Bill C-46 (Historical)

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

Part 1 amends the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to drug-impaired driving. Among other things, the amendments
(a) enact new criminal offences for driving with a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to establish blood drug concentrations; and
(c) authorize peace officers who suspect a driver has a drug in their body to demand that the driver provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 2 repeals the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to conveyances, including those provisions enacted by Part 1, and replaces them with provisions in a new Part of the Criminal Code that, among other things,
(a) re-enact and modernize offences and procedures relating to conveyances;
(b) authorize mandatory roadside screening for alcohol;
(c) establish the requirements to prove a person’s blood alcohol concentration; and
(d) increase certain maximum penalties and certain minimum fines.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-46. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in Amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-46, in Clause 31.1, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 41 with the following:

“ed by this Act that includes an evaluation of whether the provisions have resulted in differential impacts on particular groups likely to be targeted based on prohibited grounds of discrimination, and prepare a report setting out”

She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to my amendments to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

That is a very benign title. It does not tell us what we are debating. We are debating a bill that would deal with, I think all of us in the House can agree, the critical issue of doing whatever we can to reduce the loss of life and accidents, which are so damaging to society, caused by people who drink and drive or drive under the influence of other intoxicants. The bill deals with substance abuse and getting behind the wheel of a car.

We all know the statistics, but they are absolutely devastating to imagine, as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a group I support, points out. Mothers Against Drunk Driving's estimate is that in Canada, every day, on average, four people are killed in automobile crashes. If we had the kind of attention and immediate review of auto crashes and people killed in auto crashes that we do for people travelling on public transit, such as airplanes, we would be made aware on a daily basis that our publicly accepted system of transport is lethal.

Our society is built around the car. Our transportation networks are built around the car. We do not seem to mind the idea that our everyday method of getting from A to B involves a significant risk of death. We take it as something that is just one of those risks we live with. A car is very powerful, and potentially a killing machine.

In 2012, 2,546 Canadians died in automobile crashes, but to the point of today's bill, 58.8% of those crashes involved a driver who had had at least some measurable intoxicant in his or her system.

In 2015, beyond those accidents that involve fatalities, a total of over 72,000 impaired driving incidents happened across Canada. What is interesting is that the statistics reflect that this is a significant improvement, with 65% fewer incidents than in 1986. Therefore, the measures we are taking make a difference, as does the awareness that drinking and driving is not acceptable. Blood alcohol levels and roadside screening make a difference.

There is no question that we want to support measures that would ensure that Canadians who have had any measurable intoxicants do not get behind the wheel of a car, that their friends stop them, that the guy at the bar stops them, and that their own concern that they will be hit with serious penalties and jail time will stop them.

Now I will go to the bill and the reasons I have submitted the amendments. I support Bill C-46. Unlike some of the experts I will mention, I will vote for Bill C-46 even unamended, but here at report stage, I want to raise the concerns again. There are significant concerns from the Criminal Lawyers' Association and civil liberties associations that the bill would go too far and would end up being challenged in the courts. That is because it involves, without the proper constraints, random breath testing, as opposed to selective breath testing.

I have gone through the evidence very carefully. It is clear that there are a lot of statistics that say that when this jurisdiction or that jurisdiction brought in random breath testing, drunk driving incidence went down. The people who study this say that we do not actually have good numbers that compare the results of selective breath testing and random breath testing to conclude that we could not have gotten the same result with selective breath testing.

What is the difference? If we have selective breath testing, we set up a roadside check, stop every driver, and look at every driver at a stationary vehicle check. We have seen roadside testing set up in different locations, particularly on evenings when people are more likely to have been out having something to drink or ingesting substances that are intoxicants before driving. The roadside testing is very effective. Selective testing is effective.

This law would go further, and this is where the various legal societies I have mentioned are concerned. Let me quote from the brief of the Criminal Lawyers' Association submitted to the committee back in September. It states:

We are also deeply concerned by the new random breath-testing regime. Increasing police powers do not come without societal costs. The experience of ‘carding’ or ‘street checks’ is instructive on how the exercise of police authority can disproportionately affect visible minorities.

Bill C-46 amounts to carding while in a car. It will inevitably disproportionately be employed against minority or marginalized communities.

A policy expert with the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Doug Beirness, was even more blunt. He stated:

...there is nothing truly random about random breath testing. The term random is used in place of more accurate and contentious descriptors, such as arbitrary or capricious.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association went on to say, “a full review of the evidence”, over 23 studies, “does not provide convincing evidence that implementing [random breath testing] will necessarily have a greater impact on drinking and driving than Canada's current [selective breath-testing] system.”

My concerns are twofold. We should never pass legislation in this House that has a good public purpose, and I do not think any of us for one second will deny the importance of the public purpose, that has a significant risk of being derailed in the courts. Looking at the evidence put before the justice committee, I think this bill has a significant risk of being derailed in the courts. Likewise, we should do whatever we can to moderate the impacts of increased police powers and the risks of randomness.

I have been wondering if I should share this story with my colleagues in Parliament, and I think I will. More than 40 years ago, when I was living in a small village on Cape Breton Island, we had very limited RCMP protection. There was one detachment. My brother is younger than I am, and in those days, he had long hair. It was unusual in this particular community to have long hair. Every single time he went anywhere, he was pulled over by the RCMP. As I said, we had very limited RCMP protection, and it was very hard to get the RCMP when we were, for instance, in the middle of a store robbery, which also occurred in my family's business.

I love the RCMP. The members are wonderful, but I know for a fact that there is such a thing as selectively pulling people over, over and over again, and never finding anything. It is a form of harassment. For marginalized communities within Canada, I am very concerned about discriminatory and preferential random searches of particular marginalized groups. We know this happens. If we look at the statistics of who is in our prisons, overwhelmingly it is people of colour and indigenous people. It is not reflective of society as a whole. We know this about carding and urban police forces.

It is clear to me that there is going to be an increased problem for marginalized communities and a sense of being harassed. Therefore, I commend to members my second amendment, which is that when this process is reported back to Parliament, and this is my amendment to clause 31.1, there be an evaluation of whether the provisions have resulted in differential impacts on particular groups likely to be targeted based on prohibited grounds of discrimination and that a report set that out for us.

This will be a test for us as a society. I have no doubt that this bill will pass unamended. I am making an effort here, because I would like us to think about what happens when random breath testing is not random. As much as the societal purpose is overwhelmingly in the right direction, to get people who are drinking or intoxicated off the roads and to not let them get behind the wheel of a car, in this case, we should think twice and make the bill constitutional before we pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to sit on the justice committee on Bill C-46. However, I was quite shocked at the position of members across the way from the Liberal Party that they believed the current mandatory minimum sentencing of $1,000 fine for driving impaired and killing somebody was quite satisfactory. Unfortunately, the Liberal members did not want to increase that. We heard from a number of Canadian groups who believe this is blatantly unjust, particularly family members who have lost a loved one, to say that a minimum sentence of $1,000 fine for killing someone is just.

I would ask the member representing the Green Party of Canada if she feels those mandatory minimums for killing somebody while driving drunk are satisfactory.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to approach this on the basis of the impact societally of mandatory minimums. The overwhelming evidence from experts in criminology is that mandatory minimums do not work as a deterrent, and that mandatory minimums have an effect of skewing our judicial system so that a judge has less discretion in perhaps giving more significant penalties. In some states, for instance, Texas, they have stopped using mandatory minimums. They increase the discretion of a prosecutor to work with a defendant to force a result before it even goes to trial, and in some cases, allow a lesser penalty.

I know that my hon. friend for Langley—Aldergrove disagrees. However, I would rather see our courts apply the sentences based on a judge looking at the severity of the crime. I am also offended when someone who has killed someone while drinking and driving is let off with a light sentence. My disagreement with my friend for Langley—Aldergrove is that I do not think mandatory minimum sentences are the solution.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned as well, and not just about the random testing. When we look at traffic fatalities in Canada, we know that 16% of them are alcohol related, 24% are drug related, and another 18% are a combination of the two. What is troubling to me is the hypocrisy of legalizing marijuana, which is going to increase the amount of impaired drug driving, when there is not even a test for impairment. Whether the tests are random or not, there is no test for impairment with marijuana.

Would the member comment that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is correct that cannabis is to be legalized. However, the evidence is conflicting. We certainly do know that intoxication with cannabis and intoxication with alcohol have very different physiological impacts, and the blood tests are different. For instance, blood alcohol levels diminish much more quickly than residues of cannabis and THC in the system, which can be present for days and when a person is no longer intoxicated. A person behind the wheel of a car while having ingested cannabis is more likely to drive more slowly. The person may not be a safe driver, but is unlikely to do what people who have been drinking do, as we know historically, which is to drive more recklessly and faster.

The work is being done, and I am satisfied that we will see ways to analyze the intoxication of people who have ingested cannabis. I am more concerned—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments on this bill, which I think are largely constructive, and her amendments reflect a legitimate worry. However, I take issue with one concern the member has, which is that this proposed legislation would be challenged in the courts.

I can personally guarantee that this will be challenged in the courts. There is not a scintilla of doubt in mind that this will be challenged. I recollect the time when 0.08% was put in the Criminal Code, and it was challenged every which way from Sunday.

I would ask the hon. member this. Should Parliament still not face up to the larger public purpose of putting forward this legislation, and how the courts deal with it is how the courts deal with it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I confess very honestly that this bill has led me to be torn. I have debated very strongly. I will vote for it if it is put forward without my amendments. I know that some of the experts before the justice committee urged that we not pass it without the amendments. I think the larger public purpose is so significant that the courts may or may not find that it is constitutional. There is that doubt.

I think the bill could have been constructed to ensure that the random nature of roadside screening have more surrounding it and include reasonable and probable grounds, so that police personnel would have enhanced access to breath screening, and blood drug and alcohol analysis at the roadside. I agree with all of that. The question is if the screening is not truly random and is targeting certain marginalized groups, I think that would increase the likelihood that it would be overturned in the courts. That is something that I think we could have addressed in amendments.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her constructive input.

At the same time, for the reasons that follow, we will be encouraging all members to vote down the amendment and to vote for the bill in its current form.

I also just want to take a moment to address some of the comments that were raised by my hon. colleagues from the Conservative opposition. I would encourage them to read the bill very carefully, because imbedded within some of those questions were, at a minimum, some inaccurate assumptions about mandatory minimum penalties as they apply to the impaired driving regime, as well as whether or not we have the sufficient technology to test for impairment as we usher in a new era with regard to the strict regulation of cannabis. Obviously by doing so and by reflecting on the language of that bill carefully, my hope is that we will elevate debate in this House, in the interest of keeping our roads safe while at the same time safeguarding individual liberties.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill will bring about the most important changes addressing alcohol and drug impaired driving since 1969 when Parliament enacted the offence of driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, and authorized the police to demand a breath sample on an approved instrument.

Today, I will focus my remarks on the proposal in the bill that would authorize a police officer to demand a breath sample from any driver without needing to suspect that the driver had alcohol in their body. In Bill C-46, this is called mandatory alcohol screening, as members have heard. The enforcement tool was pioneered by Australia more than 30 years ago. It has now spread to New Zealand, the European Union, and dozens of other countries.

Since then, mandatory alcohol screening has been widely credited with dramatically reducing rates of impaired driving and saving many thousands of lives, as the member herself acknowledged.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had considered mandatory alcohol screening when it held hearings on alcohol impaired driving in 2008 and 2009. In its 2009 report entitled, “Ending Alcohol-impaired Driving: A common approach”, the standing committee unanimously recommended that random roadside breath testing be put in place.

During its extensive hearings on Bill C-46, the standing committee heard numerous witnesses on the subject of mandatory alcohol screening. Professor Robert Solomon, who has written many articles on mandatory alcohol screening, as well eminent constitutional scholars like Professor Peter Hogg spoke in favour of mandatory alcohol screening.

Representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association expressed some concerns with mandatory alcohol screening.

The standing committee also heard from Australian experts about how mandatory alcohol screening works in that country, and its effectiveness in reducing deaths and injuries.

I believe it is fair to say that the arguments of opponents to mandatory alcohol screening were based partly on their claim that it is not needed in Canada, as our current system of roadside screening based on suspicion is just as effective and that mandatory alcohol screening would have a disproportionate effect on visible minorities.

With respect to the effectiveness of Canada's current suspicion-based system, it is important not only to look at the reductions in impaired driving that have occurred in Canada over the past 20 or 30 years, but also to consider Canada's alcohol impaired driving laws and how they fare when compared to other countries. The comparison is grim.

As Professor Solomon told the standing committee:

Our current law has left Canada with one of the worst impaired driving records among comparable countries. Consistent with earlier studies, the United States Centers for Disease Control reported that Canada had the highest percentage of alcohol-related crash deaths among 20 high-income countries in 2013. Although Canadians drink considerably less than their counterparts, they're much more likely to die in an alcohol-related crash. For example, Canada’s per capita rate of alcohol-related crash deaths is almost five times that of Germany, even though Canadians consume 33% less alcohol. They drink more, we die more.

The laws in these other countries do a far better job than the laws in Canada of separating drinking from driving. Not coincidentally, 17 of those 19 countries have comprehensive mandatory alcohol screening programs.

These are the words of Professor Solomon, not any parliamentarian, a respected scholar.

Professor Solomon pointed out to the committee that the experience of other countries shows that going from suspicion-based roadside screening to mandatory screening has had a significant effect in reducing impaired driving deaths and injuries. He stated:

The assertion that there is no direct evidence that mandatory alcohol screening is better than selective breath testing, the system we currently have, is simply false. The sharp decreases in fatal crashes that occurred in Queensland, Western Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland occurred after those jurisdictions moved from selective breath testing to mandatory alcohol screening, exactly what would occur in Canada if the mandatory alcohol screening provisions in Bill C-46 were enacted.

Again, those were the words of Professor Solomon.

The standing committee also heard from Dr. Barry Watson of Queensland University of Technology. Dr. Watson explained the evolution of impaired driving legislation in Queensland and the effect of various countermeasures. Queensland introduced breath testing in the late 1960s, as did Canada. Queensland then introduced a program called reduced impaired driving, or RID. The police could randomly pull over other drivers, but could only breath test those they suspected of drinking. This is the system we currently have in Canada.

Finally, Queensland introduced mandatory alcohol screening in 1988. Dr. Watson's evidence strongly supports that mandatory alcohol screening is more effective than suspicion-based alcohol screening. He told the standing committee, “the introduction of random breath testing was associated with a further 18% decline in fatalities over and above what was the case when the sobriety checkpoint program was in place.” We can and must do better than we are, and I submit we should follow the example of these other jurisdictions that have been most successful in reducing the painful toll taken by alcohol-impaired driving. That means adopting mandatory alcohol screening.

More troubling is the concern expressed by several witnesses that mandatory alcohol screening would lead to racial profiling. This is a concern that we all share. We all know that there have been well-documented cases of police forces disproportionately carding or pulling over persons of colour. As my colleague made mention, there are indeed concerning statistics with respect to the overrepresentation of our indigenous and racialized communities in our jails. Let me be clear. Racial profiling is an abuse of police power. It is unacceptable. However, there is nothing in Bill C-46 that condones or promotes racial profiling.

Our government was aware that this criticism had been levelled at the provision authorizing mandatory alcohol screening in a former private member's bill, Bill C-226. Consequently, our government, in Bill C-46, proposed to specify that a police officer can only make a demand as follows:

in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law....

I pause to emphasize that passage, because it underscores that our government places a great value in ensuring that all law enforcement, and indeed all law state actors, exercise their powers in accordance with the law and the charter.

For further clarity, our government supports the introduction of an amendment to the bill's preamble, which serves as an interpretive aid for our courts. The amendment, which was adopted at committee, stated, “it is important that law enforcement officers...exercise investigative powers in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Let me take a moment to refer to one last example of how this technology and these standards are working in other jurisdictions. The experience of Ireland supports the opinion of other witnesses who have testified, and other experts. There was an increase of about 10% in charges in the first year after Ireland introduced mandatory alcohol screening, but the number of charges have decreased steadily since then as Irish drivers have become aware of the new law. In fact, the number of charges in Ireland fell by almost 65% in the 10 years following the introduction of mandatory screening.

I believe that our courts will be able to cope with any increase in charges, because many provisions in Bill C-46 would address issues that have been causing delay, particularly with respect to disclosure, proof of blood alcohol concentration, the elimination of the bolus drinking defence, and restriction of the intervening drink defence.

In closing, I want to again thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks. They were thoughtful, careful, and balanced. However, even she conceded that there is a good faith attempt here to strike the balance between the need to keep our roads safe while at the same time respecting an individual's charter rights. I encourage her to support the bill.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke a lot about alcohol, but not at all about marijuana. We have 253 days remaining before the Liberal government legalizes marijuana. What test will be used by police and the RCMP across the country to test for marijuana impairment, and what is the limit that will be considered the maximum allowable?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that after careful consideration of expert evidence as well as development of new technologies, we will have the appropriate roadside screening device testing abilities to ensure we can measure impairment as it relates to cannabis. Indeed, this is a fundamental part of ushering in a new strict regime when it comes to regulating access to cannabis.

We know that the current approach to regulating cannabis is not working. I have experience in the criminal courts with respect to this. I am very proud of the work this government is doing to ensure we keep cannabis out of the hands of our children and keep our roads safe. This bill would accomplish both of those important objectives.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from my hon. colleague who asked about marijuana and roadside tests. I was at the justice committee meetings when we heard from the Australian police about their roadside tests. We also heard from an expert from a university in California, whose studies have to do with the relationship between impairment and what we get from drug tests for THC levels in blood and mouth swabs. Basically, there is no good test right now. There is not even any hint that we will have a good test in the next year or 10 years, because of the way that THC works in the body's physiology.

What test is the member talking about? We heard of nothing of the sort in committee.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through those same committee meetings, and I have to correct my hon. colleague. There was indeed much testimony in the way that technologies are used in other jurisdictions and how they are evolving and improving. We have something called oral fluid drug screeners, which will allow law enforcement actors to measure THC levels. We will ensure that we have an appropriate threshold to measure what impairment is for the purposes of keeping our roads safe.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to read the bill very carefully and to follow the debate as it evolves in this House. We are going to get this right. I am very proud of the work this government is doing to move forward with a cannabis and drug impairment regime that all Canadians can be proud of.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the justice committee and sat through the hearings on this important bill. We heard over and over in testimony that it is the fear of getting caught that will be the most effective way to reduce impaired driving on our roads.

Can my colleague explain how this bill would increase the likelihood of people feeling more fearful that they would get caught if they are impaired drivers, and how that would reduce the incidents of impaired driving on our roads?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for all the work he does on the justice committee. I have been privy to the questions that he poses, and they are thoughtful and certainly elevate the level of discourse in that body.

In answer to his question, this goes right to the core rationale of having a mandatory screening test available to our police officers. If the public is aware that for the purposes of keeping streets safe a police officer can inquire into whether someone has consumed alcohol, I would argue that one is less likely to consume alcohol before they get behind the wheel. That is how we keep our roads safer. Other jurisdictions have integrated similar approaches, and we have seen impaired driving rates come down.

Canada is learning from those examples. We are studying those examples, using them to inform our debate here, and they are informed by the language of the text in this bill, which I encourage all members to support.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Some of the areas I am going to address today have already been raised. The parliamentary secretary was just talking about one of these areas because the question was raised by a number of my colleagues. It was about measuring the level of impairment that people have. This is just one of the issues we are going to have to deal with. Part of the problem is the government's intention to ram this legislation through by July 1, 2018. In my opinion, the Liberals are not taking into consideration the increased risks to the health and safety of Canada.

The Liberals may say that this is a wonderful thing on Canada's birthday. What better way to celebrate it, they would argue, than legalizing marijuana and allowing grow-ops in people's homes? However, we heard quite a bit of testimony that there are concerns with respect to the government's pushing through both of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. They go together.

For instance, the Canadian police services have asked that this legislation be delayed until there is adequate training and resources put in place. The parliamentary secretary said they are going to be up and ready to go and that we do not have to worry about all the tests and everything else, but those on the front line are quite concerned. The Liberal government, in addition, has not taken the necessary steps to put in effective educational campaigns for Canadians, despite statistics that show the increase in fatalities due to drug-impaired driving. There is no greater risk that a person can have, among many things, than to get killed by impaired driving. This is one of the huge problems that this country has faced. Mandatory roadside testing and the vast number of officers who remain insufficiently trained to detect impaired drivers is another issue that is not being addressed by the government.

