Bill C-17 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

The enactment amends the Contraventions Act to allow for the designation of certain criminal offences as contraventions and to specify that contraventions may be prosecuted by means of either a summons or ticket unless another Act of Parliament provides otherwise.
The enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create offences with respect to the possession of small amounts of cannabis (marihuana) and the production of cannabis (marihuana).
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Justice

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Parliament should be looking at ways to get people off drugs and crack down on drug dealers and drug producers, the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will lead to more drug use and an increase in drug related crime.

I am referring to the Liberal government's Bill C-17 to decriminalize the possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana or roughly 45 to 60 joints. The intent of this legislation obviously is to decriminalize the occasional use of marijuana. I do not know what the government is smoking but 30 grams of marijuana is a little more than occasional use.

Decriminalization sends the wrong message to young people; that is, marijuana is not so bad and it is okay to experiment with this so-called soft drug.

I am afraid that if the bill passes it will lead to both an increase in demand and production of marijuana and criminal activity. If grow ops are a problem now, just wait and see what happens if Bill C-17 becomes law, assuming of course the government lasts long enough to bring the bill to a final vote.

Food and Drugs Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadian and American police forces work together very well. This is part of the approach that we want to continue to take with respect to enforcement.

In the message accompanying the recent drug majors report submitted to Congress, President Bush stated, “The big picture is certainly encouraging. United States and Canadian law enforcement personnel have collaborated on a number of investigations that have led to dismantling several major criminal organizations”.

As for the concern in the report about the “lack of significant judicial sanctions against marijuana producers” which is what my friend is raising, Bill C-17 as was mentioned earlier, proposes doubling the maximum penalty for marijuana cultivation and requiring the judge to justify not imposing a sentence of imprisonment where more than four plants are involved and there are aggravating circumstances.

That is extraordinarily important. It changes the whole perspective of the way in which the legislation has been historically treated. We look forward to the standing committee's consideration of Bill C-17 and its recommendations for change, if it concludes that these proposals need strengthening.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's comments on Bill C-17, the cannabis reform bill and its effects, show a profound misunderstanding of the legislation.

Bill C-17 reflects a balanced approach to the laws on cannabis. The proposed legislation would allow for a ticketing regime for the possession of 15 grams of marijuana, and a ticketing option for the possession of more than 15 grams, up to 30 grams. At the same time, new offences under this proposed legislation will provide tougher penalties for those involved in the large marijuana growing operations about which the member is concerned.

The bill proposes that the cultivation of one to three plants be punishable by a fine of $500, or $250 for a young person. If a person grows 4 to 25 plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and 18 months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants, the maximum sentence would be 14 years, double the current maximum.

The hon. member for Surrey South—White Rock—Cloverdale wants this bill to include minimum sentences. This would run counter to the sentencing principles set out in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. More specifically, minimum sentences run counter to the principle of proportionality and restraint with respect to sentencing.

Research into the effectiveness of minimum sentences has shown that these have no dissuasive or educational effect and are no more effective than lighter sentences as far as crime prevention is concerned.

This was confirmed in 2001 by a study commissioned by Justice Canada. It concluded that there was no correlation whatsoever between the crime rate and the severity of sentences.

Moreover, the presence of minimum sentences encourages plea bargaining. For example, a study of section 85 of the Criminal Code reached the conclusion that two-thirds of charges with a minimum one-year prison sentence were withdrawn, rejected or cancelled. Not only do American statistics illustrate similar results, they also show a transfer of discretionary powers from the court room to its corridors or to prosecutor's offices.

Experience shows us that minimum sentences are treated as maximum thresholds in sentencing rather than being seen as minimal thresholds, and this type of sentence creates substantial costs for provincial and territorial correctional services and for Correctional Services Canada.

The undesired effects of using minimum sentences are felt not just in Canada. American research shows that minimum sentences do not incite the accused to plead guilty, and so increase the number, duration and accumulation of trials.

Justice

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all studies are showing that no maximum penalties are being given in Canada for marijuana grow operations under current legislation. This will not change under Bill C-17. Because of this the bulk of the rapidly expanding marijuana trade in Canada is going south in exchange for American cocaine, money and drugs.

Does the government plan to implement minimum penalties for grow operators, or will it continue to allow border relations between Canada and the United States to erode?

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard a dialogue from a set of notes; the canned answer to any question we might have about Bill C-17.

