some officers trained to do these evaluations for almost 10 years but they have not been busy because the law allows them to test only those who volunteer to be tested. Not many have volunteered. The answer is we do not have enough now but the plan is by 2008 or so to have about 3,500 who could do the roadside test and another 400 to 500 who could do the recognition test at the station. Will that be enough? The Senate special committee on illegal drugs found that 5% to 12% of people have driven under the influence of cannabis, so the chances are that it will not be enough.

Second, can these tests be carried out in a timely manner? I am thinking that the short answer is no. From the roadside to the station and then to the sample testing will take a significant length of time, and the longer it takes, the less likely it is that the presence of drugs can be accurately detected.

Third, will these tests be considered reliable enough as the basis for a charge and subsequent conviction? One would expect the bodily sample tests to be the most reliable, but are they? A 2002 report from the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs looked at the effectiveness of blood, urine, saliva, hair and even perspiration testing for marijuana use. The general conclusion was that they all fell short of giving any clear answers. The only thing that seems to be clear is that their reliability is questionable at best.

For example, blood testing for traces of marijuana would be most effective if done within 10 minutes of smoking. After one hour, concentrations of THC in the blood are down to 5% to 10%, and after two hours it becomes difficult to detect at all.

What about the urine test as another possibility? The unfortunate truth appears to be that the results of urine tests for marijuana are even less promising. Traces of marijuana can remain in urine for weeks and it is very difficult to determine whether marijuana has contributed to the apparent impaired driving.

Perhaps the most prominent method of drug testing is with saliva. The THC remains detectable in saliva for an average of four to six hours and saliva testing is more reliable than blood or urine testing. Again the problem is that there is no technology available to do this test roadside.

Fourth, is there a way to determine thresholds for drug impairment? Is there something equivalent to the .08 for alcohol? Unfortunately it appears that the jury is still out, pardon the pun, on the question of what concentration of a drug in one's system is considered impairing. Until some of these issues are resolved, and we need to make a commitment to do so, we should not be surprised if law enforcement officers continue to be frustrated and if defence lawyers make a lot of money demonstrating why their clients' test results cannot be trusted.

Fifth, before concluding, let me make one final more general point that was actually made by my constituents. During the off week I held a town hall meeting in which I reviewed most of the legislation now before the House. I also had a meeting with one of the school boards where we talked about the government's so-called drug strategy. In both meetings we talked about Bill C-16 and Bill C-17.

I know it must seem completely logical to the government on the one hand to decriminalize what it calls small amounts of marijuana, and on the other hand to attempt to crack down on drug impaired driving, but my constituents could not see the logic. “Is this not sending a mixed message?” they asked. “Is the government against drugs or not?” “Will decriminalizing marijuana not mean that more young people will use it?” “And will some of them not drive?” Those are some very good questions.

My constituents are very concerned about the ever increasing drug use in our communities. Recently a wide cross-section of citizens have come together to establish task forces to fight the growing problem of crystal meth. Marijuana grow ops are also rampant in our communities. Drugs are hurting us and we are struggling to fight back.

I support this bill because I hope it will help to raise awareness and reinforce the message that drugs are not acceptable and impaired driving will not be tolerated. We cannot legislate good behaviour so some people will choose to do drugs and some of them will choose to drive. But we can do our best to encourage one another to make smart choices, and doing drugs and driving while impaired are two dumb choices.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a very serious piece of legislation that we deal with here today, which is not to imply that any other legislation is not serious. The core of the legislation, the attempt that is being made in the bill has at its roots an attempt to protect human life, something of which we must not lose sight.

Whenever people get behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired, they not only threaten their own lives, but they threaten the lives and well-being of everyone that comes in contact with them. I stress this point because in parliamentary debate it is often too easy to forget the people involved. It is too easy to merely recite numbers, statistics and facts and forget that each person affected by our legislation is very real, has a family, has friends and has a vibrant life.

No legislation should just be for public relations purposes. Legislation that impacts on human life should be even more thoroughly reviewed so that we will not need to revisit the matter in the future and so that we will not need to fix areas that we had overlooked in the first consideration of a bill.

Having said all that, when I look at the legislation, the first question that comes to my mind is, how does this piece of legislation fit in with an overall strategy? How does the legislation fit in with the government's strategy for dealing not just with impairment of drivers, but with an overall drug strategy?

I pose the rhetorical question, does the government have an overall comprehensive plan in dealing with the drug abuse problem that Canadian society is dealing with, or is there only a piecemeal approach? Is there only a firefighter mentality, that when we have a problem, let us only then deal with it?

I think of some of the problems that have been reported in my home city of Saskatoon. According to police reports over the last year, the amount of crystal meth has quadrupled in the city of Saskatoon. The drug problems in Canada need to be tackled with renewed vigour. More than just minor tinkering with legislation is needed. We need an aggressive approach to deal with the entire drug abuse problem, a problem that extends far beyond drug impaired driving.

Having set the broad landscape in which the bill lies, let me deal with some of the specific elements of the bill. The aims and goals of the bill should be commended. I have spoken with substance abuse counsellors and a retired police officer and the reaction has generally been positive. They appreciate the enhanced ability of law enforcement officers to administer assessments of driver impairment. They view this as a necessary step, if only the first step.

It raises the question as to how we can implement this in the practical sense. How efficient and how accurate will the assessments be? This is relevant for a very simple reason. The law is useless if it cannot be brought into force. It will have no effect if it cannot be enforced in the very streets of our nation. It is for this reason that one must question the seriousness of the government's commitment to this issue.

According to my briefings on the legislation, the training of law enforcement officers in these techniques will not be completed until 2008, four years from now. If anything expresses my frustration, this is it. Drug impaired driving has long been a problem in Canada, yet the government seems not to have made it a priority. Any effort that the government can undertake to speed the training of law enforcement officials should be done. As I stated earlier in my speech, it is ultimately a matter of human life. It should be given the highest priority.

I would also like to offer my encouragement to the government to act with all haste on the technological front.