In addition, the government has refused to mandate the proper storage of cannabis in homes. The growing concern among jurisdictions where marijuana is already legal is that it is drawing more organized crime to operate the grow-ops and produce pot for illicit markets. This is one of the things that people told me when I was justice minister. They said that pot is the currency for guns and harder drugs coming into this country. They said that a lot of criminals do not send cheques anymore; the marijuana grown in Canada is what criminals use to buy illegal drugs and guns that come into Canada. This was completely unaddressed by the government, and I would suggest it has been ignored; it does not even play into this. My concern is that this will increase the possibility of danger that exists when we get illegal drugs and guns into this country.

Police services from across this country were very clear that the government should delay the legalization of marijuana to allow law enforcement services the adequate time they need to handle this new law. There is no chance, in my opinion, that police will be ready; I think they have it right. However, the Liberals are hell-bent on ramming this legislation through. They are not heeding those warnings from law enforcement officials. In my opinion, this puts a greater risk on the health and safety of Canadians.

The National Association of Chiefs of Police estimates that there are at least 2,000 trained officers. In July 2017, the numbers indicated that there are only 600 trained recognition experts here. They are not even close to having the number they need. Susan MacAskill, from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, reiterated that the Breathalyzer will not detect drugs and that marijuana can be detected through a roadside saliva test. She said that it would cost $17,000 to train one person to be a drug recognition expert, and the government needs to make sure that those resources are in place to allow the training of 1,200 more officers that will be needed by the deadline.

She went on to say, “If every officer can have that (disposable saliva test) in their vehicle it will certainly have a positive impact on road safety.” Unfortunately, the Liberals have not been listening to their own experts. They have been unrealistic on what is taking place.

Again, a couple of my colleagues highlighted how difficult it would be. That is one of the things I point out for my colleague who sits on the justice committee. We heard time and again different amounts, how much marijuana, how long it would be in someone's system, what the combination between that and alcohol would be. Again, it is very problematic and I would urge the government not to push forward with the July 1 deadline.

The provincial premiers have warned the government that they may not be ready with provincial laws and regulations. Their fears are not without reason. After Washington State legalized marijuana, the death toll on its highways doubled and the fatal vehicle crashes on Colorado highways tripled. Equally concerning is that the Liberals have not launched an extensive marijuana and impaired driving education and awareness program as recommended by their own task force. It is easy to say that they ignored it because the Conservatives told them they should do it, but their own task force told them what to do.

The Canadian Automobile Association supports the findings. Jeff Walker, CAA vice-president, is quoted as saying, “It's clear from the report that work needs to start immediately in these areas, and that the actual legalization should not be rushed.” The task force also concluded that youth underestimated the risk of cannabis use. We heard this on a number of occasions, that some young people believed their ability to drive a car would be enhanced by smoking marijuana.

There are problems with the government moving forward on this. The government continuously says that it is concerned about the access to children, yet the age limits in the legislation are completely at odds with that. I ask my colleagues on the other side to consider this. What could be more accessible for young people to get marijuana if their parents have a small grow op in the kitchen? We urged the Liberals to make changes on that, and they did. They said that three foot plants would not be enough so it increased the height of them. How will this help our children?

This will be problematic for the people who have become victimized by impaired driving. We brought forward amendments to increase the penalties for those people who drove while impaired and killed someone. They should have to face up to the consequences of what they have done. Again, the Liberals have ignored that.

Just because the Conservatives have said there will be big problems with that, they will not listen. I understand we are in opposition and they do not have to listen to us. However, they should listen to police forces across the country. They should listen to our provincial counterparts and those who are concerned about impaired driving. They should listen to them for a change. I think Liberals will come to the right conclusion that for the bill should not be pushed forward by July 1of next year.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. neighbour from Niagara Falls talked about access to cannabis. I went to school with the hon. member's kids and I am sure there was access to alcohol in his house, a drug at least as dangerous as cannabis, and his kids grew up great and are incredible adults.

With respect of our government's commitment to police forces, $274 million are committed so they will be ready to implement this legislation. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to listened to the expert testimony at committee. People were were quite concerned that the forces would not be ready to enforce this law by July next year. The member said that if people had some alcohol in their houses, that this was the same as having a a small grow op. I do not get that all. Alcohol can be a problem in households, so the Liberals say that they will solve those problems by having a small grow op, and maybe the kids will not go after the alcohol and instead they will check on what is happening in the kitchen. I cannot buy that.

We asked the Liberals make changes. Yes, they made changes. They want to increase the size of the plants in the grow op in the kitchen. This is a huge mistake. I ultimately hope that my neighbour will come to the same conclusion that I, most of my colleagues, and many people across the country have come to, which is that this will to be a disaster.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I often get to stand in the House to talk about the great statistics from my province of Saskatchewan . Unfortunately, however, according to Statistics Canada figures last year, my province had the highest rate of impaired driving in Canada, .

Previous governments have been ineffective in lowering impaired driving rates. Would my hon. colleague join with me in asking the government to include increased funding so governments can work better with community partners to reduce impaired driving in general?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I made very clear in my opening remarks that more funding had to go into this area to ensure the right education programs and the right training were in place. These things are necessary.

I reach out to the hon. member. She mentioned the terrible problem of impaired driving in her province. I can, without doubt, guarantee that it will get worse if people are legally smoking dope, in addition to drinking alcohol. We heard testimony at committee about how difficult it would be to get a quick test and the effects of combining smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. Experts told us that the impact of marijuana was very precise at the beginning, but it remained in the body for quite some time. Many people do not realize that. What will be the effect of that be when they start to drink later on?

Impaired driving is a terrible problem. When we were government, we addressed many aspects of this. The amendments we brought forward in committee would ensure that the message would get out that there would serious consequences for people who were involved with impaired driving. I fear that with the Liberals pushing the marijuana bill through in the next few months in time for Canada Day, the problem of impaired driving will get worse.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more important than the bill before the House today, Bill C-46, which deals with changes to the impaired driving laws in Canada to deal with not only drug impairment but increased sanctions on those who drive while impaired by alcohol. The NDP has long stood for improving this through legislation, smarter deterrence to deal with the tragedies taking place on our roadsides every day.

Professor Robert Solomon testified at the justice committee, which I had the honour to sit on during the testimony for most of this. He has long acted for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and put it very well. He said, “It's difficult to see how anyone can credibly make that claim”, the claim that the Criminal Lawyer's Association and others have made that mandatory alcohol testing is not necessary. He says:

...impairment-related crashes kill about 1,000 Canadians a year, injure almost another 60,000 more, a disproportionate percentage of whom are teenagers and young adults....Our current law has left Canada with one of the worst impaired driving records among comparable countries.

The enormity of the problem with which the bill is attempting to grapple is not lost upon us. However, we have great concerns about the mandatory alcohol testing to which Professor Solomon has testified.

The NDP leader, Mr. Jagmeet Singh, has been outspoken during his time in the Ontario legislature about the ability of the police to go after people simply on the basis of their race, be they indigenous, black, or Canadians of other minorities. The discriminatory police practice of carding has been central to his work in the Ontario legislative assembly. Mr. Singh says, “As Prime Minister, I'll enact a Federal Ban on Racial Profiling” to end it once and for all.

I raise this because of the potential of this mandatory alcohol screening that proposed section 320.27 of the bill would implement for the first time in Canada. We heard many witnesses at the committee, and after the break I will go back and talk about this in more detail. As long as the police have the ability to stop someone on a whim, that discretion can and will be abused.

Currently under the law as it exists, one has to have reasonable suspicion before stopping someone. If one no longer has to have that reasonable suspicion, which is what this section at issue would do, then there is the potential, indeed, the certainty that there will be disproportionate targeting of racialized Canadians, indigenous people, youth, and other marginalized groups. That is the nub of the problem and why this is such a difficult bill for the House to deal with.

I am not saying it is not as critical as the member for Niagara Falls has reminded us; it it is. I am not saying that the potential for deaths is not real, because it is there. However, we have to get this balance right. We are not convinced that it has been achieved. We are still studying it and will continue to study it before the vote takes place in the next while.

At the committee, the NDP did manage to get one amendment that would somehow address this issue. That amendment would add the proposed section 31.1 to the bill, which would require that this issue be studied and reported to Parliament within three years of enactment. The committee agreed with that, and I hope the House will accept that final amendment as well. We will see whether the concerns that so many experts have brought to the attention of the committee will prove true in practice.

I had the opportunity at committee to speak to Canada's leading constitutional jurist on this subject. He is the famous Professor Peter Hogg. He indicated that he had done a legal opinion upon which Mothers Against Drunk Driving relied. It basically says that he is in favour of mandatory alcohol testing and of the ability to stop people at random. However, I asked him, “If the evidence were that there were a disproportionate impact on racialized groups and minorities, would that not give you pause in defending this bill under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”

If the evidence showed there would be this abuse, as others have predicted, would that give him pause? Professor Hogg, who of course agreed with mandatory alcohol testing, said that “It would give me pause if that were the case...but I think the pause that I would make would be to look at the administration of the law, so that it does get cleansed of any kind of racial bias or anything like that.”

Thus even a leading jurist who supports the initiative of mandatory alcohol screening is saying that it may be subject to defeat under section 1 of the charter if the evidence shows, as so many experts have said, that it would have this effect of racial profiling, that it would allow the police, on a whim, to stop people simply because of the colour of their skin, their age, or the like.

I will resume after question period, but at this stage, Canadians need to know how difficult this balance would be.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Victoria will have three and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next gets back to debate on the question. Of course, he will have the time for questions and comments following that as well.

The House resumed consideration of BillC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the debate on the motion, the hon. member for Victoria had three and a half minutes remaining in the time for his remarks will go to resuming debate.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the short amount of time I still have available, I simply want to repeat where I started, which was the fact that in Canada impaired driving was the leading cause of criminal deaths. We have one of the worst impaired driving records in the developed world. It is not surprising that the bill attempts to address the scourge of impaired driving.

We heard from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other countless witnesses at the justice committee, telling their heartbreaking stories of the loss they had suffered. However, the bill poses serious concerns, particularly in the area of mandatory alcohol screen. There are also problems with the bill, which time will not allow me to address, with respect to minimum sentencing provisions, something which the government said it opposed, yet brought it up again in the bill.

What is the concern with mandatory alcohol testing? The new police powers enacted through the legislation would remove the reasonable suspicion requirements for roadside inspection by peace officers that presently exist in the Criminal Code, instead moving to a mandatory system by which, at the discretion of the patrolling officer, motorists must submit to random breath samples without any justification whatsoever, in other words, on a whim.

The leader of the NDP, Mr. Jagmeet Singh, told the Toronto Star that he had been pulled over 11 times because of the way he looked. He said:

I've been stopped by police multiple times for no other reason than the colour of my skin. “It makes you feel like you don't belong, like there's something wrong with you for just being you.”

That is why he has worked so hard to address racial carding and the like in the province of Ontario.

Vancouver lawyer Ms. Kyla Lee from Acumen Law testified to the committee as follows:

As a Métis I am very concerned about how this is going to affect people from the aboriginal community. We see in B.C. already basically an offence of driving while native, and that's only going to get worse.

We have grave concerns about the bill, as do many witnesses, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that brought its concerns to the committee. It said:

Since some individuals will often be pulled over “randomly” five, ten, a dozen times in a few months, for no obvious reason other than their age, the colour of their skin, or the neighbourhood they were driving in, RBT will often be humiliating and degrading to individuals who are subject to search.

Despite bringing forward many amendments, the NDP managed to get at least one that will make a difference. We commend it to the House and hope it gets enacted in the final bill. As well, we succeeded in getting the proposed section 31.1 added to the bill. It states that the government must table a report in Parliament within three years after these controversial sections come into force, and that the Attorney General, “must undertake a comprehensive review of the implementation and operation of the provisions at question”.

This is a complicated bill. We will take the time over the next while to consult and ensure that the balance that has been struck has been struck properly for all Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his usual thoughtful speech. He is a law professor, but he is a recovering law professor, I think.

His core analysis is that replacing the reasonable suspicion test with the mandatory test will, in effect, create more difficulties for people who already feel victimized by the way police officers target, for want of a better term, particular groups of people in our society. I represent a riding that possibly has one of the most, if not the most, numerous varieties of races, ethnicities, religions, etc., and this is a point of acute sensitivity for me.

I am concerned. He makes a good point, but I am not convinced that replacing reasonable suspicion with mandatory will actually address the scourge he is most concerned about. I am interested in his thoughts on that matter.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's riding to be one of the most racially diverse ridings in the country, so I know he comes to this with the same concerns I do.

At committee, I asked the famous Prof. Peter Hogg exactly this question. How can this be constitutional? He said he had done a legal opinion and that mandatory breath testing, etc. is fine, but if there were evidence that there had been, in a sense, the use of this in the inappropriate way we are concerned about, namely, racial profiling, that would give him pause.

If the evidence were, in the next three years, that it was indeed being abused in this fashion, then we, in the bill, would have the ability to have it changed. It would have to be a report to that effect in this place, and hopefully, members like the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and I would be the first to blow the whistle on those abuses.

That is why the section has been added. We hope it will be effective. However, we are still concerned that the bill is unconstitutional. I suggest that it be referred in a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, given all the testimony we heard that it was unconstitutional. The government rejected that proposition.

We will have to see. We do not know what the government will finally do with this bill at this stage, but one hopes that it will take these concerns as seriously as the hon. member and I do.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill C-46 and the concerns raised by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and many others, we already have a problem in Canada with people of colour being pulled over by police simply because of the colour of their skin. In relation to this bill, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has highlighted that this could deepen the problem Canada already has with racial profiling and an understandable mistrust of police enforcement.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts about going deeper into that problem, as opposed to acceding to some of the police justice requests to have better resources for better training to deal with the laws we have already in relation to recognizing impaired driving, whether that be from alcohol or marijuana.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her question and for reminding this House that although I have spoken primarily about the alcohol issue in this bill, the other aspect is, of course, cannabis and driving under the influence of other drugs. This is the first time we have had a bill like this that would have these powers available.

She asks that we drill deeper into the issue of racial profiling. I think Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the NDP, put it very well. He said that as prime minister, he would enact a federal ban on racial profiling to end it once and for all. He talked about how, since he was 17 years old and began driving, he had been pulled over 11 times by police for no reason except his colour.

We know a lot of Canadians are experiencing that. We have heard the Métis lawyer Kyla Lee, who I mentioned earlier, talk about this notion of driving while native. We have all heard the expression, in Toronto particularly, “driving while black”. This is a real issue. It affects real Canadians.

Reasonable suspicion requires just that. That is what the law says now. If we are now giving the police these new powers to pull someone over on a whim, then obviously, we have a right to be concerned. Does this bill strike the correct balance?

On the other hand, we also have serious problems with impaired driving, and having more people driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs is only going to exacerbate that. The NDP completely understands that, and we want to make sure, in the time available before the vote, that we have this balance right.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am entering this debate from a position of disadvantage in that I do not sit on the justice committee and therefore have not listened to the testimony that came before it. I am therefore dependent on what is going on here this morning and also upon my friend from Scarborough Southwest, the only double-hatted parliamentary secretary in this chamber, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health. He brings to this debate unique expertise, having been the former chief of police in the city of Toronto, and has, in some respects, seen it all. We are fortunate to have his contribution to this debate.

When I did sit on the justice committee, we looked at this issue several times in several different ways. What always stopped us from moving forward on drug-impaired driving was the issue of a test, a test that somehow or other would provide a definitive statement as to whether the individual was or was not impaired. What is being suggested is that a saliva test will be administered, which would give an indication of impairment.

The public good here is obvious, because numerous deaths are caused on our roads by drivers impaired by alcohol, drivers impaired by drugs, and sometimes drivers impaired by both. It is right that this government focus on those levels of impairment, and it is particularly right that this government focus on a test for drug impairment in anticipation of cannabis legislation being the law of the land come this time next year.

Drug-impaired driving is currently a criminal offence. Bill C-46 would create new ways by which to determine impairment. Currently, there is a standardized set of tests that every police officer can give to someone who is suspected of impaired driving by means of drugs. These are sobriety tests. A driver may be asked to walk a straight line, stand on one leg, or demonstrate some form of physical or motor skill to lead the police officer either toward the conclusion that there is some impairment or away from the conclusion that there is some impairment.

If, in fact, the police officer concludes that there is some form of impairment by drugs, he or she is then authorized to take the driver to the station to see whether the driver is in fact impaired. At the station, there is a 12-step protocol to determine whether the person is impaired by drugs. It includes balancing, such as whether the driver can walk a straight line or stand on one leg. They look at pupil size and take the person's blood pressure. These tools have been useful, although time-consuming, in increasing the number of convictions for drug-impaired offences. However, the incidence of drug-impaired driving has gone up quite dramatically. Even though the current use of these tools is effective in securing convictions, it is still not sufficient.

Bill C-46 proposes a better or improved solution. I do not think anyone would say that this is the final solution. A core proposal is providing an oral fluid sample that would be analyzed if a police officer had a reasonable suspicion, which is well understood in criminal law, from observing the suspect. Things like red eyes, muscle tremors, abnormal speech patterns, and of course, simply the smell of cannabis, would precipitate the request for an oral fluid screen that would provide information to the officer as to whether he or she had the grounds to believe that impaired driving had occurred.

The next stage would be that the police officer would be entitled to demand a blood sample from the driver. If the blood sample met the test, there would be a presumption that would set in, the presumption being that impaired driving had occurred. The crown would then be relieved of the burden of proving impairment and the onus would, therefore, shift to the accused. It would be enough to prove that the driver had an illegal level of drugs in his or her body.

It is proposed that this would be framework legislation. It would be setting things up so that when the cannabis law eventually passed, there would be a framework in place. People will observe that the levels at this point have not been set, but there is a proposal as to what the levels might be. The lowest level would be two nanograms to five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood within two hours of driving. On the hybrid offence, which could either be summary or indictment, it would be over five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood, again within two hours. Then there is a proposed combined offence for both THC and alcohol. It would be 0.5 milligrams of alcohol combined with 2.5 nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood within two hours of driving.

A number of members have said that it is almost certain that this will be challenged in court, and I agree with them. I can recollect when the 0.8 level for alcohol impairment was first proposed. Prior to that, a determination of drunk driving was made through the tests I outlined earlier, namely, walking a straight line, balance tests, and breath tests. They were always subject to cross-examination and challenge by the accused, but once the 0.8 level was set, after a great deal of litigation, it became the accepted standard and brought much more certainty to the prosecution, and defence, for that matter, of drug-impaired driving.

From time to time, people ask how much cannabis they could consume or how much of any other drug, for that matter, they could consume. The only answer is none.

If people intend to drive, do not take drugs. It is about that simple. Similarly with alcohol, if people intend to drive, do not take alcohol. They should make some other arrangement to get home. We have a scourge in our society, a serious problem. One of the previous speakers said that in the case of the Germans, they drank a lot more but drove a lot less. We have it exactly reversed.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I was very disappointed about in Bill C-46 was that it would not increase penalties for the most serious impaired driving offence, namely, impaired driving causing death. On this side, we put forward a reasonable common-sense amendment at the justice committee to provide for a five-year mandatory sentence for impaired driving causing death in the face of the fact that individuals convicted of this very serious offence, in some cases, were walking free with nothing more than a $1,500 fine.

Does the hon. member think it is fair and just that individuals accused and convicted of this offence walk away with a $1,500 fine?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, those seem to be irreconcilable concepts, namely, that $1,500 slap-on-the wrist kind of idea for impaired driving. It speaks to the larger issue of minimum mandatories and substituting in effect parliamentary judgment on each individual case for a judge's judgment. A judge will sit in a court, hear evidence from both sides, look at the law, and apply the law according to the facts.

In my view, I am much more confident that the judiciary will fashion a just sentence rather than a punitive sentence. Necessarily, Parliament is quite crude because we have not heard the facts of every individual case.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood not just for his great understanding of this issue, but also for being a great mentor to new MPs. He has a lot of experience in the House.

