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.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's the frustration that I'm feeling. I listened very carefully to Corporal Graham when he testified the first time on this issue. Part of my frustration is that we're, in my opinion, rushing this bill through. I would have wanted to hear from other witnesses.

I fully respect Corporal Graham. He testified extensively when we had Bill C-16 before us in the last Parliament. He's a very impressive witness. But he does come, I would say, with some ownership in the program. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I believe there are counter opinions we could be hearing.

So if we hear him today, are we going to call other witnesses to come back? For instance, I don't know if they've tried to do this anyplace else. As Ms. Jennings was suggesting before you ruled her out of order, Mr. Chair, there may be some amendments to this so that, for instance, when the testing is going on in the darkened room, the videotaping wouldn't have to take place then, or maybe there's a way of doing it using other types of light.

In any event, I'm concerned that we simply hear from Corporal Graham at this point and then not hear from other individuals who also testified that in their belief the videotaping was practical in the station.

[Kirk Tousaw, Chair, Drug Policy Committee, B.C. Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Kirk Tousaw, and I'm from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The association is the oldest and most active defender of civil liberties in the country, and we thank you for the opportunity to make some remarks on Bill C-32.

Like my colleague Mr. Brayford, I feel compelled to begin my presentation by saying that the association—as I think is the case for all persons who will testify before this committee—opposes impaired driving for any reason. All too often, persons who speak out against pieces of legislation like Bill C-32 are unfairly characterized as not caring about impaired driving, but that's not the case. We oppose impaired driving. But what the association also opposes is the imposition of new and intrusive laws that will diminish civil liberties, particularly when those laws are not necessary to and will not achieve legislative goals. We believe Bill C-32 is such a piece of legislation.

There are roughly five components to this bill: the increased penalties for impaired driving, including fairly significant increases in mandatory minimum sentences and fines; a new mandatory and highly invasive drug testing process; the creation of the new offence of driving while in possession of a drug; the creation of new offences related to causing injuries while impaired and refusing to provide breath or bodily samples to police after being involved in an accident, whether or not there's an issue of impairment; and restrictions on the right of the accused person to call evidence in his or her defence.

I'm going to focus my remarks on the new offences and the drug testing procedures. I will briefly speak about the evidentiary restrictions related to blood alcohol concentration tests, and there are really three points I'd like to make.

My first point is similar to what Mr. Brayford indicated. These restrictions are based on what I believe to be the faulty assumption that the blood alcohol test is infallible. Two, the evidentiary restrictions are undue restrictions on the charter right to full answer in defence. They will certainly be challenged. They will, in my view, almost certainly be found to violate the charter. And three, I'll just comment on what Mr. Solomon said particularly about British Columbia, where I'm from, and police being reluctant to lay impaired driving charges. He characterized that as a case of police response being frustrated with the process. I don't know if that's true or not, but police are often frustrated by the fact that defendants mount defences and sometimes are acquitted, although I should say they're rarely acquitted.

But another potential reason for why impaired charges are not laid in this country is that impaired driving charges are one of the very few offences in our Criminal Code that carry the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, and the police are sensitive to and cognizant of this fact.

With respect to the “driving while in possession” offence, the first and primary concern is that, frankly, this offence has nothing whatsoever to do with impaired driving. It appears to be an end-run around the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that already make it illegal to possess drugs.

As the members of this committee I'm sure are aware, the burden of the drug laws in this country fall disproportionately on persons with lower incomes. This law might be the first step in the other direction, in that it will disproportionately impact people who have the means to have a car. But I don't think that's the direction we want to go with respect to creating new offences when the activity in question—possession of a drug—is already illegal.

On the idea that because you possess a drug in your car you ought to be punishable both by a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and the imposition of mandatory driving prohibitions, there's simply no connection. There's no connection between taking away somebody's ability to drive—and quite likely their ability to earn a living and be a productive member of society—and the fact that they may have had a small amount of marijuana in their car or their friend may have had a small amount of marijuana in their pocket and the driver knew it. It's just not related to impaired driving.

The purpose of this bill is purportedly to address the situation involving impaired driving, not the fact that people often use automobiles to go and purchase drugs. When you have a situation in this country in which almost half the population has used cannabis, marijuana, and some 15% to 20% of the country uses marijuana on a regular basis, I think it can be clearly demonstrated that the impact of this law is going to be disproportionate in terms of the seriousness of the activity targeted.

I should also say that this came up when this committee was discussing Bill C-16, the prior incarnation of the “drug-impaired” legislation put forward by the previous government. That legislation did not include this new offence of driving while in possession, although it was added in committee by member Vic Toews. At the time, Ms. Kane, senior counsel from the justice department, essentially said there's going to be a charter problem with this because the ends of the legislation are not connected to the new offence at all.

The fact that you have some drugs in your car does not mean you're driving while impaired. I will also suggest that of the number of people in this country who use marijuana, for instance, the vast majority of them are responsible citizens who are not driving while impaired, although they may use their vehicles to obtain the drug. It's just like how you will drive to the liquor store to buy beer. That doesn't mean you're going to drink the beer in the parking lot of the liquor store and then drive home while impaired. So this shouldn't be in the bill at all.

With respect to the proposed drug testing procedure, there are a significant number of concerns that the Civil Liberties Association has and that I urge this committee to consider. First, the proposed legislation is quite fuzzy on the concept of reasonable grounds. What are the reasonable grounds that are going to be utilized by police officers to perform the standardized field sobriety tests on the side of the road? What are the reasonable grounds that are going to be used to demand that the driver come to the station for the interview and for testing by a drug recognition expert? What then are the grounds that are going to be used to demand, under threat of criminal punishment, that citizens of this country provide blood, saliva, and urine samples? These are highly intrusive procedures.

This is a country that cares very deeply about privacy, and there is a significant privacy concern with respect to those things that are within your body. The process for getting these samples is, in itself, quite invasive. It's humiliating and can be quite degrading. For instance, if you're asked to provide a urine sample, in order to ensure that the sample is true and accurate you'll have to be observed giving the sample. That's a degrading experience. Some people are afraid of needles. To get a blood sample, you have to stick a needle into somebody's body and withdraw the blood. This is going to be a very humiliating experience for people who are subjected to it.

Another problem is that the process set out in the legislation is cumbersome and time-consuming. You have to remember that from the moment you're stopped by the police, you've been detained by the police. Your liberty has been restricted. And we now are talking about a three- or four-step process that will take a significant period of time to complete. Throughout that entire period of time, the individual has been detained.

Worse, the results of both the DRE evaluation and the bodily sample testing are, frankly, of little evidentiary value to the ultimate question of impairment. The DRE process has a veneer of scientific credibility behind it, but at the end of the day, it's observational on the part of police.

One study, a study done in Oregon by Smith, suggests that the average error rate for DRE testing is about 21%. The legislative summary attached to this bill suggests that error rates are anywhere from 10% to 25%. To put it another way, we have a situation in which, of every hundred people who are forced to come to the police station to be subjected to DRE testing, twenty will end up falsely accused and will then be forced into either committing a criminal offence by refusing to give a urine or blood sample or being put through the invasive procedure of giving that urine or blood sample. That's twenty out of a hundred persons who have to go through this experience but who may well not be under the influence of any drug at all. There's an error rate, and there's an error rate because DRE testing is simply not foolproof.

Worse yet, the invasive process, the forced taking of blood, urine, and of saliva, yields information of very little value to the ultimate question. The legislative summary is clear. As Mr. Solomon pointed out, there's simply no way in the science to link the presence of drugs in one's system to impairment. In legal terms, the information gleaned from the blood or urine test is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of impairment.

Frankly, I'm not sure the judges are going to be permitting this evidence to come in, because it's not relevant evidence. Absent reliable scientific links between drug use and actual impairment, it is inappropriate to conduct invasive searches of one's bodily fluids and to impose the accompanying detention that is necessary to effectuate the tests. It's simply inappropriate.

There is no doubt that impaired driving is unacceptable. The legislative summary suggests that 97% of all motor vehicle fatalities and 98% of all motor vehicle injuries are not related to drugs. The Senate report on marijuana, also cited in the legislative summary, concluded that for cannabis, which has been said to be the most widely used illegal drug and the most widely used drug second to alcohol, “The visual recognition method used by police officers has yielded satisfactory results”. In other words, we already train the police to observe people's levels of impairment and to make decisions at the side of the road on whether to charge the person with impaired driving or to take some other action such as imposing a 24-hour driving suspension.

This law has been characterized as a tool in the toolbox for police, but I think it's akin to using a hammer to pound in thumbtacks. We have a procedure in this country for charging people who are driving while impaired by drugs. As Mr. Solomon pointed out, we've had that for a number of years. It exists, it is used, and it can continue to be used. Police do that regularly. The invasive testing contemplated by Bill C-32 simply adds a false veneer of scientific credibility to the individual officer's subjective determinations.

I can certainly say more about each of these points, but the final objection to Bill C-32 is more philosophical than practical. Laws should be promulgated in this country in order to achieve results, not, frankly, so that government can be seen to be achieving results. First, the money that's required to implement this new law has been cut by the present government, with $4.2 million taken away from drug recognition training for police officers.

It appears that the provinces are being expected to bear the financial burden of implementing this new procedure, a process that will undoubtedly take several years and cost several millions of dollars. I would suggest to this committee that this money is better spent on activities that have been shown in the past to make a significant dent in the problem. We have achieved some great successes in this country in reducing both drunk driving and other dangerous behaviours through the use of education.

The assumption that increased penalties in the criminal law or the new criminal scheme is going to deter the behaviour is an assumption that bears some scrutiny, because I think it's one without merit. The way to stop this activity—and it is reducing—is through educational programs. It's through teaching people that this is a dangerous activity. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been instrumental in doing just that, both in this country and in the United States. The television commercials have had an enormous impact.

Having defended these cases both here and in the United States for a number of years, I can tell you that people are doing this less. And they're not doing it less because of the law; they're doing it less because it's wrong. They know it's wrong because people can be hurt, and they've been taught that. But they're not doing it less because we're increasing penalties or because we're going to take blood or urine samples from them at the side of the road or in the station.

I would urge this committee to think long and hard about going forward with a law that dramatically restricts civil liberties, that's highly invasive of privacy, and that frankly isn't going to achieve the legislative goals that I think everyone in this room would like to see achieved.

Thank you.

[Paul Burstein]

Once again the Criminal Lawyers' Association is honoured to have the opportunity of appearing before this committee to help with the very important work that it does.

With me today is Jonathan Rosenthal. He is a lawyer of almost 20 years' experience in defending drinking-and-driving cases. He's lectured to law students, lawyers, and judges on the topic, and I'll be asking him to address you on the bill's amendments relating specifically to the investigation and prosecution of drinking and driving.

I should say I sort of lured him here under false pretences. I promised him we'd see the Senators, and we haven't yet been to the Senate chamber to have a gander. So I promised him we'll go after we're finished here.

My name is Paul Burstein. I'm here to address you on the new drug-impaired driving provisions. I'm not only a criminal lawyer; I also am an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and Queen's University. I've been a director of the CLA for ten years, and I've been called upon on a number of prior occasions to testify before this committee on issues relating to marijuana and cannabis. I should say I was also counsel on the trilogy of cases that wound their way up to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the decriminalization of marijuana, as well as many of the medical-marijuana cases. I only say that because while I don't purport to be a scientist, I certainly consider myself to be quite familiar with the social science concerning marijuana and its uses and abuses.

Let me begin by emphasizing, if I could, that when you decide what, if anything, to do about marijuana, you must be very careful in dealing with “studies”. As many say about statistical analyses, “figures lie and liars figure”. The report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs identified the weaknesses of many of the studies that concerned the use of marijuana and its symptoms and manifestations. They noted that “there are divergent opinions about the interpretation of studies and their meaning in connection with the specific effects of marijuana on driving”.

I only say that because when police groups or any other proponents of the bill who come before you cite numbers and statistics, I just urge you to be very cautious before you accept the data. The most objective and complete summary of the data, I believe, at least up until 2002, was found in the Senate report, and I urge you to go to that. Indeed, the Senate report concluded, after reviewing essentially all the studies current to that date, that findings show that cannabis alone does not increase the likelihood of responsibility in an accident. The findings definitely confirm the significant risk of alcohol, but generally fail to demonstrate that there is an effect of cannabis alone on the risk of being responsible for a fatal accident or an accident involving serious injury.

It's not to say that it's a good idea to drive after consuming marijuana. Of course it's not. But the question is whether there's enough there to warrant invocation of the blunt instrument of the criminal law. Also, I say to you that when proponents come here and try to tug at your heartstrings through reference to families of victims of fatal accidents, it's essential that you keep in mind two things. As you've already heard some of my colleagues here say, these provisions will do little or nothing to prevent the small percentage of the population who do drive after consuming marijuana from continuing to drive after smoking marijuana. You'd be fooling yourselves to think otherwise. Second, as you've also heard—and I certainly endorse the comments of Mr. Therien and Professor Beauchesne—there are other and much better non-criminal ways of preventing and reducing drug-impaired driving.

As I'm sure members of this committee already know, the Senate committee has already plowed much of the ground for you. Indeed, having considered the social science evidence, the Senate committee concluded that “it would appear that it would be highly desirable to adopt the DEC”—that's the drug enforcement classification—“and train police officers in drug recognition”.

However, I would say there are two reasons why that recommendation does not justify this legislation, at least at this time. First of all, the Senate recommendation about DREs, or drug recognition evaluators, was part of a bigger package that recommended decriminalization of the personal use of marijuana, which of course was assumed to likely increase not only the use of marijuana but the likelihood that people might drive after consumption. That recommendation--to decriminalize the personal use of marijuana--was predicated on the Senate committee as well as the committee of this House recognizing that the criminal prohibition on marijuana caused disproportionate harm to people by virtue of the criminal prohibition compared to the potential harm that it might prevent. So this is only going to make it worse. It's going in the wrong direction.

On proposed subsection 253.1(1), the driving-while-in-possession offence, there's nothing about that offence that prevents harm. There's simply no scientific or logical basis to conclude that the mere possession of drugs increases the risks associated with impaired driving. If that were the case, why has no province in this country imposed licence suspension as a consequence of a drug conviction? No country in the world does that. Remember, according to the statistics that are presented to you as to why something needs to be done, this offence, proposed section 253.1, will have the most effect on young Canadians, because it would seem that mostly young Canadians are engaging in this behaviour. There's already, though, according to the Senate and the House committee reports, a disproportionate impact of the criminal prohibition of marijuana on young persons. This is going to make it ten times worse.

The second reason why we say the Senate recommendation does not support this legislation is because unfortunately the reality of the screening testing mechanisms does not yet meet the hopes and expectations. I don't believe the Senate committee heard evidence about what the current state of affairs is. There's some reference to studies there, but Dr. Beirness of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation testified before this committee on Bill C-16 and he recognized that the testing procedures were far less than perfect. In the States, even, they're at best reliable maybe 80% to 90% of the time. But what does that mean? It means one in five or one in ten most likely young Canadians, on the strength of an unreliable test, will wrongly be taken into police custody to the hospital and forced, under penalty of criminal prosecution, to give a blood sample for no good reason. That, in our view, is an undue cost.

Let me wrap up my section by just saying there are three significant costs to the criminal justice system you've already heard some allusion to. First is the cost of training the police. There are much better uses of scarce police resources than training them to do this. Bear in mind, it's not like an instrument where you can buy it once. Even though police officers may advance in their careers from front-line officer to detective to administration, you have to keep re-training those police officers. A machine, at least, stays in the police detachment as police progress through the system. It's very expensive. Second, even if the DRE provides grounds to take bodily samples, the bodily sample analysis is itself a big question mark. What level of drug in the blood or urine suggests impairment? There is no clear science on that, which means, the third problem, the cost of litigating these, as you've already heard, will be very expensive in every one of these cases because this is very soft science. The length of trial will double or triple, as my colleague Mr. Rosenthal is about to tell you.

