Bill C-590 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content)

This enactment amends section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish the possibility of imposing more severe penalties for offences committed under section 253 in circumstances where the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds one hundred and sixty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood and to raise the minimum penalties that apply to convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm calling this meeting to order. It is 3:30.

Today we're at meeting number 74 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the orders of the day pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 8—that seems like a long time ago—we are studying Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to blood alcohol content, which was referred to committee.

Today's witness for this bill is the mover of the bill, Mr. Hoback, who is the MP for Prince Albert.

Mr. Hoback, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those comments, Costas.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations. They were excellent today and I think really added to the value of our discussion on what's happening with Bill C-35.

Committee members, I'd like to remind you that on the fourth of May, next Monday, we are dealing with the report that we were doing on the blood alcohol study. We have the whole day set aside for it. I'm hoping that we can accomplish this that day; we'll spend the two hours at it.

If not, you need to know that on the sixth, things have changed slightly, and in regard to Bill C-590 on blood alcohol, the mover of the motion will be here and has no witnesses. He will be here for an hour, and we have no witnesses afterwards. I will allocate the second hour, if it's required, to deal with any discussion that comes out of Bill C-590 on Monday, because by Friday I have to report it back to the House. I happen to be here that Friday for the first time in about five years, so I will be able to do that if required.

In addition to that, just so folks know, I think there will be time, ladies and gentlemen, to move the clause-by-clause, all four clauses, on the sixth, which is next Wednesday. I don't think we need more than 15 minutes. I don't think there are a lot of amendments coming. I haven't heard of any. I think we would be able to deal with that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Committee members, for your information, I would like to remind you that on the Monday we get back—obviously the break week is next week—we're going to be back to Bill C-587. We have witnesses for the first hour, and clause-by-clause study—there are only four clauses—for the second hour.

The next one was scheduled for C-590. My suggestion, which I think we'll follow, is that we'll continue to deal with C-583 at that meeting. If we're approved to travel, we'll be travelling the next week and having two meetings. Otherwise, after the break week, if we're not travelling from the 16th to the 18th of that week, we will have two more meetings at least on this subject. So we'll bump C-590 until after we've done this study. There is no use having three things going on at one time, in my view.

With that, I do need witnesses. Whether they're witnesses we're going to see in the Yukon or here, we need witnesses from all parties.

Thank you very much.

With that, we're adjourned.

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-590.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, request a 30-day extension to consider it.

In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation of Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, requests a 30-day extension to be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

While we're waiting for our guests, I have reports 13 and 14. One is to ask the House under Standing Order 97.1 for a 30-day extension for Bill C-590, which is number 14, and Bill C-587, number 13. Could somebody move that for me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, everyone, for coming today, and for those presentations and the questions.

Quickly, committee, here's my plan; you can tell me if I'm wrong. But you don't have to tell me right now, because we're running out of time.

Today is October 30. We have witnesses for November 4 and 6, which fall next week on Tuesday and Thursday, and on November 18, because those witnesses basically got moved because of “the issue”.

Now, of the witnesses who were asked, the only ones who are not coming.... I thought we had more, but we actually only have one province coming. The Government of Alberta is coming, by video conference. Quebec has said no; P.E.I. has said no; B.C. is sending a letter; and we haven't had a response from Ontario yet.

I'm proceeding with that. After that is over on November 18, I would like to go back, on November 20, to our miscellaneous bill for an hour. There is information still coming. The clerk is going to follow up on why we don't have it yet, but we're going to get it. We'll tentatively have an hour on November 20 for that miscellaneous bill. I don't think it's going to take us more than an hour.

Then for the second hour we'll have a subcommittee meeting on agenda to look at what is coming next. That would allow me and you and any independents to bring forward any amendments to the bill we're dealing with now, Bill C-32. Then we will do clause by clause on November 25, and move forward on whatever is new on November 27, and we will decide upon that on November 20.

Here's what I want. We've had four bills referred to us. Bill S-2 is from the House. It's a statutory instruments piece, and is more technical than anything else. Then we have three private members' bills: Bill C-587, which has a February 18 date to it; Bill C-590, which has a March 9 date; and just as of last night, Bill S-221, which was unanimously passed by the House.

My suggestion is that if you people could get together to figure out which ones we could do...we could do Bill S-221 very quickly. Work it out. Come to see me about what you'd like to do and when. We'll have that discussion at our meeting on the agenda on November 20, and we'll know what we'll be doing till Christmastime, if that is acceptable to everybody.

Is that okay?

Yes, Mr. Casey?

Criminal Code

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, drunk driving is a public safety issue that deserves more of our attention. That applies to our assessment of whether the legislative measures in this bill can help eliminate this scourge.

It goes without saying that enhancing road safety involves several factors, from the quality of physical infrastructure to Criminal Code provisions penalizing drunk drivers.

I would like to go over some key numbers that illustrate the devastating impact of this scourge on families in Quebec and Canada. Some 5.4 million Canadians say that they have a family member or friend who has driven drunk or caused an accident. We know that with this type of statistic, when people talk about a friend or an acquaintance, they are sometimes talking about themselves, but because they do not want to incriminate themselves, they say they know someone. That number is still astronomical.

Nearly a quarter of the Canadian population has a family member or close friend who has been a victim of a drunk driving accident. According to Transport Canada, alcohol was a factor in nearly 30% of traffic accident fatalities from 2003 to 2005.

Unfortunately, my riding, Trois-Rivières, has troubling statistics on this too. According to a study that looked at June of 2013, the Trois-Rivières police service made about one arrest a day, 28 that month to be precise. Impaired driving is still the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

These statistics show how important it is to examine this issue. I support moving forward with the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Prince Albert, so that the committee can look at it, study its impact on sentence length and ensure that the provisions comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian criminal law.

The Criminal Code of Canada has very strict laws and sanctions for impaired driving. Specifically, several Canadian provinces have in place a three-tier system based on blood alcohol content. The first tier is zero milligrams of alcohol for young and novice drivers. The second tier allows for administrative sanctions in some cases for a BAC over 0.05 milligrams. Lastly, drivers with a BAC over 0.08 milligrams are liable to sanctions under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Furthermore, new provisions were added in the Criminal Code and came into force on July 2, 2008. This means that there are now nine distinct offences related to impaired driving. Unfortunately, despite the introduction of more coercive measures, the Canadian Police Association recognizes the challenges faced on the ground in terms of combatting this scourge.