We know the exercise of police authority can and does disproportionately affect visible minorities. The experience of carding or street checking, disproportionate arrests, and charging of visible minorities for marijuana offences makes that clear. When our new leader, Jagmeet Singh, was in the Ontario legislature, he raised this repeatedly.

What reason would an officer have to give under this legislation to ensure that racialized Canadians would not be targeted for mandatory breath testing?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very legitimate question, one that had some debate earlier in the day, to which I do not think there is any really good answer. I represent a community that has pretty well every racial ethnic group known to mankind in it. I have sat in my office and listened to people who feel they have been unfairly discriminated against by police officers.

A statement by this Parliament to the issue of mandatory breath samples versus reasonable suspicion breath samples would be in order, that this is not tolerable. Professor Hogg as well was given pause in concern to this. I do not think there is a great answer to his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, we actually have the answer. I heard the member for Victoria earlier suggest that the police could stop somebody on a whim. That simply is not the law being put before Parliament today.

I would draw the member's attention to the act, which states, “If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device”, and this is the important part in the answer to the question that has been asked, “in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law”, it has to be according to the law. A stop motivated by any form of bias, and in particular racial profiling, would be by its very definition an unlawful stop and therefore there would be no authority under the legislation for a officer to administer and demand such a test.

The law provides a very clear protection for all citizens. The police must be bound by the law and the law requires that before an officer can make a demand for mandatory screening, the stop must be lawful, according to a federal act, a provincial act, or in the common law—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, a short response please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech, the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest was out. He said that he had forgotten more about this area of practice than I will never know. With the greatest respect to my colleague, the issue is not so much what the law says; it is the practice. We have to take seriously the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed by various people, both in his riding and mine and around the country, about profiling. While I appreciate that the police officer should have and has to have a reasonable and probable ground to cause an investigation, I also appreciate that some people feel they have been targeted. That is just simply not right.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-46, the government's alcohol and drug-impaired driving legislation. I had the opportunity to study Bill C-46 at the justice committee. One thing was very clear, coming out of the justice committee and based upon the evidence from a number of witnesses. Law enforcement is not ready to implement aspects of Bill C-46 related to drug impairment in time for the government's arbitrary and rushed July 1, 2018, timeline to legalize marijuana.

Once Bill C-46 is passed, it will require that some 65,000 police officers across Canada get trained and understand Bill C-46. That will take time and it will be costly. We heard the need for some 2,000 drug recognition experts. At present, only 600 drug recognition experts are in Canada. In answer to a question I posed to Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness officials at the justice committee, it appears that only approximately 100 more drug recognition experts will be trained by July 1, 2018.

There are issues surrounding per se limits for THC, whether these per se limits are appropriate and what the per se limits should be. The government has not addressed that yet. There are nine months until the July 1 rollout. There are serious questions about the correlation between THC levels and drug impairment. On the question of public awareness, the marijuana task force, as part of the public health approach that it took, called upon the government to launch an immediate and sustained public awareness campaign. Where is the campaign? It has not been sustained. It has not been fully rolled out. We are just nine months away.

Therefore, given these and other reasons, no wonder the law enforcement community has called upon the government to delay the legalization of marijuana beyond July 1, 2018. After all, law enforcement will not have the tools, resources, and time to deal with the multiplicity of issues that will arise from legalization. Quite frankly, it is really frustrating that notwithstanding that very resounding message, the government refuses to back down and is moving full steam ahead with legalization, even though law enforcement will not have the tools, will not have the resources, and will not have the time to keep our roads safe.

What will that mean for the health and safety of Canadians?

When legalization occurs, more and more Canadians are going to use marijuana. That is a fact. As a result, there will be more drug-impaired drivers. Without the tools, resources, and training to enforce the laws, including laws that would come onto the books once Bill C-46 is passed, it will mean more injuries, more deaths, and more carnage on our roads. The government will bear partial responsibility for those injuries, those deaths, and the carnage that is sure to ensue.

With respect to part 2 of Bill C-46, which deals with alcohol-impaired driving and makes a number of changes to the Criminal Code respecting alcohol-impaired driving, I congratulate the government for some of the measures it has introduced.

Bill C-46 would eliminate certain defences that have been abused by impaired drivers. It would increase the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years. That is welcome. However, I am disappointed that Bill C-46 does not tackle the most serious offence related to impaired driving, and that is impaired driving causing death.

Bill C-46 does absolutely nothing to strengthen penalties for impaired driving causing death. One might say, if we look at the Criminal Code, the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death is life behind bars. That sounds pretty good. It sounds appropriate that that should be the maximum penalty. The only difficulty is that very few individuals convicted of impaired driving causing death are sentenced to life behind bars. In fact, I am not aware of a single case. There may be one or two, but I am not aware of one and, if there are any cases, that is a rare exception to the rule. What we see instead are impaired drivers who get behind a 2,000-pound or 3,000-pound weapon and take the life of one or more human beings as a result of their choices to drink and drive, and they get off with a slap on the wrist.

There was a case in Saskatchewan involving a mother and her son who were killed by an impaired driver. The individual responsible got a $4,000 fine and not one day behind bars. There have been cases where individuals have walked free with as little as a $1,500 fine for taking the life of another human being. That is an absolute joke. It is fundamentally unfair and fundamentally unjust. It is why more than 100,000 Canadians have signed a petition calling for Parliament to act. It is why the families of victims who came before the justice committee called upon Parliament to take steps to move forward with mandatory sentences. It is why our previous Conservative government introduced Bill C-73, which would have provided for a six-year mandatory sentence for impaired drivers who kill. It is why I introduced an amendment to Bill C-46 at the justice committee to provide for a mandatory sentence of at least five years, which was the minimum sentence that the victims who appeared before our committee asked for.

Sadly, every single Liberal MP voted against that common-sense amendment. It is one thing to vote against an amendment, but they did not even try. They did not even put forward an alternative. They just shrugged their shoulders and accepted the status quo. The victims and their families deserve better from the government on Bill C-46.

I am hopeful that once the bill is passed through the House, which it inevitably will be given that we have a majority government, that the Senate can get to work to try to fix the bill and help ensure that the victims will finally have some justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Patricia Hynes-Coates, appeared in committee and was asked about mandatory minimum sentences, this is what she said:

As a mom, as a stepmom, as a victim, I can't support it. There's no evidence to support that this will actually make a difference. We know once we bury our children or bury a loved one, it's too late. We need to focus on deterring it before it actually happens.

I also want to quote Mr. Andrew Murie, who is the CEO of MADD Canada. In earlier testimony with regard to a previous Conservative bill that proposed to bring in six-year mandatory sentences, he said, “penalties that only happen after somebody is dead don't stop drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. It will have zero effect.” He went on to emphasize that his organization would rather see an emphasis on deterrence, and that is precisely what Bill C-46 has focused on.

I would also remind the member that the mandatory minimums he quoted as applying only to impaired driving causing death were robustly discussed by the justice committee applying to all impaired offences. We know that where the evidence supports an appropriately severe sentence for someone who has taken a life, the courts have all the authority they will require in this legislation to make sure that justice is done.

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

Mr. Speaker, MADD certainly has its position, but there have been numerous witnesses who have lost sons and daughters and implored the committee to move forward with mandatory sentences. It is why more than 114,000 Canadians signed a petition that was organized by mothers who lost their loved ones to impaired drivers. That petition of more than 114,000 Canadians came together in a matter of just weeks, because Canadians see the injustice, and victims see the injustice.

With respect to mandatory sentences, in addition to deterrence, which I would beg to suggest would have an impact on deterrence, mandatory sentences are consistent with other sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and promoting responsible behaviour.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for his passion. This is very important legislation, which needs to be held under the greatest scrutiny. I appreciate his energy and efforts.

His party has stated that there is no good test for marijuana-impaired driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has endorsed the idea of per se limits. Does the member agree that per se limits should be based on a scientific approach?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, any per se limit should be based upon science. One of the real issues is that there is not a clear correlation between drug impairment and THC limits. For example, long-term habitual users of THC will tend to have higher levels of THC because THC will remain in their bodies; whereas someone who may have just consumed marijuana but is not a habitual user and gets behind the wheel may record relatively low levels of THC. Therefore, one of the difficulties is the fact that someone who is impaired might not be caught by the per se limit, whereas someone who is not impaired might be caught, and that is a problem.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak from the perspective of a family that lost someone because somebody chose to get behind the wheel and drive while impaired. My brother Fabian was killed 27 years ago by a drunk driver. I can speak with some authority in knowing the pain that families go through. People never recover. There is always a loss in their lives. I know that the person who got behind the wheel has to live with killing my brother every day.

I want to speak to the fact that the Liberals are rushing the bill and have not thought it through. We know that the municipalities and the provinces are going to be on the hook for paying for this, as the costs will be downloaded. This is a major concern. We are seeing time and again that they are not really thinking things through. They are going to download the responsibility to the provinces and municipalities to enforce these laws. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cariboo—Prince George. I know about the tragic circumstances surrounding his brother being killed by an impaired driver. The member is a passionate advocate around this issue.

My colleague is right on the question of implementation and enforcement, and the fact that costs are being downloaded on to the provinces and municipalities. It speaks again to the fact that the Liberal government does not have a plan. It is also why not only is the law enforcement community asking for the government to delay the legalization of marijuana, but many provinces and municipalities are calling on the government to slow down, to consult, and develop a plan before ramming this through by July 1.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have heard moving testimony about this issue, both here in the House and before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Impaired driving impacts us all, and we need to do our part to reduce such preventable deaths and injuries on our roads.

As we have heard already, Bill C-46 proposes many major changes to strengthen the drug-impaired driving laws, as well as a thorough updating of the alcohol-impaired driving provisions. The overarching goal of these changes is to reduce the incidents of impaired driving and to save lives.

One of the main proposals in the bill to achieve this goal is mandatory alcohol screening, a tool used worldwide to deter and detect alcohol-impaired driving. This would authorize an officer to demand a roadside breath sample on an approved screening device without the current requirement of suspicion that the driver has alcohol in his or her system.

Research suggests that up to 50% of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit are not detected through current practices such as check stops and random traffic stops. This is an unacceptable number of drivers who are impaired and are able to drive away after having interacted with the police.

We heard testimony of this sort at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including from Dr. Jeff Brubacher, a medical doctor and researcher with the University of British Columbia; and Dr. Douglas Beirness, a subject matter expert on impaired driving with the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

Dr. Brubacher said that his study indicated that police officers do not always recognize impairment in drivers in the amount of time they have to interact with the driver, and Dr. Beirness confirmed that police officers vary considerably in their ability to detect alcohol and assign the symptoms of alcohol use. He clarified that this is not because police officers are unable to do their job effectively, but rather that detecting impairment is simply very difficult. It varies from person to person, and some individuals are able to effectively mask their physical symptoms.

Both Dr. Brubacher and Dr. Beirness expressed support of mandatory alcohol screening and asserted their confidence that this measure could help to reduce the number of impaired drivers on our roads.

Mandatory alcohol screening will be a strong deterrent factor for those who drive after drinking. With mandatory alcohol screening, such risky behaviour would be less likely, as every driver would know that he or she could be tested at any time and could not expect to avoid detection by masking or hiding symptoms.

This has proven to be the case in other jurisdictions where mandatory alcohol screening has been implemented. According to MADD Canada, more than 40 countries worldwide authorize mandatory alcohol screening, including several Australian states, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In fact, mandatory alcohol screening was credited with reducing the number of people being killed on Irish roads by almost one-quarter, 23%, in the 11-month period following its introduction compared to the previous 11-month period.

Many concerns were raised relating to the constitutionality of mandatory alcohol screening, both in the House and at committee. I would like to spend the remainder of my time addressing these concerns. Many of the concerns related to the potential for mandatory alcohol screening to violate sections 8 and 9 of the charter.

Mandatory alcohol screening would only apply to a person who is lawfully stopped pursuant to other laws, such as provincial highway traffic acts. The police currently have the power, both in statute and common law, to stop any driver at any time to determine whether that driver is complying with the rules of the road, including to check for sobriety. This power has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on several occasions.

Furthermore, the information revealed from a breath sample, like the production of a driver's licence, is simply information about whether a driver is complying with one of the conditions imposed in the highly regulated context of driving, including sobriety.

I would also note that a breath sample does not reveal any personal or sensitive information and the taking of the sample is quick and not physically invasive. Furthermore, simply blowing a “fail” on an approved instrument does not in itself constitute an offence. This is just a step that could lead to further testing to determine whether a driver is impaired.

We are all aware that the Minister of Justice tabled a charter statement on May 11, in which she affirmed her confidence that mandatory alcohol screening was compliant with the charter. Many shared the minister's confidence that mandatory alcohol screening would be charter compliant when the bill was studied at committee, including the leading constitutional law expert Dr. Peter Hogg. He expressed an opinion that mandatory alcohol screening would withstand any charter challenges, as it aims to prevent dangerous activities and promote public safety. As such, it was his view that it would be found justifiable under section 1 of the charter, and I agree with this position.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Daniel Therrien, also testified that after reviewing the charter statement, any concerns he had regarding the proportionality and the necessity of the legislation were satisfied.

Members of the defence bar, as well as civil liberties groups, expressed concern that mandatory alcohol screening would result in an increase in police targeting of visible minorities.

Racial profiling is unacceptable. All law enforcement must exercise their powers in compliance with the charter, including the right to be free of discrimination of any kind. However, as I previously stated, the police already have the power to stop any driver at random to determine their sobriety. Nothing in the mandatory alcohol screening provisions would promote or condone the targeting of racialized individuals. It is restricted to cases where a peace officer is acting “in the course of the lawful exercise of powers.”

There is also nothing in these provisions that alters the current responsibility of police and other law enforcement officials to ensure that the powers of the police are exercised in a fair and equal manner, in accordance with the charter.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we amended the preamble of the bill to reflect that police powers must be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the charter. While it is implicit that all police must always do this, this will be a further signal that racial profiling will not be tolerated.

At committee, we heard testimony from Dr. Barry Watson and the assistant commissioner of road policing command, Doug Fryer, both from Australia, where mandatory alcohol screening has been in place since the 1980s. Both witnesses testified that mandatory alcohol screening was actually a way to overcome any concerns about racial profiling. This is because police officers in Australia have much less discretion to choose who will be tested when the screening is mandatory.

Mandatory alcohol screening has had a strong track record in saving lives in other jurisdictions. Canada continues to have the highest percentage of alcohol-related deaths among 20 high-income countries. It is incumbent on us to do better and mandatory alcohol screening saves lives. Therefore, I am pleased to support Bill C-46 and its proposal to save lives.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about alcohol testing and its importance, but we also heard from the government side today that it would be ready with roadside THC tests that would meaningfully test for impairment, yet at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we heard there was no way to relate roadside tests for THC with impairment in any way at all.

Could the member comment on that and what method the government will recommend for roadside THC impairment tests, not for THC levels, but impairment?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the contemplated roadside testing for THC is not to test for impairment but for THC levels. It is a legislated requirement under this bill that one of the requirements for exercising the right to operate a motor vehicle is to have a blood alcohol level below a certain level of THC. That is a legislated requirement. That is what per se limits are all about.

It is not a statement of impairment, although the scientists we talked to at committee said there was no safe level of THC in the blood. We need to establish a level that we can measure in a reasonable way to set a bar under which we can operate in a legal manner.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about drunk drivers and not a lot about marijuana and its effects on drivers.

What my hon. colleague does not know is that I was the victim of a hit and run by a drugged and drunk driver when I was 16 years of age. I was left for dead by that driver on the side of the road. They caught the man afterwards, and he was let go on bail and skipped the country. There was no punishment.

When the member talks about this legislation and putting it in place, why does he want to put in legislation before the rules are there? We are going to allow stoned drivers to be on the road driving, putting people's lives at risk? What does the member say to a parent who has to deal with a phone call late at night that their 16-year-old child is lying dead on the road or dying on the side of the road? How would the member respond to those people?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not legalize driving under the influence of any drug. It is already illegal to drive in any impaired state.

What this law does is to provide additional tools for police officers to detect such driving circumstances. I think we would all be naive to believe that people are not driving under the influence of marijuana or other drugs. It is happening now.

This bill provides excellent tools for police to engage that problem, and to do so in a meaningful way.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my hon. friend from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for the work he did on the good Samaritan law, which is also saving lives.

Does the member think we have done a disservice over the years by focusing on impairment levels, even with respect to alcohol? Is it something we are avoiding with the per se approach we are taking with marijuana? With alcohol use, there is the argument, “I am a big guy, I can drink more and not be impaired.” It is a rather subjective argument that goes back and forth about impairment, when what we are really trying to do is to limit the presence of something in a person's system.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the objective or goal here is not necessarily to limit the amount of a substance in a person's system, but to prevent people from driving while they are impaired by any substance.

It is absolutely difficult for us to ascribe particular levels of individual impairment to particular THC or alcohol levels, although with alcohol it is much easier. However, we we cannot just throw up our hands and say that it is tough, so we are not going to do it. We have to establish a legal minimum, some legal standards on which we can operate. We may refine them later on and lower them, but for now it is certainly unacceptable for people to be driving with more than the prescribed levels of THC in their bloodstream.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating something that is very important and that really has an impact on the lives of Canadians, namely, impaired driving.

What is concerning to me first is that this is being partnered with Bill C-45. The government's attitude is, let us legalize marijuana and then talk about impaired driving. Clearly, the government members know that when legalization of marijuana occurs, we are going to have more impaired drivers on the road. Although I know it is an important discussion and that we need to have better laws for impaired driving, it is very upsetting and concerning that the bill is being rushed through in partnership with another bill that would increase impairment.

Members of the House come from all sorts of legal backgrounds. We have heard some dry facts, but almost everyone in this House has been touched in his or her life by impaired driving. I just want to put some personal perspective on this before I get into some of the details of the legislation, some areas that could be improved and some areas of concern.

I worked in a rural emergency health centre and clearly remember being on call one night and getting called into the health centre. There had been a single father and his young four-year-old daughter on a motorcycle. He had pulled over to the side of the road to make some adjustments, and then an impaired driver, in this particular case a drug-impaired driver, had struck the motorcycle. The vehicle had careened off the road and struck the motorcycle, killing the dad and leaving the daughter standing on the side of the road. At that point the impaired driver took off, and then, many miles farther on, went into a ditch. I was called in to deal with a deceased young dad and a four-year-old girl who had lost her father and had been left at the side of the road for a long time beside the body of her father before someone had passed by and called an ambulance. This is what we are talking about. This is about young girls losing their fathers. It is about mothers and sons. It is about family members and friends. Everyone is affected by this, so we have to be very serious and careful with this legislation.

This brings me to my first disappointment. The amendment that my colleague suggested was for a mandatory minimum sentence when impaired driving causes death. The member was not calling for life imprisonment or 30 years. The member suggested that an appropriate mandatory minimum sentence would be five years. If we lose a relative because someone chooses to take a substance and drive impaired, causing a death, the member sees a five-year mandatory minimum sentence as being perfectly appropriate. In our system, we also have to remember that this does not mean the individual would spend five years in jail. It means that in perhaps two or three years, that person would resume his life. It is a huge disappointment. It is so wrong, and it fails the sensibilities of so many Canadians who wonder how we could say that a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death is appropriate. That really is a failure.

As has been noted, impaired driving causing death is one of the leading criminal causes of death in Canada. These are not statistics that we should be proud of. As we look at other comparable countries, Canada's statistics are not very good. Again, I have to say that we already have statistics that are very concerning, and now we have two partner pieces of legislation that will inevitably increase our concerns in those terms.

There are three specific issues that point to the rushed state of this legislation. By Canada Day in 2018, the Liberal government wants Canadians to be able to celebrate by getting high on marijuana. Perhaps the Liberals believe it will help the fireworks look a little brighter; I do not know.

They are in a rush and have Canada Day as their target, which to me is a bit appalling. In their rush to deal with Bill C-45, the legalization of marijuana, they are rushing Bill C-46 without the proper due diligence in three areas: testing ability and levels, training and resources, and education.

