Bill C-226 (Historical)

Impaired Driving Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the provisions of the Criminal Code that govern offences in relation to conveyances. The amendments, among other things,
(a) harmonize the prohibitions and penalties for offences in relation to the operation of conveyances;
(b) increase the penalties for repeat offences in relation to the operation of conveyances;
(c)  modernize the procedures for determining whether a person’s ability to operate a conveyance is impaired by a drug, and for analyzing breath samples to determine a person’s blood alcohol concentration;
(d) provide for rules governing the disclosure of information with respect to the results of analyzing breath samples; and
(e)  recognize that evaluating officers are experts in determining whether a person’s ability to operate a conveyance is impaired by a drug.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Records Act to remove the offences of impaired driving and failure or refusal to comply with a demand as exceptions to the offences that result in a record suspension ceasing to have effect.
Finally, the enactment makes consequential amendments to those Acts and to other Acts.

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Sorry, I would like to add that when Bill C-226 was also being studied previously by the SECU committee, the issue was asked there as well.

If you look at the successes in addressing impaired driving over the years, you see it's probably a combination of many things. Public education is huge. Training for law enforcement is also important, as is a new law, legal framework, to provide new tools to detect and to better address the issue. Also a combination.... On the mandatory alcohol screening, where random breath testing, as it's called elsewhere...it's also probably related to a function of how many police you put at different points to do the random testing, or as proposed for mandatory alcohol....

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

We've inserted, not random breath screening but mandatory breath screening, and there are many reasons that we've done that. Certainly it's based on what we've learned from other jurisdictions in terms of preventing the number of accidents on the highways, significantly reducing the number of deaths. It certainly acts as a deterrent factor. What we've also learned from evidence is that a significant number of drivers, up to 50%, whether it's at a roadblock that has been erected by police officers...manage to drive through the roadblock while they have been impaired by alcohol. Mandatory screening was also proposed in private member's Bill C-226.

As you know, Mr. Cooper, the public policy reason for the mandatory roadside screening is to ensure that we prevent deaths, and that is entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

Criminal Code

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we will all work together to try to make sure the legislation is as well-rounded as possible.

I have a couple of questions. I listened attentively to the speech of my hon. colleague. She mentioned concerns with both the mandatory testing and the number of hours after the alleged driving that an individual could be tested. Both of these were found in Bill C-226, the private member's bill of the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which the hon. member voted for.

In essence, both of them allow us to make sure our roads are safer. The fact that a police officer can, on any lawful stop, ask somebody to submit to a breathalyzer test, to me, is a good thing, and so is the fact that an individual cannot argue that they drank alcohol right before they got in the car so their blood alcohol limit was not reached when they were in the car; it only got reached after. These are good things. They keep bad people off the road.

Why does the hon. member have concerns about these when she voted for them already in a different law?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and also for bringing forward Bill C-226, a private member's bill that presented a number of very significant and important advances in dealing properly with impaired driving that the government took very seriously. As the member knows, I supported the bill at second reading and it went to the public safety committee, but, unfortunately, upon further examination of it and testimony from expert witnesses at committee, it was found to be flawed in many respects. It came back to the House and was not successful at third reading.

I hope the member is encouraged by the fact that many of the issues he attempted to address in his private member's bill, such as the various loophole-type defences, the bolus drinking defence, the intervening drinking defence, the St-Onge Lamoureux matter, the clarification of blood alcohol concentration presumptions, and the introduction of a system whereby the police would be able to demand and require mandatory roadside alcohol screening are all very important innovations.

I would agree with the member that after the passage of this bill, we should make sure that the public is well aware of the consequences, because the great benefit from those measures is in prevention. It is not merely in catching, detecting, and incarcerating individuals, but through saving lives.

I would also point out to the member that Bill C-46, as presented, does in fact contain minimum penalties for impaired driving. For example, I would bring to his attention proposed section 320.15, which allows for a maximum penalty of 10 years, exactly as in his bill, a minimum fine on first offence of $2,000, on second offence 30 days, and on third and subsequent offences 120 days. I would ask the member to comment on whether he believes that the measures contained in this bill would achieve what he sought to achieve through his private member's bill.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Victoriaville on his excellent speech and his commitment to public safety. We have been debating two complementary bills for two days now.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-46 on drug-impaired driving. We know that drunk driving is a major problem in Canada. It is the leading criminal cause of death. Now, because of the Liberals' improvised approach, drugs are going to be added to the mix. The government is improvising.

Unfortunately, my speech may serve to fuel Canadians' cynicism. I would like to talk this evening about Bill C-46, about what is contained in this bill, what is missing from it, and what is needed. I would also like to talk about a bill that was introduced in the House and even went to committee but that was unfortunately gutted by the Liberals, who came up with a watered-down version of a law that is supposed to protect innocent victims from repeat drunk drivers and people who cause fatal accidents while under the influence of alcohol.

We had a robust bill that we introduced in the House, one that could have already made it to the Senate by now and could have received royal assent in order to save lives now. Instead, we are stuck debating this bill that unfortunately has some serious flaws, which I want to point out.

First of all, what is in the bill? In the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, where I am from, an excellent MP, Claude Lachance, had a remarkable career. He said that, in opposition, it is our job to try to find what is positive in what the government brings forward.

One measure proposed by the government is called routine screening. This measure gives police officers the ability to ask an individual behind the wheel to submit to a blood alcohol test to screen for alcohol. This measure will save lives. This has been said many times in the House over the past few hours, and for the past few days, but particularly during the debate on Bill C-226. I have had the opportunity to say it myself. Routine screening is a measure that apparently has proven itself in many countries, for decades now, and it does save lives.

The government has been asked if this measure is constitutional. Unfortunately, the answers I have heard today have been evasive. Even so, it is one of the three pillars of an effective policy to reduce the number of accidents caused by impaired driving.