It is my understanding that for many of the drugs, there is no effective test, no effective technology. There is no equivalent to the breathalyzer for alcohol.

Be it in conjunction with other jurisdictions or through enhanced efforts of the government, all attempts should be made to prioritize and provide law enforcement officials with the technology they need to effectively enforce this legislation. There are two specific reasons that I understand this would be necessary.

First, it is my understanding it is more difficult for prosecutors to prosecute if they do not have the scientific technological evidence. While I am not a lawyer, this does seem to me to be a problem prosecutors may face. It goes back to my earlier point that for the law to be real, it must be enforceable.

The second reason is that the technology will help to catch impaired drivers that other techniques may overlook. No peace officer will ever be 100% accurate and no technology will ever be 100% accurate, but the combination of trained officers and enhanced technology should make for safer streets.

The final point I would like to make on this bill is its relation to other legislation. As I stated earlier, no bill can be seen on its own. It must be seen in the light of an entire legislative and policy agenda.

As seems clear from other legislation, the government seems intent on decriminalizing, and in my opinion I believe eventually fully legalizing marijuana. This legislation, Bill C-16, seems nothing but an attempt to deal with some of the problems that other legislation will cause. The bill seems to be a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Will the legislation stand on its own merits? One must really ask why the government, after a decade in power, is only now bringing this legislation before the House. The answer is that this legislation is an attempt to cover for other failings in other legislation.

Let me close by offering the government some general advice on the bill and the overall policy with regard to drug abuse and drug impaired driving in Canada.

The government should deal with the root of the problem. By the time a driver gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, a failure has already occurred.

A tough law and order campaign might be a good start. Being tough on first time drug abusers not only helps society at large, but it also helps the abuser. In short, a tough love approach, an aggressive approach will help not only society but much more, the abuser involved.

Second, the government should not decriminalize marijuana. This is an area where we should show leadership. We should not enable drug abusers. We should not enable drug abusers to have a discount in purchasing their drugs. That is the effect of the government's overall agenda.

What the government seeks to control with Bill C-16 it seeks to encourage with Bill C-17. We must be consistent in our actions. We must move to defend the citizens of Canada from the dangers of drug impaired drivers.

This legislation in itself is a positive step, but we need to do more. We need a full comprehensive approach to this problem.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see Bill C-16 before this House. I will be speaking in favour of sending the drug impaired driving bill to committee.

This bill would enable police to demand physical roadside tests. If an officer were to have a reasonable belief that a driver is committing an impaired driving offence, the officer could demand that the driver participate in a drug recognition evaluation by a trained officer back at the station.

If the drug recognition expert concludes that the person is impaired by a drug, the peace officer can demand that the driver provide samples of bodily substances to confirm the presence of the type of drug which, in the opinion of the peace officer, is the cause of impairment.

It would be a criminal offence to refuse to comply with any of these three demands. These new offences would be punishable in the same way as a refusal to provide a breath sample by a person who is suspected of being impaired by alcohol.

Clearly, members will want to be assured that the tests are based on solid science and will reliably detect drug impaired drivers. I am pleased to assure the House that the DRE program has been highly successful and has been validated by research.

Although the bill provides for the test to be set out by regulation, there is no secret about what those regulations would contain. The DRE program is now more than 20 years old. Since the early 1990s it has been operating under the aegis of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The IACP has a drug evaluation and technical advisory panel composed of scientists who are constantly working to refine the tests and make them more effective. The IACP holds a conference annually so that police forces and prosecutors can exchange information and hear directly from the scientists.

I understand that the regulations which will be developed when the bill is passed will adopt the IACP standards. By putting the standards in regulations, it would be easier for Canada to remain abreast of developments around the world. It would be simpler to amend the regulation than to have to put a bill through Parliament.

What are these tests? The standardized field sobriety test is a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the national highway traffic safety administration and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. The three tests of the SFST are: horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn and one-leg stand.

In the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the officer observes the eyes of a suspect as the suspect follows a slowly moving object, such as a pen or small flashlight, horizontally with his or her eyes. The examiner looks for three indicators of impairment in each eye: first, if the eye cannot follow a moving object smoothly; second, if jerking is detected when the eye is at maximum deviation; and third, if the angle of onset of jerking is within 45 degrees of centre. If, between the two eyes, four or more clues appear, the American national highway transportation safety administration research found that this test allowed proper classification of approximately 88% of suspects. Besides impairment by alcohol, HGN may also indicate consumption of seizure medications, phencyclidine, a variety of inhalants, barbiturates and other depressants.

In the walk-and-turn test, the subject is directed to take nine steps, heel to toe, along a straight line. After taking the steps, the suspect must turn on one foot and return in the same manner in the opposite direction. The examiner looks for eight indicators of impairment including whether the suspect stops while walking to regain balance or does not touch heel to toe. NHTSA research indicated that 79% of individuals who exhibited two or more indicators in the performance of the test will be impaired by alcohol or a drug.

In the one-leg stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousandths, one-one thousandth, two-one thousandth, et cetera, until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance and putting the foot down. Again, NHTSA research indicated that 83% of individuals who exhibited two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will be impaired.

The battery of tests is accurate in identifying 94% of drivers who are impaired by alcohol or a drug. Therefore, these tests are not subjective impressions by the officer who proceeds at random. The officer is making the suspect perform tests that have been scientifically validated.

I believe members will agree that this is sufficient accuracy to justify the officer in demanding that the person who has failed SFST and who does not have a blood alcohol content in excess of .08 participate in the DRE tests.

The process followed by the officer trained as a drug recognition expert involves 12 different steps that must be followed and recorded. I will not get into a comprehensive review of this process, but I am convinced that, when they review this legislation, committee members will want to get the opinion of scientists and RCMP officers who have been trained as drug recognition experts.

The officer trained as a drug recognition expert will make general observations on the condition of the suspect. He will ask him questions about his health problems, examine the size of his pupils and conduct an eye-movement tracking test. If, at this stage, the officer is of the opinion that the person has a medical problem, he will end the tests and the person will be taken to a medical establishment to receive medical attention.