I conclude by telling you that we strongly oppose certainly all the DRE amendments, especially the offence provision, proposed section 253.1. Deterrence doesn't work. In fact, if it did, why do you need it, because there's already a criminal offence to possess marijuana, so you know that doesn't work. It will significantly burden the criminal justice system. Right now there are probably no trials in the system--or very few--on defences to possession of marijuana because most of them are diverted or people plead guilty because of the somewhat benign consequences. No person will agree to plead guilty to possession of marijuana while driving a car because of the devastating consequences.

Finally, as for the other amendments, no one wants drivers on the road who are stoned, as Professor Beauchesne says, nor do we want them drowsy or unskilled or on their cell phones. These amendments will not have a net reduction on societal harm, but rather it will increase it. We would rather see you spend more money equipping police to get guns off the street than getting marijuana drivers off the street.

Mr. Rosenthal.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick question. I don't know if you can answer it for me, Mr. Yost, but Bill C-32 and its predecessor, Bill C-16, have been in the public domain for a while now. I'm assuming there's generally widespread support, at least among the law enforcement community and parliamentarians.

Can you tell us who is not supportive of this initiative and the approach they're taking?

Criminal Code

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if no one else wants to speak to the bill, there are some items I want to bring forth.

First, like everyone in the House, I want to do everything possible to stop impaired drivers, whether or not they are impaired by drugs, which is the emphasis of this particular bill. Of course, our party and the others, I am sure, have had this as an ultimate goal. Our party brought forward Bill C-16 in the previous Parliament to try to deal with this issue.

Following up on my last comment, the problem we were having at the time was with the detection of various drugs in the system and the discernment of the impairment due to them, and how it could be proved to the extent that we would be successful in prosecutions.

We should not let that stop us. For those reasons, we have to keep working on that technology and training. We have to keep working on the ability to convict people and to determine with regard to the various drugs what impairment is, how it can be measured, and how it can be prosecuted to make sure that needless accidents do not occur, injuring families, children and other innocent people.

I want to comment on what the previous member said. I will take a step out from this bill for a minute to comment on his remark about the lineup of justice bills in committee. I commend the justice committee members for such a heavy agenda, but I disagree with the hon. member that those bills should have been put into an omnibus bill, thus putting them all together to make it faster, because there were a number of very controversial bills, to be nice about it, bills that went against the basic mainstream of modern thought in the judicial system, a number of which we believe would increase crime in Canada, would be soft on crime and would put more trained criminals on the street. If we were to put a number of controversial bills together and people were to vote against one of them, it would kill the whole bill. In that respect, the government would not have had anything get through.

However, we are dealing with bills of such a serious nature, bills about incarcerating a larger number of Canadians and using a large number of resources for that, resources that could be used for police or prevention, bills about reducing judges' discretion and pay rate, and bills about taking away the conditional sentences that are so effective for aboriginal people and others in stopping recidivism when the old system of simple incarceration and putting people in prison to train to be better criminals is not working.

When we have a number of serious bills like these, I would not like to see them all put into one bill. I do not think people realize the magnitude of the threats to a good judicial system that were before us in Parliament. I think the government did the right thing by bringing each bill forward individually so they could be debated individually, even though it means more work for us in the justice committee in making sure that these serious proposals are dealt with seriously and at length and with a number of expert witnesses to help us in that direction.

Going back to BillC-32, although we are strongly supportive, we certainly want a serious investigation in committee, along with the long lineup of bills we do have in that committee. For one thing, we want to look at the practical tools available for the analysis of different drugs in the system. We want to look at the analysis and the effect on impairment, at the way to measure this and the way this would stand up in court in a prosecution.

A previous question by one of our colleagues brought up a good concern related to resources. That is a concern not only for this bill but for several other bills before the House at this time.

We should also ask at committee whether the attorneys general are willing to prosecute the bill and whether they have the resources. Do they think this has a high enough priority to divert resources for the training and the enforcement? This certainly will add a significant burden to a task for which they only have limited resources. That certainly has to be investigated in committee.

We want to ask those people, including the police forces and the attorneys general, what their feelings are about whether they want a bill, whether they can enforce it, whether they have the resources to do so and what can be done about it.

It would also be important to talk to the police officers who have had experience in the roadside checks and ask them about the problems they may have had on the more simple cases that we have at the moment with the tools that are now available, the ones that have been tested and proven. We should ask them how they think this system would work when it is outlined.

Another section in the bill relates to increasing the penalties for alcohol crimes and making stiffer sentences for the various levels of alcohol crimes. I certainly think we should have a discussion on that in committee.

I would say that the majority in parliamentarians are primarily against increasing minimums or even imposing minimums for many crimes because the experts have told us, quite clearly in committee, that it is not effective and that it does not work.

Maximums can be added to crimes to give a judge more discretion, a judge who understands the situation, who wants to penalize unrepentant repeat offenders and who wants to take seriously some of these crimes. I think those should be discussed in committee so we can have the type of debate we have already been having in committee about various sentences and also comparing them with other crimes and the types of sentences that are available for other crimes, the types of options, and to ensure that driving while under the influence of alcohol or under anything else that would be seen as driving impaired and threatening innocent citizens, is seen as a serious offence.

Another section in the bill, which should be discussed in committee, and I think I asked this previously of the parliamentary secretary, is the section relating to the taking of fluids and body sample tests. This would be needed to analyze the blood level for various drugs required in this bill.

Every time we come to a provision such as this in various bills, such as in the good Samaritan act, discussions take place about the volatility of the body and the privacy of a person. We need to ensure that this law is written very carefully so that people are protected but, on the other hand, that the general citizenry are protected from a person who would drive impaired and is a threat to us all.

Another section of the bill that I would like to ask questions on in committee relates to restricting the use of evidence to the contrary.

A jury or a judge can throw out any evidence if they think it is fallacious, not useful or just a decoy to detract from the real issues in the case but, nevertheless, I find it hard to understand how, in our present justice system, any evidence can be restricted. Evidence is evidence. People should be able to bring forward evidence and the judge and jury should decide on the evidence that has come forward. They can dismiss poor evidence but I do not think we can say that evidence cannot be brought before the court and then convince people that we have a fair justice system.

The bill contains many good items but a lot of areas still need to be looked at. As I said, we were looking at this and we also proposed a bill because people were being taken out of their vehicles and being charged for being under the influence of alcohol when they could have easily been under the influence of drugs and have caused the same carnage to innocent people. We have no mechanism in place to catch those people, to analyze the situation and to prosecute them successfully.

If we can refer this to committee, hopefully we can ensure that the bill will be effective in achieving the goal that I am sure everyone in the House wants, which is to make our streets safer by getting people, who would wilfully put themselves in the situation of harming both themselves and others, off the roads. They need to understand that we take this seriously and that we will put the resources into both the technology, training and the drafting of a law that will be effective in reducing this type of unnecessary carnage and accidents affecting innocent people on our highways.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the enforcement of drug impaired driving offences in Canada.

On November 4, 2004, the former justice minister under the Liberal government introduced Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This new legislation builds on Bill C-16 but includes stronger penalties than our bill had proposed.

Bill C-32, the Conservatives' proposed reforms to the Criminal Code, include increasing penalties. Drivers would be charged if in possession of illicit drugs. Drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding .08 would face a life sentence penalty in the case of causing death and a maximum 10 year sentence in the case of causing bodily harm. These provisions are in addition to existing provisions that hold an alcohol or drug impaired driving offence that causes bodily harm to be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and that such an offence that causes death is punishable by life imprisonment.

Impaired drivers would face higher mandatory minimum penalties. For a first offence, the fine would increase from $600 to $1000. For a second offence, sentences would increase from 14 days mandatory prison to 30 days minimum. For a third offence, prison sentences would increase from 90 days minimum to 120 days minimum. When the offence is punishable on summary conviction, the maximum term of imprisonment would increase from 6 months to 18 months.

The bill would also provide more tools for the police. Police would be able to demand that a person suspected of driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug participate in a sobriety test at the roadside and police would be able to demand that a person suspected of driving while impaired by a drug participate in physical tests and bodily fluid sample tests.

The Criminal Code currently makes it an offence to drive a motor vehicle when one's ability is impaired by alcohol or a drug, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. There is a further offence with respect to alcohol while driving while one's blood alcohol limit exceeds the legal limit of .08%.

The anomaly is that currently there is no legal drug limit. There are non-quantifiable tests such as erratic driving and witness testimony. If the driver voluntarily participates, results of a drug test are admissible but this a very rare occurrence. As a consequence, police powers for obtaining evidence of drug impaired driving are very limited.

It is urgent that Parliament address drug impaired driving. The 2002 Senate special committee report on illegal drugs, “Cannabis: Our position for Canadian Public Policy”, found that between 5% and 12% of drivers may operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis. Further, a survey by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation revealed that in 2002 almost 20% of Canadian drivers had taken the wheel less than two hours after consuming a potentially impairing drug. This included both legal and illegal drugs. These statistics and findings must be reversed.

In 1999, I chaired the justice committee when we studied the issue of impaired driving and prepared a report entitled, “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. The committee was very frustrated with the appreciation that drugs play a contributing role in motor vehicle accidents but that there were no practical legal limits to test for drugs.

There is no scientific consensus on the threshold drug concentration levels in the body that cause impairment making driving hazardous. Unlike the Breathalyzer tests used for alcohol, there is no objective test to measure drug impairment. Further, there is no measurable link between drug impairment and drug quantity. In addition, traces of some drugs could remain in the body for weeks. For instance, the active ingredient in cannabis can be detected for up to four weeks, although its impairing effects do not last. Because there is no scientifically proven threshold, it is not possible to propose a legal limit.

Because there is no clear drug limit testing, a drug recognition expert, DRE, is acknowledged as a necessity.

The lack of authority for police to make a demand for drug testing was a concern that was raised in a number of credible submissions to our committee, such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Province of Ontario, the Canadian Automobile Association and others, who called for expansion of police powers to allow a demand for drug testing.

The committee had concerns about drafting such provisions. Parliament would need to provide legislative guidance on what would constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the offence has occurred. Further, the power to demand bodily samples for drug testing, such as blood, would be intrusive and require consideration of potential violations of the Charter of Rights.

Notwithstanding that, the committee in recommendation 12 suggested a Criminal Code amendment to allow a judge to authorize the taking of a blood sample to test for the presence of alcohol or drugs based on reasonable and probable grounds that an impaired driving offence has been committed. The committee also recommended consultation with the provinces and territories to develop legislation aimed at better obtaining evidence against suspected drug impaired drivers.

The Department of Justice consulted extensively with the provinces and territories, following which the Liberal government introduced two identical pieces of legislation in two subsequent parliaments to deal with this problem. Indeed, the Liberal Party takes impaired driving very seriously. Unfortunately, both Bill C-32 and Bill C-16 died on the order paper when elections were called in November 2004 and 2005 respectively. The Conservatives have reintroduced very similar legislation, with stronger penalties, however.

Passage of the new Bill C-32 will be a significant step toward making roads safer and protecting the public. It will give the police the authority to demand standardized field sobriety tests at the roadside. The officer must have reasonable suspicion of alcohol or a drug in the body before making the demand. The standard test involves walking heel to toe, following with the eyes the officer's hand movement, and balancing on one leg with the other leg held in front about six inches off the ground.

These roadside tests take about 10 minutes. If the driver fails the roadside test, the officer then would have reasonable grounds to demand a breath test on an approved instrument in the case of alcohol. In the case of a drug, the officer would have reasonable grounds to demand an evaluation by an officer certified to do drug recognition expert or DRE tests back at the police station.

The purpose of the evaluation is to identify the class of drugs, if any, that is causing impairment. The evaluation further involves physical tests and checking of vital signs. This evaluation takes about 45 minutes. Following the identification of a class of drugs, the officer could then demand a sample of a bodily fluid, urine, blood or saliva, to test for the presence of a drug.

Refusal to comply with a police order to submit to a roadside sobriety test or to an evaluation at the police station, or to provide a bodily fluid sample, would constitute a criminal offence, just as it is now an offence to refuse a police order to submit to an alcohol breath test.

The idea with the drug impaired driving investigation is not to prove that a concentration of a particular drug is exceeded and that therefore the person is impaired. As previously indicated, there would be few drugs for which there would be a scientific consensus on the concentration level at which there would be impairment for the general population of drivers.

The bill proposes no legal limits for the wide range of drugs. Instead, the idea is to provide for the investigation of a driver's drug impairment by observing physiological symptoms that are unique to a particular class of drugs, and then to confirm with a bodily fluid sample whether the drug was indeed present.

If the tests do not show impairment, the driver is free to go. If the officers see a medical condition, they can obtain medical help.

The combination of steps, that is, the police officer observing the driver's ability to perform the simple tasks of the roadside standardized field sobriety test, the results of the more comprehensive testing by the drug recognition expert, and the confirmation by the independent laboratory analysis of the presence of the drug identified by the DRE as causing the impairment, will provide the necessary checks and balances.

Let us consider the charter considerations. We know that the demands for alcohol breath tests on approved screening devices at roadside, without a right to contact counsel, have been found justifiable by the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, pursuant to the section 1 demonstrable justification limitation on a right.

The right to counsel must be given following the demand for an alcohol breath test on an approved instrument back at the station and before the approved instrument testing is done. It is anticipated that the same practice would prevail for the DRE evaluations envisaged under Bill C-32.

I would suggest that there are aspects of the bill that need further consideration. I do express reservations regarding the new offence of driving while in possession of an illegal drug, where any person found in possession of a controlled substance while operating or in the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or sailing equipment is guilty of an offence. This provision would apply whether the person is in personal possession of the drug or the drug is simply in the vehicle, provided that the individual knowingly had possession of the drug without lawful excuse for such possession.

I agree with those who claim that this new offence does not belong within Bill C-32 as there is no connection between possession of a drug and impairment and possession of a drug that is already prohibited under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Of necessity there will have to be an educational component of this new impaired driving strategy, under either the justice or the health department. Individuals using marijuana may or may not know that they could be impaired and should take this legislation very seriously. Individuals taking prescription or off the shelf drugs may not understand that they could come within the boundaries of this legislation and must ensure that they do not operate a motor vehicle while influenced by such drugs.

I have every confidence that NGOs such as MADD will continue to put out relevant and compelling information in this respect. The federal government should either do the same thing or provide funding assistance to organizations such as MADD to do so.

Impaired driving continues to be a scourge on our society. I will continue to support legislation that will help not only to reduce it but to eventually and ultimately eradicate such conduct.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate and speak in favour of Bill C-32, a bill that amends the Criminal Code in relation to impaired driving.

A great deal has already been said about the provisions of the bill. I do not wish to go over the same ground. Instead, I want to focus on some of the objections to the legislation that have appeared in the media regarding the bill.

First, there have been some who question whether the bill is constitutional with respect to the drug impaired driving provisions of the bill. I remind the House that this was extensively canvassed when Bill C-16 was considered.

Of course, no government will present to the House legislation that it considers is going to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless it is convinced that the bill will be upheld as a reasonable limit on those rights. The previous government obviously considered the bill charter compliant or it would not have introduced Bill C-16.

When Bill C-16 was in committee, the then minister of justice, a well known human rights advocate, in his opening remarks on the bill addressed the issue of charter compliance. He said:

Let me deal for a moment with some charter considerations. We know that the demands for alcohol breath tests on approved screening devices at roadside, without a right to contact counsel, have been found justifiable by the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, pursuant to the section 1 demonstrable justification limitation on a right.