In addition to the human cost related to this phenomenon, the average cost of impaired driving accidents in Canada from 1999 to 2006 has been estimated at $1.9 billion per year. This estimate does not include any of the social costs that result from those offences.

With respect to Bill C-590, it would be interesting to explore whether reducing mandatory minimum prison sentences for impaired driving causing death is the right thing to do here. It would be useful to debate this, because these mandatory minimum sentences are shorter than existing sentences. Reducing mandatory minimum sentences for impaired driving causing death could prove counterproductive. According to the jurisprudence, minimum penalties tend to become the default penalty. In other words, minimum penalties become the norm, rather than being reserved for the least serious cases or those where there are mitigating factors.

Accordingly, it would be entirely reasonable to expect defence lawyers to ask for the minimum penalty, unless the Crown can prove that the defendant's crime deserves a punishment that will serve as an example.

The federal Criminal Code is not enough to address the risks to road safety caused by impaired drivers. The duty to enforce the law in this area is shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

There are a number of solutions that we can implement incrementally to deter impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel and endangering others. One of the deterrents that can be implemented is random breathalyzer tests for blood alcohol concentrations.

In Ireland, the Road Safety Authority believes that random breathalyzer testing has led to a 23% reduction in the number of highway deaths. That is something that could be considered. This last measure is just one of many options available to us to effectively fight delinquent behaviour.

To introduce an effective measure that will eradicate this scourge, we have to consider the fact that drunk driving is the manifestation of social problems that coercive measures alone cannot address. By adopting this approach, we could transform our legislative framework and make it preventive as well as punitive.

Preventing impaired driving must be based on campaigns that look at much more than just drunk driving and also raise awareness among drivers of the link between alcoholism, violence and risky behaviour.

Impaired driving is above all a social problem. We have to consider ways to prevent risky behaviours and create public policies with the ultimate objective of reducing risky behaviours in our society—including impaired driving—rather than creating a legislative framework that depends solely on coercion. Alcoholism does lead to crime, but we must remember that coercion can make it worse.

Preventive social policies, such as those that seek to address the socio-economic determinants of alcoholism, produce more effective results in the long term by taking a holistic approach to the problem, which requires the intervention of health professionals, social workers and members of police forces.

In closing, I support the bill introduced by the member for Prince Albert. I believe that sending it to committee will provide the opportunity for more in-depth analysis of how to achieve the desired results.

We should also be looking to technological advancements for solutions. For example, I am thinking about car locks that are opened with a number combination instead of a key. They make it more difficult to open the door if the driver has had one too many and is not fully coherent. Opening the door requires some thought, and the door is prevented from opening if it is not unlocked within a given time frame.

The Criminal Code, new technology and international experience in this area should all be part of our collective thought process as we determine how we can put an end to this problem, which has disastrous consequences for families in Quebec and Canada.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content). This private member's bill was tabled by the member for Prince Albert on April 9 and it addresses minimum penalties for the crime of impaired driving.

As much as there has been improvement in this area of the law over the past 40 years, more has to be done. Impaired driving cases are familiar to all Canadians. Everyone knows a family member, a friend or someone in their community who has been touched by this crime.

Over the past decades, we have managed to lower the number of persons who are killed in collisions involving alcohol-impaired driving. Lives have been saved by the efforts of families, individuals, schools, service organizations, police and legislatures.

I would like to recognize the really great work of the people who volunteer for Operation Red Nose, in the month of December, who volunteer to drive until the wee hours of the morning to keep impaired drivers off the road.

However, even with the improvements, the sad reality is that impaired driving remains a pernicious and persisting crime. It is the single most committed crime at 12% of crimes, according to the Statistics Canada 2011 Juristat on impaired driving.

Impaired driving is said by prosecutors to take up about 40% of provincial court trial time. The great tragedy is that hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries every year from impaired driving are, each and every one, avoidable.

With the arrival of the motor car at the turn of the 20th century, it soon became clear that death and injury from crashes were part of the new motorized driving reality.

In 1921, Parliament enacted the offence of driving while intoxicated, in recognition of the reality that driving while intoxicated greatly increased the risk of a crash.

In 1951, Parliament added to the Criminal Code the offence of driving while impaired, in recognition that it was not only someone who was intoxicated who posed a higher risk of a crash.

In 1969, Parliament repealed the driving while intoxicated offence and followed some other western nations in setting a blood alcohol concentration above which it is an offence to drive.

The over 80 offence rested upon the development of technology to measure blood alcohol concentration, which is converted using a blood-to-breath ratio into a blood alcohol concentration.

Over the years, Parliament has acted many times to improve the impaired driving provisions in the Criminal Code, which brings me to Bill C-590.

The bill could be seen as taking the step in the right direction. The bill is also in the spirit of one of the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that was made in the committee's 2009 report, entitled “Ending Alcohol-impaired Driving: A Common Approach”.

The report was in favour of setting higher penalties for individuals who drove with a blood alcohol concentration which was over 160. Currently, a reading above 160 on an approved instrument is an aggravating factor for Criminal Code sentencing purposes.

Bill C-590 proposes two things.

First, it would create a new offence of driving while over 160 that would be a straight indictable offence. The mandatory minimum penalties would be even more severe than a case where someone drove while over 80. On a first over 160 conviction, there would be a mandatory minimum penalty, or MMP, of a fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for 60 days. On the second offence, there would be an MMP of 240 days imprisonment.

The second thing that Bill C-590 would do is to raise the MMP where an offender caused a crash involving a death or bodily harm while driving impaired or over 80 or when the driver refused to provide a breath sample knowing of the death or bodily harm.

Right now, in these cases, the MMP is a fine of $1,000 on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a subsequent offence.

For a first offence that causes a death or bodily harm, Bill C-590 would set an MMP of $5,000 and 120 days imprisonment. For a second offence, it would be 240 days imprisonment.