The second pillar has to do with the increasingly burdensome legal proceedings we have been seeing in recent years. Legal proceedings are interfering with the application of justice. I am not talking about the Jordan decision. I am talking about the last drink and intervening drink defences. The bill covers these issues to protect against abuse of process by drunk drivers. These are useful parts of the bill that would speed up proceedings and bring people caught driving while impaired to justice.

Now that I have mentioned two useful parts of the bill, I want to make an important point about how, if we want to tackle impaired driving successfully, the key is to make sure drivers know the police can stop them. Roadblocks are not working very well, which is why impaired driving still causes so many deaths.

An important provision not found in this bill, is one that would impose minimum sentences, or deterrent sentences. There is a consensus in the House that impaired driving is unacceptable in Canada, especially in the case of repeat offenders, who are a danger to society. We have to protect these people from themselves because quite often they have addictions and put the lives of innocent people at risk.

Members will recall the organization Families For Justice founded by Markita Kaulius, who lost her daughter. I want to recognize her, and I think of her in the context of safety and impaired driving. These victims and their families are asking elected members to send a clear message: it is unacceptable to drive while impaired, and repeat offenders must be kept behind bars. All too often, these accidents that cause irreparable harm are the fault of individuals who have been impaired before. This bill does not include any measures providing for a minimum sentence, a tool that the previous Liberal government did not hesitate to use.

Even the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister, approved of the use of minimum sentencing for bills on impaired driving. However, once again, the Liberals make promises and then, when it comes time to act, they give us half-measures. That is the case with the bill before us today. It contains measures regarding routine screening and speeding up the court process, but it has one major flaw. It does not contain any minimum sentences.

There is one thing that will certainly raise some eyebrows among those who are listening to us this evening. Our colleagues opposite had the chance to vote on the measures set out in the bill. Just a few weeks ago, the member for Montarville said that there was a flaw in Bill C-226. He said:

...the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

He ended by saying that the government was going to come back with its own bill. Well, today, we have before us a bill that does not contain any coherent measures regarding an education and awareness campaign. We are talking about impaired driving, but everyone here knows that this issue is related to the legalization of marijuana. The government is introducing two major bills, but it is allocating very little funding to one of the biggest societal changes that Canada is facing and that will have unbelievable social costs. It is also not adopting any awareness measures. This government’s botched bill is leading us to disaster.

Lastly, I will add that another flaw of this bill is the lack of consecutive sentencing provisions. If a repeat drunk driving offender kills three people, the government does not want to impose consecutive sentences for that crime.

These are all flaws in the bill. It falls short on so many fronts that I fear it will not be possible to amend it in committee. It is so full of holes, it looks like Swiss cheese. The government could have done much better.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly there are some good measures in Bill C-46 with respect to holding impaired drivers accountable. One of those measures is increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life. However, what is missing from this bill is consecutive sentencing for individuals who get behind the wheel and kill multiple individuals. That was included in Bill C-226, introduced by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I was wondering if the hon. member for Guelph could comment on why consecutive sentencing is absent from Bill C-46.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost sorry that we cannot go right to the question period.

That said, it is my responsibility to address a number of the concerns that we in the Conservative Party have with respect to Bill C-46. While the Conservative Party has always been in favour of toughening laws to discourage drinking and driving, this legislation has some flaws that need to be remedied prior to its coming into law.

The first quandary I will address is the fact that the Liberals are ignoring their own task force recommendations to implement extensive marijuana and impaired driving education and awareness programs prior to the legalization of marijuana. Rather than choosing to be measured in its approach, the government is selecting to ram this legislation through. Officials from both Washington State and Colorado have stressed the importance of starting educational campaigns as soon as possible, before legalization, yet the government has no concrete plans in place to speak to this.

The Liberals have created a false deadline for political gain, and in doing so have placed the health and safety of Canadians at risk. The agenda of any government should never supersede the well-being and security of its citizens. For example, the Canadian Automobile Association, the CAA, has requested that the Liberal government implement a government-funded education program warning about the dangers of driving while impaired under the influence of cannabis prior to the legalization of the drug. They have also requested that police forces be given adequate funding to learn how to identify and investigate drug-impaired drivers.

The government has imposed a timeline that is unrealistic. Education is imperative. The National Post printed a story on May 17, 2016, in which it cited that in a State Farm survey, 44% of all Canadians who smoke marijuana believed it made them better drivers. As a matter of fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the former chief of police of Toronto, stated recently in the chamber that 15% of teens believe that smoking marijuana makes them better drivers. His figures may err on the side of caution, but the government is obviously aware that educating drivers is necessary. Why, then, is it that the government is not implementing the required programs in order to keep Canadians safe on our roadways?

A study commissioned by the CAA and conducted by Earnscliffe Strategy Group found this figure to be higher than 15%, and in fact it is was 26% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 34 believe that driving while high on marijuana made them better drivers. The figures may vary, but the facts are clear. An increasing number of drivers believe that marijuana enhances their capabilities on the road. Jeff Walker, the spokesperson for the CAA, concurs. He said:

There are a lot of misconceptions out there that marijuana doesn’t affect your driving, or even worse, it makes you a better driver.

He then went on to say:

There need to be significant resources devoted to educating the public in the run-up to, and after, marijuana is legalized.

Why is it that the government is ignoring calls to ensure the safety of all Canadians on our roadways by funding and offering an adequate public education program? It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to combat the fallacy that cannabis use while driving is not a hazard to road safety.

The statistics are clear, but the Liberals are more focused on fulfilling an election promise than protecting Canadians. On the Peace Tower is the inscription, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The Liberals are showing a lack of vision. Again, the Liberals are imposing a deadline in order to fulfill one of their election promises. Rushing such legislation is against all recommendations, including that of the CAA and the Liberals' own task force.