The right to counsel must be given following the demand for an alcohol breath test on an approved instrument back at the station and before the approved instrument testing is done.

I anticipate that the same practice would prevail for the DRE evaluations envisaged under Bill C-16. With Bill C-16, we have tried to closely parallel the grounds that our prerequisites for making alcohol breath test demand. I believe that Bill C-16 offers good and important solutions that will be found justifiable under the charter.

Later, in response to a question he went further:

No, I think the court would apply the generic approach with respect to whether a limit on a right is justifiable under the circumstances, and then they would go into the four-part proportionality test.

They would ask themselves, is there a pressing and substantial objective? They would come to the conclusion, in my view, that there is a substantial and pressing objective, which is of course, at the bottom line, the saving of lives.

They would then look to see whether the means chosen were appropriate for the purpose or objective sought to be secured, as the other part of the proportionality test. I think the court would conclude here that this is a proportional remedy for the objective sought to be secured.

I believe the House can be assured that the requirement that a driver perform standard field sobriety tests at the roadside which are relatively brief will be upheld in the same way the roadside screening for alcohol has been upheld.

Similarly, the tests back at the station which will be performed by a trained officer are analogous to the test on an approved instrument.

I know many, if not most, members of the House would like to have an instrument that would measure quickly the concentration of various drugs just like the approved instruments that measure blood alcohol concentration.

The technology simply does not exist and, until it does, we will have to rely on various tests such as the reaction of the eyes to light, blood pressure, pulse and muscle tone on which the trained officer bases his opinion of which drug or combination of drugs and alcohol has caused the impairment. That opinion has to be validated by finding the drug in the person when bodily fluid is sampled.

Another objection to the proposed legislation's constitutionality was made by the president of the Ottawa Defence Lawyers Association reported in the Globe and Mail. He objected to the proposed offence of refusing to provide a breath sample when a person has been involved in a crash which will be punished in the same way as impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. He said:

There is no connection between the fact that you refuse to provide bodily substances and the accident itself. If you refuse, you have no defence.

When a person is charged with impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, the Crown has to establish the impairment and that the driving caused the accident.

The new offence will require the Crown to prove the refusal and then prove that the driver knew or ought to have known that he or she had caused an accident that had caused death or bodily harm.

This offence is modelled on the offence of failure to stop at the scene of an accident. The mental element is the intention to frustrate the police investigation.

In the case of flight, the person simply tries to avoid the police. In the case of refusal, the person refuses to provide a breath sample, the breath sample evidence necessary to determine whether the person was over .08 or in the case of a drug the person refuses to perform the test or to provide the bodily sample to determine whether the drug is actually present in the body.

Of course, in most accident situations the person will be well aware that there has been an accident. The police will still have to have reason to suspect the person has alcohol or drug in their system before making the demand.

Finally, I note that some of the users of medical marijuana claim that this legislation is aimed at them and will prevent them from driving their cars.

Russell Barth, quoted in the Edmonton Sun and other newspapers and described as a medical marijuana user and member of the National Capital Reformers, said that, “Discriminating against us based on our medication is much like discriminating against us based on the colour of our skin”.

In fact, medical marijuana users will be treated like other persons who take prescribed and over the counter drugs. People take all kinds of drugs for legitimate medical reasons. The question is whether they are impaired by that drug. If they can take their medicine and still pass the standard field sobriety test, they can drive. If they cannot, then they had better find someone to drive them around.

The offence of driving while in possession of an illicit drug also specifically provides that the person must be doing so without legitimate excuse. Clearly, persons who have been admitted to the medical marijuana scheme have a legitimate excuse to transport a supply of marijuana with them and would not be caught by this new offence.

I believe the bill is a balanced response to a very serious problem. I believe it is in fact long overdue. The minister in his speech made it clear that the government was prepared to consider any amendments that will strengthen the bill that the standing committee may suggest after hearing from witnesses.

I urge the members to give the bill second reading. I also urge the standing committee, which has a heavy workload, to give this bill priority. It will undoubtedly save thousands of Canadians from being injured or killed by impaired drivers.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak with regard to Bill C-32 which essentially has two major components. One of which would address for the first time a methodology to use in our criminal justice system to deal with impairment while driving an automobile or plane under the influence of a drug rather than alcohol.

The second part to the bill, which quite frankly is probably more significant in terms of its effectiveness, deals with our existing law regarding impairment because of consumption of alcohol. One of the defences to those charges that has cropped up quite frankly has gotten to the stage of almost being a scandal in this country in terms of the number of times it is used and what I would call the underlying weakness of the jurisprudence that allows for that defence.

Both of these sections are important sections. We need to address them as a legislature and to see if in fact we can more effectively deal with the problem of impaired driving whether it is because of alcohol consumption, as we have traditionally looked at it, or now both a combination of alcohol and drugs or drug impairment on its own.

The first part of this bill is a reincarnation of Bill C-16 from the last Parliament that dealt exclusively with the issue of impairment by drugs. The sections in this bill are replicated from that former bill. Essentially what it attempts to do, which I have some concerns about, is to take us down the road that we followed with regard to impaired driving by alcohol going back now some 30 plus years and using technology, as we did then in the form of the breathalyzer, to identify people who were impaired and to deal with them by way of criminal penalty sanctions.

The difficulty I have is that the existing technology with regard to drug impairment is basically non-existent. It is nowhere near the situation we have with alcohol impairment. Because of the technology we initially developed and have now refined, the assessment of an individual being impaired as a result of the consumption of alcohol is quite clear and scientific.

Generally speaking, and it is in the percentile of 100%, it is irrefutable. Unless the equipment is malfunctioning or the operator is not qualified and has not used the equipment properly, the equipment properly and effectively assesses a person's impairment.

I think we can safely say there are two exceptions to that and a crucial one is when the test is given. If there continues to be some consumption of alcohol between the time the person stops operating the vehicle and the test is administered, it is possible that consumption will bring up the blood alcohol level and in fact take it over the prescribed limit when in fact the accused individual may not have been impaired at the time he or she was operating the vehicle. That is one defence and it stays in.

The second one is where the consumption of alcohol was huge immediately prior to the operation of the vehicle. When the test is given, the person is over the limit but in fact again, because it takes some time for the alcohol to work its way through the system and impair a person from operating a vehicle, that person in fact would not have been impaired at the time of the operation of the vehicle.

This bill, as did Bill C-16, preserves those defences, so if that can be established by evidence there would then be a defence to the charges because people would not have been impaired at the time they were operating the vehicle.

The difficulty we have with the drug impairment attempt that is going into this bill, and again that was in Bill C-16, is that we do not have two things. We do not have the technology to do a quick test, roadside or at a police station, but more importantly, we do not have any standards as to what type of drug will have what type of an effect in terms of impairment and the ability of the human being to operate a vehicle.

Because of the work we did in the last Parliament on Bill C-16 we took a great deal of evidence. In this regard the European Union and a number of countries in Europe are working to try to establish a standard of impairment from the consumption of marijuana or the chemical derivatives. They have not been able to do that up to this point. They believe they are making some advances but they are clearly not there at this stage.

In regard to marijuana specifically, one of the problems we have is that the particular chemical derived from the marijuana plant stays in the system for an extended period of time. This was a defence by one of our Olympians and that was his argument at that time. It saved the day for him. In fact, it is the scientific reality that the chemical substance stays in the system for an extended period of time, so it is going to be very difficult from what we can see at this point, mostly because of the work that has been done in Europe, to set that minimum standard.

The reason this is so important and that I am pursuing this issue with regard to marijuana is that there is no question, and we are hearing from our police officers across the country, from our prosecutors, from people involved in the impaired driving issue, that marijuana after alcohol is clearly the second biggest problem substance that we have. People consume it and then drive a vehicle while impaired. However, we do not have the technology or the science at this point to establish that minimum standard.

We also do not have any equipment that could be used at the roadside or at the police station that would do a quick assessment. That can only be done by way of taking a blood sample or a urine sample. This legislation recognizes that this can only be done by a qualified medical person, a doctor or medical technician which generally would have to occur at a medical clinic or hospital.

The proposal in the bill, as was in Bill C-16, is to establish a system in Canada mimicked after some that have been used in the United States and I believe in England, where we would have specially trained police officers. It would be a three stage approach. Initially the police officer who stopped the vehicle based on reasonable and probable grounds that the driver was operating the vehicle while under the influence of some chemical or drug would do an examination. This may include the traditional ones of walking the line, trying to touch the nose, balancing on one leg, looking at the eyes, and hearing the individual speak, the traditional ones we had before the breathalyzer for alcohol consumption.

If the officer made a determination that the person was clearly suffering from some impairment in terms of being able to operate the vehicle, the officer would then require the person to attend at a police station where he or she would be examined by a specially trained police officer. The language that is used in the statute is that of an “evaluating officer”. This person would be a police officer with general training but would have additional training and this is where I have one of the problems.

Not taking anything away from the individual, but in looking at the training material they use to train this person, I have serious doubts about his or her ability to make this evaluation. The evaluation they are required to make by statute is not only to evaluate the person's impairment, but to evaluate the type of drug was used as well. Was it marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or a prescription drug, legal or illegal? We can go down the list. We heard some evidence about the potential of there being hundreds of drugs. I see this method of evaluation as being a serious flaw.

If the evaluating officer makes a determination, this law would then require the accused person to attend in front of a qualified medical person, either in a clinic or a hospital, where a blood sample would be taken. The legislation then says that the sample could then be admitted in a courtroom to establish the fact that the evaluating officer was correct, that the person had consumed a drug, whatever it was.

Most lawyers who looked at this would ask what good this would do for them when they are in front of a judge and have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person was impaired.

Wearing the hat of a prosecutor, I would put this evidence forward and I would expect this question from the judge. Why was I giving this information that the individual had X amount of parts per million of a drug in his or her blood? Would that tell the judge anything about the person's ability to operate a motor vehicle? As I said earlier with regard to the work and the research that has been done with respect to impairment by marijuana, the answer from me as the prosecutor would be no. I could not tell the judge that this gave any indication as to whether the person was impaired. Obviously the judge would have to make an early decision.

Now wearing the hat of defence counsel, I would be telling the judge that the evidence was severely prejudicial to my client because it showed he consumed a drug but that was not what he was charged with. He was charged with impairment. The evidence has no value whatsoever toward establishing his impairment. That is the argument I would make as defence counsel.

In most cases the judge would indicate that the evidence was severely prejudicial because it showed the individual was a drug user, but it had no probative value in the courtroom as to the charge in front of the judge. I fear the case would be turfed based on that. That is not even a charter argument. This is evidentiary rules in our courts. Therefore, it has a fundamental flaw.

There is a charter challenge as well. As a result of the limited qualifications of the evaluating officer, the court may very well determine that a person's personal security was invaded, which is one of our fundamental rights in our country. A determination could be made under this section of the charter that it would not be reasonable to make the person give a blood sample, or in some cases a urine sample, because of the basis on which the demand was made. It was made by the evaluating officer, who was not a medical expert by any means and had a limited ability to make an assessment as to whether the drug was marijuana, heroin, or prescription, which may include a legal prescription, had been ingested by the accused.

During the Liberal government, the NDP supported the bill. It was sent it to committee and it did all the investigation. However, at the end of the day, we had serious concerns about whether this part of the bill would survive that challenge. Because of the risk of whether this will survive those challenges in the courtrooms, it also raises the issue as to whether it is worthwhile expending the kinds of dollars for the training that will be necessary to prepare our police officers for this methodology.

Those are our concerns. We will support the bill, even with regard to this part of it, to go to committee. We hope we perhaps we will find some more evidence now. Maybe the work being done in the Europe is more advanced. The last time we looked at this was about a year and a half ago.

I turn to the second part of the legislation, the more important part in terms of its usefulness in our system and in the courts. Finally, after at least 10 years, getting closer to 20 years, there is a manufactured defence in effect, and my friends in the criminal defence bar will hit me for saying this. Unfortunately our courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, have accepted this defence I think because of poor wording in the code, and I will give them that much credit, when we first passed this. The key wording is one can establish with evidence to the contrary that in fact the person was not impaired.

When I started to practise law, the Breathalyzer was just beginning to be used. At that point, it was generally accepted that if one could establish the machine was not working properly, as it has to be tested in certain ways before it is actually administered, or that the operator was not qualified or did not use it properly, then those defences could be used to establish that the Breathalyzer evidence was unacceptable and the charge could be avoided.

There is no question that those defences should remain. With any system that involves humans, there will be some flaws in it and we have to allow for those defences.

However, what happened was not those two defences or the defence of when the alcohol was consumed. What cropped up was a whole industry of defence lawyers and toxicologists and we would get this “two beer” defence. We would have this sequence.

This is where the two beers defence arises. For most people the consumption of two beers, within a reasonable timeframe of the test being administered, does not put them over the .08 limit. The accused would take the stand say that he or she had only two beers, or one glass of wine, or one shot. Then a friend or an acquaintance, who was with the individual that evening, would take the stand and confirm that. Then a toxicologist would be brought forward at great expense. These defences cost between $5,000 and $10,000. Unfortunately, a judge would have to say, “As I read this section of the code that's contrary evidence” and person would be acquitted. The number of times that has been used has almost become a scandal.

I believe proposed amendments to the sections in the code will remedy that problem. We will finally get the convictions we are missing now. Those individuals who are driving impaired, sometimes repeatedly will be convicted and penalties will imposed. Hopefully, that will reduce the amount of impaired driving in our country.

We will be supporting this bill, at least on second reading, and hopefully addressing some of the problems that I have mentioned in my remarks today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are getting the job done and we are moving forward to action.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill would bring Canada's impaired driving laws into the 21st century and would greatly assist the police in their efforts to investigate impaired driving incidents and the Crown in its prosecution of alleged offenders.

I know that all members recognize that impaired driving remains the single criminal offence that is most likely to result in death or injury of Canadians. If passed, this legislation would make an immeasurable contribution to the safety of all Canadians. Therefore, I trust that all parties will support the legislation and that we can cooperate so that these needed changes can be considered by the standing committee. I can assure all members that the government is open to consideration of all improvements that the committee can suggest, after hearing from stakeholders, to make the bill even more effective in achieving its goals.

The bill has three main components. First, it would give the police the tools they need to investigate drug impaired driving. Second, it would make changes to reflect the great advances that have been made in breathalyzer technology since Parliament first introduced breath testing almost 40 years ago. Third, it would introduce new offences and increase penalties for existing offences.

Many members in this House are familiar with the drug impaired provisions of this bill. They are virtually identical to the provisions of Bill C-16, which was introduced in the last Parliament, reviewed and amended in committee and reported unanimously with amendments by the committee. However, it died on the order paper.

There is no question that police and prosecutors are eagerly awaiting the passage of those changes.

I will confine my remarks to the new provisions of Bill C-32 so that members will understand what motivated the government to bring these amendments forward.

Probably the most important change in the bill is the proposal to ensure that only scientifically valid defences can be used where a person is accused of driving with a concentration of alcohol exceeding 80 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood, driving 80 over, or .08, as the offence is commonly known.

Parliament first enacted an alcohol driving offence in 1921. Our current Criminal Code section 253(a) offence of driving impaired was enacted in 1951. It has been known for more than 50 years that a person with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his or her system is a danger to himself or herself and others on the road. A person with a blood alcohol content, BAC, of 90 milligrams is estimated by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be at least 11 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a sober driver. Above that level, the risk increases exponentially. At a BAC of 125, the person is at least 29 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

While recognizing the risk of collision with escalating blood alcohol concentrations, the problem has always been how to prove the concentration. Determining the BAC can be done by analyzing blood. However, obtaining a blood sample is intrusive and it can take a long time to complete the blood analysis, during which time the accused does not know whether the charge will be laid.