We on this side agree to stiffer fines and jail terms for marijuana grow ops, but the penalties are still at the discretion of the judges. We want to push for set mandatory minimum sentences.

I will give an example. A guy was caught with a $440,000 grow op with the estimated value of growing equipment seized at $4,000. He was convicted and received a 30 day conditional sentence in the community with a fine of $5,000. He made an awful lot of money out of that deal.

From what is on paper I have to say that there has not been enough research nor has there been enough talk among police associations. I just visited my police association in Winnipeg, Manitoba and it thinks this bill is a joke. There were recommendations that were asked to be put in the bill by law enforcement. This is a flawed bill and it needs to be looked at. The intent may be good but the fact is the research and the substance is not there.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in looking at this question, I think we do need to look very seriously at the component parts of Bill C-17 and at what Bill C-17 represents.

I think it represents overall the widespread view that the full criminal process is not the best way to combat the use of small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption.

The potential consequences, including the loss of job opportunities and the inability to travel to some destinations, is, quite frankly, disproportionate to the offence.

The bill responds to the report of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs in the last Parliament. Rather than easing the restrictions on simple possession of marijuana, however, the approach in Bill C-17 should lead to a more effective and more consistent enforcement regarding marijuana possession which, I must remind the member, will still remain illegal.

In any event, while media attention has been focused on the possession offence, I think we need to look at Bill C-17 for its significant change in the sentencing of those who are involved in the cultivation of marijuana, which clearly the public is very concerned about.

In the bill, it proposes that if one is cultivating between one and three plants it would be punishable by a fine of $500 or $250 for a young person. This is probably more than one would pay if the police and prosecutors bothered to lay a charge for an amount that small. More important though, if a person is growing between four and twenty-five plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and eighteen months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants the maximum sentence will be 14 years or double the current maximum.

The government is well aware of the problems that marijuana grow ops have been creating in our Canadian communities. For that reason, Bill C-13 contains significant guidance to the courts as to when they should impose a term of imprisonment on marijuana grow operators.

If more than three plants are involved, the court will have to give reasons for not sending the offender to jail where: first, the person used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence, for example a grow op is located either in a farmer's field or in a rented house; second, the offence constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children in or near the area where the offence was committed. We know that some houses have been extensively modified to become grow ops and children are living in these homes. Third, the offence constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and last, the person set or placed or allowed to be set or placed a trap, device or other thing that was likely to cause death or bodily harm where the offence was committed.

Clearly the bill addresses both the origins of the marijuana and the use of marijuana. We think it is a very important bill. We think it will go a long way toward dealing with the problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully meeting some of the hon. member's concerns.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have some time in the House to speak to Bill C-17, the marijuana bill. I asked a couple of questions in question period, but the answers were less than adequate. Bill C-17 is coming up in due course and there are serious ramifications with it.

The government has introduced the bill to address the needs of young people who are caught with very small amounts of marijuana in their possession. They would not receive a criminal record for that possession. There are different things that also need to be addressed with respect to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Something characteristic has happened here. There has been a gross mismanagement of Bill C-17. It is inadequate, and there is no national drug strategy around the legislation.

Bill C-17 would allow for the decriminalization of up to 30 grams of pot, which translates into 45 to 60 joints. A few years ago a bill was passed allowing people who were ill to use marijuana if they really needed it. It has been used by cancer patients and in other instances in controlled environments.

At this point in time it is easier to get drugs on a school yard than it is to get alcohol and cigarettes. Thirty grams of pot for recreational purposes is equal to 45 to 60 joints.

There has been no concrete research with respect to health and safety issues. In the area of health, it has been proven that there is 50% more tar on the lungs with the use of marijuana than there is with the use of cigarettes. Yet we hear across the nation talk about banning cigarettes and the serious health consequences of smoking.

Bill C-17 would allow 30 grams of pot, or 45 to 60 joints, to be used by young people without any ramifications. They also get a discount when it comes to fines as compared to adults. Young people who are caught with one to 15 grams of marijuana in their possession receive a fine of $100. Adults who are caught with the same amount receive a fine of $150.

I implore members opposite to take a second look at Bill C-17 before it goes any further. I implore them to take a serious look at the health consequences, at the law enforcement consequences and at the safety issues with respect to driving. Drunk drivers are fined more than someone who drives after taking drugs.

Bill C-17 is a flawed bill. It has not answered the questions about this problem, as asked by the public.