As members know, the Conservative Party has always supported measures that protect Canadians from impaired drivers. Drug-impaired driving is a real concern in Canada. The Department of Justice's own statistics cite a 32% increase in deaths from marijuana-involved traffic accidents in the span of a year.

In Colorado, marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 154% between 2006 and 2014. This was according to a study done by Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, a collaboration of federal, state, and local drug enforcement agencies.

It is wrong that the Liberals should ram this legislation through without consideration for the well-being of our citizens. Douglas Beirness, a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, gave voice to similar concerns when he acknowledged, “We’re getting a picture that people who are using cannabis are dying in greater numbers than ever before.” The government needs to ensure that Canadians understand the risks of impaired driving before moving forward with this legislation. At this point it would seem that the Liberal logic is skewed.

Another consequence to rushing this legislation through is that it does not address the concerns police forces have in respect to detecting drug-impaired drivers. Superintendent Gord Jones of the Toronto Police Service, the co-chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police traffic committee stated, “We’re having our challenges. The most pressing one is that we don’t know what the legislation will look like. It makes it hard to train and prepare.”

The Conservative Party is concerned that our police currently do not have the resources and training they will require to manage the increased threat of impaired driving associated with the legalization of marijuana.

The following excerpt is from the February 4, 2017, edition of the Ottawa Citizen:

Under legislation introduced in 2008 to update impaired driving laws, drivers suspected of drug use have been required to participate in a drug evaluation conducted by a Drug Recognition Expert, or DRE.

These police officers, trained to an international standard, rely on their observations to determine whether a blood or urine test is warranted.

The problem is that there are fewer than 600 trained DRE officers in Canada. An assessment conducted in 2009 estimated that Canada needs between 1,800 and 2,000 and the training system isn’t equipped to pump out trained officers any faster.

It goes on to say:

Cannabis affects tracking, reaction time, visual function, concentration and short-term memory. Signs of cannabis use include poor co-ordination and balance, reduced ability to divide attention, elevated pulse and blood pressure, dilated pupils, the inability to cross the eyes, red eyes and eyelid or body tremors.

The government must address the shortfall in DRE-trained officers if it is to sufficiently test for drug-impaired drivers. I reiterate that the Liberals must have trained DRE officers in place prior to the passage of Bill C-46. They have put the cart before the horse. The order that they are proceeding in is wrong, and the result will be more deaths on Canadian roadways.

Additionally, testing for cannabis is far more bomplicated than testing for alcohol. While the timing of alcohol consumption is readily detected with a breathalyzer, the smelling of cannabis does not necessarily mean it was recently consumed, as drugs absorb at a different rate than alcohol. Chemical traces of cannabis remain in the body longer than alcohol. Whereas breathalyzers are recognized by the courts, there is no such precedent with drug-impaired driving. There will be challenges until there are court decisions.

Let me be clear. When the Conservatives were in government, we supported increased penalties for crimes that put Canadians in danger, such as impaired driving. It is interesting to note that the Liberals opposed legislation that imposed higher maximum penalties. Their approach now simply makes no sense. The Conservatives introduced a private member's bill on impaired driving, as my colleague pointed out, Bill C-226, and the Liberals opposed that legislation.

Bill C-46 raises concerns with regard to law enforcement. Let me be clear. For nine years the Conservatives fought hard to bring in tough impaired driving legislation which the Liberals, as we know, opposed at every opportunity. Now they wish to introduce Bill C-46 to counter their own legislation, Bill C-45, the bill that would legalize the sale and consumption of marijuana. If reasonable suspicion were to remain a criterion, the public would be fully protected, both in terms of their charter rights and freedoms and in regard to their safety on the roads.

Another troubling aspect of Bill C-46 is the fact that it will inevitably cause more court backlogs and delays when individuals would find themselves in the position of having to challenge the legislation.

The Liberals have already created an unnecessary crisis in our legal system by refusing to appoint the required number of judges. It was just pointed out today during question period that they have not. As a result, alleged rapists and murderers are being set free as court cases across the country are being stayed following the Jordan decision. I am guessing that Bill C-46 would further burden the law courts with challenges, worsening the current crisis.

Canadians could lose confidence in their justice system, and unless amendments are made to Bill C-46, disaster will ensure if more and more cases are dismissed. I find it ironic that they would abolish the $200 victim surcharge for murdered victims' families in the name of alleviating financial hardship on the convicted, yet would seek to financially burden citizens who may be forced to challenge this legislation.

The marijuana task force report's advice to the ministers, on page 44, was as follows:

“The Task Force recommends that the federal government invest immediately and work with the provinces and territories to develop a national, comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis causes impairment and the best way to avoid driving impaired is to not consume. The strategy should also inform Canadians of the dangers of cannabis-impaired driving, with special emphasis on youth, and the applicable laws and the ability of law enforcement to detect cannabis use.”

The task force went on to recommend that the federal government “invest in research to better link THC levels with impairment and crash risk to support the development of a per se limit; determine whether to establish a per se limit as part of a comprehensive approach to cannabis-impaired driving, acting on findings of the drugs and driving committee; re-examine per se limits, should a reliable correlation between THC levels and impairment be established; support the development of an appropriate roadside drug screening device for detecting THC levels, and invest in these tools; invest in law enforcement capacity, including DRE and SFST training and staffing; and invest in baseline data collection and ongoing surveillance and evaluation in collaboration with provinces and territories.”

The report went on to say, “While it may take time for the necessary research and technology to develop, the task force encourages all governments to implement elements of a comprehensive approach as soon as feasible”.

Thus far, we have not seen any plans to make sure these recommendations are put into effect. Why is that? Could it be that the government simply does not have the money? I find that hard to believe. I think it has the money for everything. The government's own finance department produced a report that says it is not going to be worried about a balanced budget until 2055, so what is the problem with the government spending more money?