If the person does not seem to have a medical problem, the drug recognition expert will check three vital signs, namely blood pressure, temperature, and pulse, and he will conduct other visual examinations, including tests to measure reaction to light in a dark room and ability tests relating to the person's attention.

It goes without saying that the drug recognition expert will put all his observations in writing. Once the tests are completed, the officer must form an opinion as to whether the person's ability is impaired by the effect of a drug and, if so, determine the type of drug involved.

Different drugs have different effects on the human body. Scientists know that certain drugs increase a person's pulse, while others slow it down. Some drugs have an effect on a person's eyes, while others raise blood pressure, among other changes.

Drug recognition experts can identify seven families of drugs: central nervous system depressants, better known as tranquilizers; inhalants, volatile solvents, aerosols and anesthetic gases; phencyclidine, which is a dissociative anesthetic; cannabis; central nervous system stimulants, better known as “speed”, for example cocaine; hallucinogens, including LSD and ecstasy; and narcotic analgesics, including morphine and heroin.

Drug recognition experts can also identify the use of several drugs.

The DRE officer must certify which drug is causing the impairment. A bodily fluid sample is then taken and is sent for analysis. If the analysis finds the drug that the officer certified was present, the prosecution will proceed. If it does not, the prosecution will be stayed.

Members will be reassured to know that research conducted in the United States on the effectiveness of DRE has been uniformly supportive of the program. In the original NHTSA study of the DRE program as it was operating in California in the 1980s when the DREs claimed drugs other than alcohol were present, those were detected in the blood in 94% of cases. Since then the program has expanded dramatically in the United States. In Arizona, DREs successfully identified 91% of cases; in New York, 92.4% of cases; and in Minnesota, 94% of cases.

I urge members to support referring this bill to committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16. I will start by saying that our position is clear; the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill, but with a reservation which I will explain later in my speech.

I will take the time to read the summary to Bill C-16. It says:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to clarify that the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph 253(1)(a) of that Act includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug. It authorizes 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 and also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily fluids to test for the presence of a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug in a person’s body.

The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

You will have understood how important this bill is. Of course, to those who are listening to us, it is clear that clause 253 makes driving while impaired by alcohol illegal. Everybody knows that. Too often we see in the media horrific reports about the serious accidents caused by repeat offenders.

We now have a bill to deal with the issue, even though no matter how powerful our legislative assembly is, we cannot prevent the havoc caused all too often by impaired drivers. However we cannot stop there. The bill goes a little further.

We do have rather important statistics. A study by the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec reveals that over 30% of deadly car accidents in Quebec were caused by drivers impaired either by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. Of course, even though the current act deters or punishes drivers impaired by alcohol, a whole category of impaired drivers is not covered--those who drive under the influence of drugs. Bill C-16 is aimed them.

We must analyze this bill. Impaired driving is already an offence under the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is a life sentence. At the present time, the Criminal Code does not give police officers the right to require a driver to undergo physical sobriety testing or to submit bodily fluids as part of an investigation under section 253a. That is what Bill C-16 is intended to cover.

This is why I was talking of vigilance. These analyses require police officers to be trained. At this time, it is estimated that it will take about $7 million to train police officers and to obtain the necessary equipment for testing.

Clearly, this will be a new way of doing things. Currently, a breathalyzer is used. The person blows into it to determine the alcohol level. Having never done this, and hoping never to have to, I do not really know how it works, but I do know that the same test cannot be used to determine whether someone is under the influence of drugs. More complicated testing, which may include taking samples of body fluids, is required.

So this is a change to a whole area of law, and we agree with that. Things must be done properly, so our police officers need to be trained and the money and resources must be available to achieve our goal and avoid any challenges.

I am going to go into this in greater detail. There is a reference to standard field sobriety tests. When there are reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of a drug in a driver's body, these tests are to test divided attention, ie assessing the ability to do several things at the same time. These are done at the roadside.

So, once trained, the police officer could check whether the person is really impaired. Too often, they test people if they have alcohol on their breath. With this bill, however, if they feel the driver is not in a fit state, they can use these standard field sobriety tests.

There are also the evaluations done by the drug recognition experts. When a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a drug-impaired driving offence has been committed, particularly when a driver has failed the standardized field sobriety test, these evaluations are done at the police station.

Here is how it works: the standardized field sobriety test is done at the roadside to check the driver's condition. Then, if the police officer is of the opinion that the test indicates that the driver is not fit to drive a vehicle, this person will be taken to the station where drug recognition experts, or DRE, will take over. The federal government describes the DRE evaluations as being effective enough to exclude drug-related impairment due to medical treatment and to help the authorities direct the drivers to the appropriate medical services.

Of course, it has to be understood that we do not want a person who has a non-drug-related medical problem to face the criminal consequences of impaired driving. The government is thus telling us that the drug recognition experts will be able to distinguish between a sick person and a person who is driving while impaired.

The third step would be to obtain samples of saliva, urine or blood when the peace officer determines, after the first two steps, that the impairment is caused by a specific type of drug. Obviously, one understands that the first test is the standardized field sobriety test which takes places at the roadside. Actually it is an aptitude test. In the event of failure, the peace officer takes the person to the police station where drug recognition experts will evaluate if the person is sick.

Obviously, if there is a medical condition, it is not a question of impaired driving. Conversely, if drug-impaired driving is established, then, samples of saliva, urine and blood would be taken to determine the level of drug contamination or level of impairment, in order to assess the person's ability to operate a vehicle.

As far as addressing the criminal offence, of course, in the event of impaired driving, the minimum fine would be $600 for the first offence and, for all subsequent impaired driving offences, the fine would be calculated accordingly.

As members will realize, this is where we now stand. When a study by the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec tells us that 30% of drivers involved in accidents were under the influence of drugs other than alcohol, we can see that this is a serious problem in our society. The time has come to amend the Criminal Code. That is why the Bloc Québécois, my colleagues from Champlain, Trois-Rivières and Abitibi-Témiscamingue, join with me in stating that the Bloc Québécois agrees fully with this bill. We will never stop using our influence in this Parliament to promote progress in our society.