It would be advisable to consider at committee whether there should be a higher MMP for causing death than for causing bodily harm. I understand that the current MMP was set for the purpose of avoiding situations where a person who drove impaired and/or over 80 and/or refused to provide a breath sample could be given a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Where there is an MMP, no conditional sentence is available. However, the MMPs for the cause of death or bodily harm scenarios are the same as the MMPs for impaired and/or over 80 and/or the refusal where there is no death or bodily harm. In death cases, the courts are clearly giving sentences measured in years and are not giving the $1,000 MMP. It may be helpful to hear from witnesses, and to see whether there needs to be any adjustment to the MMPs.

I am pleased that Parliament is being given the opportunity to respond to one of the recommendations in the 2009 report of the standing committee. We can establish MMPs that will have a deterring effect and that will have an effect on public safety because they incapacitate the high blood alcohol concentration drivers and the drivers who kill or injure in offences of impaired driving, over 80 driving or refusal to provide a breath sample.

I ask all parliamentarians to join me in supporting Bill C-590.

I would like to put my notes down and just tell the House a bit of a story.

It is a story of a nurse from Newmarket who had spent 25 years of her nursing career at what was then York County Hospital, who at the end of her career had determined that there were other opportunities for her to provide service and had dedicated the end of her career to serving people who were AIDS patients. She was providing personal service as a private duty nurse to those people.

It was Friday, February 8, 1991, when that nurse left Newmarket to drive to Kleinburg to a special patient. Somewhere around the Ansnorveldt road, a driver who was driving over 85 miles per hour came across five lanes of traffic and hit that nurse head-on.

She did not survive. It was my mother's birthday. Things need to change.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to contribute to the debate on Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content).

Today, in Canada, it is a crime to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It is a crime under paragraph 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Offenders can be sentenced to 18 months to five years in prison, depending on the nature of the offence.

Bill C-590 seeks to amend section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for offences committed under section 253. The result of the amendment would be that when the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or double the legal limit, the offender would be found guilty of an indictable offence.

In 2009, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined the issue of drunk driving. Witnesses who appeared before the committee made it clear that impaired driving, which can be caused by alcohol, remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. The Canadian Police Association indicated that, despite our collective best efforts and intentions, it is apparent that the problem of impaired driving is worsening in Canada and we are losing ground in our efforts to eliminate the problem.

In light of this, the approach of the member for Prince Albert is a step in the right direction. We will support this bill so that it can be studied in more detail, since we must ensure that these new measures will be effective in putting an end to impaired driving, a problem that costs far too many Canadians their lives each year. Every day in this country, on average, four people die and 175 others are injured in collisions that are directly related to drug- or alcohol-impaired driving.

Other figures back up their statements. Canadian police reported more than 90,000 incidents of impaired driving in Canada in 2011, which is approximately 3,000 more than in 2010. The rate of 260 incidents per 100,000 people was 2% higher than in 2010, the fourth increase in the last five years. Faced with these facts, one cannot help but want to do something to decrease these alarming numbers.

Before we rush into anything, we need to ask the right questions. Will this bill help to eliminate this problem? Is the bill consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's criminal law? Bill C-590, which was introduced by the member for Prince Albert, seeks to make our roads safer by imposing minimum sentences.

I am worried that these minimum sentences are not the way to go. Generally speaking, minimum sentences become the default sentence, meaning that they could become automatic and may be applied to every offender, no matter how serious the crime. Someone who is caught driving with 161 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and someone else who is caught with 250 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood could potentially be given the same sentence. The minimum sentence is 60 days for a first offence. We can expect that type of outcome with the amendment set out in Bill C-590.

I would like to raise another point that came to me as I was reading this bill.

The bill amends section 255 of the Criminal Code to create stiffer penalties for the offence set out in section 253 when the offender's blood alcohol content exceeds 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. Many families of victims are calling for stiffer penalties for all drinking and driving offences. Why not increase the penalties when the offender's blood alcohol content exceeds 80 milligrams?

Once again, this does not go far enough. This bill is consistent with the Conservative ideology of law and order, the backbone of which is the fight against crime. However, drinking and driving is a problem that must be considered in its entirety, and the discussion around it should not be limited to penalties. We also need to know what effect these amendments will have on the length of sentences.

According to the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents have a blood alcohol content that exceeds 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. Will this bill lower that percentage?

I have already mentioned the study on alcohol-impaired driving by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which emphasized the need to bolster prevention. I am going to emphasize prevention based on the 2011 Statistics Canada report on impaired driving in Canada. This report reveals that one-half of impaired driving incidents reported by police take place at night, between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m., and that the peak is reached after the bars close.

The authorities, police forces and organizations that promote safe driving must continue and even increase their efforts. The goal is not to discourage good drivers and those who are reasonable, but to ensure that every driver always keeps in mind that they must be sober and always vigilant when they get behind the wheel. Drivers have a tendency to be overconfident at 3 a.m.

We must not forget that provincial and territorial road safety laws govern issues related to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration below the allowable limit. Nine out of the 13 provinces and territories impose administrative licence suspensions on drivers with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or lower than 0.05.

In general, provincial and territorial laws are intended as a quick and effective administrative means of reinforcing the Criminal Code sanctions, which are slow to be applied and are not always imposed, even when Criminal Code charges are laid.

Would it not be better to consider a possible amendment to shorten timeframes rather than extend them with sentences and increase fines?

This bill raises many questions. We will support it, but we will focus on the proposed measures to determine if they are a step in the right direction that will effectively address drunk driving.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to blood alcohol content.

I would first like to congratulate my hon. friend, the member for Prince Albert, for bringing this important bill forward. People should know that the member for Prince Albert has served on the agriculture committee, the international trade committee, the finance committee, and many other of the most important committees of this place. He is a great advocate of the Canadian agrifood industry, which he has a great deal of personal experience in. He has represented Canada on the international trade committee and in the travels with the international trade committee around the world, and does a great service to our country in promoting the trade of all the goods and services that Canada produces around the world. He has been, since 2011, president of ParlAmericas, which is a very important organization that represents legislators from all of the countries of North and South and Central America. He has travelled extensively in the United States, Mexico, Central America, and South America on behalf of Canada over the last several years, promoting our trade interests. For that alone, he is to be commended.