The problems with blood analysis were overcome in the 1950s with the invention of the Borkenstein breathalyzer, which converted alcohol in breath to alcohol in blood in a reliable, scientifically valid process.

Parliament recognized the risk of a blood alcohol concentration that exceeds 80 when in 1969 it passed legislation making it an offence for a person to drive with that much alcohol in his or her system. It is a peculiarity of the law that it can only be proven by making a person provide the evidence that can be used against him or her in court. Accordingly, Parliament made it an offence to refuse to provide a breath sample on an approved instrument.

Advances in technology made it possible to measure BAC at roadside, so Parliament provided for the use of a roadside screening device in 1979. These screeners indicate that a person has failed, but do not give a precise BAC for use in court. They do provide the police with grounds to demand the approved instrument test and the results from the approved instrument are admissible in court. Again, it is an offence not to provide a breath sample on an approved screening device and it is an offence not to provide a breath sample on the approved instrument.

The courts have recognized the unique nature of this law. They have upheld its constitutionality as a reasonable limit on the charter right against unreasonable search and seizure that is justified by the horrendous toll caused by drunk drivers.

In 1979 Parliament had established a two step process for determining whether a driver was over 80 that appears simple: a reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the driver leads to a roadside approved device screening test which, if failed, leads to an approved instrument test which, if over 80, is proven by filing the certificate of the qualified technician in court.

However, impaired driving, and in particular, the over 80 cases, have become among the most complex cases to prove under the Criminal Code. It almost seems that every word and every comma in every section has been litigated.

Anyone who doubts how complicated the law has become only needs to pick up Martin's Annual Criminal Code. The 2007 edition has 12 pages of legislative text and annotations for the 13 sections dealing with murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Martin's has 62 pages of legislative text and annotations for the nine sections dealing with impaired driving.

Section 253(b) over 80 cases take up a grossly disproportionate amount of provincial court time. Often this is the sole charge as there is no evidence of erratic driving and few signs of impairment. If the defence can raise a reasonable doubt as to the blood alcohol content at the time of testing being equal to the BAC at the time of driving, the prosecution will virtually never have other evidence to prove the person was over 80 at the time of driving.

When Parliament first adopted breath testing legislation in 1969, the operator had to perform a series of tests to ensure the approved instrument was calibrated properly and had to read a needle to obtain a reading which was recorded manually. Clearly, there were opportunities for operator error and even an erroneous transcription of the BAC. Therefore, Parliament provided that the BAC reading is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to be the BAC at time of driving.

Unfortunately, even for a new generation of approved instruments that give digital readings, have automated internal checks and give a printout of the internal process, the courts have interpreted “evidence to the contrary” to include evidence given by the accused that he only had a small quantity of alcohol to drink, typically the two beer defence. The defence then calls a toxicologist to estimate the defendant's BAC based on the accused's testimony regarding the consumption of alcohol, time elapsed, food consumption, et cetera.

Essentially the accused is saying that regardless of the BAC at the time of testing, his or her BAC while driving could not have been over 80, given the small amount of alcohol consumed. The accused does not have to account for the BAC reading on the approved instrument at the police station. The courts, unless they reject totally the accused's evidence, hold that the presumption that the BAC at testing equals the BAC at the time of driving is defeated. Without this presumption, the prosecution does not have evidence to prove the over 80 offence. The defendant is acquitted for a lack of evidence showing the legal BAC at the time of driving.

The Supreme Court considered evidence to the contrary in Regina v. Boucher in December 2005, where the accused who had blown .092 testified that he only had drunk two large beers. Although the conviction was restored five to four, the decision turned solely on the credibility of the accused and whether the judge had properly considered the evidence as a whole.

The majority found at paragraph 43, “The judge also erred when she stated that the credibility of the accused and his witnesses could be assessed in light of the results of the breathalyzer test before applying the presumption”.

Consequently, the Supreme Court has effectively found that the results of a breath test can be disregarded by a trial judge and an accused found not guilty without any evidence whatsoever that the machine has malfunctioned, at least for the presumption of accuracy for the qualified technician's certificate.

Even if the court is suspicious of the accused's evidence, the presumption is lost because the accused only needs to meet the test of raising any evidence to the contrary. Frankly, I believe the courts have misunderstood what evidence to the contrary is meant to be.

Parliament passed the breathalyzer law in 1969 so that the calculation of the BAC could be done by the approved instrument, which takes the guesswork out of the equation provided the approved instrument is functioning properly, the operator uses it properly and the results are properly recorded.

The court's interpretation may have been justified when the technology was such that operator error could affect it and there would be no direct evidence of this. Therefore, it is very much a defence that reflects the weakness of the technology in use 40 years ago. I do not believe it is Parliament's intention that evidence to the contrary should be simply speculation about what an accused BAC might have been.

Given today's state of technology, evidence to the contrary must be direct evidence that the machine either did not operate properly or was not properly operated. If there is no such evidence, then the BAC produced by the machine must be accepted. The accused may still be acquitted if he or she can show that he or she was under 80 at the time of driving without contradicting the BAC results on the approved instrument at the police station. This could happen, for example, if the person downed several beers and was arrested before the alcohol was absorbed. It could occur that after driving but before being tested the person consumed alcohol and then it was absorbed by the time the approved instrument test was taken.

The fundamental question for Parliament is whether it can trust BAC readings produced by the approved instruments. Fortunately, advances in technology ensure that the accused receives full disclosure of modern approved instrument tests through the printout of the internal operations of the equipment.

In March of last year, the department commissioned a report from Brian Hodgson, a forensic toxicologist and chair of the alcohol test committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science on the validity of breath testing. I would be happy to provide a copy of this report to any member who wishes it. I trust that Mr. Hodgson will be called as a witness on the standing committee if we send the bill for review after second reading.

I would like to summarize his paper in this way. He wrote, “The Breathalyzer is entirely manually operated and therefore the reliability is vulnerable to human error. The test results are handwritten by the operator and vulnerable to transcription error. The advanced instruments have pre-programmed functions that minimize human error. For example, when electrical power is first turned on, all instruments must reach a specified operating temperature and the operator can then proceed with the testing of the subject. With the Breathalyzer, this function is the responsibility of the operator. The advanced instruments will not operate until the specified temperature is reached and have pre-programmed safety checks that will signal problems by means of air messages and will abort the testing procedures.

These approved instruments are highly sophisticated and must pass a rigorous evaluation process before the alcohol test committee recommends that they be listed as approved instruments under the Criminal Code for use in the courts. These instruments cannot be bought off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Perhaps the standing committee can arrange to have a demonstration of the older instruments and the new instruments so they can appreciate the differences.

In light of this science and the developments with the approved instruments, it is unfortunate that our courts have failed to reflect, in their jurisprudence, the evolution of the technology. Ignoring the BAC produced by one of the modern approved instruments and substituting for its accurate, scientific analysis of breath alcohol a calculation based on the testimony of the accused is deeply discouraging to the police and the prosecutors who have done everything that Parliament has prescribed.

As far back as 1968, the alcohol test committee expressed concern over the courts accepting testimony that effectively contradicted the approved instrument. In 1999, evidence to the contrary was discussed during the special hearings on the standing committee regarding impaired driving. The committee wrote:

The Committee understands the frustration expressed by justice system personnel over time-consuming defenses that, at least on the surface, may appear frivolous. However, given that the accused would have no effective means of checking the accuracy of a breath analysis machine, the Committee agrees that limiting the interpretation of “evidence to the contrary” in such a manner as recommended could effectively amount to the creation of an absolute liability criminal offence. Such a result would run the risk of interfering with an accused person's rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In present circumstances, therefore, the Committee does not support amendments to the Criminal Code that would limit the interpretation of “evidence to the contrary”.

Circumstances have changed. We now have modern technology that not only is designed to eliminate operator error but also prints out the results of the internal diagnostic checks that ensure that it is operating accurately. The accused receives a copy of that printout and can make a full answer and defence.

It is just as unacceptable to ignore the approved instrument BAC reading in favour of the testimony of the defendant and his or her friends as it would be for a court to ignore DNA found on the victim which analysis showed came from the accused because he or she and some friends testified that the accused was not at the scene of the crime, with no explanation of how the DNA happened to get there.

As MADD Canada's CEO, Andrew Murie, said in a press release calling for a rapid passage of the bill. He said:

Canada appears to be the only country that throws out the results of the evidentiary breath and blood samples based on the unsubstantiated, self-serving testimony of an accused impaired driver. We are very pleased to see the government limit these challenges.

I believe members will agree that a person who has been drinking is unlikely to have an exact recollection of the amount of alcohol that he or she consumed and it is appropriate that the blood alcohol content of the driver be established by a scientifically validated instrument that gives an exact reading rather than by a calculation based on a shaky foundation.

The amendments that we are proposing abolish the loose, undefined concept of “evidence to the contrary” and lists the actual scientifically valid defences that an accused can bring forward.

We are also reflecting in Bill C-32 the advances in technology by reducing from 15 minutes to 3 minutes the time required between the two required breath tests. The old breathalyzers required at least 10 minutes between tests for the operator to set the instrument back up so it was ready for another test. The new instruments are ready in a matter of minutes and they signal to the operator that they are ready to proceed.

Although there are other technical changes in the bill, I wish to conclude my remarks by discussing the changes in the offences and the new punishments.

The Criminal Code currently provides for higher maximum penalties for impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm. These higher penalties do not apply to refusal and over-80 offences, so unless there is also a conviction for causing bodily harm or death arising from the accident, a lower maximum penalty applies.

While evidence of BAC is not a prerequisite in order to prove the charge of impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, it is admissible in court. There is, therefore, an incentive for the accused to refuse to provide a sample in a case involving injury or death because the maximum penalty for refusal is five years.

Even if it is admitted, the BAC reading is not necessarily sufficient to prove the offender was impaired. The Crown must call a toxicologist to establish what has been known for more than 50 years, namely, that the person who is over 80 is impaired. Virtually all toxicologists agree that at 100 milligrams each person's ability to operate a vehicle is impaired.

We propose to eliminate the incentive to refuse by making a person who is over 80, and is the cause of a collision resulting in death or bodily injury, or who refuses to provide a breath sample knowing of the death or bodily harm, subject to the same penalties as a driver who, while impaired by alcohol or drug, causes death or bodily harm.

As for the penalties of impaired driving where there is no death or injury, the government believes that they do not adequately reflect the seriousness of this offence. We are proposing to raise the minimum fine for the first offence to $1,000. When combined with the prohibitions on driving, provincial licence suspensions and higher insurance costs, this should be enough to convince the people not to commit this offence again.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Sadly, it is quite fitting for me to be discussing impaired driving today. Only a few days ago New Brunswick provincial court judge Sylvio Savoie gave a maximum five year sentence to a dangerous drunk driver who has been a threat in our community for some time. Judge Savoie sentenced this dangerous individual to a maximum punishment, despite the fact that the crown prosecutor asked for a four year sentence, which clearly shows, on this side of the House, that our view to leave discretion with judges often works to the benefit of the community.

Judge Savoie put it in his own words best when he said that it was his duty to see that those people on the highway are protected. That is what we on this side believe about our criminal justice system.

This particular individual could serve as the perfect example for us today in discussing Bill C-32 and criminal legislation in general, in justifying tougher sentences and harsher punishments to put a definite end to impaired driving of any sort.

In fact, this repeat offender served 21 days in 1990 for refusing the breathalyzer, 14 days in 1995 for refusal, 30 days in 1999 for a refusal and 18 months in 2002 for driving over the legal blood alcohol limit. If that was not bad enough, he was given 22 months for impaired driving and driving while prohibited. He returned to court a week later to deal with another outstanding impaired charge and was sentenced to three years.

Last week this five year sentence was added to that list of sentences and to the great benefit of the law-abiding citizens to whom this person represented a severe threat.

It is important to note that this sentence was handed out under existing Criminal Code provisions, the bulk of which have been enacted under Liberal governments. Let us face it, impaired driving is not acceptable. It is a dangerous criminal behaviour that sadly kills too many Canadian citizens every year, lives that could be easily spared.

Quite frankly, I hope one day that impaired driving will be a thing of the past and we simply will not have to deal with bills such as Bill C-32 because all Canadians will know it is not acceptable to drink and drive.

For now, though, we still have a lot of work to do in our society and as legislators in this Parliament to get there. Bill C-32 is a start. It proposes to help curb the problem of impaired driving.

This is not the first time, however, that the House has dealt with impaired driving legislation. In recent years the House of Commons has been in fact quite active. In 1999 a House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving” which recognized the need to develop better ways to detect impaired driving, especially impaired driving related to drugs.

A Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs also published a report called “Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy”. Once again, the committee noted that there is no reliable, non-intrusive roadside test for drugs.

In 2003, the Department of Justice also released a report entitled “Drug-Impaired Driving: Consultation Document”. Again, conclusions mentioned how drivers do not routinely submit to drug tests and how few measures the police had at their disposal to test drivers for alleged influence of drugs.

This is why in 2004 the previous Liberal government introduced a bill to establish a new national strategy to deal with impaired driving. Unfortunately, this legislation died on the order paper when an election was called. As soon as Parliament was back at work after the 2004 election, the re-elected Liberal government reintroduced legislation to deal with impaired driving and that was known as Bill C-16. It is very unfortunate that this piece of legislation also died on the order paper when the 2006 election was called.

Here we are today with the current Bill C-32 legislation, highly inspired I suggest by the very progressive Liberal justice agenda of previous governments.

Let us look at the bill in its pith and substance. Bill C-32 does a number of things. It provides tools to detect drug-impaired drivers and creates the offence of driving while in possession of illicit drugs. This would be routinely known by those of us who have dabbled in law and know that with respect to alcohol-related offences, it is also, under many provincial statutes, illegal to have possession of alcohol in the vehicle, which is a precursor to preventing the improper imbibing of alcohol while driving or being under the influence of alcohol while driving. This is a mere extension of that with respect to drugs.

It would restrict the evidence to the contrary rule, which I will delve into subsequently. It will also create the offence of being over .08, causing death or bodily harm, which goes of course to the alcohol side of impairment. It would increase penalties for impaired drivers and for driving while disqualified under provincial statutes or otherwise. It would, finally, assist the police in investigating alcohol-related crashes.

Bill C-32 provides for several means of determining whether a driver is impaired by drugs including standard sobriety tests, training experts to recognize drivers impaired by drugs, taking samples of bodily fluids, and creating an offence for refusing to comply.

In addition, Bill C-32 will establish a new hybrid offence punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment and prohibition on driving.

The bill will also limit the use of “evidence to the contrary”, better known as the “two-beer” defence, while retaining valid defences.

The elimination of the two beer defence is an interesting point brought forward by this law. Forty years ago, breathalyzers and other machines used to calculate blood alcohol levels were prone to errors depending on operator experience, various circumstances and external factors. Frankly, technology has come a long way.

Therefore, it was possible in the past that individuals were wrongfully accused and sometimes wrongfully convicted after roadside tests and station-administered tests. They were wrongfully accused and convicted of offences relative to the .08 limitation.

However, today increasingly accurate technological advances have ensured that such malfunctions with detection devices are almost impossible. Each machine prints out internal checks before each test. Operators are better educated. In short, we have the science now.

There are very few cases where the calibration of the machine is in error or where the operator did not have specific knowledge of how to administer the impairment test. Consequently, there are very few cases, I am very confident in saying, where the accused are wrongfully accused or convicted of driving over the legal limit of .08 on the alcohol side.

We have made progress. Just as there are very few, if none I might say, wrongful accusations for convictions, I would also say on the other hand that there are more convictions, making our roads safer places. It is safe to say that in the mores of society, drug impaired driving has not caught up to and maintained the same level of vigilance in detection that alcohol impaired driving has.