We have talked a lot about testing levels. The presence of something like THC in someone does not actually measure impairment. I have heard the argument that we are just measuring levels, and impairment does not matter. I would argue that with alcohol, we tend to know that .08 is a level that is consistent with impairment in most individuals, whereas with THC, there is a much bigger disconnect. The association of police chiefs agrees with that.

The Canadian Society of Forensic Science, which has been tasked by the federal government, has suggested it is a controversial exercise to set a limit and that “there is not currently substantive and consistent scientific evidence upon which to base [those] limits.” These are the experts who have some concerns about the ability of a roadside device to test limits and to test impairment, which again is a bit of an issue.

The next area of concern is the police officers who will be asked to move forward with this legislation. I think there are about 65,000 police officers in Canada. They will all require training. From everything I understand, the witnesses who testified at committee indicated very clearly that they will not be able to have all our officers trained, nor do they have the resources to do so, by this arbitrary Canada Day 2018 date that has been set by the government.

The other area of particular concern is that everyone agrees on the importance of an education campaign. They talk about $2 million. Where is that campaign? If they are going for 2018, that is not a lot of months. It takes a long time. Anyone in the public health field knows that to penetrate and actually effect change, we need a public health approach that has had time to actually penetrate the consciousness of Canadians. I am not seeing anything. Perhaps I could be challenged on that. I would love to be challenged on that. However, if I am not seeing anything, and I tend to look at what is happening in the area, we can bet that nothing has penetrated the consciousness of the 20-year-olds, the 17-year-olds, the new drivers, and the 22-year-olds in terms of the new regulations and limits. The government is severely lacking in terms of any education or public health campaign.

Tackling impairment in a more robust way is an important thing to do. However, what is the rush? Let us get Bill C-45 right. Let us make sure we get the proper training done. Let us make sure things are in order. If they have to wait another bit of time to get Bill C-45 through, so be it, but what we will be doing is protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first respond to what the member said she very much wanted to hear. The government has committed a substantial amount of money for public education, particularly around drug impaired driving. She will begin to see evidence of that made public in November, in the coming weeks.

Back in the 39th Parliament, in 2007, the government of the day introduced legislation that introduced the concept of the drug recognition expert and standardized field sobriety testing. That law was enacted some six months later and came into effect almost immediately, on July 2 of that year. The government of the day allocated $2 million for training of all law enforcement and drug recognition experts. Our government has been working with the law enforcement community for over two years on this. We have given them more than 14 months to prepare, and we have allocated not $2 million, but $161 million, for the training of police officers, for the training of additional drug recognition experts, and for the training of those thousands of officers who require training in standardized field sobriety testing. Not only are we providing training for the new technologies that are being made available, we are making sure that we are going to pay for those technologies. We have made available the resources they asked for.

I would like to ask the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo if she is reassured by the knowledge that this time, we have listened to what law enforcement has asked of us. We listened when they said they needed the resources and they needed the training, and we have responded according to their requests.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going on what I understand was testimony at committee, and testimony at committee was saying that the police forces across this country will not be ready in time for July 2018.

The other point that the member talked about is the public health program, which is going to start in November. I look forward to seeing that program start, but as I understand it, the budget that has been put in place for this public health program is very meagre and, to be effective, it should have started many years ago or many months ago. Again, I am just going on testimony at committee and knowledge in terms of effectiveness of a prevention public health program.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing from members across that having a fixed penalty for impaired driving causing death is not a deterrent.

I will put this in simple terms so that maybe my hon. friends across the way can understand. I hate to make this analogy, because impaired driving causing death is very serious, but imagine if a speeding ticket was worth $10. Would people stop speeding? However, if it was worth $250, $300, or $400, which is where it is in some areas, I think people would think about it. If we take that analogy and apply it to impaired driving, if people know there is a consequence, will it be a deterrent?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only if they know that there is a consequence will it be a deterrent, but, importantly, some of our most habitual, chronic, drug and alcohol abusers who drive impaired, who have the fines and a penalty, get out and drive again. If we have them off the road with a mandatory minimum, then it might be two years or five years when they are not out there using their vehicle to kill or injure other people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Niwakomacuntik Tansai Nemeaytane Awapamtikok.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, outraged by the toll alcohol is having in northern Saskatchewan, in 2015 a crown prosecutor took six months off work to talk to first nation communities and look for solutions.

Harold Johnson, an indigenous author of a new book called Firewater, took a critical look at the impact alcohol has had on the people in the north. Harold, who is based in La Ronge, Saskatchewan said:

...alcohol is responsible for much death and destruction in the north, and as a Crown prosecutor he's had a front-row seat to its effects.

Ninety-five percent of what we deal with in provincial court, the person who committed the offence was drunk at the time of the offence. It's every day.

Are we tired of going to the graveyard? Are we tired of burying our relatives? Have we had enough of this now?

As Johnson told the CBC, alcohol misuse permeates all aspects of society, whether it's the justice system, health, poverty or the economy.

Indeed, according to a 2011 study of northern Saskatchewan health regions, two-thirds of fatal motor vehicle accidents are alcohol-related. The rate of drug and alcohol use during pregnancy in the north is three times the provincial rate.

Moreover, the CBC reports that according to Johnson, it even affects the cost of infrastructure in the north, as contractors take into account absenteeism and lowered productivity because of hangovers and include those costs in bid prices.

It is an issue that has also touched Johnson in his own personal life. Two of his brothers have been killed by drunk drivers, and most recently in 2014. The Justice Department gave him six months to work with the Lac La Ronge Indian Band and the Montreal Lake Cree Nation in a search of answers to open a discussion. He says he is not hoping to work miracles, but just to get people talking. As he says, “Are we tired of going to the graveyard? Are we tired of burying our relatives? Have we had enough of this now?”

I am proud to be here to debate Bill C-46, which proposes substantive changes to modernize the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with drug- and alcohol-impaired driving offences.

The purpose of the bill is to protect public health and safety by creating new provisions and strengthening existing provisions to deter impaired drivers and come down hard on anyone caught committing drug- and alcohol-impaired driving offences. This bill also aims to give police the resources they need to improve the detection of the presence of drugs and alcohol in impaired drivers and facilitate the prosecution of such cases. It is important to develop a regulatory policy to stop impaired driving.

Part 1 of the bill amends certain provisions that deal with offences. Among other things, the amendments seek to do the following: enact new criminal offences for driving with a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration; authorize the establishment of prohibited blood drug concentrations; and authorize peace officers who suspect a driver has a drug in their body to demand that the driver provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada.

It is important not only in the big cities, but also in the rural areas and communities where I come from. I am proud to be here and to have the opportunity to express myself in Cree, English, and French, the founding languages of our nation.

People may have noticed that I did not provide a translation for the part of my speech that I delivered in Cree. I addressed those words to the people in our communities. I hope they will hear them. They need to hear discussions about what we once were and what we can become.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for speaking in Cree. A lot of indigenous languages are on the verge of disappearing entirely, including Syilx language in my community, so I would encourage that.

I know that he talked primarily about alcohol and its effects. Bill C-46 is about marijuana and other drugs as much as it is about alcohol, and a lot of it revolves around how we are going to test for marijuana in roadside tests. How does the government plan to do that when we heard at the justice committee that there is no relationship between marijuana THC levels in blood and impairment? People who are using marijuana legally can have chronic levels of THC in their blood, so they would essentially be banned from driving. Would the member comment on that?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for offering more information about the issue of THC levels in the blood. Obviously, there are people who have chronic issues.

I remember, from discussions with some of my comrades from the 5 Field Ambulance when I was in the army, that in Afghanistan in the medical corps we would often have to treat people who would come into the hospitals who might be Afghans and some of them had chronic drug use for many years. Unfortunately, the medics gave one dose and a second dose and it still didn't have any impact; the individuals still felt a lot of pain and that was because they had been constantly using, often in this case, opium or the poppy. It does create an issue where the person seemingly was functional working in the Afghan military, but probably it would not be acceptable within any western military or for sure in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am not an expert, but I did go to the justice committee for one day to some of the hearings. I heard about the idea of how we have to be careful with police checks and how we ensure that we do not go after one ethnic group or one group more than another. I will stop there because I need another question.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg was just mid-sentence on a point that I raised in committee and attempted to provide amendments on. The Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a number of other organizations raised real concerns that the random sampling would not really be random but would actually be selective and amount to racial profiling.

I invite my hon. colleague to finish his sentence because it seems that he is concerned about the same point.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is obviously a grave concern to me. I represent a riding that has an awful lot of social issues, even in my own case when I was at the University of Manitoba. I do not always wear a suit and I was walking around in a certain area of town in Winnipeg and, lo and behold, with my long hair and just wearing a T-shirt, I was stopped by police and questioned. It is nothing that ever happened to me when I was in Quebec City or Calgary but it happened to me in Winnipeg. I had many of my students say they were always being stopped, especially a lot of the men, indigenous men in this case with very strong aboriginal appearance, even stronger than mine. They were being stopped and questioned by police. It does create that potential, so we do have to be very careful in ensuring that, for instance, police forces receive adequate training and sensitization on the issue, to make sure that we continue to work with these communities.

The City of Winnipeg under the former chief of police, Devon Clunis who is a great moral man, was attempting to build bridges to get the police out of their patrol cars and into the community to speak with people and get people working together to have a discussion to build bridges. Often, if they do not have those bridges it becomes very easy to start seeing it as a war zone where it is us against them. Really, it is about serving communities.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is currently rushing through the marijuana legislation despite kickback from health care practitioners, law enforcement agents, parents, teachers, municipal leaders, and provinces who are all speaking up and speaking out against this legislation and the time frame that has been imposed on this country. Despite this outcry, the government insists on continuing and rushing forward, for no other reason than the Prime Minister of course would like to include it in his party on July 1, 2018.

Now, the government has made it clear that Bill C-46, the impaired driving act, is closely tied to the marijuana legislation. However, despite the so-called positive intent of this bill, Bill C-46 is, in fact, poorly drafted and fails to hold up to scrutiny from scientists and legal practitioners who have commented with regard to this legislation.

The impaired driving act before us would include roadside tests that lack scientific evidence, would grant police the power to force tests without reasonable evidence of impairment, and is of course full of very poorly worded measures that make many parts of this bill likely to be thrown out by the courts. This poses significant issue.

As I will detail shortly, there are legitimate questions around the constitutionality of certain provisions within Bill C-46. As the Canadian Bar Association has noted in its brief, impaired driving is one of the most litigated laws in all of Canada. There have been many appeals, many constitutional challenges, and a great deal of court time taken up with establishing legal precedence. Rushing this legislation through the House without the proper time to ensure the government has it right would inevitably lead to a great number of appeals and further backlog.

This could not happen at a worse time since the Liberals have failed to appoint new judges and adequately care for our justice system here in Canada. In the era of the Jordan decision, where court cases are being dismissed without a trial because of long wait times, the legislation has the potential to actually clog this up even further, thereby taking away from our justice system. This means accused criminals could actually be set free without a trial because of this poorly crafted legislation before the House today. To recklessly endanger the criminal justice system in order to rush the legalization of pot is a gross mismanagement of prioritization, and poor government.

Permit me to discuss the constitutionality of this bill. This legislation would allow law enforcement agents to demand a saliva or blood test from a driver if they reasonably suspect that the person has drugs in his or her body. For example, if officers notice the person has unusually red eyes, abnormal speech patterns, or perhaps has the scent of marijuana on them, they could demand a drug test.

The problem is that these types of drug impairment tests actually ignore science, thereby putting the Liberals' entire drug impairment driving section at risk of being unconstitutional. A first-year medical student should be able to tell us that marijuana has a main component within it called THC and that it dissolves in fat and not water. It is accepted science that THC disappears from the blood within a couple of hours after smoking it, however impairment lasts much longer.

Why is this important? It is important because blood is mostly water while the brain, which is where the impairment actually takes place, is mostly fat. Although the THC may not be found in the blood, it may be found in the brain. The new impairment tests this legislation is putting forward actually only measure the THC concentration in the blood, thus rendering the new tests proposed by the Liberal government absolutely useless. This fact draws into question the constitutionality of large parts of the bill before this House.

If the purpose of the legislation is to demonstrate impairment but the government's test for impairment is not scientifically viable, then it is going to be challenged by defence lawyers and tossed out by the courts. This, of course, is a significant problem.

Although an officer would need reasonable grounds to test for drug impairment, when it comes to testing for alcohol impairment the officer would no longer need reasonable grounds to do so. The federal justice department states on its website, “...police officers who have an approved screening device on hand would be able to test any driver they lawfully stop, even if the officer does not suspect the driver has alcohol in his or her body.”

In other words, in the same way that a police officer can pull one person over and demand to see a licence and proof of registration, the officer would also be able to demand that a driver take a Breathalyzer, even if the officer has absolutely no reason to suspect impaired driving.

Although the roadside test in and of itself cannot lead to a charge, it would allow the police to open up further investigation and subject the driver to further testing and scrutiny, which could lead to great embarrassment, time off work, etc., with respect to this person who is accused of doing something that the officer had absolutely no reasonable grounds to accuse the person of. For these reasons, many criminal lawyers from across Canada are raising their eyebrows, putting up a flag, and saying that this will be challenged and perhaps tossed out in the courts.

It is clear that the current government is doing all that it can to rush the legislation through, both Bill C-46, as well as the legalization of marijuana, but the approach is altogether wrong. The timeline for legalizing marijuana is simply too short. Cities and towns have said this, first nations chiefs and elders have said this, provinces and territories have said this, and police and first responders have said this. The government has made it clear that Bill C-46 and the legalization of marijuana go hand in hand. It is attempting to tighten the legislation around drug-impaired driving before the possession and use of marijuana is made legal in our country. However, it has failed to leave enough time for law enforcement agents across the country to properly train and adopt the new screening technologies needed to enforce this bill. I have been told by several police chiefs that the only place law enforcement agents can receive adequate training in this regard is in the United States, and that the cost for this training is quite expensive, upward of $20,000 per person. To make matters worse, the wait time in order to get into this training is more than 12 months long, which then poses some problems because marijuana is going to be legal in Canada in about nine months from now. Therefore, members can see my concern here.

Canada is a big country, and there are many police forces with different levels of resources. Many of the smaller centres are already having a tough time making ends meet. Many centres do not have the money to pay a team of lawyers and consultants to write new operational policies for front-line officers, and do not have the resources to buy a huge supply of new marijuana tests. They certainly do not have the staff training budgets to train all of their officers on how to use the new technology, that is to say even if they could get into the training within the time frame provided, which they cannot.

What is the result? The result is the disempowerment of police forces across this nation. It also means insufficient law enforcement, which puts the public safety of Canadians at risk.

Before closing, I would like to address one more concern with respect to the legalization of marijuana. When I look at studies done in Washington and Colorado, they demonstrate that with legalization comes a decrease in the perception of risk among our young people. This stands to reason because a government-regulated product should have better quality control standards than something grown by organized criminals, and no one thinks the government will legalize a product that would pose any sort of risk or harm element to him or her. However, we all know, or should know, due to the studies that have been given to us, that there is no safe use for youth. Both the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Paediatric Society have made it very clear that marijuana damages brain development in youth and young adults under the age of 25. Youth who use marijuana are more likely to have mental health issues later in life, including schizophrenia, and they are more likely to underachieve. These risks are not understood by Canadian youth, and therefore are problematic.

Before legalization takes place, there needs to be a strong public education campaign for both parents and youth on the health effects of marijuana. The Liberal government's own legalization task force recommended this, and we have yet to see it come into effect. Again, the legalization of marijuana is set to take place in less than nine months from now.

In conclusion, I would say that this legislation is extremely poorly crafted. The Canadian Bar Association has laid out the many ways this legislation will likely be challenged in court. Those challenges and appeals are going to clog the justice system, letting accused criminals off the hook, meaning victims of crime will watch their attackers go free, all because the Liberals made a political promise to legalize marijuana, and to have it done by July 1, 2018. This is unacceptable. This is detrimental to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made some incorrect statements with respect to training.

In 2007, in the 39th Parliament, the government of the day introduced legislation that created the drug recognition experts and standardized field sobriety testing within the impaired legislation. It passed that legislation within only weeks before the date of implementation. Less than $2 million was allotted for the training of police officers. I remember this very well. As the member has said, the training was only available in the United States. This made it inaccessible to many police services.

We have learned from the mistake of the government opposite. In fact, when we introduced the legislation, we also announced $161 million to provide for the training for drug recognition experts, which are needed to enforce the legislation. This had not been available to law enforcement. We also made provision to pay for oral fluid test kits so police services would have them available. The past government failed to do this.

With the provision of $161 million for the training of officers, the provision of money for public education and for oral test kits, would the member like to revise her comments?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about training for our officers, the Liberals can throw money at a problem. However, if they do not provide the adequate training or access to adequate training, it does not solve the issue. With regard to education, again, the Liberals can throw money at education, but if they do not actually put the campaign into place, it does not solve the problem.

We have seen neither of these things take place from the current government. The Liberals like to talk a lot. They make many promises, then they break them. I have to give them marks at least for consistency, because they are very consistent on this point.

The point is this. The Liberals say that they want to train officers, but training is not available. They are not pursuing it. They say that they want to educate young people, but they have not taken any steps to move forward to put a campaign in place to make young people aware of what is going on with the legalization of marijuana and the impacts it will have on them. That is a problem. It is a problem the government needs to address and is not doing it.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could address a number of things, like what I read this morning. The medical officer of Colorado said that one of the reasons Colorado had diminished negative aspects to its legalization was that prior to the legalization, it had a broad, expansive education program that went across the entire state. He also mentioned the legal age for marijuana in Colorado was 21. That is much different than here. It is three years earlier. There are also the negative effects on the brains of youth. Also, it certainly does not have a provision where someone 12 to 18 years old can have 10 grams in his or her possession.

With those things in mind, the member for Winnipeg Centre, a member of the government party, said that two-thirds of all fatalities could be traced back to alcohol consumption. Therefore, why would the Liberals rush something through that will only exacerbate fatalities in motor vehicle accidents?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes some excellent points with regard to Colorado as a case study. The government would do well to pay attention.

When it comes to rushing this legislation through and putting marijuana into the hands of Canadian children, youth, and the general public, we need to consider an exhaustive education campaign. That needs to be put in place. We have seen no evidence of that whatsoever, and we are less than nine months away from the legalization of marijuana.

With regard to impaired driving, we do not have adequate testing mechanisms in place or readily available to police enforcement agents. That allows people to be in their vehicles, on the roads, driving drug impaired. This is a problem for the safety of Canadians. The government has a responsibility to do due diligence and solve this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-46. As chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I want to thank my colleagues from all the parties who helped come up with 15 amendments, which were adopted by the committee. I believe those amendments will improve the bill.

It was a great pleasure, as always, to work with members of all parties on this issue. In coming up with amendments, our committee made productive contributions toward improving the bill before us.

I strongly agree with Bill C-46. The goal of the bill is to reduce the number of alcohol and drug-related offences on our roads. Too many Canadians die, too many Canadians are injured, too many families across the country are hurt every year because of impaired driving accidents. The crashes that ensue, because someone has consumed alcohol or drugs and taken to the road, are not acceptable under any circumstances.

If I were starting from scratch and writing alcohol-related legislation, there would be no tolerance whatsoever for anyone who is caught driving with alcohol or drugs in his or her system. Nobody can drive safely when marijuana or other drugs have been consumed, no matter how little. No one can drive safely when alcohol has been consumed, no matter how little.

It is true that due to the constraints of our testing, we cannot test at certain levels, which means we have to set per se limits. We need to have certain thresholds which one cannot pass in order to create an offence, in addition to when an officer suspects impairment. From my point of view, no Canadian should be driving if he or she has consumed drugs or alcohol.

I would like to talk about the two of the most contentious issues related to this legislation. Our committee held extended hearings. We sat for many hours over a period of two weeks and listened to witnesses from across the spectrum. The two areas about which I heard the most concern were mandatory screening and minimum mandatory sentences.

The constitutionality of mandatory screening was questioned, and I want to go back to the recent speech made by my colleague from Lethbridge. I thought it was very interesting to hear her question the constitutionality of minimum mandatory screening. I want to point out that she, along with most of her colleagues, voted in favour of the private member's bill of the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Bill C-226, that was recently before the House. It proposed mandatory screening. I find it funny to hear the member question the constitutionality of mandatory screening when that was the entire premise of Bill C-226, which she voted in favour of earlier this year.