The government needs to put the welfare of Canadians first and foremost and before its own political agenda. It is simply wrong that the government would not provide the necessary education, detection tools, deterrent policies, evaluation data, and national coordination between the provinces and territories to inform Canadians on the dangers of drug-impaired driving. This should be part of an overall legislative approach to implementing Bill C-46. The absence of these components, in addition to adding further strain on our already overburdened courts, would make the hasty passage of this bill reckless.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House appreciate the importance of moving forward with legislative initiatives that will protect people on the roads and are seized with this problem of how many people are killed, injured, or otherwise affected by drunk driving.

A private member's bill was put forward which was, in my judgment, very similar to many of the provisions that are put forward in this bill. The government has talked about the importance of moving quickly, as well as the challenges of pushing through government legislation, and yet a private member's bill, Bill C-226, came from a Conservative member and, ultimately, the government voted not to proceed with it.

I honestly cannot remember if the member was here for that vote, but in any event, it is likely that he and all of his colleagues voted to kill that bill. I would like to hear from the member why they voted that way and also what substantive differences he sees between Bill C-226 and the bill we are discussing today.

Cannabis Act

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak in the House again. I spoke last night to Bill C-46, and tonight I will speak to Bill C-45.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who introduced Bill C-226, which dealt with impaired driving. The Prime Minister, interestingly, provided a letter to an organization made up of people who had lost loved ones to impaired drivers. They have asked for tough legislation, with mandatory minimums. The Prime Minister signed a letter prior to the election promising to introduce legislation with mandatory minimums, and Bill C-226 was that bill. Sadly, the Prime Minister has broken another promise by not supporting it.

The legalization of cannabis in Canada is being proposed through this bill, Bill C-45. Bill C-46 deals with the new impaired drivers who are expected to be on the road.

I listened intently to the justice minister and members on the other side, made notes, and tried to summarize what they were saying over and over again, which is to trust them and that they want to keep cannabis out of the hands of children, young Canadians, and organized crime. That is their motive.

This bill is being rushed, rammed through, with a promised end date of a normal two-year process. It will not be a two-year process. It will be ready and in place by July 1, Canada Day, of next year. Why the rush? Why are we telling the Senate, the new appointed, independent senators, that they must rush this through?

Why are we ignoring science? The government said it consulted thousands of Canadians. A parliamentary secretary of the government is a former police chief and clearly had a position that legalizing marijuana would not take it out of organized crime. Why the about-face? Why the one-eighty? We also saw the finance minister do an about-face on old age security once becoming a member of the government. It appears that the Prime Minister has an agenda to keep this as his number one promise: to legalize marijuana and to do it by July 1 of next year.

Is there truth behind the claim that it will keep cannabis out of the hands of children and young Canadians? What are the Liberals proposing? They are proposing that every household, including households with children, will be able to have four producing plants, and we know that four plants means 12 plants. There would be four producing plants up to a metre tall, then four plants that are halfway toward that, and plants that have just been planted so they can start growing and get ready for being harvested. We know through the medical marijuana program that four plants means 12 plants. Every home across Canada could legally have them. Is that going to keep cannabis out of the hands of children? A reasonable person would say no, that does not make any sense.

Youth aged 18 and older would be able to legally possess up to 30 grams. What is 30 grams? It is 60 joints. Right now, if Canadians are found with 60 joints, or 30 grams, in their possession, are they criminalized? I am sure many of us have spent time with the police and have seen how they handle illegal drugs. Are people stuck in jail and criminalized? No, the drugs are confiscated. Under Bill C-45, the drugs would not be confiscated anymore. People would be allowed to legally walk around with 60 joints in their pockets or backpacks if they were 18 and older. How about the 12-year-olds up to 18? They could have five grams legally. That is what is being proposed. Is that keeping it out of the hands of our children? Absolutely not.

There is a proverb, a wise saying, “A tree is known by its fruit.” What kind of fruit are we seeing in making it easier for children to have access to this? There are many situations where children do not have access to it. They now will have access to it.

Will it take it out of the hands of organized crime? According to the parliamentary secretary, a former police chief, no, it will not. According to experts, police, and people with law enforcement backgrounds in our caucus and in other caucuses, it will not take it out of their hands. Right now it is illegal. What is illegal now will be made legal. That is how they are dealing with the illegality problem. Organized crime will still want to make its money in some way.

We now can have 12-year-olds to 18-year-olds running around with five grams, 10 joints. It will be totally legal. It will not be confiscated. Eighteen-year-olds and older will have backpacks full of joints.

The government is saying that a majority of Canadians believe it should not be a criminal offence for youth to have cannabis. The option would be to decriminalize it. That has not been a proposal presented by the government. It would legalize it and make it available. People can grow it in every home. Children can have it in their possession legally, and it could not be confiscated. This is not what Canadians expected from the government. This has gone far beyond what is reasonable.

The government has also said that this new legislation is based on science and consultation. However, the consultation they received from law enforcement is that this is flawed. It will restrict their ability to take it out of the hands of children. It will restrict the opportunity to deal with children and say, “You cannot have this. This is bad for you.”

Science has said that it is bad for them. We have heard it time and again. The Canadian Medical Association has said that this is harmful for developing minds. The government is saying, “It may be, but we do not want them to have a criminal record”, which they are not going to get anyway. It will be confiscated.

What is being proposed by the government is not based on science. It is based on politics. It is based on political promises made during an election.

Will this make Canada safer? Will this help protect the health and safety of Canadians? Absolutely not. A reasonable person will say that this makes no sense. Why are they going ahead against science, against law enforcement, and risking the health and safety of Canadians?