Let me for a moment compare the technical aspects of evidence gathering with respect to crime. By doing so I hope to illustrate that we are a long way from being precise on drug impaired driving. We have made great achievements with respect to alcohol impaired driving, and on all other aspects of criminal justice we have made great progress because of science.

Let me compare our state of affairs with respect to impaired driving with the introduction of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. With all the technology police and law enforcement officials have at their disposition today, would we ever consider debating a DNA match in court by presenting a few friends who could testify in favour of an accused who was faced with a positive DNA match? I doubt very much that any judge in this country would find the testimony of a few friends of the accused as a valid basis for rejecting accurate, scientifically precise DNA matches.

Oddly enough, on the impaired driving side, if a few drinking buddies are willing to testify that the accused only had a beer or two, a court can today reject the results of highly reliable, technologically advanced, precise instruments that otherwise perhaps would have not been available in the past.

This is how this amendment, building on Liberal traditions, is keeping up with technological advances. It is important to support our police officers, those on the front line who administer such tests, and give them the faith that we should have in the laws as they administer the tests and bring about proper convictions.

In December 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada considered the evidence to the contrary, the two beer defence, and found that the results of a breath test can be disregarded, could be disregarded, without any evidence of machine malfunction if the accused meets the test of raising a doubt, raising evidence to the contrary.

Bill C-32 establishes new offences, namely impaired driving causing bodily harm, punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years, or causing death, punishable by life imprisonment. A new offence for refusing to provide a breath sample, in cases of bodily injury or death, will carry the same sentences.

In addition, penalties for impaired driving will be higher. For a first offence, the fine increases from $600 to $1,000; for a second offence, sentencing increases from 14 days to 30 days; for a third offence, sentencing increases from 90 days to 120 days and a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction. Naturally, individuals found guilty of impaired driving will also lose their licence.

Bill C-32 also provides tools to assist the police by enabling them to test drivers within three hours of a collision. It also allows them to reduce the current time between breath tests to three minutes and also to extend the driver's seat presumption for refusal cases.

Let us be clear. As parliamentarians representing all regions of this country, as legislators, we have a special task, but we are all also somebody's son, husband or wife, somebody's father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, and we see, as law-abiding citizens, aside from our role as parliamentarians, the carnage of impaired driving in our society. We react not just as parliamentarians, but as parents, as children, as friends of people who have been hurt by the ravages of impaired driving, whether alcohol or drug. In short, drunk drivers are dangerous not only to themselves but to the whole of society.

That is why Bill C-32, while a good attempt, must be a good law. It must be efficacious. In its current form, it does not address many of the points raised in the multitude of committee and justice department reports that I referred to in the first part of my address.

It is crucial that this law be built on a solid foundation and take the findings of the reports, the commissioned studies and the justice department opinions and effect a very solid law, as we have seen with technological advances on the alcohol side, a law, as administered, that results in convictions, will provide deterrents and also does not lead to wrongful accusations or convictions. But primarily, the law must work.

Bill C-32 raises a number of questions which I as a member of the justice committee will be most eager to delve into so that we can perfect it and hopefully bring it back to the House as a efficacious law. These questions, and they must be raised, are as follows. They relate to how to test drivers on roadsides for drug impaired driving.

The amendments with respect to the alcohol side are terrific amendments and will act as further deterrents and better help on detection with respect to alcohol impaired driving. With respect to drug impaired driving, there are currently no reliable tests. I would quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada when he said in the House last week that “we do not have the equipment in place that can provide a roadside test for all drugs in the same way that we have with roadside breathalyzer tests” for alcohol detection.

And never a truer word was spoken by a member of the Conservative Party, a Conservative parliamentarian and member of the cabinet by virtue of being a parliamentary secretary. I want to give compliments where are compliments are due. I am certainly open to complimenting my friends on the Conservative side when they speak the truth and are 100% accurate, but 100% accuracy is really the standard which we are trying to achieve, with respect, as parliamentarians in Bill C-32, and the law as drafted cannot be said to achieve that on the drug impaired aspect.

There is another question related to the proposed legislation. I will be happy to study this and help this through committee. What drugs would the police be testing for? All drugs? Certain drugs? This certainly raises many questions. It has been scientifically demonstrated that cannabis can leave traces in the body for weeks after the physical and mental impairment effects have dissipated. How would the new drug recognition experts panel react to this?

How are we going to deal with the multitude of drugs, perhaps not even listed in the Criminal Code, if they cause impairment? What about prescription drugs? Although acquired legally through a doctor's prescription, many medications have warnings on them. Many people are irresponsible in taking one or several medications without reading the warnings. They put themselves in a position to harm others. They put themselves in a position to be impaired and not capable of driving safely. How does this bill deal with that aspect? How would the new drug recognition experts deal with this?

We live in a country where winter, certainly just lately but before that perhaps not, is very harsh and is synonymous with cold and flu season. That can last up to five or six months. What about the millions of Canadians who take flu and cold medications? For many of those medications, we are told not to drive or operate heavy machinery while taking them. This is a problem that Bill C-32 does not specifically address. I do not think we can leave it to the regulations to detect. This certainly must be canvassed through the best of expert testimony at the committee level.

The standardized field sobriety tests and the pooling together of the experts is an excellent idea, but we have to ask where they would be. Would they be available to every region of Canada? It is a high level of expertise. Will it apply in rural parts of Canada, like the riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, for instance? Certainly in the grand city of Moncton we would get those experts.

Furthermore, the only reliable test for drug impaired driving is a blood sample or a urine or saliva test and many of these might not stand a charter challenge, unfortunately.

In short and in conclusion, Liberals support this bill. We support it going to committee. We support the work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We support local operations such as Opération Nez rouge. We want our streets and roadways to be safe. In doing so, we support the bill. We have many questions and we hope those questions will be answered at committee. We hope the House will support the questions and give the committee enough resources and time to proffer the proper evidence and come back with a bill that will protect Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is the first time that I stand in this House as the opposition justice critic and I am very pleased to do so.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As I just said in French, this is my first speech as the official opposition's justice critic. I look forward to working with my colleagues, be they in my party or in other parties, to provide intelligent, smart solutions to all justice issues that come before this House.

In considering Bill C-32, we must look at its history in order to understand it. The history of Bill C-32 goes back quite a few years, in fact to May 1999 when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”.

The committee then recognized that drugs were a contributing factor to some fatal motor vehicle accidents. It also emphasized the need to develop better measures to detect drug impaired driving and to obtain the proper evidence allowing for the successful prosecution of individuals who drove while under the influence of drugs.

A further study on this issue was the Senate special committee on illegal drugs report entitled “Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy”. One of its important findings was that there was no reliable, non-intrusive, rapid roadside test for drugs. In the case of cannabis, the best way to test is through blood samples. This then obviously represents a challenge that needs to be met in order to address the problem of drug impaired driving.

In response to the 1999 report, the Department of Justice and its working group on impaired driving consulted extensively with the provinces and territories. The results of these consultations was the October 2003 release of the report entitled “Drug-Impaired Driving: Consultation Document”. This document pointed out that many drug impaired drivers were not voluntarily participating in testing. It does stress the need to develop measures that would allow police to demand that drivers suspected of being impaired by drug use would submit to testing.

The report highlighted two options. The first option was to set a legal limit on the presence of drugs on the body. The second option was to propose legislation that would improve the ability of our law enforcement, our police officers, to demand drug tests. A certified officer could demand a physical sobriety test or take a saliva or sweat sample at the roadside based on the reasonable suspicion of drug impairment. Failure on such a test would then represent reasonable grounds to conduct a more detailed evaluation and, obviously, more intrusive evaluation at a police station. The bill that is before us, Bill C-32, follows in the steps of this second option.

The House of Commons special committee report on the non-medical use of drugs released in the fall of 2003 called for Parliament to develop a strategy addressing the question of drug impaired driving. In April 2004, our then Liberal government, and it is quite coincidental I am sure that the present government bill carries the same number, reintroduced Bill C-32. That bill would have dealt with the drug impaired driving in the fashion described above. Unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper in May 2004 when an election was called.

The Liberals were re-elected, albeit as a minority government, and in November 2004 reintroduced that same bill but as Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. That bill made its way to committee and was reported back to the House with some amendments. Unfortunately, that piece of legislation also died on the order paper when the election was called in November 2005.

Thus, the current minority Conservative government's Bill C-32 has followed in the footsteps taken by the previous Liberal government. The Conservatives, however, have chosen to reintroduce it with a few changes, namely, by incorporating stronger penalties than the Liberals' two previous bills had envisioned.

On the same topic, I noted that Canadian Press reported on the introduction of Bill C-2 with the following words. I am quoting from the November 22 wire which reads:

The federal Conservatives have brought in legislation to crack down on drug-impaired drivers--by resurrecting a plan first advanced by the Liberals, adding heavier fines and jail terms, and calling the result a Tory initiative.

I think that this description is accurate, and I can only commend the Tories for recognizing a great idea even when it was developed and first presented by another party, the Liberal Party when it was the government.

Now that we have discussed the background for the bill before us, we must examine the amendments it will make to the Criminal Code. The summary for Bill C-32 reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code

(a) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle while in possession of a controlled substance as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) to authorize specially trained peace officers to conduct tests to determine whether a person is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug;

(c) to authorize the taking of bodily fluids to test for the presence of alcohol or a drug;

(d) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood and causing bodily harm or death to another person;

(e) to clarify what evidence a person accused of driving with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood can introduce to raise a doubt that they were not committing the offence;

(f) to create an offence of refusing to provide a breath sample when the accused knows or ought to know that the accused’s operation of a motor vehicle caused an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person or death; and

(g) to increase the penalties for impaired driving.

The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

As the Liberal justice critic, I want to say that my party takes very seriously problems of impaired driving caused by alcohol and/or other drugs. In my opinion, the proof of this is that, when we formed the government, we twice introduced a bill amending the Criminal Code to deal with this problem.

I believe the proof is there. We take this issue very seriously and we also take very seriously measures that are smart and effective and that have a good chance and even an excellent chance of achieving the intended objectives. Moreover, we support initiatives to provide services responsible for maintaining public order with concrete and effective tools to implement legislation aimed at cracking down on impaired driving caused by alcohol or other drugs.

We are therefore prepared to support Bill C-32 so that it can make its way to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee could examine the bill in greater detail and summon witnesses and experts to give their own particular perspective. In addition, the committee could propose any amendments it deems necessary. However, I would like to say that we still have reservations about some aspects of this bill. We hope that the government will work constructively with all the opposition parties to address these reservations and that the most useful and most effective legislation will be adopted.

What concerns or reservations do we have about this bill?

Some hon. members have already voiced them.

The Canada Safety Council has already voiced some objections to roadside drug testing. It asks which type of drugs police would test for. Would it simply be illicit, illegal drugs, or would it also be drugs that are legal, in the sense that they are prescription drugs. The person could be in legal possession of those prescription drugs, but the effects of those drugs may cause impairment and it is clearly indicated, for instance, as part of the protocol for taking that drug.

How many of us have not come down with a bad cold or a bad infection, have been prescribed medication by our doctor and when we receive it at the pharmacy it clearly says on the label not to operate machinery or a moving vehicle while taking that medication.

The Canada Safety Council has concerns about what are the drugs that are going to be tested for and whether there will be the possibility of distinguishing between prescription drugs and illegal drugs. As well, how would we deal with the fact that there are certain drugs, like marijuana, which may linger in the body well after the initial high is over and well after the effects of impairment of one's abilities have completely dissipated but traces of the drug still remain?

The Canada Safety Council is asking these questions. How is this bill going to deal with these issues? These are questions that hopefully will be answered if this bill goes to committee.

As I said, as the Liberal critic I will be recommending to my colleagues to vote in favour to send it on to committee so that we can attempt to get answers to these questions and, if it is possible, to amend the bill. If we are given solid answers by experts who say that yes, we could do that and we could amend the legislation in such a way to ensure that it happened, then we would hope that we would get government cooperation in order to do so.

I had another question which was not answered by the parliamentary secretary during questions and comments. I asked whether or not studies had been done to determine in what percentage of cases where there has been death or injury caused by a motor vehicle and there is evidence of impairment--and let us just consider alcohol impairment--the Crown actually brought forth manslaughter charges, which includes the section of the Criminal Code that exists right now that deals with manslaughter and also includes death and injury caused by a vehicle, including impaired driving and provides for a maximum sentence of life.

I would like to know what scientific studies have been done to determine why it is that those provisions have not been used obviously sufficiently from what the parliamentary secretary said. He talked about people who are impaired causing carnage with their vehicles et cetera and that they are getting away with it because they are refusing to take the testing. Where are the problems? We have provisions right now but they appear not to be used. Why is that? What is the evidence that would show why they are not being used?

Finally, we know the government has announced that it will be placing $2 million to the benefit of our law enforcement in order to get the training and to do these roadside sobriety tests. How much money, if any, is the government planning to use to do a public education campaign?

History has shown that Canada-wide public education campaigns about impaired driving have been very well received by the public.

That is why today people have a designated driver when they spend an evening with friends or go to a party in a hall or restaurant where alcohol is served. Today, the vast majority of people resign themselves to drinking nothing. But if they do decide to drink, they have a designated driver.

Does the government plan to put money and people behind the idea of an education campaign on driving while under the influence not only of alcohol, but also drugs, for example? I would like to know. Perhaps the answers will come out during the committee hearings, if the House decides to refer this bill to committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues in this House who are taking part in this debate. As I have already said, I recommend that my colleagues from all parties refer this bill to committee so that we can try to answer these questions and, if necessary, improve the bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill would help bring Canada's impaired driving laws into the 21st century and would greatly assist the police in their efforts to investigate impaired driving incidents and the Crown in its prosecutions of alleged offenders.

I know all members recognize that impaired driving remains the single criminal offence that is most likely to result in the death or injury of Canadians. If passed, this legislation will make an immeasurable contribution to the safety of all Canadians. Therefore, I trust that all parties will support the legislation and that we can cooperate so that these needed changes can be considered by the standing committee expeditiously.

I can assure all members that the government is open to consideration of any improvements that the committee can suggest, after hearing from stakeholders, to make the bill even more effective in achieving its goals.

The bill has three main components.

First, it would give police officers the tools they need to investigate drug impaired driving.

Second, it would make changes that reflect the great advances made in breathalyzer technology since Parliament first introduced breath testing almost 40 years ago.

Third, it would introduce new offences and increase penalties for existing offences.

Many members of the House are familiar with the drug impaired provisions of the bill. They are virtually identical to the provisions of Bill C-16, which was introduced in an earlier Parliament. That bill was reviewed and amended in committee and reported unanimously with amendments by the committee. However, it died on the order paper.

There is no question that police and prosecutors are eagerly awaiting the passage of those changes.

I will therefore confine my remarks to the new provisions in Bill C-32 so that members will understand what motivated the government to bring these amendments forward.

Probably the most important change in this bill is the proposal to ensure that only scientifically valid defences can be used where a person is accused of driving with a concentration of alcohol exceeding 80 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood. This is known as driving over 80.

Parliament first enacted an alcohol driving offence in 1921. Our current Criminal Code, section 253, subsection (a), offence of impaired driving, was enacted in 1951. It has been known for more than 50 years that a person with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in their system is a danger to himself or herself and also to other users of the road.

A person with a blood alcohol concentration of 90 is estimated by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be at least 11 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a sober driver. Above that level, the risk increases exponentially. At a blood alcohol level of 125, for example, a person is at least 29 times as likely to be involved in a fatal collision.