Why, despite constitutional questions raised, do I support mandatory screening? Because at committee we heard there was only one way to deter drunk driving, that there was only one way to deter drug-impaired driving. That was to scare people into really believing they would be caught. Minimum mandatory sentences and what will happen after the fact, will not deter people; it is the idea that police may actually catch them in the act.

At committee, we heard from witnesses from Colorado, Australia, and from other jurisdictions where mandatory screening was introduced. They told us that mandatory screening had a huge deterrent because of the heightened probability of being caught.

Since mandatory screening was introduced in Australia, Finland, Sweden, France, and Ireland, there was an incredible reduction in the number of deaths related to alcohol. In Finland, where mandatory screening was introduced in 1977, a study noted that the number of drivers impaired by alcohol had decreased by 58%. According to a report published in Ireland, deaths caused by impaired driving decreased 19% in the first year following mandatory screening.

We know that mandatory screening really works. It has been proven to work across the globe. Some groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, asked questions about the way mandatory screening would work. At committee, we introduced a provision into the preamble of the bill to reassure Canadians that any check needed to be done in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police officers are able to do a lot of things when they make a legal stop, including asking someone for a breath test, under common law. We are now codifying what existed already under the common law. We are seeing that without reasonable suspicion, we can ask for a breath test, provided it was a lawful stop. The committee and all of us want to ensure we follow those rules and have asked, as part of this law, that the minister undertake a review of what has happened in three years to ensure mandatory screening is carried out properly.

Other measures and amendments on minimum mandatory sentences were introduced at committee. While I am very pleased that maximum sentences have increased for the very serious offences under the law, we did not introduce new minimum mandatory sentences. This was the one and only area where I saw divergence between ourselves and members of the official opposition.

The committee heard from groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that there was no proof in any case that minimum mandatory sentences actually stopped people from driving impaired. When asked specifically, MADD stated that it did not favour increasing the minimum mandatory sentences that existed. However, I note that the committee, on an amendment from a Liberal member, reinserted minimum mandatory sentences in the one place it had been removed in the bill, which was for the most serious offence of driving while impaired causing bodily harm, and extended the maximum sentence.

I am not one of those people who believe there should never be minimum mandatory sentences. For the most serious offences, there needs to be minimum mandatory sentences. However, I also note that this has to come under a thorough review to determine exactly the right standards and the right duration of those sentences, because we also know there are drawbacks. When there is a minimum mandatory sentence, one does not plead out. People are very reluctant to plead out because they know they will go to prison for a certain minimum term. Therefore, it clogs the court system, which is already clogged, and causes difficulties under Jordan, where people are acquitted because they do not get a speedy enough trial.

We also know that minimum mandatory sentences are not really a deterrent. They do reassure families and victims, but they do not deter people from the behaviour. I would rather wait, before we change what the minimum mandatory sentences were, the committee having reinserted the exact same minimum mandatory sentences that exist now in law, to see what the review of the Minister of Justice has to say. Certain minimum mandatory sentences already in the Criminal Code have been found unconstitutional and others may need to be inserted. I would rather wait for a thorough review before changing them for impaired driving offences.

Finally, I want to thank the dozens of witnesses who appeared before committee. It was heart-wrenching to hear the testimony of parents who had lost children in impaired driving accidents. It was heart-wrenching to hear about the beautiful people whose lives were prematurely shortened and whose mothers would never become grandmothers, would never see their kids graduate from college, and would never see their kids have families of their own or have successful careers. It was awful. The people who came before committee to be heard deserve commendation. They chose not to just sit back and suffer, but to make changes to improve our laws, to fight to improve our laws to improve Canadian society. I want to herald the parents who had the courage to come before the committee. While they supported the thrust of the bill, I do not support their call for longer minimum mandatory sentences at this time.

From what I heard, we really need to work on what we do to help the victims their families. That issue of concern needs to be addressed. However, I support the thrust of the bill and encourage all my colleagues to support it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the comments of the member were thoughtful, as always.

I share his concern about the tragedies of parents who have lost children in accidents involving impaired driving. I am even more concerned that with 249 days to go before the arbitrary legalization of marijuana and based on what other jurisdictions saw, there will be a doubling of these kinds of fatalities due to drug-induced driving, with no test in place. Clearly, police services have indicated they will not be ready.

Could the member comment on whether he thinks it is a protection for preventing future tragic incidents like this to rush ahead with the July 1 date?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, there is no July 1 date. There was never any desire to put this on Canada Day. I do not think that is actually correct. As well, we were not studying Bill C-45; we were studying Bill C-46.

The police brought before our committee were asked questions. We asked multiple police organizations whether they could be ready. Most of them said that they could be, but they needed money and resources for testing. The government has indeed put in place an amount of $161 million for training front-line officers to recognize signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving. Provinces and territories will be getting another $81 million over the next five years for new law enforcement training. I believe that people can be ready.

What I am concerned about, and of course, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton was not at committee, is that nobody was able to tell the committee that there had been an increase in deaths or fatalities, or even impairment accidents, in jurisdictions where marijuana was legalized. We spoke to police from those jurisdictions, and we did not get that feedback. Again, I think we all have that concern, and we all want to make sure the police are ready.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his overview of the work of the committee from his vantage point as chair.

He said in his speech that he believes that no one should take the wheel with faculties impaired either by drugs or alcohol. However, for that to happen there needs to be a massive public awareness and education campaign. He says there is no set date for legalizing marijuana, but we know it is on the government's agenda. There is not so much as a whisper about a major public awareness and education campaign.

Will the hon. member join my voice and that of the CAA and many other groups and call on the government to immediately launch a major public awareness and education campaign to put an end to all these impaired driving tragedies?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for the question. I completely agree with her that we need a massive public awareness and education campaign.

We asked the justice department's representatives these questions. They told us that the campaign is already underway. They have been working for some months on this campaign and they promised that it would be rolled out in earnest in the coming months. I completely agree that it is the responsibility of our government and all parliamentarians to educate Canadians so that these accidents no longer happen.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mount Royal mentioned $161 million being given out to train these police officers. If we do the simple math, $20,000 per officer basically amounts to 8,050 officers. The police force of Toronto alone has 5,400 officers.

How does the member see that amount of money covering all of Canada, including rural Canada, where we need people in place to do that proper testing?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, we also heard testimony that in 2008, under the Conservative government, laws were amended, and about $2 million was given to start police training in this area. The police never actually started the training.

We need to make sure that enough police are trained. What we heard at committee was that the money should be sufficient, provided it is rolled out quickly.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-46 today, a bill that would change the Criminal Code in relation to offences related to driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs. The bill is essentially paired with Bill C-45, a bill that would legalize marijuana, so it is safe to say that it is meant to provide some comfort to Canadians concerned about the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana or THC as much as it is about alcohol impairment.

The NDP clearly stands for deterrence to driving while impaired. Canada has a terrible record of deaths and injuries related to impaired driving. About 1,000 Canadians are killed each year in traffic accidents involving impaired driving.

Others have spoken eloquently on that aspect of the bill, but what I want to spend most of my time here today talking about are the concerns about the difficulty of testing, in any meaningful way, for impairment by marijuana.

I sat on the justice committee for one of the meetings set aside to consider Bill C-46, and we heard very interesting and compelling testimony about roadside testing for marijuana. We are all used to the concept of testing for alcohol levels through roadside breath tests. These tests produce results that accurately measure blood alcohol levels. Blood alcohol levels rise and fall in a predictable manner that relates closely to impairment. We can therefore deduce impairment from alcohol blood levels, and we do that in roadside tests every day across the country. We have per se limits for alcohol impairment, usually .08% or .05% blood alcohol.

The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is THC, and it acts in a very different physiological way than does alcohol. Unlike what happens when drinking alcohol, THC levels rise very quickly in the blood when marijuana is smoked, and while those initial levels are high, the person may not be significantly impaired, because the effects of THC occur when the THC leaves the blood and binds to fatty tissues in the brain. THC binds to fatty tissues so strongly that blood levels generally drop very rapidly. When impairment levels are high, THC levels in the blood are usually very low, so THC levels in the blood do not necessarily relate at all to the level of impairment.

Impairment also differs significantly between alcohol and THC. Alcohol impairment involves a loss of motor control, hence the famous tests such as walking a straight line or standing on one leg. THC impairment affects faculties such as reaction time rather than motor control. People impaired by THC will often report that they know they are impaired, so some are more likely to decide not to drive, or they will drive more slowly. Alcohol impairment has essentially the opposite effect, so drunks drive more recklessly. I do not want to suggest that people under the influence of marijuana are safe drivers, just that we have to test for impairment in a very different way.

At committee we also heard from a toxicology expert that we can back extrapolate from a blood alcohol level measured at some time after an incident to assess the level that would have existed at the time of that incident. We cannot do that for THC. If a driver involved in an accident was found to have some level of THC some hours after the fact, we could not, with any scientific certainty at all, know what the THC level was at the time of the accident. Even if the level was tested at the time of the accident, we would have no way of relating the THC level with impairment.

Dr. Thomas Marcotte, an expert in testing for THC and impairment, from the University of California, San Diego, gave extensive testimony on these difficulties. He and his colleagues have found no way to usefully match THC levels with impairment. He and others have found that it is not only difficult to relate THC blood levels to impairment but that regular users of marijuana will have chronic low levels of THC in their blood, with no impairment at all. This is extremely problematic for the task of finding a meaningful way to test for THC impairment on the roadside.

We are making it legal for Canadians to use marijuana. Indeed, it is already legal for users of medical cannabis. If some of these law-abiding Canadians have chronic low levels of THC in their blood, and we use some per se limit of THC as a surrogate for impairment, then we are essentially saying that yes, people can legally use marijuana or medical cannabis, but they can never drive again or they could be charged with impaired driving, despite not being impaired.

Also at committee we heard from two witnesses from Australian police forces. Australia has used extensive roadside testing for alcohol and drugs, which others have mentioned in this debate. Much of this testing is through what they call “booze buses”, which process hundreds of thousands of Australians annually. They literally close off highways and test everyone for alcohol levels, while a smaller sample are screened for drugs.

Australian police also carry out so-called random testing at their own discretion, usually in neighbourhoods they feel need scrutiny. It is this type of testing the NDP has great concerns about, as it is clearly open to racial profiling. My colleague for Victoria on Friday covered some of these concerns very well in his speech, so I will leave this point, but I am sure members will hear more about it from my colleagues later today. However, one of the serious issues with Bill C-46 is that it undermines the present system of testing only after reasonable suspicion of impairment.

The Australian police also testified about the test they use for THC. These tests are expensive: about $30 for the preliminary test and ten times more for a secondary test given to those who score positive. Anyone found with any level of THC is charged with impaired driving and has a licence suspension. Now, this works in a jurisdiction such as Australia, where marijuana is illegal. However, as we have heard from experts at committee, people who use marijuana regularly, and there are many across Canada, including thousands who use cannabis for medical reasons, will have chronic levels of THC in their blood. If they lived in Australia, they would not be able to drive at all for fear of being charged for impaired driving, even when they were not impaired, and even if they had not used marijuana for many hours or even days.

How do we test for marijuana impairment? As I mentioned before, THC impairment presents as a slowing of reaction time and other similar faculties, but not a loss of motor control. Dr. Marcotte testified that he and others were working on developing iPad-based tests that would test for these abilities. However, we hear from the government side in this debate that its members are confident that meaningful roadside mouth-swab tests will somehow be developed in the next few months, despite expert testimony that any test measuring THC will be meaningless as a measure of impairment. If we use the Australian model, we will be criminalizing marijuana users who have chronic levels of THC in their blood, even though they have not used marijuana that day and are in no way impaired. We need a better solution to this problem.

On July 1 next year, Canadians will be able to use marijuana legally, and many will be using and driving. We need a system that tests for impairment from marijuana, not for meaningless THC levels.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that we need to modernize the legislation. All of us are aware of the election platform A commitment was made with respect to cannabis. We have three political parties, New Democrats, Greens, and Liberals, who really want to move forward on this issue. To do that, the responsible thing to do is to bring in legislation that would enable our law enforcement agencies and others to have some of the tools necessary to further advance the legalization of cannabis.

I wonder if the member across the way can provide his thoughts specifically on how important it is that we advance legislation, given the election platform and the commitment made by more than one political entity inside the House of Commons.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very much in favour of the legalization of marijuana, but I am also concerned, as I think all Canadians are, about the safety of Canadians on the roads and impairment while driving. What I am concerned about with regard to the bill before us, and what I have heard from the other side, is that the government is prepared to go ahead using per se limits for THC levels in the blood and relating that to impairment. However, we heard at the justice committee that this simply cannot be done. If we do that, we will be criminalizing people who are not impaired and who pose no threat to other motorists and are acting legally under the law, in that we have made marijuana legal, or will have within a year. This is my concern. We have to test for impairment rather than for THC levels.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing out that there is no test for impairment with THC. The member has highlighted a couple of concerns about people who use medical marijuana legally; it would be in their system and so there would be court challenges on that. However, the member missed a point wherein second-hand smoke is also of concern. There may be people who are exposed to others who are smoking marijuana when it is legal, who could have it in their blood, and they could also be falsely tested. The government members talk about how the government is always fact and evidence based. The science shows there is no test that can show impairment with THC. Could the member comment on those people who may be impacted by secondary smoke?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there are issues around second-hand smoke as well. It is not something that comes into debate when we talk about alcohol, for instance; it is a very different situation. What I and other Canadians are concerned about with the legalization of marijuana is the issue that now we would have to test for impairment, and the real issue is developing a test for impairment that actually does that. It is clear that we cannot do it with per se limits for THC, so we have to look at developing other tests. People are working on it. I do not know that it would be ready within a few months. I got the impression from the testimony at committee that this would not and could not be ready in time. Therefore, it is something we have to consider before bringing Bill C-46 forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak against Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding offences relating to conveyances, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, also known as the impaired driving legislation. This bill is the accompanying legislation to Bill C-45, the cannabis act, with which I am extremely familiar.

In essence, Bill C-46 seeks to create new and higher mandatory fines and maximum penalties for impaired driving, as well as authorize mandatory roadside screening for alcohol. Although I am entirely in favour of higher penalties for those driving while impaired, as this sends a strong message that impaired driving will not be tolerated, I have extreme concerns about this bill.

Similar to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I and my fellow members of the Standing Committee on Health sat through an entire week of testimony on the subject of marijuana and how the proposed legalization might affect our society. Nearly every witness who spoke before the committee stressed the need to be prepared well ahead of the date of the legalization, which in our case is the arbitrary date of July 1, 2018. Witnesses highlighted Canada's lack of testing equipment, of drug-recognition experts, of training abilities, and simply of public education in this area.

Bills C-45 and C-46 are inextricably linked. It is crucial that we understand that the part of the bill on drug-impaired driving that we are discussing stems directly from Bill C-45. The overlap between these two bills is evident and although the government is still trying to deal with these two bills as separate and independent bills, that is not the case.

This morning, I would like to address numerous concerns that I have regarding the legislation, in an effort to once again remind the government just how far we are from being truly ready to deal with the consequences of legalizing marijuana in Canada.

Driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana is one of the many causes of death in Canada. We have worked tirelessly for decades to reduce the number of drunk drivers on our roads with voluntary roadside checks, social programs, and many public education campaigns. However, that has not been the case for driving under the influence of marijuana.

Many studies have indicated that drivers who have used marijuana are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes. Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug. Yes, that is right: they doubled from 8% to 17%. In Colorado, the increase in impaired drug driving due to the legalization of marijuana was a 32% increase at the start.

In terms of the statistics in Canada, if we look at traffic fatalities, we see we already have 16% caused by alcohol-impaired driving; another 24% were caused by drug-impaired driving, and most of that is marijuana; and then there is another 18% that is a combination of the two. That is the problem we have now. The government is rushing in 249 days to put in place the legalization of marijuana, when the police have clearly said they are not going to be ready. They are saying they need 2,000 people trained as drug recognition experts, and there are only 600 today. It is very costly to train them, and the training takes place in the U.S. The U.S. is backlogged because various states are busy legalizing. We are not going to have the trained officers we need.

Many colleagues today have talked about the testing. There is absolutely no test for impairment with marijuana. We can test for THC presence in the saliva and the blood, but that says nothing about whether people are impaired. This is really problematic because people who are on medical marijuana may have this residual in their system for days and days; people who were exposed to second-hand smoke may have it in their system; or people who may have smoked marijuana over the weekend and be driving 24 hours or more later and not be impaired might still have it in their system. It is really a problem that there is not a test in place. It will mean serious challenges to any offences charged under these new laws because there is no scientific way of telling whether somebody is impaired.

It is hugely hypocritical of the Liberal government to be introducing this bill and deciding to take alcohol limits from .08 down to .05, to be more stringent, when it is opening the barn door wide to allow people to drive impaired with marijuana without a test. Now, there is discussion of the per se limits, but of course those limits do not speak anything to impairment. We may have to take a pragmatic view and say that we are going to do what some other jurisdictions did and go with zero per se limit: if someone has any level at all, they must not drive. Then again, that will impact many people who are not impaired but who have THC in their system. The government needs to quit rushing this legislation and concentrate on developing the science.

Every testimonial we heard at committee talked about the importance of having a public education campaign in place before the legalization. They want a campaign similar to what MADD did, trying to educate people about not driving drunk. That kind of campaign needs to happen before legalization. We need to have a campaign on other things as well, such as stopping smoking and about how marijuana smoking is bad for us. However, especially with respect to Bill C-46, we need to have that education in place. The fact is that the government, Health Canada, did not even send out the RFP with bids coming back. Bids were due last week, October 16. The program is just being created and it has not started to roll out.

We have been warned and warned by these other jurisdictions that this will be a danger to public safety, and so we need to look at that.

As well, we talk about the recommendations that came forward from committee.

Ms. McLellan, chair of the Liberal task force, recommended giving researchers additional time to develop effective and reliable testing tools.

The fact that the Liberal government is ignoring that advice is shocking. It has no regard whatsoever for Canadians' health and safety. In that same report, the task force also highlighted comments from Washington and Colorado about the importance of implementing education campaigns well ahead of legalization.

The degree of impairment can vary widely depending on the potency of the marijuana used and the driver's frequency of use. This bill sets no limits on those parameters and fails to properly prepare our law enforcement officials for their role. We have only 249 days to go. We need to educate Canadian society as a whole about the dangers of drug-impaired driving.

The deadline imposed by the government is unrealistic and puts Canadians' health at risk. Canadians need to understand the risks of drug-impaired driving before we move forward with this bill. There are just too many unanswered questions, which makes me doubt whether the government is capable of enforcing this law safely or effectively.

With flawed legalization and the flawed drug impaired driving framework proposed, I join my voice to those of my colleagues in calling for the Liberal government to rethink its deadline of July 1, 2018, and to do everything in its power to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians, especially on our roadways.

In summary, we see we are rushing ahead with an arbitrary deadline when the police have said they are not ready, we do not have testing in place, we know the rates of impaired drug driving will likely increase and potentially double, and we know that 88% of Canadians do not smoke marijuana. These are the people who will experience these unintended effects, these tragic affects, so I call on the government to please reconsider and not rush toward this arbitrary date.

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

Madam Speaker, we need to recognize the Conservatives' desire to drag their feet on a relatively important issue. To hear some of the Conservative MPs speak, one would think there are no individuals smoking marijuana and driving today. There are serious issues today that still need to be dealt with. Members across the way need to realize that we have more young people experimenting with marijuana than any other western nation in the world. The past 10 years or so have not been successful, and this is just one part of the whole issue, dealing with some of the consequences. The whole issue has been top of mind for Canadians for many years. Now we have a government that is moving forward on it.

Would the member not acknowledge that the legislation we are talking about today would in fact make our communities safer, because we should not be assuming there are not people smoking marijuana on our streets today? I would like to think she believes there are people doing that. We are providing more tools that will, hopefully, help make our streets safer.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know there are people smoking marijuana today, and one of the very concerning things with our young people is that they are unaware of the harms of driving a vehicle while impaired. Many of them think it is not hazardous, harmful, and dangerous to do so. They also think they are not going to see the 30% increase in schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, depression, and anxiety that the Canadian Medical Association has clearly documented.