Drug Strategy

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government tabled Bill C-17, decriminalization of marijuana, in the House. This bill applies to children over the age of 11 in this nation. Children will have discounts on fines, and in fact, according to the justice department, they will likely not have to pay fines at all.

On the other hand, crystal meth, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin run rampant through the streets in this country. To combat that, the government has thought of a program called injection sites where individuals can bring drugs in and shoot up, a bubble zone where nobody will tackle the drug issue at all.

Does this sound like a government that knows what it is doing? Does this sound like a government that actually has a legitimate national drug strategy? Does this sound like a government that should stay in power? Then let us do something about it. Let us change the government.

Department of Canadian Heritage Act

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we get into discussions about various legislation, we always find the opportunity to have dialogue on a number of issues that are concurrent to particular legislation. One of the wonderful things about Parliament is that we get the opportunity to not only bring forward ideas and issues that are consistent for our own ridings, but things in which we have a common interest.

Tonight, certainly, that has been apparent through the discussions. We have been able to convey issues that are important not only to our children and grandchildren but also to us.

Bill C-7, which is before us for consideration at third reading, can be perceived as an administrative shift; in other words, the appropriate realignment of the duties and responsibilities of these areas, whether it relates to historic sites or the designation of our parks. It is very appropriate that they be so delineated so they can get the resources they deserve.

The parliamentary secretary addressed the legislative components and, from an administrative standpoint, where it was best suited. I want to now delve into an issue that has been alluded to by a number of others, which is the ecological integrity and the realignment of our national parks as it relates to the realignment under Parks Canada.

It gives me great pleasure to address the third reading of Bill C-7, which is the act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts. The bill would give legislative effect to the government reorganization that was announced on December 12, 2003, as it affects Parks Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment.

The bill would update existing legislation to reflect two orders in council that came into effect in December 2003 and also in July 2004, which transferred the control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment. The bill also clarifies that Parks Canada is responsible for historic places in Canada and for the design and implementation of programs that relate to built heritage.

As we are aware, the battlefields, as they are known here in Canada, continue to be under Heritage Canada because of the commission that was established back in 1908 for that purpose.

Permit me to take members back a few years to introduce them to what I mean by ecological integrity in our national parks. In March 2000 the independent panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks tabled its report. The panel's report was quite comprehensive and contained more than 120 recommendations for action. As it was intended to be, the report was very frank in pointing out not only the deficiencies but the challenges that face our national parks.

One of the previous members referred to the fact that when we talk about identification, whether it is the Canadian flag, the maple leaf or the beaver, the recognition of our national parks ranks with those as being something that is truly Canadian.

The panel's report confirmed that most of Canada's national parks had been progressively losing precisely those important natural components that we as a government and all of us as members of Parliament were dedicated to protect.

Accordingly, the panel called for a fundamental reaffirmation of the legislative framework that protects the parks, together with policies to conserve these places and the appropriation of funds necessary to support these efforts.

Parks Canada committed itself to implementing the report and its recommendations insofar as it was legislatively and fiscally possible. It is now being done in full dialogue with all affected parties, and helped tremendously by the funding announced in budget 2003. I would anticipate further funding will be committed in budget 2005.

Parks Canada's first priority for national parks is to maintain or restore ecological integrity. This is prescribed by the government legislation, that is the Canada National Parks Act, proclaimed in 2001. Subsection 8(2) reads:

Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

Why is ecological integrity so important? It is important because the loss of natural features, natural features that are so identified within our national parks and processes, deprive Canadians of the opportunity to use and enjoy these places for the purposes for which they were intended. Loss of ecological integrity contradicts the very purposes for which our parks were set aside and constitute an irreversible loss of heritage to both current and future generations.

Achieving the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity also means putting science first. This includes traditional ecological knowledge.

Our national parks and our national historic sites are very important symbols of Canada. Canadians, through personal visits and other learning mechanisms, can use these places to enhance their pride in, and knowledge of, Canada and of Canadians.

Parks Canada is committed to an expanded public education and outreach program to convey accurate, interesting and up to date information to Canadians and those who are not Canadians, and perhaps those who would like to be Canadians.

The provision of information via the Internet is a priority for Parks Canada. This type of interactive outreach continues to intensify and is aimed at our urban areas. The objective is, in effect, to bring our national parks and their values to people who may not otherwise have the opportunity to visit them or may visit them only infrequently.