While recognizing the risk of collisions with escalating blood alcohol concentrations, the problem has always been how to prove the concentration. Determining BAC can be done by analyzing blood. However, obtaining a blood sample is often seen as intrusive and it can take a long time to complete the blood analysis, during which time the accused does not know whether a charge will be laid.

The problems with blood analysis were overcome in the 1950s with the invention of Borkenstein Breathalyzer, which converted alcohol in breath to alcohol in blood in a reliable, scientifically valid process.

Parliament recognized the risk of blood alcohol concentration that exceeded 80 when it passed, in 1969, legislation making it an offence to drive with that much alcohol or more in a person's system. It is a peculiarity of the law that it can only be proven by making the person provide the evidence that can be used against him or her in court. Accordingly Parliament made it an offence to refuse to provide the breath sample on an improved instrument.

Advances in technology made it possible to measure the BAC at roadside, so Parliament provided for the use of a roadside screening device in 1979. These screeners indicate that a person has failed but do not give a precise BAC for use in court. They do provide the police with grounds to demand the approved instrument test. The results from the approved instrument are admissible in court.

Again, it is an offence not to provide the breath sample on an approved screening device and it is an offence not to provide the breath sample on an approved instrument. The courts have recognized the unique nature of this law and they have upheld its constitutionality as a reasonable limit on the charter right against unreasonable search and seizure, a limit that is justified by the horrendous toll caused by drunk drivers.

Therefore, by 1979 Parliament had established a two-step process for determining whether a driver was over 80. It appears simple. A reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the driver leads to a roadside approved device screening test which, if failed, leads to an approved instrument test, in which over 80 is proven by filing the certificate of the qualified technician in court.

However, as all members are likely aware, impaired driving, and in particular over-80 cases, have become among the most complex cases to prove under the Criminal Code. It seems that every word and every comma in every section has been litigated. Anyone who doubts how complicated the law has become need only pick up Martin's Annual Criminal Code. The 2007 edition has 12 pages of legislative text and annotations for the 13 sections dealing with murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Martin's has 62 pages of legislated text and annotations for the nine sections dealing with impaired driving.

Subsection 253(b) over-80 cases take up a grossly disproportionate amount of provincial court trial time. Often this is the sole charge, as there is no evidence of erratic driving and there are few signs of impairment. If the defence can raise a reasonable doubt as to the BAC at the time of testing being equal to the BAC at the time of driving, the prosecution will virtually never have other evidence to prove that the person was over 80 at the time of driving.

When Parliament first adopted breath testing legislation in 1969, the operator had to perform a series of tests to ensure the approved instrument was calibrated properly and had to read a needle to obtain a reading, which was recorded manually. Clearly, there were opportunities for operator error and even erroneous transcription of the BAC.

Therefore, Parliament provided that the BAC reading is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to be the BAC at the time of driving. Unfortunately, even for a new generation of approved instruments that give digital readings, have automated internal checks and give a printout of the internal process, the courts have interpreted evidence to the contrary to include evidence given by the accused that he only had a small quantity of alcohol to drink, typically “two beer”. This has become known as the two-beer defence.

The defence then calls a toxicologist to estimate the defendant's BAC based on the accused's testimony regarding consumption of alcohol, time elapsed, food consumption, et cetera. Essentially, the accused is saying that regardless of the BAC at the time of testing, his or her BAC while driving could not have been over 80 given the small amount of alcohol consumed.

The accused does not have to account for the BAC reading on the approved instrument at the police station. The courts, unless they reject totally the accused's evidence, hold that the presumption that the BAC at testing equals the BAC at the time of driving is defeated. Without this presumption, the prosecution does not have evidence to prove the over-80 offence. The defendant is acquitted for a lack of evidence showing the illegal BAC at the time of driving.

The Supreme Court considered evidence to the contrary in December 2005, where the accused, who had blown .092, testified that he had only two large beer. Although the conviction was restored, the decision turned solely on the credibility of the accused and whether the judge had properly considered the evidence as a whole.

The majority found, at paragraph 43, that:

The judge also erred when she stated that the credibility of the accused and his witnesses could be assessed in light of the results of the breathalyzer tests before applying the presumption.

Consequently, the Supreme Court has effectively found that the results of a breath test can be disregarded by the trial judge and the accused found not guilty without any evidence whatsoever that the machine has malfunctioned, at least for the “presumption of accuracy for the qualified technician's certificate”. Even if the court is suspicious of the accused's evidence, the presumption is lost because the accused only has to meet the test of raising any evidence to the contrary.

Frankly, this may be a misunderstanding of what “evidence to the contrary” was intended by Parliament to be. Parliament passed the breathalyzer law in 1969, so the calculation of BAC would be done by the approved instrument, which takes the guesswork out of the equation provided the approved instrument is functioning properly, the operator uses it properly and the results are properly recorded.

The court's interpretation may have been justified when the technology was such that operator error could affect it and there would be no direct evidence of this. Therefore, it is very much a defence that reflects the weaknesses of technology in use some 40 years ago. It was not, I believe, Parliament's intention that evidence to the contrary should be simply speculation about what an accused BAC might have been.

Given today's state of technology, evidence to the contrary must be direct evidence that the machine either did not operate properly or was not operated properly. If there is no such evidence, then the BAC produced by the machine should be accepted.

The accused may still be acquitted if he or she can show that they could have been under 80 at the time driving without contradicting the BAC results on the approved instrument at the police station. This could happen if, for example, the person downed several drinks and was arrested before the alcohol was absorbed. It could also occur that after driving, but before testing, the person consumed alcohol and it was absorbed by the time the approved instrument test was taken.

The fundamental question for Parliament is whether it can trust the BAC readings produced by the approved instruments. Fortunately, advances in technology ensure that the accused receives full disclosure of more modern approved evidence tests through the printout of the internal operations of the equipment.

In March of last year, the justice department commissioned from Mr. Brian Hodgson, a forensic toxicologist and the chair of the alcohol test committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, a report on the validity of breath testing. I will be happy to provide a copy of this report to any member who wishes it. I trust that Mr. Hodgson will be called as a witness by the standing committee if we send the bill for review after second reading.

Let me summarize his paper this way. He wrote that the Breathalyzer is entirely manually operated and therefore the reliability is vulnerable to human error. The test results are handwritten by the operator and vulnerable to transcription error. The advanced instruments have preprogrammed functions that minimize human operator error. He continued, saying that, for example, when electrical power is first turned on, all instruments must reach a specified operating temperature and the operator can then proceed with the testing of the subject. With the Breathalyzer, this function is the responsibility of the operator. The advanced instruments will not operate until the specified temperature is reached and have preprogrammed safety checks that will signal problems by means of error messages and will abort the testing procedure.

These approved instruments are highly sophisticated and have to pass a rigorous evaluation process before the alcohol test committee recommends that they be listed as approved instruments under the Criminal Code for use in the courts. One does not buy these instruments off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Perhaps the standing committee can arrange to have a demonstration of the older instruments and the new instruments so they will be better able to appreciate the differences.

In light of this science and the developments with the approved instruments, it is unfortunate that our courts have failed to reflect in their jurisprudence the evolution of the technology. Ignoring the BAC produced by one of the modern approved instruments and substituting for its accurate, scientific analysis of breath alcohol a calculation based on the testimony of the accused is deeply discouraging to the police and prosecutors, who have done everything that Parliament has prescribed.

As far back as 1986, the alcohol test committee expressed concern over the courts accepting testimony that effectively contradicted the approved instrument. In 1999, evidence to the contrary was discussed during the special hearings of the standing committee regarding impaired driving.

The committee wrote:

The Committee understands the frustration expressed by justice system personnel over time-consuming defenses that, at least on the surface, may appear frivolous. However, given that the accused would have no effective means of checking the accuracy of a breath analysis machine, the Committee agrees that limiting the interpretation of “evidence to the contrary” in such a manner as recommended could effectively amount to the creation of an absolute liability criminal offence. Such a result would run the risk of interfering with an accused person's rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In present circumstances, therefore, the Committee does not support amendments to the Criminal Code that would limit the interpretation of “evidence to the contrary”.

Circumstances certainly have changed. We now have modern technology that not only is designed to eliminate operator error but also prints out the results of its internal diagnostic checks that ensure it is operating accurately. The accused receives a copy of that printout and can make full answer in defence.

It is just as unacceptable to ignore the approved instrument BAC reading in favour of the testimony of the defendant and his or her friends as it would be for a court to ignore DNA found on the victim that analysis shows comes from the accused because he or she and a few friends testified that the accused was not at the scene of the crime, with no explanation as to how the DNA happened to be there.

As MADD Canada's CEO Andrew Murie said in a press release calling for rapid passage of this bill:

Canada appears to be the only country that throws out the results of the evidentiary breath and blood samples based on the unsubstantiated, self-serving testimony of an accused impaired driver. We are very pleased to see the government limit these challenges.

I believe members will agree that a person who has been drinking is unlikely to have an exact recollection of the amount of alcohol he or she consumed and it is appropriate that the blood alcohol content of the driver be established by a scientifically validated instrument that gives an exact reading rather than by a calculation based on such a shaky foundation.

The amendments that we are proposing abolish the loose, undefined concept of “evidence to the contrary” and list the actual scientifically valid offences that an accused can bring forward.

We are also reflecting in Bill C-32 the advances in technology by reducing from 15 minutes to three minutes the time required between the two required breath tests. The old breathalyzers required at least 10 minutes between tests for the operator to set the instrument back up so that it was ready for another test. The new instruments are ready in a matter of minutes and they signal to the operator that they are ready to proceed.

Although there are other technical changes in the bill, I wish to conclude my remarks by discussing the changes in the offences and the new punishments.

The Criminal Code currently provides for higher maximum penalties for impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm. These higher penalties do not apply to refusal in over-80 offences, so unless there is also a conviction for causing bodily harm or death arising from the incident, a lower maximum penalty applies.

While evidence of BAC is not a prerequisite in order to prove the charge of impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, it is admissible in court. There is, therefore, an incentive for the accused to refuse to provide a sample in a case involving injury or death, because the maximum penalty for a refusal is five years.

Even if it is admitted, the BAC reading is not necessarily sufficient to prove the offender was impaired. The Crown has to call a toxicologist to establish, as I have said, what has been known for more than 50 years, namely, that a person who is over 80 is impaired. Virtually all toxicologists agree that at 100 milligrams each person's ability to operate a vehicle is impaired.

We propose to eliminate this incentive to refuse by making a person who is over 80 and is the cause of a collision resulting in death or bodily harm, or who refuses to provide a breath sample knowing of the death or bodily harm, subject to the same penalties as the driver who, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, caused a death or bodily harm.

As for the penalties for impaired driving where there is no death or injury, the government believes they do not adequately reflect the seriousness of this offence. We are proposing to raise the minimum fine for a first offence to $1,000. When combined with the prohibitions on driving, provincial licence suspensions and higher insurance costs, this should be enough to convince the person not to commit the offence again.

However, for those who do commit another offence, we propose that they be subject to imprisonment for a minimum 30 days on a second offence instead of the current 14 days. For a third offence, we propose 120 days rather than the current 90 days' imprisonment.

I am indeed pleased to recommend to the House that it give second reading to Bill C-32. I urge all members to support it.

Committees of the House

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, November 15, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and agreed on Thursday, November 3, 2005 to report it with amendments.

Privilege

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear my colleague from the NDP say that his party was not entering into an alliance, an unholy alliance, with the Conservative ideologues and the Quebec separatists. So I am just curious what in fact this is. Is this a political ménage à trois? It is a pretty scary thought.

More interesting, the member mentioned that in the spring they were not allying with the Liberals, but in fact were helping to govern to ensure that very important legislation would get passed. We have some 30-odd bills on the order paper that, if there is a non-confidence motion, will not get passed. Following that logic, I would assume the NDP is now saying that these are not important bills for the people of Canada.

What sort of bills are these? There is Bill C-66, the energy relief bill, which would provide relief in January for people on fixed incomes, our seniors and families on low incomes. It would fall to the side. Does his party not feel that is important legislation? There is Bill C-69, the agricultural marketing programs act bill; or Bill C-64, the vehicle identification bill or, as some would call it, the Chuck Cadman bill. It would unfortunately fall by the wayside. There is Bill C-16, the impaired driving bill and Bill C-54, the oil and gas exploration bill. I am sure that the members opposite from Alberta will be happy to see that one fall by the wayside. There is Bill C-11, the whistleblower protection bill, and Bill S-39, the sex offender database bill. Which of these bills does the member feel is not important enough to be passed?

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and citizenship issues entitled, “Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: It's Time”.

In tabling this document, the committee calls on the government to fulfill its commitment in the throne speech to present the House with a citizenship act. We have had three previous attempts at reforming the citizenship laws since 1997 which were Bill C-63, Bill C-16 and Bill C-18.

In concluding, citizenship is the most sacred covenant between the citizen and the state and it is time we had citizenship laws that reflect that reality.

[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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16, which is the companion bill to the bill we debated earlier in the day, the so-called decriminalization of marijuana bill.

I must say this particular bill which deals with drug impaired driving has not received nearly the same amount of attention or scrutiny as the bill that we debated earlier today. In fact, when this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, many of us felt that it had been very hastily thrown together and the government had responded to a criticism that it had not adequately dealt with the issue of drug impaired driving.

I would like to begin my remarks by drawing attention to some of the information that is contained within the government's own background information in presenting this bill. In the backgrounder it is pointed out, for example, that the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec has determined that 30% of fatal accidents in that province involve drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. A traffic injury research foundation poll in 2002 found that close to 20% of Canadian drivers had driven within two hours of taking a potentially impairing drug, whether it was an over the counter legal prescription or an illegal substance.

I find this very interesting because it really highlights that the fundamental issue we are dealing with is not whether or not a substance is legal; it is whether people take prescription drugs, an illegal substance or drink alcohol when they drive. This point really needs to be driven home, excuse the pun. It is very pertinent to the critical issue of education and people taking responsibility for their actions.

While we believe it is very important in dealing with the decriminalization of marijuana to ensure that there is a rules based approach and that there are proper regulations around use, including impairment, while under the influence of drugs, the most important thing is probably education and self-responsibility. If anybody doubts that, one only has to look at the laws we have. There are all kinds of laws around drunk driving. There are all kinds of criminal prohibitions.

There is massive enforcement, although some people would argue there is not enough. I would argue that over the years what has changed in terms of people's attitudes around drunk driving has come from education, from groups like MADD, local organizations, parent groups, youth groups, through peer education and training in schools. People have come to the realization that driving while under the influence of a legal or illegal substance that can impair one's ability is something that is very wrong and which we all have to take responsibility for.

I want to make that point first and foremost. We can always say that we rely on the law and police enforcement to correct a problem, but we should never overlook, but in fact we often do overlook, the significant value of education and a sense of responsibility that we all have.

In dealing with drug impairment, it should be pointed out that this already is an offence. The problem is there is no sound scientific or objective process for having a test done similar to what there is for alcohol. In fact, again reading from the backgrounder prepared by the government, there is no legal limit offence for drugs as there is elsewhere in the Criminal Code for alcohol.

Unlike alcohol, for the vast majority of drugs there is no scientific consensus on the threshold level of drug concentration in the body that causes the impairment and makes driving hazardous. Technology to detect drug concentration at the roadside is neither an available nor an effective option.

Given this background, I think this should give us some real cause for caution in examining what this bill is about. As I say, from the perspective of the NDP, we certainly support the principle and idea that there has to be effective regulation, but I think we have to proceed on the basis that we examine the proposed bill and that we do it, wherever possible, on a scientific and objective basis.

For example, right now police can ask for, and people can voluntarily subject themselves to, a certain level of testing that can involve blood samples, saliva or urine testing. That is now only done on a voluntary basis. Under the bill police powers would be extended to compel that to be a mandatory requirement.