As I am being told that I only have one minute left, I will conclude this way. One of the key ways to foster the evolution of our society is by enacting laws. I only wish that the young women and men listening to us would understand that we do not enact laws for the mere purpose of being tough or to target a certain class or a certain category of society. We are not attacking young people. We are attacking drug users who, again, are responsible for 30% of the accidents on the roads and for which they are not charged, because they are not considered to be people whose driving is impaired by alcohol.

Hence, the best way for these young people of Quebec not to run up against this legislation is not to use drugs or alcohol when they drive.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on a subject that affects us all, impaired driving. We are all concerned about safety. As parliamentarians, as parents, and as concerned individuals, safety is something for which we are all striving.

The issue of safety and trying to reduce the loss of life, injury and property damage as a result of impaired drivers is always on my mind because of recent events in Saskatchewan. A woman there is facing multiple charges, including impaired driving causing death, in connection with a Canada Day crash that killed six people and injured another nine. She was already facing drinking and driving charges at the time of the collision.

There is no clearer reminder of the human costs of impaired driving than speaking to the parents and the families of the victims. I know this because I have personally heard those stories of loss, pain and anguish.

Reducing the potential for carnage on our roadways by deterring drivers from getting behind the wheel when they are impaired is a concrete step we can take to make our communities notably safer. The bill before us, Bill C-16, proposes to achieve this goal by authorizing police to demand a standardized field sobriety test when they suspect an individual is driving while impaired by drugs. Refusal to give a sample will now be a criminal offence. It also allows for a sample of bodily fluids to be taken at a police station if impairment is suspected. Under the current Criminal Code provisions, such sampling is provided on a voluntary basis only.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, and we all know the good work that organization does, there are somewhere between 1,400 and 1,600 impaired crash fatalities in Canada each year. That is 3.8 to 4.5 deaths per day. In my mind those are all preventable deaths. MADD further reports that in 2001, 71,563 individuals were injured in impaired driving crashes. That is 195 per day, and this figure does not include impaired crash injuries occurring on the water.

Those are just the human costs. Billions more are spent on health care, emergency services, insurance claims and property damage as a result of impaired driving.

I have to note that the legislation before us today was introduced on the same day that MADD launched its annual public awareness campaign for sober driving, and perhaps ironically on the part of the government, on the same day that the Liberals reintroduced legislation to decriminalize marijuana, one of the leading causes of drug impaired driving.

Impaired driving is a concern across the country. We heard examples of that from my colleagues, but the problem is particularly bad in my home province of Saskatchewan. According to the Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use 2004 report for Regina, Saskatchewan has traditionally suffered higher per capita rates of impaired driving than many other comparable jurisdictions in Canada. The potential for drug impaired driving is also high in the province due to the level of drug use there. Information from the same CCENDU report I mentioned earlier indicates the use of illicit drugs is on the rise.

In 2002, cocaine related diagnoses in the Regina--Qu'Appelle health region increased 73% when compared to the 2001 data. Reported violations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act showed almost a 15% increase in total reported cannabis violations in the city of Regina in 2002. Heroin, morphine and other narcotics violations also increased in 2002.

At the same time we are also facing legislation that would decriminalize marijuana which, despite what the government claims, I believe will make possession and use of the drug even more of a problem than it is now. People, especially our youth, do not always understand that decriminalization does not mean legal. They may hear about what the government is trying to do and actually think it is an endorsement of cannabis. We have to protect against this.

This is a snapshot of the potential for drug impaired driving from illicit sources. However not all impaired drivers are under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Over the counter or prescription medications can also result in impairment, and this bill rightly addresses that issue.

According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, more than one in 10 Canadians, 11.6%, had used prescription medication in the previous month. The highest prevalence of use was in British Columbia at 15% and the lowest was in Newfoundland at 6.2%. Opioid analgesics were used by 4.7% of Canadians age 15 or older, antidepressants by 3.6%, sleeping pills by 3.5%, tranquillizers by 2%, steroids by 0.8%, and diet pills by 0.5%.

In 1994 the top three therapeutic classes of drug prescriptions were cardiovascular drugs, systemic anti-infective drugs and psychotherapeutic drugs. Combined they represented some 79.3 million prescriptions. The potential for drug impaired driving is clear, even among those who may not consider themselves impaired or even consider the possibility. Awareness should be a key issue in dealing with impaired driving.

As I have mentioned, Bill C-16 amends the Criminal Code to permit police officers to test whether an individual's ability to operate a motor vehicle or complex machinery is impaired by a drug. I applaud that initiative.

My party colleagues and I support all legislation that effectively improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug impaired drivers for testing. We support legislation that will effectively reduce the number of impaired drivers on our roads. We also support the allocation of funding for research into new technologies that would assess drug impairment on site. Detecting and deterring impaired drivers makes our roads and waterways safer.

We are, however, concerned that the legislation does not train enough police officers in detection methods before 2007 or 2008, long after the government intends to decriminalize marijuana.

Roadside technology will not be available in the foreseeable future and police will still be learning new detection methods long after the government intends to have marijuana decriminalized. I do not think it is appropriate to have such a gap. In fact, it is a dangerous oversight.

MADD has expressed concern about whether the federal government has allotted enough money for training. I am left wondering how already cash strapped municipal police services will pay for training. Without adequately trained officers, indeed without enough officers period, this legislation is meaningless.

Thinking back to the recent case in Saskatchewan which I mentioned earlier, I also have to say that the government has not included tough sentencing in its measures to reduce impaired driving. We can see current measures are not enough. Had the driver I spoke of been detained, or perhaps been adequately counselled or treated, six people might still be alive today.

A vehicle under the control of an impaired person can be a deadly weapon. We have to make sure that problem drivers do not have that weapon repeatedly put back into their hands with only a slap on the wrist to deter them.