I believe that combatting impaired driving is an issue that unites all members in this House, as impaired driving kills and injures more Canadians than any other crime. Every day across Canada, families are devastated by the death or serious injury of a loved one. The pain and suffering caused by this crime makes it essential that we do whatever we can to reduce the incidence of impaired driving. Beyond the obvious social consequences of impaired driving, there is also a substantial financial cost on Canadian society. I note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in a 2009 report entitled “Ending Alcohol-Impaired Driving: A Common Approach”, stated:

The average cost of impaired driving crashes in Canada from 1999 to 2006 has been calculated using the Real Dollar Estimate as approximately $1.9 billion per year. This figure is based on money spent, without considering any social costs. The average cost using the Willingness to Pay model is approximately $11.2 billion per year. This model includes money spent and a broad range of social-related costs.

Bill C-590 aims to deter the most dangerous drivers on the road, those with a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of 0.160 or more. Indeed, the standing committee, in its report, noted:

A study of alcohol use among fatally injured drivers, however, indicates that the bulk of the impaired driving problem lies with those drivers having a BAC over the current Criminal Code BAC limit of 0.08. Among the tested drivers in Canada, 62.9% showed no evidence of alcohol — 37.1% had been drinking, 4.3% had BACs below 0.05, 2.6% had BACs from 0.05 to 0.08, 9.4% had BACs from 0.081 to 0.160 and 20.8% had BACs over 0.160. In other words, 81.5% of fatally injured drinking drivers had BACs over the current limit of 0.08. High-BAC drivers (i.e. those with BACs over 160 mg/100 ml of blood) represent a disproportionate number of fatally injured drinking drivers.

I will repeat that last statistic because it really is quite important: 20.8%, or one in five, of all fatally injured drivers had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.160 or more. Anyone who has such a high BAC has consumed a very significant amount of alcohol. Although it is only an estimate, a BAC calculator on Quebec's Éduc’alcool website says that a 180-pound man has to drink eight bottles of beer in an hour to have a BAC of 0.166.

Accordingly, the standing committee concluded:

Section 255.1 of the Criminal Code states that if an impaired driving offence is committed by someone whose BAC exceeded 0.16 at the time [of] the offence..., this will be an aggravating factor on sentencing. This reflects the fact that driving with a high level of impairment (over 0.16 BAC or double the current legal limit) is generally indicative of serious problems. Even if a driver with this level of impairment is being detected for the first time, it is likely that this is a hard-core impaired driver. This is due to the fact that it is rarely the first time they have driven while impaired by alcohol — it is simply the first time they have been [caught]....

Bill C-590 would take dead aim at those high BAC drivers. The bill would create a new straight indictable offence of driving with a BAC exceeding 0.160, punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment and a mandatory minimum payment on a first offence of $2,000 plus 60 days' imprisonment, and on a second offence 240 days of imprisonment.

Such high mandatory minimum penalties should cause drivers to give a second thought to how much they are drinking before they get behind the wheel of a car.

Therefore, I urge all members to support higher mandatory minimum penalties for drivers with a blood alcohol concentration over 0.160. Members of the standing committee will, I am sure, want to hear from law enforcement, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, and others regarding whether the proposed new offence and higher mandatory minimum penalties could be made more effective. In particular, there may be an advantage to the over 0.160 offence being a hybrid with penalties on summary conviction that are lower than the penalties on indictment. It is possible that prosecutors will be reluctant to proceed on the over 0.160 charge because of the more onerous procedures on indictment.

Bill C-590 also proposes higher mandatory minimum penalties for an impaired driver who causes bodily harm or death. Currently, subsection 255(3.3) of the Criminal Code provides:

For greater certainty, everyone who is liable to the punishment described in any of subsections (2) to (3.2) is also liable to the minimum punishment described in paragraph (1)(a).

What that means is that the mandatory minimum penalties that apply where there is no death or bodily harm with an offence of impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.80, or refusing to provide a breath or blood sample also apply to these offences when there is a death or bodily harm. There is a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offence, 30 days' imprisonment for a second offence, and 120 days for a third offence.

It is obvious that these mandatory minimum penalties are unacceptable in these most serious cases. I understand that the courts do not give out fines in death and bodily injury cases. The purpose of these mandatory minimum penalties, when they were originally adopted, was to prevent the courts from imposing a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

As a result of amendments made in the Safe Streets and Communities Act, conditional sentences are not available where the offence has a maximum of 10 years and resulted in bodily harm. Still, it is theoretically possible for a court to impose a fine or a short period of imprisonment when the offence involves bodily harm or death.

I believe it is appropriate that Parliament indicates to the courts what the starting point should be, but I also believe that these proposed mandatory minimum penalties may not be appropriate in all cases.

Where the bodily harm is relatively minor, for example a broken wrist, 120 days for a first offender is, in my opinion, appropriate. However, there is a danger that we would send the courts the wrong message if we had the same mandatory minimum penalties for both bodily harm and death offences. The courts could conclude that Parliament considers 120 days' imprisonment sufficient for a death. Clearly it is not.

I do not have a view at this time as to what the appropriate minimum should be, but I wish to flag this concern for consideration at the justice committee. I urge all members to support Bill C-590 at second reading. Higher penalties for these offences are long overdue. The standing committee can consider whether improvements on the proposals can be made that the member for Prince Albert has brought forward. He has indicated his willingness to consider those amendments.

For the record, I want to add that there is another reason for a mandatory minimum penalty and that is that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. The people of Canada need to know that the justice system is working for them. When they see serious criminal offenders walk away from the courtroom and not go to prison, they lose faith in our justice system. When they lose faith in our justice system, then the justice system does not fulfill the purposes that the Canadian people wish it to. For all those reasons, I urge members in the House to support the bill.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on countless occasions my profound concern about the ongoing effort of Conservative members of Parliament who introduce bills allegedly to combat crime. I have repeatedly made my concerns known that these crime bills are undermining the coherence of the Criminal Code of Canada. Far too often we find backbench MPs introducing private members' bills primarily relating to crime and justice, and more often than not based on input from the Prime Minister's Office.

I am also concerned that these private members' initiatives are not properly vetted to ensure their charter compliance. Unfortunately, that concern applies to government bills in too many cases, which, when introduced, immediately raise serious constitutional issues.

To underscore this concern we need only look at what happened yesterday with the Minister of Justice, who yesterday and again today was telling the House and the media bizarrely that the Supreme Court's ruling last Friday somehow was a victory for his government. More specifically, he was suggesting that there was something in the court ruling that was a victory for Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Never mind that in the reality in which most of us operate, the court ruling undercuts both of those bills.