The issue for doing that involves a series of procedures that are known as drug recognition expert training. At this point only 123 officers in Canada have that training. That is obviously a serious shortcoming. In fact, this testing, if we can call it that, is only used by police in Quebec, B.C. and Manitoba. Again, I emphasize it is only when the driver has voluntarily agreed to participate.

If this is to be extended, if it is to be made mandatory, I would certainly echo the concerns of my colleague from the Bloc, of whether or not there are adequate funds to make this happen. This is something of great concern that we will have to examine when the bill goes to committee.

There are other issues. The Canadian Bar Association has raised some questions about whether or not demanding bodily fluid samples without a warrant is something that could be subject to challenges under the charter. This is something that needs to be examined.

From our perspective in the NDP we support the idea that there needs to be clear regulations. We support the idea that there needs to be enforcement. We believe it is very important that the committee hear from expert witnesses on this issue. I think there is some ambiguity about how these tests are applied, about what the longer term consequences are of these tests and whether or not there are areas where they could be considered to be infringing on people's civil liberties based on the fact that they would be mandatory and not voluntary.

I am sure we will have an opportunity at the committee to go through the bill, to put it under the microscope of that kind of examination and to hear from witnesses.

At the end of the day, because there is a nervousness, there is a jitteriness about proceeding with the first bill, we have to be very concerned that the government does not rush through this companion piece of legislation which may have some serious problems with it. We want to make sure that the examination by the committee takes place with expert witnesses with proper training. We must ensure that whatever rules are put in place for drug impaired driving are rules that can be backed up, that can meet various charter tests. We must ensure that adequate training is involved. Most of all, we must understand the importance of providing education to people.

I would say all of the attention is focused on marijuana. If we really want to worry about what is taking place, we should think about the people who are taking prescriptions and getting in their cars and driving in a way that they are impaired and not in full control of their faculties.

In some ways, perhaps this is an opportunity for us to focus on the broader issue because the marijuana bill is before us today. We should not lose sight of the fact that whether it is legal or illegal is not the issue. It is the issue of substance use and what happens when one is impaired and driving. We will give that full examination at the committee.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that any death or loss of life is in and of itself a tragedy, especially if the tragedy could have been avoided, or the death or accident prevented.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-16. Let us give credit where credit is due. In the previous Parliament, the issue of decriminalization of marijuana, which we support, was debated. Incidentally, I would point out to the NDP House leader that the NDP is not the only party to have passed at a congress a resolution in favour of the decriminalization of marijuana. The Bloc Québécois passed one also, at the instigation of its youth wing. I wish to salute its diligent and efficient work as well as its thorough job on an issue as important as this one.

When the bill on the decriminalization of marijuana was introduced during the previous Parliament, several stakeholders expressed concern about this bill's not having a companion bill on drug-impaired driving. This point was raised a few times in committee. The hon. parliamentary secretary will no doubt remember. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois always welcomes good ideas from witnesses, contrary to the Liberal Party while under the command of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who, when he was the government House leader, did not always listen to us. Much to his displeasure, he is left with only 21 members from Quebec, but that is another story.

Witnesses came before the committee to suggest that and, during consideration in committee, I put forward an amendment to the bill on the decriminalization of marijuana. The NDP House leader must recall, because there are similarities between that bill and Bill C-16. At the time, the chair, on the probably wise advice of the clerk, rejected my amendment on the grounds that it did not fit in with the decriminalization bill per se.

As a result, instead of the committee tabling a single report, two reports were tabled: one on the bill on decriminalization and the other calling on the government to quickly present a bill on drug-impaired driving.

Thus, it is thanks to the Bloc, with inspiration from numerous witnesses—I thank them—that the government, having listened to us for once, decided to present Bill C-16. We support this bill. We also agree with referring it to committee for full consideration before second reading.

An aspect of interest to me is the one mentioned by the member for Provencher regarding technology and the possibility of properly screening people under the influence of drugs. This is something that has been pointed out to us many times. I look forward to hearing the witnesses, experts, and police officers who will present their views on this. It would be irresponsible for us to present or support a bill without knowing at second or third reading what its full consequences could be.

Another aspect is the matter of the funding announced by the federal government. If I remember correctly, the figure is $6.9 million. And if I also remember correctly, there are 52,000 police officers in Canada. As well, I believe I recall that we were told in committee that, for a bill like this to be enforced properly, for it to be workable, about 40% of those 52,000—some 20,00 to 25,000—would have to be trained to administer the standard sobriety tests we are talking about today.

Is that $6.9 million sufficient to train this number of officers? I rather doubt it, particularly since—as I said in my speech on Bill C-17—this government has decided to close several RCMP detachments throughout Quebec, if I remember correctly, at Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe, and Joliette. My colleague from Provencher has also referred to this.

Yet the mayors, municipal councillors and reeves are asking the government not to close these down. They are in at least some of the regions of Quebec where there is large-scale marijuana cultivation. So, just as the police forces start working together to deal properly with organized crime, this government decides to close down some RCMP detachments.

That government is the same one claiming to be so serious about dealing with organized crime. To paraphrase Yves Boisvert from La Presse , the government will have a test of political will concerning the bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois and supported by my colleague from Provencher and my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, the NDP justice critic. This bill involves the reversal of the burden of proof when it comes to those guilty of involvement in organized crime.

If the government is so serious about its desire to fight organized crime. if it wants to show its goodwill, I invite it to do two simple things, and with these I will end my speech.

The first is to tell us in the very near future that it will be supporting Bill C-242 on the reversed burden of proof for persons guilty of involvement in organized crime, and the second is to reverse its decision to close down RCMP detachments all over Quebec. These would be two good ways of proving that it really does have the desire to fight this social, political, economic and societal scourge: organized crime.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the admission by the parliamentary secretary that the problem is serious and that the bill is not a panacea were about the only things he got right.

This is in fact a very serious problem. Drug impaired driving will be fuelled by the companion legislation, Bill C-17, which is the decriminalization of marijuana. Bill C-16 would not address that problem.

Bill C-16 is nothing more than window dressing and a very lame attempt by the government to try to deal with a serious situation that it will be creating on our roads, a situation that will directly lead to more deaths and injuries. I want to say, before I begin my debate on the bill, that by its action the government will be killing and injuring more people on the streets of Canada.

The public should also understand that there is no effective roadside testing device like the alcohol technology that has been developed. When a police officer sees a motor vehicle wandering along the road, if the individual is stopped and there is a smell of alcohol on his or her breath, the officer can demand that the person breathe into a roadside testing device. Those are good indicators of the amount of alcohol. There is either a pass, fail or a warning on the machine.

We do not have that kind of technology when it comes to dealing with drug impaired drivers. Drug impaired drivers are no less dangerous than alcohol impaired drivers. In fact, many people do not realize that when the effects of alcohol and drugs are combined, including marijuana, an even greater impairment occurs.

When people say that they are only going to drink a couple of beers, then smoke marijuana and get into a car, that is much more serious than even taking a lot more drinks. The impairment is multiplied. The government needs to know that information when it turns this legislation loose on our public. The technology for that has not been developed. In fact, a justice official said that the RCMP or the other police officers would have all kinds of physical tests. They will make drivers hop on one leg or they will look at the involuntary reaction in their eyes. What nonsense. What is terrible is that it is coming from legal minds in the Department of Justice of Canada. These individuals know better. They know the poor rate of conviction for impaired driving when there are not these technological devices. That is the kind of nonsense they are trying to tell the people of Canada. They should be ashamed for telling Canadians that this kind of detection will result in more convictions.

As a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it is to convict people of impaired driving. Even in the situation where alcohol is involved and where the smell of alcohol is on people's breaths it is difficult to make a charge when there is no alert or breathalyzer to help.

There are situations though where there is no alcohol involved and it is simply drugs and that becomes even more difficult for the purpose of trying to prove that an individual is impaired by his driving through drug use. Hopping on one leg or involuntary reaction in the eye can be excused in many ways and the justice department lawyers, who have been telling that to the justice minister, know that and should be ashamed of themselves.

The statistics are overwhelming in respect of the acquittals for impaired driving. Some provinces will not even bother prosecuting an impaired driver if there was no breathalyzer or no alert. Impaired driving used to be called section 234 when I was prosecuting and .08 was section 236. That was the way it was done. The impaired driver was simply stayed and the prosecutor tried to get them on .08.

There is another thing that Canadians do not realize. Take a look at Martin’s Annual Criminal Code and see how many technical defences there are to impaired driving and .08. It is more difficult to convict someone of impaired driving and .08 than an average murder or an average rape. It is a much more difficult offence.

What will the government do now? It will accelerate the amount of drinking and driving or the use of drugs and driving through these twin laws, Bill C-17 and Bill C-16.

The parliamentary secretary says that we will train the trainers. Is that not interesting. Manitoba and Quebec have the same problem. The government is shutting down RCMP stations in Manitoba. In my home town of Steinbach the RCMP highway patrol was shut down. In Selkirk, Manitoba, the RCMP highway patrol is shut down. Of the 65 highway patrolmen and women in Manitoba, 35 are off highway patrol, leaving long stretches of highway without highway patrol.

Train the trainers: Who will the trainers to train? There are no more RCMP officers left on our roads because of the government's nonsense about things such as the gun registry. It has poured $120 million of money into a gun registry, but it has not hired police officers. The government thinks the bureaucrats will run the justice system. If we do not have police officers out there, our justice system does not work, and the government does not understand that.

Train the trainers: Who will train the trainers? The police will train the trainers. We take more police officers off the street to do the training. Who will pay? It will be the provinces who will pay. In the same way the federal government has downloaded every responsibility in justice on to the provinces, the province will now pay for that training the trainers.

What did the government say? It said that the police would take care of this. It is dumping the problem on the police. It is interesting that in Manitoba the federal government cut the number of highway patrolmen and women to 35. Then it says that the police can take care of this issue.

How will the police officers take care of this issue? They cannot even attend fatals. First responders are out there, not police officers. They deal with gasoline spills, oil spills, bodies on the road, with no police officers available. Train the trainers: we cannot even get police officers on to our street. What nonsense to be telling Canadians that the government is serious about the problem of crime in the streets.

It breaks my heart that 16 years ago the province of Manitoba embarked on an ambitious fight to reduce the amount of drinking and driving on its highways, through administrative suspensions and seizure of motor vehicles. There was no help from the federal government. Certainly the Liberal government has done nothing. The provinces have done it because the federal government does not care about the deaths on our highways.

The federal government has dumped the problem on the police. The administrative suspensions have reduced the number of deaths on the highways. They have reduced the injuries on the highways. I fought to protect those laws in Manitoba. Now those laws have been adopted across Canada. The government is going back on the progress the province made.

The government should immediately withdraw not only this bill, but also Bill C-17 until proper technology is in place. I care about the people in my riding and I care about Canadians even if the Liberals do not. If they do not want to do it, they should step aside. We would get rid of the bill and we would ensure that the technology was in place before we went ahead on something like this.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That Bill C-16, and act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Contraventions Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until this evening at 6:15 p.m.

(Bill C-16. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 1, 2004--The Minister of Justice--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to add a few comments to the record.

I have a few concerns with the bill. First, the bill will increase demand. That is what law enforcement officials are telling us: that the taking away of these penalties or reducing the criminal penalties will fuel demand. At the same time, production is kept illegal.

What does that mean? We are ensuring that organized crime has an increased amount of market share. So this bill is tailor-made for organized crime--let there me no mistake about that--when we increase demand and keep the production illegal. Let's not fool ourselves on that.

I have talked to the schools in my area about this, and they are very concerned. They believe that this bill is also tailor-made to encourage small-scale trafficking among youth. That is what this is going to do. Thirty grams of marijuana or 15 grams of marijuana is enough to ensure that trafficking goes on in our schools on a small scale.

There is some disinformation that has been provided that the reason we are doing this is to get rid of criminal records. Every member of the House knows that at present there are conditional discharges available and absolute discharges available for the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and that is in fact what is given for these kinds of offences. To suggest to the Canadian people that this is the reason we are doing that is simply wrong. There are enough mechanisms in the current law to avoid criminal records.

The other point is the health issue. My colleague from Churchill has indicated that marijuana is just as bad as alcohol and tobacco. I don't know if it is just as bad, but I don't see the justification for putting yet another drug onto society. I am concerned about that. We have not looked at the health issue.

Health professionals are telling us that present-day marijuana is a very addictive drug. When I was growing up people always said that it was only psychologically addictive. No. Marijuana is physiologically addictive. And in the hands now of organized crime, which cures marijuana in methamphetamine and uses it in that way, we are ensuring that our children are going to be addicts.

I am not saying alcohol is good and I am not saying tobacco is good, but neither is this. Why are we doing this to our society?

If none of those arguments impress anyone in this House, let's take a look at the trade issue. We deal with the Americans in the amount of $1 billion a day. The Americans have made it very clear to me and others that there will be repercussions in terms of the passing of the bill.

We can say we are an independent nation and we can do what we want, but remember, they are our biggest customer. Eighty percent of our goods are going across that border. I would rather see those goods go across our border and ensure that the people in my riding have jobs. Quite frankly, I think we are blindly going ahead on the basis of disinformation, and especially in the absence of a national drug strategy.

I am going to reserve my comments on the drug impaired driving bill, Bill C-16. I will be speaking to that bill, which is a tremendously bad bill, and again is a matter of disinformation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this time.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, which has now become known as the bill to decriminalize marijuana. In its brief title alone it sends the wrong message to anybody who hears it, because obviously the bill is not to decriminalize marijuana. It is subject to certain conditions and amounts.

It leads me to phrase my comments in this sense. Since this is a brief debate to refer the bill to committee before second reading, where a lot more work will happen, I want to lay out a few of the questions I might have and hope that members of Parliament will consider the answers at committee.

I oppose the bill. I oppose the decriminalization. If we were to take a step here, let us not be coy. If 15 grams is okay, why do we not decriminalize it and let us deal with it. It really is almost like a step. Let us take a little step and maybe later on down the line we will see.

There are too many other questions that we have to ask. I have spent a lot of time with my own police chief talking about this. We are very concerned that this is the wrong message to send to our young people. This is the basis for my concern about the bill.

Here are a few points The Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, content of marijuana today is about 10 times higher than it was 25 years ago. People talk about experimenting with it when they were in university. We could smoke a whole field of the stuff and it would not have any impact. Today it is different. We have to ask ourselves this question. Is a few grams of something with low THC the same as the same number of grams with a high THC? It seems to me that the level of THC content in terms of how many grams it is okay to have and then smoke really is relevant. I do not know why we have not talked about that. We know it impairs one's ability to operate machinery, et cetera.

Bill C-16, which is coming forward, deals precisely with how do we determine whether someone is impaired when driving a car, et cetera. We will probably spend about 75% of policing costs trying to find who is 15 grams below and those who are above. What a waste of money in my view. Let me pose that rhetorically. I cannot say it is a waste, but it seems we should find out whether it would be a waste.

What about customers versus the criminals? It seems to me that a young person in high school who wants some marijuana has to get it from somewhere. Under the law it will still be a crime to produce or to distribute. Therefore, anyone who will be using marijuana has to have obtained it from someone who is committing a crime. Most of it is coming directly and indirectly from grow houses which are controlled substantively by underground criminals, the Hell's Angels and the like.

The marijuana dollars will not go to finance fancy lifestyles for bikers. It will go to finance prostitution rings, loansharking and all kinds of criminal activities. We do not have to talk about the terrible situation we have around the world with this crime element. It is very concerning. A lot of things that are happening in the bill are on the backs of grow ops. It is like saying that we will deal with grow ops.