Overall, I am in favour of the intent and principle of the bill and what it strives to achieve, safer communities. It is up to the members of the House to ensure the bill is as effective as it can possibly be. I urge everyone here to consider the points I have raised today if this bill goes to committee.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and participate in the debate on what I would describe as a very important bill as far as law enforcement goes. It pertains specifically to the ability of police officers to have enhanced capacity to arrest and hold responsible those who drive while under the influence of a drug as opposed to an alcohol related offence.

The bill is rehashed. It is coming back from the previous Parliament wherein it was introduced in conjunction with Bill C-17, which the government has brought before the House, on the decriminalization of marijuana. I find that more than a little ironic. The government on the one hand, by the passage of this bill, essentially is condoning small uses of marijuana. At the same it is bringing this legislation forward simultaneously to make it more difficult and to heighten the degree of the government's response to those who drive while under the influence of a drug.

The proposed bill specifically puts in place provisions and resources to allow police officers to be trained in the area of recognition of impairment by drug. It also will put in place training programs and funding for those programs to allow the police to recognize those symptoms, albeit an objective or subjective test. I suspect strongly that this will be a make work program for criminal defence lawyers in Canada. There will be a massive influx of challenges, charter and otherwise, that will result in increased litigation which will cause a flurry in the courts. I am concerned about the backlog of impaired driving cases already in the courts.

An important observation I would make is with regard the synergistic effect of drugs and alcohol. Again, the bill attempts to allow police and law enforcement officers generally to recognize the effects of both the combination of drugs and alcohol and how that impairment is recognized. The penalities for failing to submit to the testing that police will then be permitted to engage in would be equivalent to the penalties currently in place for failing to submit to an alcohol roadside screening device, as currently referred to, or more colloquially, the breathalyzer test.

We generally in the Conservative Party support the bill. We feel it is long overdue. Although I want to note that the current provisions of the Criminal Code permit for the arrest, detention and obviously conviction of a person who drives while under the influence of a drug. What this does in essence is specify that the impairment by drug is separate and apart from the impairment by alcohol, but it is currently covered.

The more compelling element of the bill is that it would allow for the training and the techniques of police to expand. This is something the Conservative Party obviously embraces. We see this as a step in the right direction, but I hearken back to my earlier comments about the timing of the legislation being introduced to make it easier for persons to access marijuana and other small forms of drugs. Therefore, there is an innate and very obvious contradiction in the government's platform and its ability to bring this forward now. I suspect it was meant to appease public opinion and perhaps distract somewhat from the negative impact and effects that will come from the softening on the position that the government has on possession of marijuana. The debate on that will continue obviously.

I would suggest quite strongly, and I believe many share this view, that the efforts to put in place decriminalization, and even the efforts that are being put in place right now to have this discussion around eventually legalizing marijuana, should not happen until the proper training techniques and the legislation itself are in place. While these bills come before the House of Commons at the same time, in order of precedence Bill C-16 should be passed through the House first. That will be the position we will maintain throughout the discussion and debate here today and as it moves forward through the process into committee.

Many suggest the police will need at least four years, and the funding currently set aside for this training, before they will be fully apprised of the techniques to recognize the effects and the presence of marijuana or other drugs on a person and in their system while operating a motor vehicle. In some cases there is hope that there will be technology to help recognize these effects.

There is a schedule of fines that attaches to this legislation, fines that are in keeping with the current impaired driving penalties we see in the code as they relate to impairment by alcohol.

Numbers of studies have been done, including some background information provided by the Department of Justice which indicates that many of the states in the U.S., our friends and neighbours to the south, are currently using techniques that can be adopted in this country. Similarly, other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and some of the European countries, have gone down the road, pardon the pun, of using this type of technique to detect those under the influence of drugs while driving.

There is a Johns Hopkins University study which confirmed that the type of training and the training used can be very accurate, up to 90% accurate, in determining impairment by drug and the type of drug itself if the proper techniques are utilized. This type of evaluation, this type of recognition factor, if we will, is currently available, but training is going to be required to have officers prepared to recognize it and document it in terms of its evidentiary value in the courts.

I would be remiss if I did not mention an organization which I have incredible respect for, a respect that is shared by many, and that is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It has taken a very firm position in favour of this type of legislation. It voiced that opinion in the last Parliament.

Its red ribbon campaign, which is meant to raise awareness of impaired driving in any form, is currently under way. That campaign started November 1 and will continue until January 3, 2005. This is very much in keeping with the good work that is performed by MADD every day in Canada in raising awareness of this serious problem, this very dangerous practice of driving while impaired. Up to four people a day in this country are killed by those who choose to get behind the wheel of a car while impaired and take to the highways and byways of Canada, and many more are injured. This remains an extremely dangerous and extremely serious problem in Canada. Hopefully this type of legislation will help not only to deter people but to detect those who do engage in this dangerous practice.

The organization known as MADD has also been calling upon the government to introduce legislation in this area for some time, but in other areas as well, including lowering the impairment level to 0.5% and establishing a mandatory parliamentary review to look at the practices and the enforcement mechanisms every five years.

One other element MADD has been calling for is essentially barring the use of conditional sentences for impaired driving as they would attach when meted out by judges in a courtroom. Conditional sentences, I would suggest, really undercut the seriousness of this type of offence and the peril that can result when a person recklessly operates a motor vehicle while under the influence.

There are many other associations and groups that support the steps taken in this legislation, including the Canadian Professional Police Association and the Association of the Chiefs of Police. Customs and Excise also deals regularly with this at our borders.

For those reasons, I would suggest that it is a bill which warrants and merits support. We will be looking at the legislation in greater detail at committee, where it will be dealt with in an expeditious way, but again, I would suggest for emphasis that this bill should certainly be in place before any other legislation which enables and permits persons to be in possession of small amounts of marijuana. There is also the possibility of putting in place specific crimes related to transporting marijuana in a vehicle of any sort, at any time.

We in the Conservative Party of Canada are looking forward to participating in the debate, both here in the House and in the attempts we will be making to improve and build upon this legislation at the committee. Similarly, I would encourage all members to do so for the betterment and the safety of this country.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, as hon. members know, we will continue with the opposition day debate.