That is why it is so important that we have the public education rolled out. The government has had two years. The Liberals ran on this as a platform campaign promise. They have had two years to get the public awareness out there to these young people that it is dangerous. They have had two years to put these things in place, and the training that is required to do this safely.

I do not think the bill, as introduced with the timeline, will bring safety to Canadians. We will see what Washington state saw. It already had a problem with 8% of fatalities due to marijuana-impaired driving, and the number has increased to 17%. We are not ready for that.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2008, the Conservative government introduced tougher penalties for drunk driving, and yet in 2011, Statistics Canada noted “The rate of impaired driving increased for the fourth time in five years...and was at its highest point in a decade”, so longer sentences certainly did not seem to deter drunk driving.

I am interested in how the member thinks we can best keep Canadians safe moving forward, given it looks as if the Liberals are going to pass this, and marijuana will be legal by next July.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to enforcement, we heard about this testimony as well when we talked about the legalization of marijuana. We heard that the enforcement over the years has not been effective, but we heard that what is effective is public education. When people understand the harms to our young people, understand the harms of driving under the influence, and explain to people exactly when they are impaired with marijuana and when they are not—should we be able to develop any research that would do that, which does not exist today—those are the kinds of things that would be much more helpful in protecting the public.

When we had the big campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we saw drunk driving really reduced. That is what we need to do, in a similar fashion, proactively, before we legalize marijuana.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-46, which proposes a number of changes to impaired driving legislation in Canada. More specifically, this legislation is proposing a number of changes in anticipation of the passing of Bill C-45, which seeks to legalize marijuana in Canada.

I, among others in the House, along with my colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, sit on the health committee. We returned a week early in September from the summer recess to hold a series of marathon meetings on Bill C-45. At the committee, witnesses from across Canada and around the world presented their concerns on a number of issues related to the legalization of marijuana. Specifically, there were a number of experts who provided commentary on the aspects surrounding impaired driving. I want to share some of their testimony with members today.

Before I do, I want to say that we all know all too well that impaired driving is a deadly activity that often claims the lives of people who are entirely innocent. Canada is now on the verge of normalizing marijuana use, which could likely see impaired driving and death rates rise. I am not suggesting for a second that drug-impaired driving does not happen now and has not claimed lives already; however, I and many others are concerned that the normalization of marijuana use will make matters much worse on our roads and highways.

On September 12 of this year, during health committee testimony, Deputy Chief Thomas Carrique from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated:

What we do know is that impaired driving by way of alcohol is the number one criminal cause of death in this country. If we are to expect that the use of cannabis may go up, that causes us great concern. It puts our communities at peril....

He went on to say:

It is unknown what the combination is when you combine drugs and alcohol. We have heard all sorts of statistics from our neighbours south of the border that indicate that it has a great impact. There is...a 28% increase in the amount of intoxication. That creates a...danger behind the wheel.

Deputy Chief Mark Chatterbok, of the Saskatoon Police Service, who also represented the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, stated:

We anticipate that as a result of new legislation the number of impaired drivers will only increase. This increase will be realized in a city and a province where impaired statistics are already far too high.

...the Saskatoon Police Service has concerns about an increase in impaired driving due to drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs....what happens when a driver already found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.07 also has the presence of THC in his or her blood. Technically, this driver may be under the legal limit for both individual substances, but what effect does the presence of both of these drugs have on impairment?

That is a very good point, and to my knowledge the issue has not been addressed. The Liberal government has set an artificial deadline to legalize marijuana use in Canada. As a result, it is left rushing through other legislation, such as Bill C-46, to try to head off a huge problem. The huge problem of the Liberals, once again, is their failure to keep their promises. Therefore, we are being asked to rush through legislation for no other reason than to enable the government to meet its deadline of Canada Day 2018. It has been my experience, whether making dinner or in making legislation, that rushing only ends in mistakes and poor results. There are aspects of this bill, Bill C-46, and also Bill C-45 for that matter, that will likely end up before the courts because a charge or conviction will be challenged.

What happens if we pass these changes and legalize marijuana and then parts of this law are struck down? We will not be able to turn back the clock at that point because marijuana use will already be rampant.

Being ready for the legalization of marijuana is a huge issue, in particular for law enforcement. There are thousands of police officers who will require specialized training on all of the anticipated legal changes. However, they do not have the time to complete this before Canada Day.

Also before the health committee this year, Deputy Chief Mike Serr, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said:

In order to support the successful implementation of this comprehensive legislation, the CACP urges the Government of Canada to first consider extending the July 2018 commencement date to allow police services to obtain sufficient resources and proper training, both of which are critical to the successful implementation of the proposed cannabis act.

We need to remember that training takes both time and money, and law enforcement has clearly indicated that they do not have enough of either.

Sure, that government has announced that it has committed funding for training, but it is not enough and we only have 249 days to get it all done. In fact, departments cannot even put together training manuals for the police yet, as the laws to legalize marijuana have not even been made clear. Moreover, the bill still has to go the other side, to the red chamber, and how long could that take?

Just to give the House an idea of the monumental task of training thousands of police officers, deputy Chief Mark Chatterbok also said:

The International Association of Chiefs of Police website lists the process for certification for DRE training.

That is drug recognition expert training. The deputy chief continued:

Everyone who's involved in the program first has to first take the standardized field sobriety training before they attend the DRE program. Then the program itself consists of three phases. The first phase is a two-day preschool. The second phase is a seven-day classroom program with a comprehensive exam following that. Then between 60 and 90 days following phase two, the candidates attend a program in the U.S. where they have to evaluate subjects who are suspected of being impaired by drugs. My understanding is that they must participate in at least 12 evaluations successfully in order to then get the certification.

This training is going to take a long time to complete, and there is no way it will be done on time by Canada Day.

This brings me to my next point, one that was raised by almost every single witness at committee. In fact, there was a strong consensus on this issue amongst all parties as well, and that is public education. It has not gone unnoticed that we are spending a great deal of time and money to legalize marijuana, but we have not embarked on a public education campaign to educate Canadians, especially our youth.

We know that marijuana use by youth is higher in Canada than anywhere else in the world, and we know there is the strong likelihood of increased drug-impaired driving after legalization. We also know that early use, before the age of 25, has negative impacts on human brain development. In fact, the Canadian Medical Association, CMA, which represents 83,000 physicians, said that the age of legalization should ideally be 25 years of age. It says:

Existing evidence on marijuana points to the importance of protecting the brain during its development. Since that development is only finalized by about 25 years of age, this would be an ideal minimum age based on currently accepted scientific evidence....

We know that marijuana use by youth can facilitate the onset of schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions in certain people. Complications include cognitive impairment, social isolation, and even suicide. Just this month at the World Psychiatric Association's World Congress in Berlin, we were presented with further evidence of that.

Knowing all of this, and knowing the rush this Liberal government is in to legalize marijuana, why are we putting off a public education plan? We know that for a message to sink in, it must be repeated over the long term, yet we are looking at a last-minute public education plans. A last-minute public education plan will not get the message across in time. I do applaud MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have taken an early and proactive lead in public education about drug-impaired driving. However, more needs to be done in this area.

To close I would like to reiterate and summarize my main points of concern. While I support a strong stand against impaired driving, I also believe that we need to look at the bigger picture. We need to recognize that we are not ready for marijuana legalization in Canada. We have not educated Canadians adequately on marijuana and its effects. We have not educated Canadians, especially our young, on drug-impaired driving. Neither have we provided our police with adequate time to prepare for all of these changes. We do not have accurate drug detection equipment. We do not have enough trained, front-line officers to handle drug impairment.

In short, we are not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the member's time is up.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a cyclist, I very much believe in the need for safe streets—we call them Open Streets Toronto, a program by 8 80 Cities—for cyclists and active transportation so that people can get around from the age of eight to 80 and beyond and be safe on our streets.

What are the member's thoughts on this legislation specifically? He discussed all sorts of broader issues, but I see this legislation as including steps to make our streets safer from impaired drivers by its enacting new criminal offences authorizing the establishment of prohibited blood drug concentrations, and simplifying and modernizing the offences. Parts of this legislation seem to specifically target a lot of what I heard is his concern, which is impaired driving.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, all of the presentations at committee on this subject have been made, but I encourage the member to read the Hansard of the committee to see what was said. It clearly indicates that there is deep concern among police associations throughout Canada and many others, including the Canadian Medical Association, about impaired driving. I could list more than 100 presentations made at committee that clearly identified that impaired driving was a serious concern and that we needed to take our time in looking at this legislation. It is being rushed. The Liberals are rushing it. We need to look at it. We are not dragging our feet on this side, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier. We are concerned about Canadians and the increased death rates that may result from this legislation's becoming law, apparently, on cannabis day. It is a shame.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' law-and-order approach over the last 10 years has not worked in Canada. Impaired driving charges actually went up under the Conservative government. Despite the longer sentences that were introduced in 2008, Statistics Canada noted in 2011 that “The rate of impaired driving increased for the fourth time in five years...and was at its highest point in a decade.” We are dealing with systems that have not stopped this level of impaired driving in Canada.

The member talked about testing and I heard Conservatives in the House today talk about the fact that there are no good tests for marijuana-impaired driving. MADD Canada has endorsed the idea of per se limits, but I wonder if the member agrees with me that testing and per se limits should be based on a scientific approach.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely we need proper testing equipment, scientifically proven and tested, that will accurately detect whether or not a driver is impaired by drugs. Right now, we do not have that in place. Therefore, why are we moving ahead with legalizing this drug when we do not even have the proper testing equipment in place for police officers around the country to determine whether individuals are impaired?

One important thing we need to do right now is to educate the public and individuals who tend to like to drive while impaired. You stated that the levels of impaired driving have increased since the Conservative government put in place harsher punishment for those individuals, and that may be the case, but I believe that we need to educate society and these individuals even more than we are now. We need to tell them that dire consequences will occur if they are caught driving impaired.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member directed some statements to the member and I want to remind him that they are to be addressed through the Chair.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-46. We have discussed the proposed legislation at length here. The bill introduces new and higher mandatory fines and maximum penalties for impaired driving crimes as well as mandatory alcohol screening at the roadside.

The Conservative Party supports measures that protect Canadians. However, we are concerned for a number of reasons, one of which is that the police, municipalities, and premiers are not prepared for the legislation that would be enacted, and I am referring to Bill C-45.

This is good legislation insomuch that it would increase fines and the penalty for impaired driving would be less of something that people generally who are driving would consider. However, some serious complications have ensued.

I want to take us to the very heart of this legislation, which is Bill C-45, the legalization of marijuana bill. What does that entail? For starters, it means that 18-year-olds in this country would legally be able to purchase and legally be able to indulge in smoking marijuana.

There has been a lot of talk about this proposed legislation. There has been a lot of talk about what the bill would do. I would like to bring to the House's attention a recent poll in the Vancouver Sun. The question was, “Where do you think people should buy their pot?” Multiple choices were listed. The highest group of people, 82.31%, answered “None of the above. I don't agree with legalization”. If we are hearing that this is what people want, it certainly does not reflect what we are seeing at the polls. The number dwindles down from there, shops that sell cannabis, pharmacies, liquor stores, etc.

I was pleased to hear from the member for Steveston—Richmond East the same news as was contained in the Vancouver Sun, that the federal government will not move ahead with marijuana legalization if it is not ready. It is good to hear that members on the other side are starting to talk this way. The member further said, “The concerned group is right. Things are not ready yet. We are still in the process.” We are looking for more of that encouragement from members on the opposite side. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a long way from where they should be.

I have been in this place for 12 years. I have served on a number of committees. Oftentimes when legislation is being proposed or new ideas come up, I always ask: Are there other jurisdictions that we can point to that have had this experience? What have they discovered? What have they learned from their enactment?

I am pleased to say there are a number of jurisdictions, and I am going to cite a few from a study on the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Colorado took it upon itself in 2013 to legalize marijuana. It had relaxed laws and it continued on in that direction. We must remember that when we legalize marijuana the legal age will be 18, whereas in Colorado the age is 21. I do not have time to talk about that, even though it is an important issue as well.

The Colorado experience was such that it talked about impaired driving and fatalities. Marijuana-related traffic deaths more than doubled from 55 deaths in 2013 to 123 deaths in 2016.

If this foolish legislation, Bill C-45, is passed we are going to hear moms and dads, sisters, brothers, and grandparents asking the Liberals to answer for their situation, for their circumstance, for their pain, since they brought the legislation forward.

Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 66% in the four-year average since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. There is more.

In 2009, Colorado marijuana-related traffic deaths involving drivers testing positive for marijuana represented 9% of all traffic deaths. By 2016, it doubled to 20%. On youth marijuana use, we are talking about 21-year-olds. Youth past-month marijuana use increased 12% in the three-year average from 2013-15. In the latest poll, 2014-15, results show that Colorado youth ranked number one in the nation compared to number four in 2011-12. Colorado youth past-month marijuana use for 2014-15 was 55% higher than the national average. We know what is coming down the pipe.

Colorado is one jurisdiction that we can point to, but we can talk about drug usage and what other countries have experienced as well. When we do that, I would like to talk about the Netherlands. I have a little tie to the Netherlands. My parents emigrated from the Netherlands and I have family who live there, so I have a little understanding of what goes on there.

Before I talk about that though, I need to say that although there are some different opinions and different laws in other countries, the current UN treaty forbids countries to legalize or regulate drugs for recreational use. We are a signatory to that. Most countries, with the exception of Uruguay, moved in another direction. Holland tried something different. It tried a two-tier system. It sounds complicated and I would explain that the Dutch have an attitude. Let me quote what Prime Minister Mark Rutte said. He is a hip guy, he is not a stuffy old guy. Mark was the guy who rode his bicycle when the G7 participants went to the Netherlands and President Obama came in with choppers and cars. Mark said during an interview that, “people should do with their own bodies whatever they please, as long as they are well informed about what that junk does to them.” He was talking about marijuana usage.

He went on to say that cannabis legalization of the Colorado model for 21-year-olds, “—where the state taxes and regulates all levels of the supply chain and adults age 21 and over are allowed to purchase weed from state-licensed stores—was out of the question”. He said “if we were to do that, we'd be the laughing stock of Europe.” In relation to the system that they tried to adopt, which would maybe allow some marijuana usage for those with the right to do so, this two-tier system where it is being sold openly but cannot produce it, is complete bankrupt. This is from Jon Brouwer, a law professor at the University of Groningen who specializes in Dutch drug policy. It is a system that is fundamentally flawed, pumping millions into the criminal underworld. Of course, the Liberals insist that this will greatly hinder the underground and the criminal element. We are finding out in Holland, which started to tamper with it, it did not work that well.

I spent some of my time yesterday reading a report by the World Health Organization. I recommend it. It is a great read. It reinforces pretty much everything I have been saying. The health and social effects of non-medical cannabis use is what we have all signed to. I encourage members to read that. I will not be supporting Bill C-45. I think Bill C-46 is moving in the right direction, but we certainly need to do a lot more work.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way. One of the first things that came across my mind is that there seems to be a sense of denial on the other side that Canada already has more young people who are engaged in the use of marijuana than have many other countries around the world, including the United States. When the member across the way talks about all the young people in the United States, he needs to highlight the fact that there are more young people in Canada on a per capita basis who use marijuana than in the United States. It is trying to give what I would suggest is a false impression.

Here we have legislation that would provide some tools. This whole legalization of marijuana is to deal with the criminal element, the hundreds of millions of dollars every year that the criminal element makes off our young people through illegal sales. It is to protect our young people. It cannot be any worse than what it was during Stephen Harper's or other administrations because we already have the youngest participation in marijuana. We already have people high on marijuana who are driving vehicles today in society. The legislation that we are debating today would help with that specific issue.

Would the member across the way at least acknowledge that we have an exceptionally high number of young people using marijuana today and that many of them are driving after using it?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I say, “so what?” The member is right. We have a huge number of young people who are smoking marijuana, far too many. It does not change the fact that this legislation would not correct that or move it in the right direction. Speaking to Bill C-46, the legislation that we are dealing with right now on the laws pertaining to driving, I have three sons who are policemen. They have told me, as have the police chiefs and countless others in law enforcement, that this is crazy, that we are not near ready for any of this, that we are not ready for that legislation in itself, let alone the fact that we would be encouraging young people to smoke marijuana. We are not talking about just the legalization. When a government takes it upon itself and says, “This stuff is legal, go for it”, what is it actually saying?

I would just encourage the member to take a good, hard look at what his government is proposing and I am hoping that by July 1 the government does an about-face.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question is that this legislation would provide the member's sons and the other individuals who are law enforcement agents across this country an opportunity to do something that they were not able to do anywhere near as effectively for individuals who are driving today who are high on marijuana. There is going to be legislation. The Conservatives can continue to debate that, overall, government policy is going in the wrong direction, but at the very least this legislation would make our streets safer. That, I would argue, is unquestionable. Would he not agree with that fact?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the legislation is good insomuch that it would increase the fines. However, the fact remains, and this is what police officers and police chiefs are telling me, they are not even slightly ready for this. They can have great legislation that would not be able to be enacted because law enforcement simply does not have the tools. We haven't even talked about what premiers and municipalities are saying, and what costs are involved. This is a giant mistake, and the hon. member needs to take a good look at what the Liberals are proposing, and back-track. Let us talk about this again. We need to talk about this a whole lot more.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here today to participate in this debate on behalf of the people of the great riding of Timmins—James Bay.

The bill before us this morning seeks to amend the Criminal Code to give the police more authority when it comes to dealing with drug- and alcohol-impaired driving. This bill arises from the Liberal government's decision to legalize marijuana. I have a lot of questions about this bill.

First, there is no reliable test for detecting the presence of drugs in a driver's system. That is problematic because the police do not have the resources they need to deal with this new reality. Where is the national campaign to make Canadians aware of the effects of the legalization of marijuana?

The other problem with this bill is the Liberal government's decision to give police officers more authority, which will allow them to arrest drivers for no reason. Canada currently enjoys a legal balance where the police have the tools they need to keep people safe and individual rights are protected. I believe that this bill will undermine that balance.

The issue of our response as a society to the legalization of marijuana is an important question for Parliament. Certainly, we have seen too many lives affected with permanent records for having been charged for the recreational use of marijuana. Therefore, I applaud the government for moving in the direction of legalization. However, I have a number of questions about the lack of preparedness from the government in offering our society the protections necessary and to ensure police officers have the resources they need to maintain the fundamental balance that exists right now between the rights of citizens to know their streets are safe from drunk and drug-impaired drivers and the rights of individuals to be protected from unnecessary stop and search.

Right now, we do not have a credible, simple, clear test to prove the influence of drugs, which is a serious question. We have to ask ourselves whether the resources will be in place for the police to deal with this. It is a straightforward. However, in response to this, we hear this from the government. Because there is no credible test for marijuana, it will move forward with arbitrary mandatory tests for alcohol impairment without reason. I am very concerned about this. It undermines the principle that has been established in our country about the need for just cause.

Right now, if police officers believe a driver is impaired from drugs or alcohol, they have the right to stop that vehicle and demand a test, which is fair. They have the right, identified by the court, to set up programs, such as the RIDE program, where police officers can stop, for a limited period of time, all drivers and test them. However, it is proven that the program does not target individuals, because it is applied fairly across the board, such as at Christmas or other times where there may be high levels of drinking. The fact that we would add a provision that could allow police to stop an individual anytime, anywhere, and demand tests, to me, is an undermining of the basic questions of the charter. We have to be looking at why the government is moving in this direction.

In the case of R. v. Oakes, there was a simple test, that the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question, which is the protection of society and the maintaining of individual rights. It says, “They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations.” This means that even if rationally connected to the objective in the first place, which would be to stop drunk driving, they should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question.

Why is this so important? Right now, if we go to court on any given day, we will never see upper middle-class white teenagers in court for marijuana possession. It is racialized. It is immigrant and indigenous. The targeting of certain groups is a fact. If members represent a rural region like I do, they want to ensure our roads are safe but also that powers are not abused to target people just because of who they are. Talk about driving while black or driving while indigenous.