When it comes to so-called tough on crime legislation, whether from the government or backbench MPs, we on this side are more than a little suspicious of their motives. Moreover, we are concerned whether or not these bills, and there are many, are constitutional.

Again, the overall impact of these bills is to make the Criminal Code incoherent, which is unfortunate. The Criminal Code should not be used as a political fundraising tool, and I submit that the government has used these private members' bills and other government bills for no other reason than to raise money.

Today, however, as I indicated earlier, we may have a rare exception to that rule. We are debating Bill C-590 in the name of the member for Prince Albert. It was certainly encouraging to hear him say that he is open to amendments that would seek to achieve the objective of the bill.

As we know, Bill C-590 would amend the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimum penalties for impaired driving where the offender has a blood alcohol content more than double the legal limit.

Currently, there are minimums for drivers over the legal limit and for convictions of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. In most provinces, a minimum jail time does not apply for a first offence. As I indicated in my question earlier, there is an exception in Prince Edward Island. That is how the case law has developed. But in most of the country there is no mandatory jail time for a first offender with a blood alcohol level of 0.08.

The hon. member will be pleased to know that today, after careful consideration and consultation with my colleagues, I have recommended to the Liberal caucus that we support Bill C-590.

My major concern is with the use of mandatory minimum jail sentences. The hon. member would know that we opposed in principle the use of mandatory minimums, and we do so because there is no evidence to suggest that they work or are effective in reducing crime. We believe that mandatory minimums should be the exception and not the rule.

We will support sending the bill to committee because we agree with the objective of the bill, and at committee, hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear how best to achieve that objective.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Prince Albert for his effort. I believe he is sincere in that effort. I believe he is in fact seeking to make our roads and highways safer.

We all know that drinking and driving remains a serious issue in Canada. The number of bodily injuries and deaths caused by impaired driving continues to be unacceptably high. By targeting impaired drivers with a blood alcohol over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, the act would create a specific deterrent to the class of drivers who pose the greatest statistical risk.

By dealing severely with the worst consequences of impaired driving, which are bodily injury and death of third parties, the act would also emphasize the rationale behind deterring impaired driving. Limiting judicial discretion is problematic, but this is, indeed, a serious enough issue that it merits further examination.

It should be noted that impaired driving continues to be a particular problem in locations and provinces across the country, including, and especially, in my own province of Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, the provincial government is doing what it can to address this problem. Just in the last session of the provincial legislature, a law was passed that would mandate a special license plate for chronic offenders of the impaired driving laws. This would allow police, but not the general public, to identify those who fall into this category. This is the type of innovative thinking that is required to combat this problem, not the automatic default to mandatory minimum jail time that we so often see.

Also in our province, as I indicated, the case law has grown such that there are sentencing guidelines for impaired driving offences. Those sentencing guidelines require that every single person in Prince Edward Island who is convicted of a drunk driving offence, whether it is at 0.08, 0.16, or whether it is a first offence, should bring their toothbrush, as we say, because they are going to Sleepy Hollow for the weekend, at a minimum.

Here is some relevant background information. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that impaired drivers with a blood alcohol level at 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood represent close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents. According to Statistics Canada, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

Let me focus a bit on fatalities. It is estimated that in 2010, 2,500 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada estimates that, at a minimum, 1,082 of these fatalities were impairment related. In MADD Canada's opinion, the 1,082 figure is a conservative estimate, due to the under-reporting that results from the inability to conduct alcohol tests on surviving impaired drivers, and from the need to rely on police reports. Moreover, the figure underestimates the percentage of crash deaths that involve drugs, thus the recent sharp increase in driving after drug use was not factored into the 1,082 figure.

Additionally, that 1,082 figure does not include individuals killed in impaired crashes on waterways. It was estimated that there were more 135 boating deaths per year from 2006 to 2008. It appears that more than 50% of those boating deaths involved alcohol and/or drugs. That 1,082 also does not include fatalities arising from aircraft, trains, and industrial vehicles, such as forklifts.

Given the limits on this 1,082 figure, MADD Canada estimates that there are somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 impairment related crash deaths in Canada each year. That amounts to three to four deaths per day.

I would like to turn now to the matter of injuries caused by impaired driving. In 2010, it was estimated that about 300,000 individuals were injured in motor vehicle crashes. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 64,000 of those individuals were injured in impairment related crashes. That is roughly 175 per day. This figure is limited to motor vehicle crashes only.

There is also information available on property damage. In 2010, it was estimated that approximately 1.7 million motor vehicles were involved in property damage-only crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 211,000 of these vehicles were damaged in impairment related crashes. That works out to 578 per day.

Finally, there is the financial cost. Using a social cost model, impairment related driving deaths, injuries, and property damage-only crashes in Canada can be estimated to have cost $20.6 billion in 2010. This model is recent, it is based on extensive analysis, and it was prepared for the Department of Transport.

This bill would meet a positive policy objective. People who drink should not drive. That may seem like a simple suggestion to us here, but far too often, people do drink and then decide that they are okay to drive. This is never acceptable and, on that point, I believe the House is united.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House again to put forward a private member's bill which I think would make Canada a safer place and our roads definitely safer to drive our vehicles on.

The first thing I would like to do is thank the Minister of Justice and his staff for their assistance. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for all his assistance. I would also like to thank the staff at the Library of Parliament for helping me draft this piece of legislation.

I also want to be very clear at the start that I am very open-minded on this piece of legislation. It is something that I am willing to amend and see amendments made to, to make it a better piece of legislation. This is something that the House can embrace, that committee can embrace, to actually accomplish the goal of making this a strong piece of legislation that would save Canadian lives.

I think everybody in this House is aware of someone who has passed away in a traffic accident or a motor vehicle accident where alcohol was involved. I think we all understand the implications of how devastating that can be to families, employers, employees, and friends.

The story I would like to talk about right now is about a colleague and a friend, a businessman in Prince Albert by the name of Ben Darchuk.

Ben ran Ben's Auto Glass. He had been in our community for a long time. He was 53 years old on May 20, 2012, when he was driving up to the lake to meet up with his family. He was hit head on by a drunk driver. The driver was definitely over the legal limit and beyond. He had admitted to consuming cocaine earlier on in the day. The results were devastating not only to Ben, but to his entire family, friends, and employees.