I do not have time to get into the issue of road safety, with all these new impaired drivers on our roads and the cost to train police officers and the drug recognition experts, the DREs. There are no devices to determine whether a person is impaired. They could have these little strips that will indicate that there is marijuana in a person's system, but they do not determine whether there is impairment. It is going to be very difficult to get people who are truly impaired off the roads. We do not have the policing resources. What we have is legislation, Bill C-45, being rammed through by July 1 of next year, with no enforcement, no funding, no preparation, and no equipment to protect the health and safety of Canadians. I am shocked that the government is doing this, and I think Canadians are shocked too as they listen to this debate.

This will go on to the justice committee. It will be interesting to see whether the government is open to any amendments, because what it is proposing does not make sense. Canadians do not support this. They support taking time to do this right. I hope the government is flexible enough to listen to common sense, to be reasonable, and to base something on science that will be good for Canada and will truly protect our youth.

Criminal Code

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak on this important issue of impaired driving.

In a previous life, before being elected federally, I was an employee with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. One of my responsibilities was to try to make our streets safer. After every fatal accident in my area, I had to write a report on the causes, on why somebody died. It was often very simple issues, such as not wearing a seatbelt or there was impairment involved.

I would work with the local police and the RCMP. These were very sad stories, which were very traumatic for the families and very traumatic for the police officers and first responders from the fire department or with the ambulance service who were involved. It was very traumatic. The RCMP and police forces across Canada are recognizing the impact this has on first responders and the PTSD they are experiencing, too.

It is not a simple issue. It is a very complex issue when people drive impaired. Impairment can be caused by many things. It could be caused by a lack of sleep. It can be caused by forms of dementia or a loss of cognitive skills. It can be caused by prescription drugs. However, the focus of tonight's debate has to do with the use of drugs and alcohol, and legislative changes.

For the last three and a half years, I have been honoured to present petitions in the House. I have received hundreds of thousands of petitions from across Canada from an organization called Families for Justice.

A woman who lives in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove is Markita Kaulius. Markita and Victor lost their daughter Kassandra. I forget if she was just coming from a baseball game or going to a baseball game, but she was very engaged with the community. She was a beautiful young woman. Her life was tragically lost when, as she was driving through an intersection on a green light, somebody who was badly impaired from the use of alcohol blew the light and T-boned Kassandra and killed her. I forget the speeds that were involved, but it was a severe crash. The impaired driver ran from the scene and hid. He was caught, charged, and convicted.

As happens so often in Canada in the justice system, the person receives a sentence that will never bring the lost loved one back. There is no justice, in that sense. We cannot bring their loved one back. While the sentence may be conditional sentencing, house arrest, or just months, the family, for the rest of their lives, is going to have to deal with the loss of not being able to see that daughter graduate, get married, or have children. I am thinking of Kassandra, but to lose any loved one prematurely because they were killed by an impaired driver is a travesty. It happens way too often in this country.

Families for Justice has been presenting these petitions, with thousands of signatures, saying to Parliament, “Please, change the laws.” After presenting petitions time and time again and week after week in the last Parliament, the government introduced the impaired driving act. Unfortunately, it was at the end of the Parliament. To get legislation through, normally it takes two years. Since there were not two years left, it was not going to get through.

Families for Justice contacted all of the political leaders. It contacted the Conservative leader, the Liberal leader, and the NDP leader, and asked if they would support the legislation, the impaired driving act. To the Prime Minister's credit, he responded to Families for Justice, for Cassandra Kolias, and said he would support legislation like that. Sadly, we should call that what it is, vehicular homicide. If a person kills someone using a car, a 2,000-pound or 3,000-pound weapon, while impaired, the individual choosing to become intoxicated through a drug or a drink, driving a vehicle knowing that he or she is putting the community at risk, and then kills someone, there should be a consequence much more serious than a few months in jail. It asked for mandatory minimum sentencing and for calling it what it is: vehicular homicide.

The impaired driving act, as I said, at the end of the last Parliament had mandatory minimum sentencing. It did not call it vehicular homicide, but Families for Justice continued asking for it. It has a letter, which is a public document, from the Prime Minister, saying that he would support that type of legislation. The closest thing to it that has been received by Parliament was Bill C-226. Unfortunately, the government, which dominates the justice committee, all too often getting orders from the Prime Minister's Office on whether to support something or not, was directed not to support Bill C-226.

The government has introduced legislation that we are dealing with today, Bill C-46, which uniquely and not strangely, is tied at the hip with Bill C-45. Bill C-45 would make it legal for young drivers 18 years and older to smoke a joint, or a number of joints, and to possess 30 grams legally. The Canadian Medical Association is saying that it is dangerous, we should not do that, and that people should be at least 21. At age 25 and older, developing minds will not be affected as severely. It is recommending 25 as the ideal legal age, but would agree with 21. The government ignored the scientific evidence and has gone ahead with the age of 18. Has the government introduced legislation to protect our communities and keep our roads safer? No, it has not. We know from other jurisdictions that it will make our roads less safe with impaired drivers.

We have a problem with alcohol impairment, but we have some tools to indicate whether someone is impaired through blood alcohol testing and Breathalyzers. We have devices that test. Whether it is .05 or .08, we know if somebody is impaired. The government has suggested that it is going to pass this new legislation not within a two-year period, but within a one-year period. Why is that? Why would a government want to ram through, speed through, rush through legislation to have it in place by July 1 of next year? It is because it is the marijuana legislation, the one promise it will keep. Its flagship legislation in this Parliament is to legalize marijuana that will allow someone to smoke a bunch of joints. Someone can have 60 joints in his or her pocket, the car, or whatever, all totally legal if the person is age 18 or older. Someone cannot smoke 60 joints, so maybe he or she will be giving them to friends in the car and they will have a big party while driving. It is extremely dangerous.