The bill is trying to deal with far too many questions and it is trying to resolve far too many issues. Maybe somebody at committee will ask this question. Why do we not come up with a bill that is focused and targeted solely toward addressing the issue of grow ops? Let us deal with it. Are there tools that are necessary to deal with it? I know we talked about infrared technology to detect heat in houses, et cetera. An important privacy issue comes up on that. It is an important debate and I think it would be lively.

There are 50,000 grow houses in Canada. Our objective should be to deal with that in a separate bill, not bury it in a bill with a bunch of other things. It is an important issue.

Is marijuana an entry level drug? I do not know of any expert who has ever discussed this who would deny that marijuana is an entry level drug. Do hon. members think that pushers just sell marijuana? Do they think maybe they could also sell some hard drugs? Absolutely.

I know a little about this. I chaired a committee for a couple of years that was studying Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and substances. I heard the RCMP and the various police agencies. I heard some of the proponents for the legalization of marijuana. I heard all this stuff over a two year period of my life. I came to the conclusion that people were not being honest with the facts.

What is going to happen? Even the former justice minister said that if we were to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana there would be a significant spike in marijuana usage. We need to find out whether that would be temporary or a reflection of the fact that we really were sending the wrong message and all of a sudden a whole bunch of other people are engaging in so-called recreational drugs. I do not know what recreational drugs are. It is just a fancy name that people use. It is drugs, drugs that impair one's ability. It is drugs that lead to other drugs that can harm not only that person but others. It harms all of society. There are some very serious questions here.

People talk about not wanting kids with records because they would not be able to get into the U.S. if they have a criminal record for the simple possession of marijuana. However I know what the facts are. Many of these people who have been convicted of simple possession of marijuana, those charges are also in conjunction with other criminal charges. It is not just people being charged because they had marijuana. It is because in the act of a crime other things were found. How much of that is there?

In a survey, which I read in the paper this morning, 10% of Canadians said that they had tried marijuana at least once in the last month. Well, excuse me, even if that is correct, that means that 90% of Canadians have not. Is 10% the threshold for us to say that we should decriminalize it for everybody? What is this arbitrary thing about 10% being socially acceptable? I do not accept that at all. I would challenge that. I do not think behaviour should be driven by a minority. Behaviour is the consensus. Consensus in our place does not mean 10%. It means the preponderance, the majority.

Drugs are in the schools in my own community. The teachers are concerned but they do not have the tools to deal with this. This is not going to help them. Our police chief needs to have his officers spending all their time trying to deal with these things. They cannot keep up with it because we have not enforced the laws. We have cases now where policing authorities are not enforcing even the current laws. Some courts have stopped opining on these cases because somebody sent them the signal that it would be changed, so why would they want to deal with those case. We have put ourselves in such a mess that I think it is time to question whether we are doing the right thing.

What would this do to our anti-smoking program? If people are going to smoke marijuana I suppose they could start smoking cigarettes too even if they are not smokers. It could happen. What are the numbers? We should find out.

I have heard a lot of people talk about a national drug strategy. This is something we have had for a long period of time. It covers a broad range of stuff, not only drugs but alcohol and tobacco. If we look at the programs, we have spent an enormous amount of money with a fundamental theme of healthy lifestyles, healthy choices. This bill leads us on another step of abdicating our position on healthy lifestyles, healthy choices. It creates some concerns. Where do we get a foothold on this whole question of decriminalization?

I would have much preferred, quite frankly, if the bill had been split where we could deal with grow houses and some of the serious issues and then be able to deal with the marijuana issue, but not decriminalize, because nobody understands the difference between decriminalize and legalize. It has confused the heck out of Canadians. We should have come forward with a bill to legalize marijuana and watched the House defeat that bill.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-17, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of marijuana. I will begin my comments by discussing some of the health consequences of this drug in particular.

First, let us be very clear that there is demonstrable harm with the use of marijuana. It is far worse than smoking. It is an activity that we are officially, as a House, trying to discourage. For example, emphysema and lung cancer are both consequences of smoking and drug use.

The New England Journal of Medicine says that smoking five joints a week is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Clearly there is a link to health consequences.

The Neurotoxicity and Teratology journal reports that a baby exposed to marijuana while in the womb has an increased chance of hyperactivity and social problems. The National Academy of Sciences says that marijuana can cause cancer, lung damage and babies with low birth weights. Another journal, Circulation Research of the American Heart Association reported a five-fold increase in heart attacks among people who smoke marijuana. The British Medical Journal revealed an increased incidence in schizophrenia and depression. Lastly, a Dutch study shows that cannabis smokers are seven times more likely than other people to have psychotic symptoms.

Clearly there is a host of health problems associated with this particular activity and we as a House should be doing everything we can to discourage it.

Let us be very clear from the very beginning. We are not talking about the marijuana of the 1960s and the 1970s, which was in a completely different category. In the 1960s the THC levels in marijuana was about .5% to 2%. What we see today coming out of British Columbia, what is known as B.C. bud, has THC levels of 35%. That is an enormous increase in the toxicity and the potency of this particular drug. What is also clear is that this is like the crack cocaine of marijuana. It is a natural step to harder drug usage. I know this from my experience, which I will refer to later, as an attorney having talked to young people who have been addicted to these drugs.

Finally, as the Canadian Medical Association acknowledges that cannabis is an addictive substance, why do we want to make it more accessible to young people instead of less accessible? I personally think it is a huge act of hypocrisy on the part of the government to have this legislation alongside Bill C-16, the drugged driving bill, because under Bill C-16 the government seems to acknowledge that driving while under the influence of marijuana is a serious concern and one we need to discourage, under Bill C-17 it makes it more accessible.

This morning I was talking to Sergeant Paul Mulvihill of the Surrey RCMP detachment in my riding. He was telling me that this approach was very short-sighted.

While I generally support the notion of Bill C-16 and the idea of a drugged driving bill, I want to comment briefly on some of my concerns. It probably needs a lot more funding to ensure that the officers are properly trained to administer that legislation and so the convictions will stick.

Health is not the only concern that I have with this particular legislation. I am also concerned about the economic consequences. We know these people have higher rates of absenteeism from work. There is a greater increase of family breakdown, a greater use of the medical system, such as addiction treatments and rehab centres, and of course there is the cost of incarceration. The more accessible these drugs become to Canadians, the more chances they will have to suffer the consequences of that. We need to consider this from an economic perspective.

I find it striking that just a few weeks ago the first ministers came to an agreement on health where they are handing out stacks of cash to the provinces to deal with health care and here we are encouraging, by reducing the consequences, behaviour that will cost our health care system enormous amounts of money. It will be a huge drain on the system.

From an economic perspective we cannot forget that we live next to our largest trading partner, one of the largest in the world, and that is the U.S. I can tell members that the Americans take a dim view of what the Canadian government is considering with this legislation.

The U.S. drug czar has recently indicated that there will be repercussions if we push ahead with this plan because 95% of the drugs, particularly those grown in British Columbia, do not stay in B.C. They go straight across the border, and they send us cocaine in exchange. It is a horrible problem. In light of the delays we are currently experiencing at the border, do we want to instigate further problems?

As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, we already face higher scrutiny at the borders. The second busiest border crossing in the country is in my riding. Truckers are waiting six to seven hours to cross the border with their products and we are proposing legislation that would increase the level of scrutiny and make it even harder for people to make a living as they move trade to and fro across the border.

We are not just talking about the economy. Those are general statements. We are talking about truckers with families in my riding who cannot make a living when their trucks are sitting at the border and not moving. This is a serious problem and we are bringing forward legislation that would poke another stick in the eye of the Americans. It is not the right thing to do.

I want to briefly address some of the criminal concerns related to the legislation.

The government claims that this is not about giving kids criminal records for smoking a joint. I beg to differ. The bill suggests that a fine be given for the possession of 30 grams of marijuana, which puts this whole theme that it is pushing to the lie that it is. Thirty grams of pot is enough pot to make 30 to 60 marijuana cigarettes. Let me say that if people are walking around with 30 to 60 joints in their pockets it is not about personal possession, it is about trafficking.

What do we do here? We fine these people a $150 for trafficking. However, to a drug pusher who is making tens of thousands of dollars a month, paying a $150 fine is the cost of doing business and it is not a very big cost at all. In fact it is a small price to pay.

While I appreciate the fact that there are increased sentences for grow ops when 25 plants or more are at stake, what the legislation would actually do is decrease the consequences for grow ops with less than 25 plants. That just does not make any sense. Why would we be more lenient on people than we have been in the past as a result of this?

At the end of the day, without mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes, nothing will change. There will be no practical consequence.

The reality is that the lenient Liberal appointed judges are part of the problem. Because there are no deterrents under the existing system, the problem is getting worse. For example, in 1992, in the Vancouver area, 29% of the charges laid were drug related charges. In 2000 it had dropped to 4%. Clearly being lenient is not solving the problem.

I have spoken to enforcement officers in my riding who are tremendously frustrated with all the time and effort they have put into collecting evidence and having their cases dismissed in court or the sentences being of no real consequence to the criminals.

Let us make no mistake, grow ops are a serious problem. They cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a year. In fact, electricity utilities alone lose about $200 million per year from theft.

Where are the escalating sentences? The legislation equates the possession of pot to a parking fine. It is not even as serious as a speeding ticket where with subsequent speeding tickets the cost of the fine goes up. That is not so here.

As a lawyer who has dealt with criminals, I am all too aware of the dangers of gateway drugs like marijuana. I have spoken with far too many young adults who as teens experimented with marijuana and have now spent a decade hooked on hard drugs like heroin.

Here we are doing everything we can to help people stop smoking but we are about to legalize marijuana, a drug far more dangerous to society and especially vulnerable youth. It does not make sense. I will do everything in my power to ensure that drug dealers will not have legal access to our children, and that includes amending the legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite. Although his overriding message is one of protecting young people, and certainly his efforts were to highlight the health aspect of the debate and the condemnation of the use of drugs, I find much of his argument contradictory, inconsistent, and he undercuts some of his own argument in discussion, because what we essentially will see at the end of the day with the passage of this legislation is the Government of Canada condoning further drug use. That is the interpretation that will be put forward.

I also want to debunk some of the myth that is constantly put forward on this argument. When a young person or anyone in this country today goes before a court of law as a first-time offender for possession of a small amount of marijuana, the idea that they will be barred forever from entering the United States, saddled with a criminal record, and limited in their future employment prospects is absolute unadulterated nonsense. There is available in the criminal justice system today very clearly the option for a sentencing judge to mete out a sentence that will allow for a conditional or absolute discharge. It happens each and every day in courts across this country. That is the reality. This suggestion that somehow people's lives are marred forever by simple possession is pure fearmongering and an attempt by the Liberal government to soft-peddle their position on this issue.

My friend is a medical doctor. Before he drank the Kool-Aid and swallowed himself whole by joining the Liberal government, he used to very strongly advocate the health aspect of this. Marijuana taken into a system is no different. In fact I would suggest it is worse, according to some of the material that I have seen. Ingesting marijuana is very damaging; it's carcinogenic, THC.

I do not profess to be a medical doctor, as is the member opposite, but by condoning this and saying it's okay, it's fine, we accept that marijuana use is widespread in this country and therefore we should not put greater deterrents in place to try to eliminate drug use and try to at least control it in such a way that young people are given the proper message, that the Government of Canada is not becoming a pusher, in effect, I find very troubling. Victims groups, police, advocates, and many others who work with drug addiction are extremely concerned by this message, this soft-on-drug-use approach that underlies this particular bill.

We know that the legislation is a reincarnation of a previous bill that came before the House. We know as well in the official opposition that attempts were made to amend the legislation, to bring forward what we thought were meaningful amendments that would accept some of the realities that exist around drug use in this country. We accept very clearly that there is a need to facilitate the elimination of criminal records in some cases for those who were charged and convicted of minor possession in the past.

I would suggest as well that the amount that is before the House through this legislation is 30 grams, which is a significant amount. Thirty grams is a significant amount of marijuana--30 to 60 joints, depending on how big you roll them. This type of amount indicates very clearly that a person can carry that around and sell it in schoolyards to children. This runs completely contradictory to a strategy.

Speaking of strategies, what is the overall drug strategy of the government? It certainly does not appear clear, and it certainly seems that we are rushing headlong by bringing the legislation forward without that drug strategy in place.

I also have to go on record as saying again that it is perverse and contradictory beyond belief to be introducing a strategy that is empowering police with the knowledge of how to detect drugs in an impaired driving situation--a drug driving bill, if you will--at the same time as legislation that will make it easier to access drugs. This type of approach again I find completely contradictory on the part of the government.

The bill itself I find still seriously flawed in the schedule of amounts and the fine system that has been set out. We have a lesser fine if it is a young person, again suggesting that a young person will be treated differently by virtue of this bill by doing the same offence: being in possession of drugs.

The suggestion that we are somehow making it tougher on those who cultivate marijuana is again contradicted by the reality that there is no minimum fine in place.

What we have here is a maximum, which we very seldom, if ever, see meted out by a sentencing judge. It is fine to peg the high amount as the potential fine that one could face and the potential period of incarceration, yet there is no minimum sentence to reflect society's condemnation and to be a deterrent element in the criminal justice system.

The legislation is riddled with inconsistencies. The legislation is such that we will be proposing amendments at the committee stage as well.

This bill is welcome in the sense that there is clearly a need to modernize drug legislation in the country. However, the way in which these mixed messages are being brought forward by the government does little to provide confidence. It does little to do away with some of the cynicism that exists in having seen this bill come before the Parliament of Canada time and time again and then be sloughed off, put on the side burner, put aside to let it languish there, giving the public the opinion that yes, the government cares, yes, this is a top priority among the other hundred top priorities we hear about from the Prime Minister almost on a daily basis, and yet it never makes it to fruition. It never actually passes through both houses and becomes the law of the land. This is part of the continued shell game that we see the government perpetrating on an unsuspecting public. Well, the public is cottoning on; they're getting used to that approach.

We are hopeful that in a minority Parliament we will see a more efficacious use of legislation, a greater attempt to actually bring forward bills that will bring about necessary change that we in the Conservative Party do support.

We hope to have significant input into this bill when it gets to the committee stage. It is a bill that, although seriously flawed, has potential to improve upon the current state of affairs. We do support the intent of the other bill, Bill C-16, which will be coming before the House. Certainly we support the intent to arm police officers with greater capacity, training, and ability to detect the use of drugs in impaired cases, because there is still far too high an incidence of impaired driving related accidents on the roads and highways of the country today. There are far too many deaths. We fervently support the work of groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other advocates who are pushing to educate Canadians on this problem.

With respect to Bill C-17, the critic for our party, the member for Abbotsford, has put forward our position. We will be looking to improve and amend the legislation. In particular, we will be looking to address some of the shortcomings around the amounts and the fine structure that has been set up.

The underlying theme, again for emphasis, is not that we in the country are relaxing our drug law to the point where it causes great consternation in the United States. There is real concern on the part of the American administration, be it Republican or Democrat. We are not going to tread into that quagmire, as we have seen the Liberal government do on far too many occasions, by offering our opinion on the outcome. Suffice it to say that the Americans are concerned. There are trade implications when we soften our drug laws. We see far too much drug trafficking at the border. Sadly for the Americans, it is in large part travelling their way, and they have concerns about it. This bill does nothing to ameliorate this or to cause the Americans to have any greater degree of confidence in the Canadian laws.

We hope the government will be open to accepting amendments on this bill. In a minority Parliament, by its very nature, we are going to see a greater degree of cooperation, whether the government likes it or not.

We will make our voice heard at the committee level. We hope to take greater action on the seizure of material as well, the material that is used in hydroponics for those illegal grow ops. That will allow us to have stronger drug legislation, not weaker drug legislation, which is the way I would characterize the current bill.

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)