Prince Albert lost a pillar that day. It was the Victoria Day long weekend, a time when people go camping for the first time in the summer. Ben was going to take his boat on the lake and enjoy it. His wife and kids were up at the lake. He was nine kilometres north of Prince Albert driving to the lake when the accident happened.

His family is devastated. His wife Leanne is devastated. His three children do not have a father. His employees at Ben's Auto Glass do not have a boss. The turmoil of going through that loss and the turmoil of the insecurity of the business, with his colleagues and his employees not being sure where they were going to be was just devastating.

This is a guy who was very active in the Kinsmen Club. He was responsible for bringing 9-1-1 into Prince Albert, or assisted in that. He was very proud of his Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian dancing. We would see him at different dances and events. He was active in the community. He was 53 years old. He was hit by a drunk driver and he passed on.

It is really sad when we hear of cases like Ben's. I think everybody, as I said earlier, can relate to that because I think we all know of somebody, a friend, a colleague, or a family member, who has been involved in a situation like that.

We need to look at what we can do to ensure that drinking and driving is not acceptable and is not something that someone should even consider. I use the saying, “if in doubt, don't drive”.

What I am trying to tackle here is the fact that some people are way too intoxicated to be driving. These people who are far too intoxicated to be driving are getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and by doing that, they are actually putting a lot of innocent people at risk.

I will go through the details of my bill. Then I will wrap up with some of the comments I heard when talking to some of the families. I would also like to thank the families for sharing their stories with me, because that gives the emotional push we need to put something like this forward.

Bill C-590 is an act to amend section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for offenders who have a blood alcohol content that exceeds twice the legal limit. Let us clarify that. It is twice the legal limit. If someone has a blood alcohol content of .16, those are the people we are targeting here.

Such offenders would be liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Penalties for a first-offence conviction would now result in a minimum fine of $2,000 and a minimum 60-day prison term. In the case of a second or subsequent offence, the minimum imprisonment would be 240 days.

Those with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit who harm or kill someone would be additionally penalized a maximum fine of $5,000 and a minimum of 120 days in prison for the first offence, and a minimum of 12 months in prison for the second or subsequent offence.

According to Statistics Canada, and these are really sobering statistics, almost half the fatal or injured drivers had a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. In half the fatalities the drivers that were involved had twice the legal limit of blood alcohol content. These are the people we need to get off the road.

It is also a fact that this impairment has a devastating impact on our youth, as 31% of deaths among our kids the alcohol-related. It is not an acceptable number.

Both these numbers are preventable, yet they are there and it is something that is still ongoing.

In June of 2009, a report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on alcohol use among fatally injured drivers indicates that most of the impaired driving problems lie with drivers having a blood alcohol content over the current Criminal Code BAC limit of 0.08.

Among the tested drivers in Canada, 62.9% showed no evidence of alcohol in their blood. That is a good thing. That number should be 100%, but 63% is not a bad thing.

There were 37.1% who had been drinking. Out of those who had been drinking, 4.3% had a blood alcohol content of less than 0.05, 2.6% had a blood alcohol content of 0.05 to 0.08, 9.5% had a blood alcohol content of 0.081 to 0.16, and 20.8% had a blood alcohol content of over 0.16. In other words, 81.5% of the fatally injured drinking drivers had a blood alcohol content over the current limit of 0.08 to 0.16.

This tells members exactly what I am trying to do with this piece of legislation, why I am targeting the folks who are at twice the legal limit, and why we need to make sure that these people are off the roads. When people are at twice the legal limit, at that level of consumption it is obvious not only to those people but to their friends and colleagues around them that they are three sheets to the wind and should not be operating a vehicle or a crane or engaging in any type of activity like that.

Drivers with a high blood alcohol content are behind the wheel of 1% of the cars on the road at night and on weekends, but they account for nearly half of all the drivers killed at those times.

Limited resources would seem to best be deployed to target that 81.5% of the fatally-injured drinking drivers who are already above the 0.08 threshold. The worst offenders are already driving with a blood alcohol content that is two or three times the current limit. Drivers with the highest blood alcohol content constitute the most significant danger on the roads, as they should still be a priority.

The report states:

Section 255.1 of the Criminal Code states that if an impaired driving offence is committed by someone whose BAC exceeded 0.16 at the time the offence was committed, this will be an aggravating factor on sentencing. This reflects the fact that driving with a high level of impairment (over 0.16 BAC or double the current legal limit) is generally indicative of serious problems.

Even if a driver with this level of impairment is being detected for the first time, it is likely that this is a hard-core impaired driver. This is due to the fact that it is rarely the first time they have driven while impaired by alcohol — it is simply the first time they have been arrested for it.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have nothing to be proud about when it comes to drunk drivers. In fact, we are seeing an increase in police reports of impaired driving incidents for each consecutive year from 2006 to 2011, according to Statistics Canada.

Furthermore, in 2011, among all the provinces Saskatchewan had the highest number of such police-reported impaired driving incidents, with almost 700 per 100,000 people. In other words, over the course of five years, the number of police-reported incidents increased from 500 to 700 per 100,000. The trend was going the wrong way. That trend needs to change.

Bill C-590 targets drivers with high blood alcohol contents by increasing specific penalties for such drivers. The goal is to prevent these drivers from reoffending, since high-risk offenders cause the greatest number of fatal collisions and are more likely to be repeat offenders.

I understand this piece of legislation is not the be-all and end-all. It will not solve drinking and driving. What it does do is provide a tool for those who are educating our kids to explain to them how serious it is. It allows our educators to go to our kids and say, “Drinking and driving is not only unacceptable; there are also serious consequences to you if you drink and drive. It is even more serious if you drink and drive and you are severely drunk”.

It also lays out the facts of what can happen, not just the fatalities that are created by being over the legal limit but the fatalities that are created when someone is at twice the legal limit and the impact that has. If we think about it, 50% of fatalities on the roads involve somebody who is at twice the legal limit.