The government then introduced Bill C-46, the impaired driving legislation, that would keep our roads safe.

Bill C-45 would legalize up to four marijuana plants to be grown in homes. However, are four plants four plants? No. We know through medical marijuana usage that four plants is 12 plants because they grow. There are crops. With a new seed, there are four plants, and when it is halfway grown, it will be another four. Mature plants that are producing will have another four plants. We know how the legislation works: four plants are 12 plants. There will be plants growing in homes where there are children. Does that protect our children? No. Does easy access to recreational marijuana being grown in homes make us safer? No. How about 18-year-olds with developing minds being able to smoke and drive? It creates a disaster scenario.

I think back to the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the Families for Justice saying that he would support this. Support what? Mandatory minimums. The Liberals believe that the courts needed some guidance. Courts need discretion to provide appropriate sentencing if someone is convicted of an impaired driving offence. We are now introducing even more impaired drivers, I believe, so the courts need guidance.

The government has said that it is going to increase the maximum. If someone is killed, the driver would get 14 years to life imprisonment. Let us look at how often people are being sentenced to 14 years. It is almost never. I would argue that we are not seeing that ever, so by increasing the maximum sentencing from 14 years to life, does that make our roads safer? It does not. These are horrendous crimes against society, taking the lives of Canadians, driving while impaired. Families for Justice is saying it should be called vehicular homicide and that there should be mandatory minimum sentences.

We know from the rulings of the Supreme Court on mandatory minimums that if people kill someone, they would receive at least five years. That is what was being asked for. If there were additional victims, there would be consecutive sentencing, a minimum sentence on top of a minimum sentence. There would not be any freebies. If they kill multiple people, they get multiple consequences. That is what Canadians believe is justice. My point is that we cannot bring back someone who has been lost, and there is tragedy and grief that comes to a family and anyone associated with that crash.

I want to share a little research that I did. We have a government that sadly, I believe, is a government of smoke and mirrors. The letter that the Prime Minister sent is another broken promise to a family who trusted him and hoped he would keep his word to provide the legislation that he promised. That is now a broken promise. Liberals are going to provide smoke-and-mirror legislation to legalize marijuana. One can have lots of marijuana from age 18 and on, but if they drive, they are going to pay the consequences. What kind of consequences will there be? If they kill someone, the maximum goes up to life. We know, through what is happening in the courts right now, there is a very minor consequence for killing someone.

This is a tragedy. How often is this happening in Canada? Impaired driving causing death is the number one criminal offence in Canada. We keep asking the government about how many times. How many times has the Ethics Commissioner met with the Prime Minister? He will not answer that. How many times are people being killed by an impaired driver every year in Canada? Is it a dozen? How serious is this problem? It is the number one criminal cause of death. That is not what I asked. I asked how many times. On average, 1,200 people die every year in Canada from impaired driving.

That means that three or four people die every day. Today, there will be three or four people killed by an impaired driver, and that is with alcohol. We will now add drugs, new drugged-up drivers, because of the legislation that the Liberals are introducing. It is a very serious problem.

I looked at this very interesting document, a report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Liberals have said they are back and that sunny days are here. Canadians are realizing that sunny days are not sunny days. Communities have to be sustainable, and the commissioner said this about previous Liberal governments.

The 1998 report said the Liberal government “is failing to meet its policy commitments”. In 1999, the report said there is “additional evidence of the gap between the [Liberal] government's intentions and its domestic actions. We are paying the price in terms of our health and our legacy for our children and grandchildren.” Does that sound familiar?

In 2000, it was that the government “continues to have difficulty turning...commitment into action”. In 2001, “the continued upward trend in Canada's emissions [demonstrates that] the government” has not transformed “its promises into results”. In 2002, the federal government's “sustainable development deficit” continues to grow. In 2003, it said there is gap between what the Liberal government said it will do and what it actually is doing. Good intentions are not enough. In 2004, why is the progress so slow? After all, the mandates and commitments are there. In 2005, it was that bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

That was the Chrétien Liberal government, the Paul Martin government, and here we are with another Liberal government. The Liberals are back, involved with controversy, concerns with the Ethics Commissioner, investigations, and smoke and mirrors. We are now talking about smoke and mirrors regarding the safety of our communities.

If legislation would be introduced to protect our communities, a reasonable person would say that if we are to have any enforcement, we have to have people trained. Remember the Phoenix system where people were not trained? It is a system where the Liberals will legalize marijuana for use and they will not have any approved devices to test and confirm impairment. They do for alcohol, but the new drug impairment testing has no approved devices and no new people are being trained.

A previous speaker talked about new costs to municipal governments. I was elected in 1990 until 2004, and I served on a municipal council. The Chrétien and Martin years were extremely difficult for those in municipal government because the Liberals kept downloading more and more. They would make announcement and they would download those costs on to local governments. The tradition is that the cost of infrastructure would be one-third, one-third, one-third. The local governments could plan for that, but not under the Liberal government. They would download those costs.

In the cloudy days that we see ahead there are impaired drivers and no new devices to determine whether they are impaired. There will be legal challenges on charges of impairment, and if we do not have an approved device, likely the government will not be successful. We do not have training. With regard to the police, the drug recognition experts, who will pay for the new officers, the training, the devices that are yet to exist?

One would think that the government would wait until the science is ready to support that with devices. The search for this device is not something new. Experts have been looking for this for the last 15 years. They cannot find a device that can be used to confirm impairment, and yet the government is moving ahead.

I will support it going to committee because at committee we will see how poorly planned this legislation is and how it will hurt Canadians. I wish the government was not doing this and had thought it through more carefully. It is a poorly hatched plan, and it likely will not be supported by a large number of members in this House in the future. However, at this point, we will support it going to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill C-226, which deals with random Breathalyzer tests, my understanding is that the member voted against that particular bill. I would be interested in hearing his explanation as to why he chose to vote that way.