Tomorrow we will begin with second reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill. If that is concluded, we would then return to debate on the motion for reference before second reading of Bill C-16 respecting impaired driving. If there is still time remaining when that is concluded, we would consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-18 respecting Telefilm.

As all hon. members know, next week is the Remembrance Week break. When the House returns on November 15, we will call at report stage and if possible third reading of Bill C-4 respecting the international air equipment protocol, and then bring forward Bill C-6 respecting public safety for report stage and third reading.

We would then return to any of the items already listed that have not been completed.

This will be followed by motions to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-19 respecting competition and Bill C-20 respecting first nations fiscal institutions.

We will then be consulting our friends opposite on the appropriate day that week to consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks, a bill, I am informed, that is about to be reported from committee.

On Tuesday evening, November 16, the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Thursday, November 18 shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the specific question with regard to the motion mentioned by my hon. colleague across the way, it is government orders and it is a very important item. I know that we will bring that forward in the fullness of time.

Criminal Code

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of sending the drug impaired driving bill to committee. This bill, labelled Bill C-16, is an act to amend the Criminal Code, impaired driving, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The fact that the debate to refer the bill is taking place so soon after its tabling shows the commitment of the Liberal government to having the bill passed and in force as soon as possible.

Under the Criminal Code, the bill is intended essentially to enable a peace officer to require a person suspected of having drugs in his body undergo standardized field sobriety tests. If these indicate impairment, the police officer would also have the right to require the person to accompany him to the police station to undergo a series of tests administered by an expert in drug recognition in order to determine whether the apparent impairment is the effect of a drug.

Bill C-16 is a bill which has widespread support among Canadians and I believe in the House. I would urge all members of the House to support the bill when it comes to a vote, to send it to committee and have it adopted as quickly as possible. We need it, law enforcement wants it, Canadians want it, so let us do the right thing. Let us support it.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why it is, I guess it's just my luck that whenever I get up to speak it always follows a speech from a Liberal who just amazes me on these kinds of issues, one who says the government has been committed and is committed to doing the right thing.

Right off the bat, I want the Speaker to know that I agree with this bill, but where was the member in the eighties, when there were people dying on the highways and they knew darned well it involved drugs? This kind of thing has been going on for ages. All of a sudden, in the year 2004, we want to do something about it.

There has been a huge commitment in the country. It is something the Mothers Against Drug Driving have been calling for for a long time. It is something the police departments have been calling for for quite some time. Now we have heard another one of these kinds of speeches. Really, it irritates me to think that the member has been here for as long as I have, and possibly longer, and finally has come to the point where she can get up and glorify the wonderful government and talk about how they are going to address this terrible issue, which has been going on for ages. Where do they come from? It is really a puzzling part for me.

Only about two hours ago I was asked to speak to a bill about decriminalizing marijuana. They can say what they want, but when we decriminalize marijuana it is going to kill any deterrent for a lot of people where it once existed. If the fact is that they are not going to get a criminal record for using marijuana, I believe it will certainly encourage younger people to maybe do some things with marijuana that they never thought about in the past because they were afraid of getting a criminal record. It was a deterrent, but now we want to decriminalize it, so it might encourage them.

Two hours ago we were talking about a bill that will probably encourage the use of marijuana by our young people. I am sure it will, and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Then we turn around and suddenly find a miracle bill to deal with it because we know it is going to get worse. It has been bad for a long time. We have tried to bring it to the attention of the House a number of times. I had a private member's bill once on behalf of victims.

One set of parents lost a beautiful daughter at age 16. She was run into from behind when she was trying to make a turn off a highway, signalling and everything. All the fire and police department members who were there said there was no indication of any alcohol, but they were quite certain that the driver of the other vehicle was under the influence of drugs, just from the way he was acting. He was driving a huge vehicle, which literally stomped out the little car that smashed the girl to death.

Nobody could do anything about that. Their hands were tied. There was no alcohol, but there was evidence about the existence of drugs in the person who caused the accident. There was nowhere to turn.

That was over ten years ago. I brought the private member's bill in here in 1993 with the hope it would attract some attention in the House, that maybe we ought to look at the possibility of testing drivers who could be under the influence of something other than liquor.

Now, 12 years later, in 2004, I hear a wonderful speech from one of the Liberal members, who all of a sudden has seen the light about bringing in this bill, which I am going to support, and doing it right behind a bill that in my view, and I am sure in the view of others, is going to encourage the use of marijuana.

We might find the odd 17-year-old or 16-year-old who maybe thought about using marijuana but said that they did not want to take a chance because they might get a criminal record. But guess what? We are talking about a 30-gram bag; if we keep it under that, you wouldn't get a criminal record. Does that not sound a little encouraging, rather than discouraging?

We are presenting a bill on one hand that is going to encourage more people to maybe think about using marijuana, and on the other hand we are going to strengthen a bill that is going to make sure that we get them when they start using it and then driving.

Something is wrong with that picture. Bill C-16 should have been introduced without Bill C-17, which could wait quite some time. Bill C-16 should have been brought in a long time ago, but it needs to be strengthened.

We need to start thinking about is how we will provide the tools to police officers so they can detect those people who offend while driving under the influence of any kind of a drug. I hope we do this at committee and in the future when we discuss this bill.

We are quite certain that it will take a lot of training. That training will come from police officers who will train other police officers. From where will these police officer come? They will probably come from the detachments we have in every riding, which are shorthanded now. These detachments need more men and women on the force, but they are not getting them. Now we will take more out of the detachments to do the training. That is fine because we need the training. However, to bring in more police officers and expand the force to some degree will cost money. The government does not know if it can afford that.

I have news for the government. It can afford it. Scrap the useless gun registry for crying out loud and direct that money to training police officers. It should do some training of police officers that will really help save lives and protect society, instead of spending more money on gopher shooters and duck hunters. The government is spending millions of dollars every day on something that as far as I know has not saved a life. I can guarantee that we have lost a lot more lives on the highways due to the influence of some sort. We know it is true for alcohol. We could all bet our last dollar that it is true for drugs.