These protections have to be maintained. Civil society is based on the rule of law. These tests have been brought to the Supreme Court. They have been tested to ensure we still have the powers necessary to go after drunk driving, while we ensure the tools police officers have do not exceed the limits so they do not unfairly targeting certain individuals who, just because of perhaps their economic disposition, or where they live, or the colour of their skin are identified for harassment.

It always strikes me with the Liberals, the so-called party of the charter, that whenever they can, they overreach on these issues. These are fundamental principles and we need to talk about them. We are all invested in finding that balance. We want safe streets, but we also want to know that the rule of law to ensure the police officers do not overstep is protected. I am very concerned about this with respect to this change.

This leads us back to the fact that this is being added in on alcohol when we do not have a credible test for drugs. We need to start a major campaign of public awareness about the legalization of drugs and how we will start to apply that. There was a huge campaign of public awareness over drinking and driving. It had a major impact in reducing people's decisions to get behind the wheel after Christmas parties. That was a very successful campaign. It was maintained through having credible powers of police and testing that could be applied in court. It was a clear test. However, we do not have that with marijuana.

To simply say that we will add more mandatory searches of people left, right, and centre will not address that fundamental problem. I am surprised the government has attempted to go in this direction. We will see major questions in section 1 charter liabilities over the rights of citizens.

When we talk about adding more rights of citizens, for example, the right to smoke marijuana legally, we have to also then say what resources we have to protect society. Then from that, the question of how to ensure those tools the police and authorities have do not exceed their respective authority and protect the individual rights of Canadians. With the Liberal government, I see a complete overreach. It is using the issue of the legalization of marijuana to add tools in the police tool box that it should not have and that have been found by the courts to exceed and undermine the rights of citizens. Some fundamental problems have to be addressed.

Within this Parliament, we can address those issues, because they are complicated. They do not necessarily have to fall down on party lines. We have to find out what the right tools are to protect society and the rights of individuals. At this point, the Liberal government does not seem to have found that balance.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned how important the public awareness and education campaign regarding drinking and driving was. I am the mother of young adults and they know that there is a zero tolerance policy and that they must not get behind the wheel if they have been drinking.

It is important that the government quickly launch this same type of public awareness and education campaign on marijuana-impaired driving.

Does my colleague agree that the government should immediately announce the launch of such a campaign? We know that plans for this sort of campaign are under way, but we think it is taking too long. Since the legalization of marijuana is on the agenda, the government needs to start this campaign before the drug is legalized.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the incredible work my colleague is doing. I am surprised that the government decided to legalize marijuana without any plans to launch a national awareness campaign for Canadians on the rights and problems related to marijuana, specifically on the effects that drugs have on drivers.

There was a national campaign in response to the issue of impaired driving, which caused a lot of accidents. This awareness campaign was very useful in helping to protect Canadians.

Why did the Liberal government forget to put the proper resources in place to launch a similar campaign in response to the issue of the influence of drugs and marijuana?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

I have a question that has been bugging me. It has been stuck in my craw, as they say, since this whole marijuana legalization process began. The government decided to legalize marijuana, so why is it just now waking up to the importance of awareness? Why, all of a sudden, does it feel the need to go to great lengths to reduce marijuana use among young people even as it is taking steps to make the substance available everywhere? Why did the government not launch this campaign first so it could gauge the effect and then maybe explore the possibility of legalizing marijuana? Maybe the government should have waited to see if a youth-focused awareness campaign would have helped reduce the number of people getting behind the wheel after smoking marijuana.

Does the member not agree that the government is going about this all wrong? We certainly support measures to crack down on drug-impaired driving, but I think that should be the last resort. What we need to do is make sure young people do not drive under the influence of marijuana in the first place.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the last election, the Prime Minister appeared to really champion the rights of young people. Personally, I have no objection to legalizing marijuana, but what I do object to is a government that has begun the process without any plan to create a public awareness campaign, particularly regarding problems related to drug-impaired driving.

The Prime Minister was very supportive of legalizing marijuana, but he refused to address the problems and bring in a credible plan for Parliament and for Canada, to make sure we have Canadians' trust. We do not have that now.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very sensitive and very serious matter, namely, how the legalization of marijuana relates to road safety issues. What effect will it have, and what measures should be taken?

I want to begin by saying that we on this side of the House are in favour of cracking down on impaired drivers. We must never compromise on safety. Any time someone takes the wheel, they must be fully cognizant of the fact that they are wielding what can be a terrifying weapon if it is not used properly. It is the responsibility of all drivers to ensure that they are fully competent to drive. Woe to anyone who chooses to drive while impaired by either alcohol or, unfortunately, drugs. That is where Bill C-46 comes in.

Essentially, the bill makes the law tougher on people who consume drugs and then take the wheel. We certainly cannot oppose virtue, but it is the approach that is highly objectionable and needs to be examined because in our view it is not the right one.

Let us return to the thrust of the matter. The government wants to legalize marijuana. That is why it tabled this bill. It is not a good thing. Anyone who has even taken a slight interest in this matter knows that wherever this has been tried, whether in Colorado or Washington, there has been an increase in crime, the consumption and illegal production of drugs, accidents, social problems, and deaths on the road.

Furthermore, this bill and the Liberal's ambition to legalize marijuana will normalize the use of a drug. There is no place for this in public discourse. It has a place in debate, but not in legislation. It is unacceptable to move forward with normalizing a drug.

The government is claiming that, with this new approach, organized crime will not reap the ill-gotten gains of marijuana production. I only need to quote one person to refute this argument, and that is the Commissioner of the RCMP, who says that it is naive to believe that organized crime is going to lose out. I am not the one saying so; it is the Commissioner of the RCMP, who knows all about this. For more than 150 years, the RCMP has done a superb job of fighting organized crime, the people who make money on the backs of the poor. The Commissioner of the RCMP is telling us that we would be naive to believe that this will allow us to stamp out organized crime.

Colorado and Washington's experience has shown that organized crime has actually gotten better at organizing. Worse still, legalizing, and therefore normalizing, marijuana consumption means this dirty business will be sanctioned by the government. When a teenager or youth tries marijuana for the first time, they will be doing so legally and with the approval of the Liberal government. That first contact will open the door to hard drugs.

No drug user starts off with cocaine. First they try one little joint. Then they try a stronger joint. Then they start taking a little of this and a little of that. This depraved behaviour will have the blessing of the Liberal government. This is totally inappropriate. That is my overview of the marijuana issue.

Now, let us take a closer look at what Bill C-46 says about driving and driving-related measures. First of all, the government has been rushing forward on this issue at breakneck speed. Everything absolutely must be finished and passed by July 1, 2018. What is the rush? Is there a meteor heading for Earth? No. The July 1 deadline is all in the Liberal members' heads.

This is to say nothing of the Liberal government's outrageous idea to tie our national holiday, Canada Day, to the legalization of marijuana. Are the Liberals going to sing, “O Cannabis!”? I certainly will not. I am proud to be Canadian and I want us to sing O Canada, not “O Cannabis”. Well, that is what the Liberal government wants to do on July 1. What were they thinking, for Pete's sake? There are 365 days to choose from and they chose that day. If I were not in the House of Commons I would call them fools, but I will watch my language. It is not right to do that on July 1st, and so hastily to boot.

The provincial governments are left to deal with everything having to do with health, public safety, transportation, and housing. Thanks to this gracious Liberal government, it will be legal to have pot plants in every house in Canada. That is fantastic. This creates more problems.

Is there a single provincial government that is happy about having to implement all this in the amount of time they have been given? No, there is not a provincial government, a premier, or a health minister who has said that everything is just fine. Some are getting through this a bit better than others and say that they are on track to adapting to this new reality, but this is not something that should be done under pressure as quickly as possible. The provincial authorities are the ones that are stuck dealing with this problem. It is an insult to our provincial partners.

The same applies to road safety. Does the government seriously think that the police have all the tools they need to deal with this new reality? Does the government think that the police have the training needed to use those new tools? Does it think that all police officers will be ready to deal with this right away and that they will be ready to enforce this law on July 1, 2018?

That is absolutely not the case. The head of the RCMP and all of the other police forces across Canada are saying that they do not have the tools they need, even though that is fundamental. This bill requires people to deal with this situation even if they are not ready. That is the problem. The Liberals are rushing to implement this measure without doing the necessary research. If they have to legalize marijuana, could they not at least take the time to do things right and make sure that the police and everyone else who has to deal with this sad reality have the proper training? Unfortunately, that is not what the Liberals are doing. They are just rushing this thing through.

The government is saying that it is going to spend millions of dollars to make people aware of the risks associated with marijuana. First, that sends a contradictory message because why would the government legalize something that it does not want people to use? That makes no sense. Second, the money that the Liberal government has allocated to make people aware of the risks associated with marijuana is just a fraction of what Washington State and Colorado allocated for the same purpose.

We are hearing a lot of bluster about this, but the government has not taken any real action to serve Canadians as it should in this regard. The government is not doing enough in terms of prevention and it is not providing the resources and tools our police officers need. The government is trying to rush the provinces into this and force them to hastily implement this measure by July 1, 2018.

Legalizing marijuana, which normalizes and gives our children easier legal access to the drug market, is clearly a bad idea. What is worse, Bill C-46 will lead us astray; we will not have enough time to give law enforcement the training or equipment it needs and even less time to raise awareness among those we are trying to protect. Unfortunately, the government is going too fast in the wrong direction.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, and it seems to me that there are 338 of us members. If we were all to take a different view to my colleague's, that is to say a positive and forward-looking one, then we would have more time to explain the positives. That is what Canadians expect. I would ignore any inflammatory and negative speeches.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I misled the House in any way by providing false information, the member should rise and point it out, and I will immediately withdraw my remarks.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent can really crack us up.

On a more serious note, I have worked with troubled youth, I took part in youth round tables for almost 20 years, and I was the director at a community shelter for troubled youth. I agree with my colleague that we have to do something to ensure that legalizing marijuana does not give people licence to use it all the time.

Having worked with troubled youth for years during the Conservatives' reign, I concluded that their approach did not reduce accidents caused by impaired driving, nor did it reduce consumption. I found a harm reduction approach to be much more effective. Awareness and education are much more effective than repression.

Does my colleague agree that we must immediately urge the government to launch a massive public education and awareness campaign to ensure that legalizing marijuana does not normalize marijuana consumption?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her always temperate and well-articulated comments.

We obviously do not share the same social vision, but the beauty of the House of Commons is that it brings together people from the “for” camp, people from the “against” camp, people who are more to the right, and others further to the left. That is Canada, and that is the very purpose of the House of Commons.

The member said that under the Conservative government, consumption rose despite stronger repressive measures. I do not think this problem is related to whether the government is Conservative or formed by another party. Rather, it is a global problem.

We believe that legalizing and therefore trivializing marijuana consumption is no way to reduce consumption. Naturally, we support any initiative aimed at raising public awareness, such as an outreach campaign. However, the worst thing that could happen would be for an outreach campaign to be launched at the same time as marijuana is legalized. That would be sheer folly.

Legalizing marijuana trivializes it. That means taking marijuana will no longer be considered illegal or wrong. Well, taking marijuana is wrong. Legalizing it is wrong, and trivializing it is definitely wrong.

We agree with the idea of an education campaign, but for God's sake, let us launch it with all possible speed and energy, and delay the legalization of marijuana as long as possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have 30 seconds for one more question and 30 seconds for the response.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with only 30 seconds, just one question comes to mind.

As a father, I know that legalizing marijuana opens the door in a way that could in fact encourage my children to consume more. I have a daughter who will be getting her driver's licence very soon. There is absolutely no campaign under way at this time. Unfortunately, marijuana will be legalized before all the awareness campaigns have a chance to make a difference and convince my daughter not to drive and use drugs at the same time.

Can the member tell me whether the Prime Minister's fantasy land has any resemblance whatsoever to real life?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his very relevant question.

This is about our children and grandchildren. For months and months now, I have been meeting with older people who tell me that it is not their children they fear for, but rather their grandchildren. They say they are worried about their four- or five-year-old granddaughter, for instance, who, once she becomes a teenager, will say to her mom that the Prime Minister said it is legal and it is no big deal. That is why we must not move forward on this. If this government does unfortunately move forward on this, the very least it must also do is educate young people and encourage them not to use marijuana. The government needs to do so as quickly and as aggressively as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to be in the House today to speak to Bill C-46. I want to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He provided some very important points to this House. I appreciate not only his passion and hard work for his constituents but also that he is standing up for Canadians.

Bill C-46 is evidence of another broken promise by the current Liberal government. It is another symbol of the top-down approach that the Prime Minister takes. He informs members of his caucus, of his party, that this is what he has decided to do and that this is what they will do, which is to have marijuana legalized as of Canada Day, with a great celebration. This member brought up that the Prime Minister has said that is what the Liberals will do and that they must support that position, that plan.

Recently, we saw what happens when members show some independence and represent the concerns of their constituents. They are kicked off committees or are disciplined severely, because they must assimilate and support the position of their leader. It is disappointing. That is not what Canadians were promised. They were promised transparency. They were promised that the government would be listening, truly consulting, and representing the concerns of Canadians, of the constituents. We saw a model of that being hammered down, where one member of the Liberal caucus who said, “I'm going to represent my constituents”, was severely punished.

I am proud to bring the voice of the constituents of my riding of Langley—Aldergrove. I love it. It is a beautiful part of Canada. I have consulted about this. I consulted with a unique group of people, young professionals on my youth advisory board, which is made up of students from grades 11 and 12, as well as university. These are our future leaders, so I asked them about impaired driving and the legalization of marijuana. The current government has a minister for youth who is the Prime Minister himself. He has said that he represents this age group. This age group is telling the Prime Minister and these Liberal members to slow down the process. They feel that it is being rushed and the government will not get it right.

I think of the old adage, haste makes waste. There is real truth in that, and we are seeing that played out by the Liberal government, which is hastily moving forward regardless of what it is hearing from Canadians, from the provinces, and from police chiefs. Overwhelmingly, the government is being told to slow the process down and that it is moving too fast because Canada is not ready for this, particularly with respect to Bill C-46. This is the legislation that the government, with great gusto, promised would make our roads safer. The Liberals said that they would not legalize marijuana until they first had legislation in place in Canada to make sure they keep our roads safe. They were going to get tough on impaired driving. That is anything but the truth, because they are not. What they are proposing will make our streets much less safe.

I have met a lot of people in my riding and have heard some tragic stories while representing my constituents. I met Victor and Markita Kaulius. Their daughter Kassandra was killed by a drunk driver not that long ago. They were devastated, as any parent would be. Whether it is a daughter, a son, a sibling, a spouse, a partner, it is devastating to lose someone. It is a normal part of every human being to want justice if that were to happen because of a criminal offence. Driving impaired and killing someone is the number one criminal offence in Canada. Therefore, Canadians are calling out for justice. Markita Kaulius became part of an organization across Canada that has sent literally tens of thousands of petitions to this House calling for a toughening of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The previous government, in the last Parliament, introduced legislation to toughen the impaired driving laws in Canada, to include mandatory minimum sentencing. It found that the sentences coming from the courts in Canada for impaired driving causing death were actually just fines. None got anywhere close to the maximum.

It suggested that impaired driving causing death be called what it is, vehicular homicide, and Families for Justice said it wanted mandatory minimums. They felt that, if someone knowingly drives a vehicle while impaired and kills someone, a first offence should be at least five years. Five years is actually one-third of that; it is about a year and a half. With statutory release, after one-third of a sentence people qualify to be released.

Families for Justice asked for five years. In the additional three and a half years after the initial one and half years of being locked up and receiving treatment and programs, people would be supervised to make sure they were not driving while impaired. It was very reasonable, and it is actually where Canadians are.

The last government said yes, and it introduced legislation. All the leaders running in the last election were asked if they would support the legislation, because there was not enough time to get it passed in the last Parliament. The Prime Minister wrote a letter to Markita Kaulius saying that he would support that.

Moving forward into this Parliament, that was another broken promise. The Prime Minister did not support that. There have been two pieces of legislation. One was a Conservative private member's bill, and one was a Liberal private member's bill. They were not good enough for him. He wanted to be in front, leading the parade on this, so those were shut down. We now have Bill C-46.

As per the promise the Prime Minister made to Markita Kaulius and to Families for Justice, in Bill C-46, there were to be mandatory minimum sentences. I was honoured to serve on the justice committee just recently in the study of Bill C-46, before it came back to the House. The Liberal government, as dictated by the Prime Minister's Office, said that we are going to get tough by increasing the maximum—and nobody gets the maximum. The guidelines to the courts, to provide discretion to the courts, said that on a first offence, people would receive at least a $1,000 fine for killing someone while driving impaired. For the second offence, the second time someone killed somebody while driving impaired, they would get 30 days in jail. Now with 30 days, one-third is 10 days. The third time someone killed somebody while driving impaired, they would get 120 days, which is 40 days.

I was flabbergasted when the Liberal members at the justice committee were defending that as being just. They said that five years, which is a year and half of incarceration, and dealing with the causes of why this person was driving impaired, is much too harsh. They wanted to give the courts discretion.

The courts are bound by precedents, previous rulings of the court. They need to have discretion, but they need guidance from this House. Canadians wonder why sentencing is so small, and why it does not represent what Canadians want. It is not our judges; it is the people sitting across the way. They are weak on crime.

Canadians want us to be tough on crime. They want fairness and justice, and they are not getting it from the Liberal government. Sadly, Bill C-46 is not even close to what Canadians want. It is another broken promise by the Liberal government, a top-down approach that will unfortunately leave our streets very unsafe. Marijuana-impaired, alcohol-impaired, and illegal drug-impaired driving will be a growing problem in Canada because of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member across the way acknowledge the reality that we have people who have been smoking cannabis or marijuana for the last number of years—10, 15, 20, whatever number—and from a world standard, compared to the U.S., we have more young people engaged in the consumption of cannabis than virtually any other country in the world, including the United States, England, Australia, and so forth?

We have had this issue for decades. Can the member opposite explain what tools the Stephen Harper government put in place to deal with those individuals who were high on marijuana or cannabis? What sorts of consequences were there during the Stephen Harper era?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that we have an impaired-driving problem in Canada, so the focus really is where we go from here. How do we make our streets and our communities safer?

I was part of a think tank that recommended that medical marijuana be by prescription. That was the recommendation. If we were moving forward in that, if a doctor said that medical marijuana would help someone, he or she could go to a doctor, get a prescription, and have it filled. Rather than having it filled at a drug store, it would be mailed in secure mail. That was the direction that government was heading. In considering how we can keep our streets safer, we were faced with the challenge that the police can test for impairment with alcohol but they cannot test for marijuana impairment, scientifically with a tool for the police. There are drug-recognition experts in different police departments being trained to recognize impairment, and they would go back to the detachment to determine what type of drug people had in their bodies. However, we need more DREs, drug-recognition experts, and we need them to be trained and distributed throughout, so they can properly enforce it.

However, none of this is happening. This is being downloaded by the Liberal government with the arbitrary date of July 1 of next year. Therefore, the message to the government from Canadians is to slow the process down. The Liberals are rushing because they want to have this in place by Canada Day of next year. It is irresponsible, it would hurt Canada, and it would break a promise.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to asking one of my Conservative colleagues a question about their rationale for opposing the legalization of marijuana.

My question is quite simple, and will only take a few seconds. Based on their rationale for prohibiting marijuana, I am wondering if we can expect that the Conservatives will again be calling for the prohibition of alcohol in the next election.

Are we to understand from my Conservative colleagues' speeches that alcohol will soon be prohibited in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member but I am surprised by the question. No, Canadians do not have to worry about alcohol being made illegal. If somebody is found driving a vehicle and there is an open bottle of alcohol, it can be confiscated by the police. What is being proposed by the Liberals is that people could have 60 joints sitting in that car. They could be smoking away, and each of the people in the car could have a bag of 60 joints in the car, and they are all happy, and the police could not confiscate the marijuana.