We have organizations such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police saying that the legislation is in general very good. It is action that they have been calling for, something which the Conservatives sat on and did nothing about. Why would it not be a good thing to be responding to some of the needs that our professional organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, are calling upon the government to do?

Public Safety and National Security

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, April 3, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-226.

Impaired Driving

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the tragic death of Kassandra, who was struck by a drunk driver on May 3, 2011, when she was 22 years old.

Unfortunately, Markita Kaulius, Kassandra's mother, will be victimized again by the Liberals who, for purely partisan reasons, want to cut off debate on Bill C-226, an important bill that seeks to fight the scourge of impaired driving by dealing with repeat offenders.

I hereby ask all MPs present here today to first think of victims of impaired driving and their families and to vote tomorrow to support Bill C-226 to proceed to committee for further review so we can save lives.

Let us put partisanship aside for a moment. Let us put victims first and vote for Bill C-226.

Public Safety and National Security

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I am the one who moved the motion before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommending that the House not continue the study of Bill C-226, I would like to submit my arguments to the House out of respect for my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and to inform the House of the debate that took place in committee.

Driving while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol is a serious problem. Road crash victims and public safety officers need our support. The provisions on impaired driving are the most frequently challenged provisions of the Criminal Code. We therefore need a robust and comprehensive plan to strike a balance between public safety and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intent of Bill C-226 is very commendable. However, the bill's legal problems heavily outweigh its potential benefits. I want to talk about three problems with this bill.

First, there was the minimum sentences. The only group of witnesses who supports this measure in the bill is the group that helped the hon. member draft it. The other group that contributed to drafting the bill, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified against minimum sentences during review in committee. I would like to quote what some of the witnesses had to say about minimum sentences.

Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer at the National Office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said:

We also base our whole organization on evidence and policy. We can't find any deterrent effect for minimum mandatory penalties. That's one. The other issue is that in our legal analysis we don't believe it would withstand a charter challenge.

Michael Spratt, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said, “there are sections of the bill that are unquestionably unconstitutional”.

Abby Deshman, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the following:

First, simply put, mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They are ineffective and unjust. Decades of research has clearly shown that stiffer penalties do not deter crime.

Lastly, Micheal Vonn, from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, who was quoted by members across the way, said the following:

While failing to provide a benefit in deterrence, mandatory minimums create significant risk of harm. These include excessively punitive and unfair sentences....

The second problem is random breath testing, the centrepiece of this bill. There are two problems with this measure. We have no clear sense of what good it would do, and it, too, presents a constitutional risk. In most places where random breath testing has been introduced, there were few or no legislative measures to combat drunk driving beforehand. That was the case in Australia and Ireland, two countries that are mentioned frequently in random breath testing studies.

Here in Canada, we already have a system in place to combat drunk driving. We have all been stopped at roadblocks, and there is a legal framework in place for the use of Breathalyzers. That is why studies of the benefits of random breath testing are not really valid in the Canadian context. We do not know if this bill will have the intended effect because there are no studies that look into implementing random testing in places that already have measures to combat drunk driving.

In addition, what we need to remember about the studies in Australia and Ireland and the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

One of the constitutional problems related to random breath testing is that it is not truly random. It is being referred to as “random” only because the word appears in one of the bill's headings. That same mistake was made in the Australian legislation, and we need to avoid repeating it here in Canada.

In fact, under the proposed system, police officers would have the power to stop anyone on the road and subject them to testing. I have a great deal of respect for our law enforcement bodies, but near-absolute power such as this only invites abuse. We need to find a real solution, testing that really would be random. For instance, one out of every ten vehicles could be selected, or a binary light system could be used that would translate into a truly random, and also potentially more dissuasive, measure.

Lastly, I want to comment on support for victims. The third reason we recommend not sending this bill to committee is that it contains nothing for victims.

ôWe heard one truly heartbreaking testimony during the course of our study. I want to thank Sheri Arsenault and Markita Kaulius from Families for Justice and Patricia Hynes-Coates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who testified in committee. All three lost people near and dear to them to traffic accidents.

Ms. Arsenault, director of the Alberta chapter of Families for Justice, said:

Someone over there said that victims are given so little consideration, and that is very true. Offenders have every right in the world. They have a right to an expert defence. They have a right to appeal. The victim has one right. My one right is to prepare a victim impact statement and present it.

My colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has very personal experience with this. I would like to take this moment to commend his daughters who, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, chair public consultations on road safety. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to help the victims. I think it would have been useful to include measures against the phenomena of victimization during court testimony, for example.

In closing, since it was introduced as a private member's bill, it was not subject to the Department of Justice's examination under the Department of Justice Act in order to determine if it is consistent with the charter. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would have liked to have had the chance to read the opinion on the constitutionality of Bill C-73, the version of the bill introduced when the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was still the minister, but we were not able to access it.

Furthermore, with the exception of random breath testing, representatives of MADD told the committee that even if all these measures were found to be valid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they would not have much of an impact on impaired driving and the resulting collisions, deaths, and injuries.

For all these reasons, I encourage the members to support the committee's report and not proceed further with the study of this bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw members' attention to one part of the report that we tabled. Even though we are proposing not to proceed with the study of Bill C-226, we recommend that the government introduce solid legislative measures in order to reduce the prevalence of impaired driving as quickly as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on speaking tonight, but after hearing the words of the parliamentary secretary, I felt it was necessary to respond to some of the things that were said.

I am very pleased to be supporting this initiative by my colleague. I spoke in favour of it at second reading. The arguments that are being used against this bill so badly miss the mark and yet more subtly reveal a very troubling attitude of the government and, unfortunately in this case even the NDP, toward private members' business and toward the way in which we should work together in this House.