In my view that would seriously attack the problem. That doing what needs doing. We will pass this bill in 2004. We will try to get the bill through the Senate and it will become law. We hope the Senate will put its stamp of approval on the bill. However, the police force will not be ready. Police officers will be pulled in from everywhere and police will be training police. They will learn more and more. The government will get to spend more money on research as well to ensure it gives them all the tools and the best equipment it can so they do a good job.

This should have been done a long time ago. The government knows this has been a problem. Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been telling the government for years that it is a problem. The police departments have been telling the government for years that it is a problem. Lo and behold we get a wonderful glowing speech from the member across who ought to know better. The Liberals have had opportunity after opportunity to do something about this.

Let us concentrate on getting the right things in place. Let us stop this nonsense about trying to bring in the decriminalization law when we do not even know what it will do. Has anyone really analyzed whether the decriminalization of marijuana will encourage its use? Do not forget it will take away a deterrent? We always talk about having to deter people from different things, and it is important to do this. However, does a bill that will decriminalize marijuana encourage its use? I really wonder if members have seriously thought about that.

I was a principal of a school for 15 years. I saw a number of students who were engaged in the activity of using marijuana. I had to work with them and their parents Over those 15 years there was not one case where any good came from its use. I can name several cases that ended up in severe tragedy, death on the highway, death from suicide and further addictions. Some of those very kids today are on the streets in Vancouver addicted to the hilt.

No good has ever come out of its use. We have to get that through our heads. If we want to pass laws that encourage the use of marijuana, that is absolutely brainless. We should do everything we can to deter it, to stop it and to fight it.

I will support Bill C-16 because we want to get people who are under the influence of drugs off our roads. Let us do a better job of putting something in place that will get people prepared to do it the way it needs to be done, not go at it haphazardly without accomplishing what needs to be accomplished first.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion to send the bill on drug-impaired driving to committee.

Bill C-16 is an integral part of the national drug strategy. It is an important part of the continuum of education, public awareness, treatment, harm reduction, and enforcement. This is one of the enforcement pieces that makes sure that continuum actually works. This legislation dovetails very nicely with the bill on marijuana that we have recently brought in. It is part of showing that nothing should be cherry-picked or taken on its own. It is part of an overarching strategy and plan.

There are some people who take a lot of relief from seeing that the number of deaths on our roads due to alcohol-impaired driving have dropped dramatically over the past twenty-some years, but I believe that so much more remains to be done to eliminate alcohol-impaired driving that we should not be heaving any sigh of relief at this point.

In public surveys the Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that hundreds of thousands of drivers, representing some 6% of all drivers, make about five million alcohol-impaired driving trips each year. About 84% of all impaired driving trips are made by only 3% of all drivers. We are talking about a group of people who are in fact abusers of the drug alcohol.

This percentage sounds small, but it represents hundreds of thousands of drivers who put themselves, their passengers, and third party road users at risk. In road fatalities where there is at least one drinking driver, the drinking drivers and their passengers comprise the vast majority of fatalities. Often enough, fatal alcohol crashes are single-vehicle crashes.

We have far less information with regard to drug-impaired driving than we do with alcohol, but studies have shown that drivers using drugs are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes. We also hear of young people in Ontario who drive more often after using cannabis than they do after using alcohol. It is good that they are getting the message about not drinking and driving, but the news that they are driving after using drugs is alarming in the extreme. We also hear of drivers who combine cannabis and alcohol, as well as other drugs, and who have an even greater risk of crashing.

It is surprising that people take these risks while intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. Public education messages from government, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, traffic safety organizations, police, health authorities, and educators are so prevalent that it is absolutely impossible to believe that there is a driver in Canada who is unaware of these messages.

Because these impaired drivers are still out there, it is important for members of this House to help the police where legislation can help. The drug-impaired driving amendments that are proposed in this bill could go a long way toward giving police officers the kinds of tools they need.

Sometimes the police may find someone driving who seems impaired, but the alcohol concentration is low on the breathalyzer test. The police have no ability to lay a charge, under paragraph 253(b) of the Criminal Code, of driving while over the legal limit. Given the low reading on the breathalyzer, they may be reluctant to trust their own assessment of the impairment and lay a charge of impaired driving under paragraph 253(a) of the Criminal Code.

Having training that relates to the observation of symptoms of impairment could help police officers to make better observations, not only of drug impairment but also of alcohol impairment, in order to strengthen the case where drugs and alcohol in combination are causing the impairment but the alcohol is only at a very low level.

The proposed amendments do not create a new offence of drug-impaired driving. That offence is already in the Criminal Code, and it carries serious penalties. When the drug-impaired driving causes bodily harm, the maximum penalty is equal to that for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

This proposed legislation would give police officers the authority to demand roadside physical tests, more precise tests at the police station, and a bodily fluid sample. If all these elements align, then a prosecution could proceed.

At the present time, the police can only do physical tests if they have a suspect who voluntarily agrees. Surprisingly, there are many who do voluntarily agree; but not surprisingly, the police are often stopped short in their investigation because impaired drivers do not agree to have the test done.

The training that the police receive relating to drug recognition evaluations can help them in other ways when it comes to ruling out alcohol and drugs as causing impairment.

In policing the roadways or in dealing with persons who are arrested, the trained officer may conclude that medical attention is needed and that there is no drug or alcohol impairment. So there is another part of giving the police these kinds of training and skills.

It is interesting to note that even if a person has taken a drug, they may not be impaired by the amount they have taken, or the impairing effects may have worn off. This proposed legislation addresses drivers who are actually impaired by a drug. A certain threshold that attracts suspicion must be reached before the police can make a demand. If the investigation determines that the person is not impaired, then there will be no charge.