The other thing I would like to highlight for the House is that I am very open to amendments. I am very open to seeing this legislation being created and drafted in such a way that we can all get along, take pride, and bring it forward. To use an analogy for what I have done here, I have taken a piece of clay, just as a potter takes a piece of clay, and I have started to shape it. I have tried to give it a vision. However, I expect the House, through the committees, to help define what this is going to look like. I expect the House and the committees to come forward with suggestions, and I look forward to them as we try to make the bill better. Our end goal here is to see fewer fatalities on the highway and to make sure the roads that our kids, our parents, and our family members drive down are safe.

It is not just roads. I want to make that very clear. It is a motor vehicle. It could be a boat. In fact, in talking to colleagues today, I heard a suggestion that we should also be looking at the workplace. If someone is over 0.08 or at twice the legal limit, should they be operating a crane? Should they be operating a piece of heavy machinery, especially if there are others around who could be severely injured if they happen not to proceed in a safe manner because they are over that limit?

There are a lot of things to think about in this legislation, and I want to shine a light on that because I want people to understand that drinking and driving is not acceptable. If someone is at twice the legal limit and they think that is okay and get behind the wheel, there have to be severe penalties.

When I talked to the people at MADD about the bill, they had some disappointments with it, which I can understand. They wanted it to be even more severe. They feel we should have higher penalties and that the minimum should be bigger. I am willing to look at those amendments, but I trust the committee will actually talk to different witnesses and decide the best way to move forward.

One thing we have to do is talk to the victims. We have to understand what the victims go through and how that impacts the families, the friends, and the communities around them. We have stories in the past in some of our smaller towns in Prince Albert. Some teenagers were out on a Friday night, drinking and driving. They know it is not acceptable, but it still happens. Then all of a sudden we are having a funeral in the school gym. What a loss of life. How sad.

One thing we must really ensure is that we have the proper education in place so that these kids understand the implications of drinking and driving and do not repeat it.

In closing, I will mention that Ben Darchuk had a saying: “If there's a will, there's a way”. That was his attitude when he was around Prince Albert. If we wanted to get something done, he would always say, “If there's a will, there's a way”. I understand that was his motto. With this piece of legislation, if there is a will with the House, if there is a will with the committee, if we are all willing to work together with the same goal, then there is a way to get this measure through, and we will have a better community because of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time to present my bill. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. I would like to thank all the members for considering this piece of legislation. As we move forward with debate here tonight, I look forward to the positive suggestions and ideas that can come forward to make this an even better piece of legislation.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10. We supported it at second reading, but we had quite a number of concerns, particularly in terms of its compliance with the charter because it includes mandatory minimum penalties.

I am also concerned about the process that led to Bill C-10. The government did not consult the partners in the federation, namely the provinces, the territories and the first nations. We were therefore determined to carry out a thorough study in committee. That is what I hoped for.

The committee did a good job. It heard witnesses in various capacities talk about the scourge of contraband tobacco. I will have no trouble convincing everyone in the House that contraband tobacco is a scourge, period.

However, there might be a little hypocrisy around this issue in our society. Even as the government tries to control tobacco and fight contraband tobacco, it is raising taxes on tobacco and making a lot of money that way. That hypocrisy became entrenched over the years, and now it is complicating the issue. Add to that the ancestral rights of first nations peoples to manufacture tobacco, and the issue gets very murky.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had some good meetings. It heard from excellent witnesses, including chiefs of first nations. I did not hear a single first nations chief express support for contraband tobacco to the committee. Nevertheless, the chiefs were very realistic. They insisted on protecting their traditional rights to produce and grow tobacco as they have done historically within their territory.

That being said, they are also aware that contraband tobacco, which is often part of organized crime activity on their land, has the lure of easy money for their young people. It is a vicious circle because there is a great deal of poverty on first nations lands that tends to get ignored, and then we are surprised when the black market takes hold there. This does not help first nations chiefs to provide their people on their land with something worthwhile.

I have already done so in person, but since we have the time, I would like to publicly thank my NDP colleagues who served with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who may not get the chance to speak to the bill in the House. They did exceptional work. I particularly want to thank the NDP deputy justice critic, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi and the hon. member for Beaches—East York. They contributed a lot to this file through their personal experience in their own part of the country.

What is more, we proposed an amendment. I am still sad that the government did not see fit to approve the amendment that we proposed to respect R. v. Gladue. That decision calls on the courts, when sentencing, to consider the extenuating circumstances of the accused when the accused is from the first nations, especially considering that there are mandatory minimum sentences. That is the requirement that resulted from that decision, but according to lawyers at Justice Canada, Bill C-10 will take precedence over R. v. Gladue. We will see whether there are more appeals. I suspect there will be.

If one of the people arrested is a first nations member, it is very possible that the defence will make use of some of the arguments in the Gladue ruling. I think it would be wise to say that this did not trump the facts in the Gladue case.

True to form, the Conservatives are so terrified of adopting any amendment other than their own, and I find that very unfortunate. They may be rapped on the knuckles once again, as they have been in the last four or five major Supreme Court decisions. I feel like a mother who says “I told you so”, and I am a little tired of that. That is how I have felt for the past three years.

The opposition members are trying to do their job. I listened to the prayer recited by the Speaker at the beginning of the sitting. He asked Parliament to make good laws. I believe that is what we are trying to do both in the House and in committees.

Suffice it to say that the amendment was rejected. The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to repeat offenders, where a high volume of contraband tobacco is involved, and so my concerns about the sentences have been allayed. I still have no guarantee that the bill complies with our charters because the government does not see to be too worried about that. When we weigh out the two issues, public protection and contraband tobacco, which affects our children, we realize that this is extremely important.

The NDP has always taken the problem of contraband tobacco in Canada seriously, and Bill C-10 has not changed that.

I am going to digress for a moment regarding Bill C-10. When it was introduced in the House, we were told it was an absolute emergency, but it has been around for a long time now. If memory serves me correctly, the bill passed second reading in November. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we worked very diligently and quickly. Throughout the month of December, until the adjournment, we worked on this legislation. As soon as we came back after Christmas, in early February, we proceeded to clause by clause. What is intriguing is that the bill then fell into oblivion. We never heard about it again. Then, this week, I noticed we were going to debate Bill C-10. There are many numbers in my head, such as C-10, C-32 dealing with prostitution, C-587,C-590 and others. All these bills seem to deal with justice.