Our marketing programs emphasize the primary conservation purposes of our national parks. Accordingly, visitors are encouraged to understand and respect these purposes and to plan their activities and visits to align with them.

Parks Canada, rightfully so, is committed to improving ecological integrity in a number of ways: first, improving our science, particularly research and monitoring the health of our parks; second, through communication, specifically enhanced interpretation and education activities; third, reducing impacts on facilities; and fourth, implementing up to date environmental management practices and technologies.

I would stress that one cannot sustain economic benefits without enhancing both the natural environment of the parks and visitors' enjoyment of them. I would equally stress that any changes must and will be implemented in full consultation with partners, including the provinces and territories, national and regional tourism, non-governmental bodies and, of course, aboriginal people. If indeed town sites and municipal authorities are so involved, they also will be involved in our dialogue.

A priority area of the panel's report concerned the impact of stressors that have their origin in places external to the park's boundaries. To deal with such factors, the panel called for renewed an expanded partnerships. The proposed transfer of lands is one such partnership. In this respect the panel was coming up from a place with which we are all familiar: the notion that what we do in our own backyard can have significant effects in our neighbour's backyard.

I will digress for a moment and talk about my experiences and understandings. I had the pleasure of serving as an elected individual in a municipal setting for close to 22 years. In that capacity I served as chairman of one of the 38 conservation authorities in the province of Ontario. These were set up in the late 1950s to recognize the major impact of hurricane Hazel which came through and devastated many town sites and certainly our water course system. The legislation that was brought in at the time identified the need for the creation of watersheds. It identified that there were no political or municipal boundaries because a water course begins at its source and ultimately finds itself to its mouth. As a result, it impacts everyone in its course.

We found that dealing with our deliberations in a watershed manner gave us the opportunity to consider all the impacts that would have on our neighbours either internally or externally. This is an approach that we will take with the intervention and involvement of Parks Canada in the program where not only what is within our parks is considered, but also the impacts that are felt from the outside.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these issues because our national parks have many concerns that are shared in common by partners, such as the provinces, the territories, aboriginal peoples, private landowners and various other interests. There are so many it is hard to name them.

In particular, I have never known nature to recognize or respect a human boundary. One day a grizzly bear may be in a national park and the next day it is in another jurisdiction. Those who are residents in Jasper or in Banff know of the migration or the impact of the flora and fauna on their lives and as a result adjust accordingly. Rivers, likewise, flow through jurisdictions. Acid rain from many kilometres away becomes a park problem when it impacts national park resources. The list goes on and on.

Fundamentally, renewed and extended cooperation among neighbours who share common concerns is the only option toward maintaining ecological integrity. It is in this spirit that the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and Parks Canada intend to work together to ensure that the ecological integrity of the Pacific Rim continues to be the first priority.

The bottom line is that we must improve the ways we work together if we are to safeguard the future of our national parks. The nature of the programs we devise to do so will be established in cooperation and consultation with interested partners. Throughout this process the prerogatives of constitutionally defined jurisdictions, as well as the rights of private property owners, will be respected.

I have just sketched for the House a very broad overview of where Parks Canada is coming from and where it hopes to go. In summary, first, the panel report on ecological integrity was an important milestone for the future of the national parks of Canada. Parks Canada has taken it seriously and is moving forward in implementing the directions it recommended. Its implementation in a purposeful yet sensitive way is bringing benefits to us all. Its neglect would have meant untold costs to all Canadians forever.

The provinces, territories and aboriginal peoples are and will continue to be significant partners in achieving protection of our national parks. Viewed narrowly, in terms of jurisdiction alone, Canada's national parks and other federally protected areas fall under the stewardship of the federal government, but they really belong to all of us. They are the legacy of each and every Canadian. Let us enable future historians to say that on our watch we protected this precious legacy and even left it in better condition than we found it.

I urge all members to support the passage of Bill C-17.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

Drug Strategy

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Health Canada web page includes the national drug strategy and it is only three paragraphs. Its quoted goal is to reduce the demand for drugs, yet the Liberal government has just tabled Bill C-17 which seeks to decriminalize large amounts of marijuana. It is a fact that this will increase drug usage and the demand for the illegal production of marijuana.

When will the government begin to show some true leadership and create a national drug strategy that addresses the marijuana problem?

Contraventions Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as being opposed to Bill C-17.