This bill, as I said earlier, shows the government's commitment to deliver reforms to drug-impaired driving as an adjunct to its cannabis reform. I note that a consultation document on drug-impaired driving in the fall of 2003 incorporated discussions among federal, provincial, and territorial officials, and that the comments received from the consultation helped to inform the bill that was tabled as Bill C-32 on drug-impaired driving in the previous Parliament. Of course the drug-impaired driving bill is not limited to cannabis; it addresses all drugs and impaired driving.

It is important to note that independent of the proposed cannabis reform, the drug-impaired driving amendments are necessary, and they should proceed independently. That is precisely why they are in their own bill and not subsumed in another bill, even though they are related.

There are some people who believe that demanding a set of physical tests from a suspect is an intrusion on liberty, but I would remind anyone who thinks this that the police are not on a fishing expedition. They are required to have a threshold of suspicion before making a demand for the physical tests. The drug recognition evaluation officer must have a reasonable belief that a drug-impaired driving offence has occurred prior to demanding these tests, and only when the evaluation officer identifies a class of drugs is there a demand for a bodily sample.

I would like to support this bill. It is a good bill. It gives the police the kind of training that they need to become good drug evaluation officers on the street, and it does not infringe upon the liberties of people on whom that demand is being made.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member opposite was coming from when he said that we were not supporting the bill. Actually, we are supporting Bill C-16. We believe that something must be done with impaired drug and drunk driving.

The difficulties members in the House have is the fact that these bills are put in but not well thought out. Bill C-17, the marijuana bill, is exactly that. It is not well thought out at all. This bill proposes to support training police officers and spending around $11 million on them. The government wants enough police officers out there on the road to be able to detect drug and drunk driving.

The fact of the matter is there are not going to be enough trained police officers. In fact, the government says that by 2008 there will be several hundred trained which is ridiculous given that the marijuana bill is coming in 2004. It is issues like that where the government seems to be throwing in the bill on drug and drunk driving detection in order to take a little bit of the heat off of the decriminalization of marijuana bill. However, that being said, I can certainly live with any legislation that gives authority to police to determine whether a person is under the influence while behind the wheel.

We have gone so far today with drunk driving that problems have been created as a result. When drunk drivers hit somebody, they take off from the scene of the accident because they are fearful of staying at the scene of the accident and getting a drunk driving charge. More and more hit and run is increasing. That is why we have Carley's law coming to the House again in order to deal with those individuals who try to get away from drunk driving charges and leave the scene of an accident, leaving someone injured or dead.

Regarding Bill C-16, drivers suspected of being under the influence of a drug will by law this time have to submit to a roadside assessment test administered by a police officer. That is a good thing. The problem is that there is actually no roadside assessment test available today to determine whether an individual is under the influence of drugs. So it is one thing to say it; another thing to do it.

The government must commit to get the roadside assessment test in place promptly because we are dealing with the decriminalization of marijuana now. If drug impairment is suspected the individual must be detained at a police station and submit to another drug impairment assessment and a sample of bodily fluids may be taken for testing. That is a good move. The penalties for failing to submit to drug impairment would be equivalent to the penalties currently in place for failing to submit to an alcohol breathalyzer test. That too is good.

I can attest that we are now strengthening drug impaired driving investigations and we are on the right track. However, police officers have many concerns. I was talking to one of the senior police chiefs of one of our largest cities just before I came into the House. He said that it was one thing to try to get tests going which are not done yet and to train their officers, which will require a lot of money, but what are we going to do when we find a person that is under the influence? They are not paying fines today for speeding. How are we going to collect the drug driving penalties? Are we going to be chasing these people just as much as we chase speeders and try to get them to pay their fines? These are some of the many questions the police have on how this will be administered.

We have to deal with those issues in committee. In the meantime, let us not lose sight in Canada that this drug driving legislation, Bill C-16, and the decriminalization Bill C-17 are but two small parts of the problem that exists in drugs in this country.

I have said this and I do not know how many times in the House of Commons over the last five or six years, we have an epidemic in the country. It is drug addiction. We have bad people making a lot of tax free dollars from selling drugs to young people. We have new drugs coming on the market every day. Crystal meth is a serious problem. It is made in basements and in garages.

There are a lot of kids addicted to crystal meth, cocaine and heroin, and methadone, in fact. We have a serious drug problem. The government cannot afford today to tinker with bills that deal with decriminalization of marijuana and yet ignore, on the other hand, the terrible addiction that is taking place and underfunding things like rehabilitation, spending hardly anything relative to many other things in the country, advertising and education of young people.

There is such a thing as a national drug strategy. I know that the government is saying it has one. The fact is we do not. The health department is going around the country now getting focus groups in to talk about what should be in a national drug strategy. We cannot tinker with a system as large as drug addiction and just play with decriminalization of marijuana or drug impaired driving. I think it only stands to reason, and anybody who thinks they can, is sadly mistaken.

I have countless attestations from people who are addicted. They say marijuana got them into it. They have a hundred dollar a day habit. I recently talked to a young lady who has a $300 a day habit. She lives and breathes just to get enough money to get another shot.

While we in the House of Commons are talking about drug and drunk driving and decriminalization of marijuana, there are a lot of catastrophic issues and cases out on our streets. There are parents who do not know where their children are. There are young people trying to sell their bodies to raise enough money to get their next shot. There are bad guys out there stealing us blind and selling drugs to our kids.

For goodness sake, I will say it again, it is irresponsible and reprehensible of the House of Commons to be dealing with just one small aspect of drug addiction. Decriminalization of marijuana, yes, we can deal with it, but for goodness sake, members must get their heads out of the sand.

There are people watching this all across Canada right now saying “My child is addicted and these people are talking about decriminalization of marijuana and drug and drunk driving. Where is the common sense?” While we must deal with these two issues, we must also deal with the important big picture.

I have spent a lot of time with people who are addicted and a lot of time with parents who have children who are addicted. They are hoping that we in the House of Commons have the responsibility and the common sense to deal with some of these things. Please, let us not forget that our country, our parents and our young people need us to deal with drug addiction in totality, not just decriminalization of marijuana and not just drug and drunk driving.