It has been pointed out that this bill would make substantial changes to our legal framework. Well, I would like to see more private members' bills that make substantive changes. We have a lot of private members' bills that simply recognize things without changing laws, and that is okay, but let us celebrate the fact that a colleague actually took the time to have detailed legislation. That is what private members' business is for. It is the one avenue where individual members of Parliament can put their ideas before the House that reflect things that they are hearing.

It is not sufficient for a parliamentary secretary to say that this is complex so we need a government-led initiative. We are here representing our constituents. Individual members should use this channel for important, substantial proposals, and it is just not good enough to dismiss it that way. If the Liberals do not like it, they should argue against the substance of it, not simply say that they are going to come up with a government-led initiative later on. This is just disgusting, divisive partisanship. Members should argue against the bill if they do not like it, but they should not dismiss it on that basis.

The parliamentary secretary went through and identified all of the different positive aspects of this legislation without seeming to appreciate the fact that he could have proposed substantive amendments to the legislation, rather than just proposing that it be dismissed in its entirety.

Members of the government and of the NDP have argued against higher mandatory minimums. I only have 10 minutes, so I am not going to go into the mandatory minimums debate. I know it is a complex one. It speaks to deeper philosophical ideas about criminal justice, and yes, that is something addressed in this bill, but there is a critical part of this bill which is mandatory screening that is so important, that we know will save lives. If the government members have an issue with the mandatory minimums section, they could have proposed an amendment in committee, or they could propose a report stage amendment to strike the relevant clauses, but let us have the discussion. Let us move forward on mandatory screening.

Let us remember that this is something that was supported in a previous Parliament by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It recommended mandatory screening because that committee was able to, through its study, identify that this is an initiative that saves lives. We know that mandatory screening would save lives. We have seen the evidence from a wide variety of jurisdictions. This has been studied by various committees. Now let us move forward with this because we know the impact that it would have.

Going through the arguments that we have heard, it is unbelievable to me. The government said that the process for a government bill involves a more robust parliamentary record and this requires the involvement of government lawyers. There is the opportunity for all kinds of different people to provide that same kind of evidence through the parliamentary process envisioned and created by a private member's bill.

Let us remember also that the member proposing this is a former public safety minister. He is not somebody who is new to this House, although if he were, I still would say the member has a right to bring forward substantive legislation. He is a member who has experience in this area, who has worked with bureaucrats and public servants on these issues. He has more experience in cabinet and more experience directly being responsible for these files than the parliamentary secretary has, who denounced this bill with his mealy-mouthed bureaucratic words that do not actually deal with the substance of the legislation. Let us actually dig into this discussion. Let us actually talk about the bill and let us move it forward.

The best thing the government can come up with are these small, around-the-edges arguments, such as the coming-into-force date is too soon. Well, change the coming-into-force date if that is such a big problem. We are talking about legislation that all the evidence shows will save hundreds of lives. If the government's problem is the coming-into-force date and that is its basis for wanting to tear up an opposition private member's bill, I do not think that is the real reason. What we heard from the parliamentary secretary is that the Liberals are going to have a government-led initiative later on. If this is about taking the political credit for it, then this makes sense from the Liberals' way of thinking. They want to throw out an opposition bill so that they can bring forward government legislation. I do not care who gets the credit for this bill; let us just get it done.

The government has not proposed any legislation yet. If it was in such a hurry on this, if it thought mandatory screening was a good idea, it should have proposed legislation by now. If not, let us move forward with this bill. Let us expedite this bill. We will give the Liberals full credit for supporting this bill if they do the right thing. It is not about who gets the credit. This is too important. It does not matter if it is a government-led initiative or an initiative led by a private member. This is something that needs to get done, because it is going to save lives.

We heard an argument from the NDP that I want to address. My friend from Victoria expressed the concern that added police powers may have a negative impact on minority communities. These are concerns that need to be considered and taken seriously, but there is absolutely nothing about mandatory screening that in any way fundamentally affects those concerns one way or the other. There is the concern now of the possibility of profiling. There will also be a concern afterward about the possibility of profiling, but I would argue that we are better off, even on that score, under this legislation.

Right now, a person can only be legally asked for a Breathalyzer if an officer has a certain degree of suspicion. Is there a worry that certain perceptions, certain negative stereotypes, might inform whether officers think they have probable cause? There is that possibility, but if there is mandatory screening, and everyone who goes through a checkstop is screened, that actually creates a much greater level of equality. That creates an equal playing field. Notwithstanding the importance of those concerns and the need to discuss them in an ongoing way, this bill is actually a positive step with respect to those things. In any event, it certainly does not make things worse. Yes, we need to talk about concerns about profiling, but there is no way in which Bill C-226 changes those dynamics whatsoever.

These are just fundamentally bad arguments we are hearing from the other side, not just arguments I disagree with but poorly formed arguments that talk about issues that are completely unrelated to the substance of the issue. That the parliamentary secretary says the things he says is dismissive of the role of private members, of the legitimate channel of private members' business, and of the real experience of this private member, who is a former public safety minister. He understands these issues. The parliamentary secretary clearly is either not understanding the issues or is glued to talking points he has been given by the minister.

We have to move forward. Again, I do not care who takes the credit here. This is about lives. If there is a government-led initiative, it should have proposed it by now, and if there is not, let us move forward with a piece of legislation that is already on the table. Let us have a vote. I call on members of the government. Clearly, the cabinet members are not going to change their minds, but members of the government, members who have exercised their legitimate rights and independence before, have this opportunity to stand up for the legitimacy of using private members' business to make substantive legislative changes but also to stand up for a simple initiative that is constitutional. Peter Hogg says it is constitutional. It is effective, it is efficient, and we know it will save lives. When this measure comes to a vote, it is up to those members to decide whether we take the action we need to take or not, because lives will depend on how those members vote.