When I saw my name tied to Bill C-10, I wondered what the bill was about. It reminded me of the good old days when I was pleading before the court. We would prepare a case and arrive in court with witnesses. Unfortunately, for some very serious reason, the other side would ask for a postponement. We had prepared the case and met with witnesses and we were more than ready. We would return to our office, back at square one, and tell ourselves that we would wait for the next time. However, we sometimes had to wait a year or a year and a half and start all over again. Clients would sometime wonder why we were billing new hours. The answer was that we had to refresh our memory.

This is the impression I get with Bill C-10. I had to review the whole file because, in the meantime, we had debated several other justice bills and a number of issues that are now in the annals of the House. The government does not have to tell us this is urgent. The Conservatives seem to move into high gear at two very specific times: during the week preceding the holiday season and during the last two or three weeks before the summer recess. During these periods, we are incredibly productive.

I almost wish we could change the calendar so that it could be June all year long. Canadians across the country would be amazed at our productivity.

This week in the House, we debated Motion No. 10, which supposedly seeks to increase our work hours. It seems we are not working enough, but if that is the case, I am not sure why I am tired. In any event, I was listening to some of my colleagues, and their argument was that we had passed only nine bills.

What is fascinating is that about 15 bills will likely be passed in two weeks. One has to wonder if that means that we are being more productive or less democratic because we will have less time to speak to these bills and fewer people will have the opportunity to speak on each topic. I think the answer is obvious.

Bill C-10 is a good example. It has been sitting on someone's desk since February when it could have been passed quickly the week after it came back from committee. There were no formal or serious objections that would have prevented the bill from passing. This bill could have been passed by now.

These are important points to raise. I would never let anybody tell me that we are not working hard on these issues because we take them very seriously. Sometimes, we rise to speak to a bill at second reading to raise some of our concerns. There is no denying that we are concerned about this bill.

I know that the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco is made up of many people who benefit from tobacco sales. I was not born yesterday, and I see where their interests lie. In their testimony, some police forces also told us that they will need resources. This is an extremely important message that came out of the committee's examination of Bill C-10.

The first nations have their own to-do list for their territory. We need to stop making cuts to first nation police services. If Bill C-10 gives the police new tools by adding an offence to the Criminal Code that existed only under the Excise Tax Act, then from now on all police forces can begin dealing with contraband tobacco. However, we have to give them the resources they need. We need police officers on the front lines.

Some witnesses also told us that contraband was increasingly coming from countries other than Canada, for example, China. This is an issue for border services, and this agency will need resources. All we ever hear about on the news and here in the House is successive budget cuts being made to border services. How do we expect this agency to combat the large-scale smuggling that organized crime groups are conducting through well-organized networks?

This is not just about tobacco; it is also about arms and drug smuggling. It is all connected. The government is always a bit hypocritical, since it introduces bills and claims to want to fix everything, but it does not provide tools for the people on the ground so that they can do their jobs properly. I find that worrisome. Nevertheless, all of the witnesses we heard from in committee made the facts clear, regardless of their reasons.

For example, I know that the Canadian Convenience Stores Association wants us to put an end to contraband tobacco. When contraband cigarettes are available, no one buys cigarettes at the convenience store. The association does not want to put an end to tobacco use; it wants to put an end to illegal competition in its industry. The association is right. We must stop being hypocritical. If we decide that tobacco is a legal industry in Canada, even though we know that it kills, these stores should be able to happily sell it and make money legally.

That is why I really liked the question my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the parliamentary secretary. She asked him if there were ways other than Bill C-10 to eliminate the scourge of tobacco. She and I both know that it is not easy to quit smoking. She can share her personal experience with that. In my case, I have been chewing Nicorette since 1999. People in the committee had quite a laugh when I told them that. In December, I was proud to tell them that I had quit Nicorette, but unfortunately I have to admit to everyone that I have started up again. It must be the Conservatives' fault I guess, because either I chew Nicorette or I get even more aggressive than usual. That is what I thought: everyone is eager to recommend that I chew Nicorette. That is what I do. Maybe I will stop one day. My point is that it is a constant battle.

We tell kids not to smoke, but tobacco companies attract them with all kinds of products. I know that is why I started smoking when I was young. It was cool. We thought we were so smart. Had I known how bloody hard it would be to quit 30 or 40 years later, maybe I would never have started. Young people know that now.

There are other ways, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said. There has to be a concerted public health effort, not just changes to the Criminal Code. There has to be a concerted effort to raise people's awareness that this product kills. That is what the warnings on cigarette packs say: this stuff kills, causes all sorts of problems and places a heavy burden on our health system. We have to do everything in our power to bring tobacco use rates down as quickly as possible.

We will tackle the issue of contraband tobacco immediately. I hope that it will help, but I am not convinced that it is the silver bullet or that it will solve every problem. I want to reiterate that for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This bill will come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council. That is better than when we are sometimes told that the bill will come into force within 30 days of the bill being passed, which means that it applies immediately. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that the government use the time before the bill comes into force to sit down and talk with the first nations that have a considerable number of issues with and concerns about the bill. It is not that they support contraband tobacco. However, as Gina Deer, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, said:

Bill C-10 proposes an infringement on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights pertaining to the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products.

If that is how Chief Deer perceives Bill C-10, a government representative needs to sit down with the chiefs to correct that perception. I think that the government's vision has to be explained, and first nations and the government need to discuss it as equals. The government did not have the decency to do that before it introduced the bill.

We are supporting this bill, even with its flaws. I am still waiting for the Conservatives to introduce a perfect bill. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That said, the committee did a fine job. I would like to thank my committee colleagues for their work, and I would also like to thank the witnesses who came to enlighten us on this subject, which is not always straightforward.

I appreciate the work being done by police, in particular. They do not have an easy job. As I said earlier, when we talk about contraband tobacco, the discussion often turns to other types of contraband or illegal activities such as organized crime and dangerous individuals. Police officers are putting their lives in danger every day. We must appreciate their work, but we also need to give them the tools and means to do their job. They have all been critical of that.

That also includes police forces in first nations territories, the aboriginal police who do this work and whose programs have been eliminated by the government. At some point you have to put your money where your mouth is. If the government wants to take action, it must provide the tools.

Bill C-10 is not very long and everyone should read it. For those who are worried about mandatory minimum sentences, they apply to repeat offenders and cases involving large quantities of contraband tobacco, as I was saying.