What is being proposed by the government is bizarre. Alcohol will remain legal, but people are not to be driving impaired. Bill C-46 is about impaired driving. We are not talking about the legalization of marijuana; we are talking about keeping our streets safe, and Bill C-46 would not do that. The bill does not have mandatory minimum sentences. A fine of $1,000 for killing somebody is not realistic. It is not just; it is not fair; it is not where Canadians are.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to add to the debate on Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding offences relating to conveyances and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The title, though, is not really a description of what this bill would do, which is to change the impaired driving laws in Canada to ensure that we deal not only with drug impairment but also increase the sanctions on those who drive while impaired by alcohol. This is a complex subject that the NDP and I are very concerned about.

I agree that this bill is important. To be clear, nothing is more important than protecting the Canadian public. The NDP has been a long-time advocate of improving and ensuring deterrence of impaired driving, whose tragedies we all face in our ridings. This is in no way the only component of this bill. I have many concerns about it and its true effectiveness and would like to outline some of them.

When people speak about impaired driving, they often refer to the victims of these crimes. Without a doubt, the human cost of impaired driving is huge. Every year, hundreds of people are killed and tens of thousands are injured as a result of impaired driving crashes in Canada. This affects our friends, family, neighbours, and colleagues, virtually everyone in our lives. There is perhaps no greater pain than losing a loved one so suddenly under circumstances like impaired driving. The frustrations of the legal system are even more significant on top of the pain and anger from one's loss. I agree that impaired driving has had a long history of causing heartbreak in our country and that changes need to be made to prevent any more tragedies from happening in Canada.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, in 2010, impairment-related crashes resulted in an estimated 1,082 fatalities, 63,821 injuries, and damage to 210,932 vehicles. There are also significant financial and social costs as a result of impaired driving. There was a total of 181,911 crashes, costing an estimated $20.62 billion. This includes the costs of the horrific fatalities, injuries, property damage, traffic delays, hospital costs, and the cost of first responders, such as police officers, firefighters, and ambulance attendants, to say nothing of the psychological impact on our front-line workers. Naturally, the government should want to put forward legislation that prevents people from needlessly suffering. My question is why it does not want to do it right.

The largest problem with this bill centres around the mandatory roadside alcohol and drug testing or screening proposed in section 320.27. This would be the first time in Canada that authority would be given to police to stop someone on a whim. These are very dangerous and murky waters we are wading into here. Currently, under the law, officers must have a reasonable suspicion before they can stop someone. Many civil liberties groups have raised concerns about these proposed changes, stating that the removal of reasonable suspicion would result in disproportionate targeting of racialized Canadians, indigenous people, youth, and other marginalized groups.

I am the proud mother of two young black men, so I am additionally concerned about the uncertainties this bill would create. Carding and unfair racial profiling is an issue in many communities, and many other Canadians must deal with this on a daily basis, so why would the government create a piece of legislation that could potentially worsen this problem? Why would it put our valued police officers in such a precarious position? This issue may also be challenged in the judicial system and be subject to defeat under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Random and mandatory breath tests for alcohol screening are also included in this bill, and they too could be challenged under sections 8 and 9 of the charter, which address the rights of individuals to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and the rights of individuals not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Therefore, I again must ask the House why the government would create a piece of legislation that could impact the rights of individuals as laid out by the charter. This is incredibly short-sighted.

There is also the problem of how the police are expected to test and screen people for impaired driving from cannabis. The proposed plans are to use roadside oral fluid drug screeners. In Ontario, the pilot projects that use these devices are unreliable, and there is no standard chemical test that states when a person is impaired. Furthermore, the proposed legislation does not name any per se limit. The legal limit that would show impairment is not in the bill. Instead, the government has stated that this shall be prescribed by regulation.

I am reminded of a recent court case last year that shows why it is so important for the government to create legislation that is thorough and well thought out. This case involved a Toronto police officer and three young black men. The officer pulled their car over, despite the absence of any evidence. He said he was relying on a type of sixth sense to suss out usual suspects. These young men were handed four charges, including one of assaulting a police officer. The judge threw out these charges and stated:

...upon seeing this older vehicle being driven by three young, black males Constable Crawford's immediate conclusion despite the lack of any evidence, was that they were up to something.... It was more probable than not that there was no articulable cause for the stop but that the real reason for the stop was racial profiling.

As legislators, it is imperative that we find solutions to problems, but not create more problems. By not creating clear and well-thought-out laws, we leave stranded those who must enforce those laws and those who must abide by them.

The NDP is asking for a more effective piece of legislation that deals with the problem of impaired driving holistically. We need a robust public awareness campaign that educates the public and police about the dangers of driving while impaired from either alcohol or drugs. Through education, we can effectively teach and deter people, thereby avoiding the problem in the first place.

This was a major recommendation of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. It stated quite accurately that we need to “develop a national, comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis causes impairment and that the best way to avoid driving impaired is to not consume.”

The Canadian Automobile Association helped fund a study by the Ottawa-based Traffic Injury Research Foundation that suggests that legalization would pose “incredible challenges” for managing pot-impaired drivers. The CAA also commissioned a poll that found that almost two-thirds of respondents are worried that our roads will become more dangerous after legalization.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about marijuana usage in our country, and we certainly have heard a great deal of them in the House today. In the poll I referred to, some people even believed that taking pot made them a better driver. Suffice it to say that there is a great deal of research that challenges and supports these perceptions. However, it is the responsibility of the government to study this issue in more detail, educate the public on the best information available, and ensure that it puts forward legislation that effectively and fairly addresses this problem.

New Democrats want a smart bill that truly works to protect Canadians. Repeatedly, experts and their research show us that education and prevention are truly bigger deterrents than sentences. This is why we believe that the bill must focus more heavily on these issues. Yes, impaired driving is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. There are lives at stake, and I believe that as legislators we must include effective provisions to stop people from ever making the choice to drive impaired.

I have to say that it is disappointing that the Liberals on the committee defeated five out of six NDP amendments, and the majority of the opposition members' amendments as well, but of course supported all of the government's amendments. I think there was an opportunity at the committee to get the bill right, but it is disappointing that it has now come to the House without that happening.

This issue is too important to put band-aid solutions on it. We must do this correctly, and we must do it intelligently to end the long, heartbreaking history of impaired driving in Canada. Nothing is more devastating than the loss of a loved one, and we must do everything we can to prevent the tragedies that occur on our roads.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned her concern about police officers pulling people over on a whim, but I just want to bring to her attention the fact that the legislation does deal with this issue.

I would refer my colleague to proposed subsection 320.27(2) concerning mandatory alcohol screening. Within the legislation there is the requirement that a police officer must be “in the course of a lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law”. The police must be in the exercise of a lawful authority to pull someone over. If a police officer were to pull someone over while not acting in the exercise of a lawful authority but based on bias or, in particular, the insidious practice of racial profiling, the stop would be rendered unlawful. It is unlawful under the provincial Police Services Act, it is unlawful under provincial human rights legislation, it is unlawful under Canadian human rights legislation, and therefore such a stop would be unlawful and any test administered during it would be rendered inadmissible.

The legislation very clearly requires that a police officer be acting in the lawful performance of a duty as prescribed in law before being able to demand a mandatory alcohol screening test. I would submit to the member that this protection exists and would like her comment on it. Would that be sufficient to address her concerns?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is disregarding the vast amount of evidence that under the current laws in our country, there is racial profiling and carding of black and indigenous drivers, who are randomly stopped. This is an epidemic in our country that needs to be addressed.

To say that our current laws prevent this is patently false. There is so much contrary evidence to that. Certainly in the member's own riding in Toronto, there is incredible evidence showing that carding is happening, that people are being randomly pulled over unlawfully without any reason, but just on a whim.

I do not know how the member can believe that the system is working well for people of colour, because those very people do not feel that the system is being used in the way it should be, but that police officers are using their authority to stop people randomly.

I am pleased to see that our new leader Jagmeet Singh has handled this issue very well provincially. He has called for a federal ban on carding, which is exactly the direction we need to go. Under Bill C-46, allowing police officers or front-line people to continue to randomly stop people without any just cause will have a disproportionate impact on people of colour, and that is a fact. I am not confident that this legislation would stop that from happening in any way, because it continues to be an epidemic in Canada.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians do not tune in to committee proceedings, so I am wondering if my colleague would share with us some of the more important amendments that would have made a great deal of sense to be included in the bill, but which Liberal committee members voted down.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker. One of the six amendments that we brought forward proposed that within three years the Auditor General would do a report. Another of our amendments proposed stopping everyone at designated checkpoints to avoid random stops from happening. We supported having such a checkpoint so there would never be the impression of a disproportionate number of people of colour being stopped, but unfortunately the Liberal members at committee voted that down. It is disappointing that we will not see this applied in a way that would blanket every individual that we capture within that space, versus allowing police officers to card and target and racially profile.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I would also like to thank the member for Essex for her very kind words and thoughts. As a mother, I am on the same page on this. I would like to thank her very much for sharing that.

Today we are speaking about safe roads for Canadians and their families. It should be a simple discussion, but we must recognize that with the ramming through of this legislation, our cities and municipalities will not have the proper tools and resources to make sure that safety is our priority.

During the summer, I met with many people to discuss Bill C-45. Many individuals brought forward their concerns about impaired driving due to cannabis, which concerns Bill C-46.

The task force put together many recommendations for the Liberal government to review. First, the chair of the committee indicated that the best solution was to give researchers time to develop proper detection tools. Second, for many users, specifically youth, the potency and impact is greatly unknown and underestimated. Third, there should be increased funding for law enforcement authorities to get ready for the new regime. Fourth, and one of the key points I find extremely important and that was recommended by both the task force and the states of Washington and Colorado, which have legalized marijuana, was the importance of extensive impaired driving campaigns before the legislation.

To begin, I would like speak about the need for proper detection tools. Results were announced indicating that there was a pilot project using a new device to detect the concentration of cannabis in the system. It was reported by officers that the device was easy to use and successfully detected the drug. At this time, there has been no indication of what the next steps will be and how we are going to pay for it.

Second, is it the best test, and will it detect impairment? We have heard other members of Parliament speak about these tests and the equipment necessary. We do not have the silver bullet when it comes to detection devices.

It was also stated that the best method to prevent impaired driving was public education funding for public resources and education. Education is definitely a word everyone will hear more and more throughout my speech.

Another concern is the unknown and underestimated impact of cannabis on youth. Studies show that cannabis has many different effects on people, specifically on the skills that are extremely important when driving. They include loss of motor coordination, problem solving, and thinking; and distorted perception. I believe we all agree that these are important skills that should not be at risk when driving.

Keeping this in mind, we should take into account a few other factors. Statistics posted by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction state the following:

According to the 2012 Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, 5% of youth aged 15-24 reported driving after using marijuana during the past year, compared to 9.4% after consuming alcohol.

Data from the National Fatality Database revealed that between 2000 and 2010, marijuana was the most common illicit drug present among fatally injured drivers aged 15-24 in Canada.

The 2011 Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey revealed that individuals aged 15-24 were more likely to be passengers of an individual who had consumed alcohol or other drugs, rather than to drive impaired themselves. Riding with a driver who has used drugs or alcohol can lead to consequences just as tragic as driving while impaired.

Addressing impaired driving among our youth must be done. CCSA goes on to say:

CCSA has conducted a series of reviews examining effective approaches to preventing drugged driving among youth. Key findings include:

Factual messaging created by youth ensures that information is believable and easily understood by youth.

Empowering youth to plan and create their own prevention initiatives can increase the effectiveness and reach of the message.

Parents, teachers, coaches and so on should talk to youth about impaired driving and discuss implications to encourage youth to think critically before making decisions.

Overall, what we are talking about are awareness campaigns that centre on youth to deter them from driving while impaired, especially under the influence of marijuana. Once again, my focus here is education. The most common drug used first by Canadian youth is marijuana, and among our youth population, we have the second highest use of marijuana in the world. Where is the education regarding the potential effects and the conversation on driving while impaired?

Next, what is available for resources and financial support? Currently, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments have been speaking, but there are no decisions, and there is still one main player missing at the table. The cities and municipalities that will be in charge of keeping our roads safe have not been provided with this tool. They have been left out of these conversations. We still have to talk to them. We need to talk about education. We need to talk about potential detection devices, but currently, all we are doing is talking about reasonable suspicion.

How many officers in Canada are currently qualified? With legalization and predicting increased use, will more officers need to be trained? Where is the training, and what are the current waiting times for training? These are things I have had discussions about in my riding. I have spoken to the chief of police in the city of St. Thomas. We talked a lot about drug recognition officers. What is the cost? What is the delay? We have heard many reports indicating that there are too few officers available and that the education is not available. Right now, because we, as well as other states, are going forward with this, there is a huge delay in getting this done.

According to an article published by the Ottawa Citizen on February 4, 2017, here are the numbers: 2.6% is the proportion of drivers in Canada who admitted driving within two hours of using cannabis in the past year, according to Health Canada's 2012 Canadian alcohol and drug use survey; 632,576 people is how many this represents; 10.4 million is how many trips this represents; 2.04 million is how many Canadian drivers admitted to driving after consuming two or more drinks in the previous hour, which represents 13.3 million trips; 5.5% is the proportion of drivers who tested positive for cannabis use, according to a 2013 study in British Columbia; and 16.6% is the proportion of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for cannabis, according to an examination done between 2000 and 2010. Males are three times as likely as females to drive after using cannabis.

Therefore, this is an issue we must address. We need to provide the proper resources for our police forces to deal with this. Regarding drug recognition experts, there are currently 578 drug recognition experts in Canada, and 160 to 200 new DREs are certified every year. Some existing DREs do not recertify, or they are promoted out of the role. It is hard enough to maintain the current number of DREs, much less increase the number, said one of the people working in the department.

At the same time, training is expensive, and some of it has to be done in the U.S. Opportunities to get field training in the U.S. are being squeezed as demand to train officers increases there. This is a clear challenge that needs to be addressed.

According to the 2017 budget:

Health Canada will support marijuana public education programming and surveillance activities in advance of the Government's plan to legalize cannabis by directing existing funding of $9.6 million over five years, with $1.0 million per year ongoing.

However, Health Canada has just issued a public tender to find a contractor to develop a national marketing plan targeting youth that will focus on education and awareness of the health and safety risks of cannabis. This campaign is going to be targeted at Canadian youth aged 13-18. An important point to note, though, is that this program is going to start running after December 2017, so we are talking about putting in a program less than six months before the legalization of marijuana. There is no exact date when the ads are going to start. Just saying it will be after December 2017 is not good enough.

Why is the government rushing on this issue? Why are we rushing to not keep our roads safe? Why are the Liberals not doing more? Why are they rushing Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, other than because of extreme political views? Why are we not taking the safety of Canadians on our roads as paramount?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the statistics my colleague cited serve to reinforce the need to amend the Criminal Code regarding this matter. She said that marijuana is the most used drug, especially by youth. Could she please comment on her insights regarding Mothers Against Drunk Driving and such organizations?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be more done. When it comes to the great work Mothers Against Drunk Driving does, we have to understand that people still go out on the roads impaired, whether it is from drug use or alcohol use. My biggest fear is that we are being given six months for public education, and that is not enough time. Six months to create a program is not enough.

Although I see that there are Criminal Code changes, and I will let the people talking on the justice side look at them, as a mother, I look at the fact that we are not being given enough time. We are not giving parents, educators, coaches, and more importantly, our youth, who are at risk from this bill, enough time. We need more than just six months to get this work done.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could expand on the problem we have. Despite the great need for going after impaired drivers, because we have an epidemic of impaired driving deaths and injuries across Canada, here we have marijuana, which is going to become legal, and there is no good test for marijuana impairment. There are great tests for THC levels in the blood, but they do not mean anything with regard to impairment. We heard in committee that this was a problem.

We are going to have people with THC levels in their blood, because they are using it for medical purposes or are using it legally for recreational purposes, but they will not be impaired. They may have used it a day or two ago. They will not be impaired, yet they will be criminalized if they are pulled over and tested using a per se limit for THC. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, the chair indicated that the best solution for this was to provide research money so we could make these types of tools for detection. We have found a tool that works, but as the member indicated, it looks at blood levels. As the member for Lethbridge indicated, impairment is shown in the fat cells in the brain.

It is just not good enough. Why are we not getting everything done before we put forward the legislation? Why are we not getting all our ducks in a row so we can make sure that Canadian families are safe on our roads?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, recent statistics done by the State of Colorado, in looking at its marijuana sales through its vendor agencies, show approximately $14 million in sales in January 2015 alone. However, by January 2016, one year later, in the same month, for the same period of time, it was $37 million in marijuana sales. As lawmakers, we should be trying to encourage a decrease in impaired driving. I would like to ask if my hon. friend thinks that doubling the amount of marijuana use in one year is going to lower the number of impaired drivers.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not the case. I have spoken to many colleagues who have never smoked cannabis before, many individuals and friends who have never partaken. The fact is, come the time of the legislation, some people will be interested. There will be more people trying it, because it is legal.

I have had this discussion with my staff as well. The moment something is legalized, it makes it acceptable, so we are going to find that more people are going to try it. They may not enjoy it, but they will at least try it. We have to be worried about impairment. There is a discussion about taxation of this as well.

It is very concerning. We need to make sure that the money does not go into government coffers but is actually used as a resource for our police forces to make sure that Canadians are safe on the road. We need to make sure they have the proper detection tools and the proper training.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to clearly set out the offences of and the sentences for people who decide to drive under the influence of marijuana and to update provisions on drunk driving.

We supported this bill at second reading and since then we have been examining it. Unfortunately, impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal deaths in the country. Canada has one of the worst impaired driving records in the OECD.

We need to implement an effective and well funded public awareness campaign. As we have been repeating from the start of today's debate, it is important for the government to quickly implement this public awareness and education campaign.

Earlier today, my colleague from Mount Royal, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, said that we were here to talk about Bill C-46, not Bill C-45, which deals with the legalization of marijuana. However the government chose to introduce these two bills around the same time, one after the other. We cannot talk about one without talking about the other. It is therefore important to make sure that the awareness and education campaign is done right and that it is launched immediately, well before marijuana is legalized.

The NDP has always stood for sensible measures to prevent impaired driving. We need to focus on powerful deterrents that can actually help prevent tragedies. I just said it, but I want to reiterate that the government needs to launch a robust public awareness campaign before the marijuana legalization bill comes into force.

Bill C-46 does not clearly define the levels of marijuana in saliva that would qualify as impairment. That needs to be made clear. We need an unbiased, science-based strategy for stopping drug-impaired drivers.

Under the bill, the police will no longer need to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person consumed alcohol in order to demand a breath sample. Civil liberties groups and the legal community have expressed concerns over the constitutionality of the proposed measures. In fact, earlier, my colleague from Essex illustrated how this might lead to profiling during arrests, which is problematic.

These civil liberties defence groups also wonder whether marginalized groups will be targeted. That is why, upon reflection, it is important to have experts provide testimony at committee to ensure that Canadians' civil liberties are respected and protected.

The NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, was outspoken during his time in the Ontario legislature about the ability of the police to go after people simply on the basis of their race, be they aboriginal, black, or Canadians of other minorities.

The discriminatory police practice of carding was central to his work in the Ontario legislative assembly. Mr. Singh says that as Prime Minister, he will enact a federal ban on racial profiling to end it once and for all.

In fact, he said in a Toronto Star interview that he had been stopped more than 11 times because of his appearance. He said:

I've been stopped by police multiple times for no other reason than the colour of my skin. It makes you feel like you don't belong, like there's something wrong with you for just being you.

I find meeting with our constituents to be a very interesting part of our work as MPs. I have been asked how we come to decide how to vote in the House. Of course, the discussions like the one we are having today, as well as the ones with our colleagues, are key. My colleagues' speeches today have been very enlightening.

During caucus discussions, we draw on our personal experiences and our own judgment, but also on the experiences of our colleagues in the House. As such, I would like to talk about my colleague fromVictoria's speech, which was very enlightening for me on this issue. I had the chance to sit on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying with my colleague from Victoria, and his legal and constitutional expertise was very enlightening for me. The bill before us today, Bill C-46, is also very enlightening.

I would like to read part of a speech he gave, one that I feel is very important.

Currently under the law as it exists, one has to have reasonable suspicion before stopping someone. If one no longer has to have that reasonable suspicion, which is what this section at issue would do, then there is the potential, indeed, the certainty that there will be disproportionate targeting of racialized Canadians, indigenous people, youth, and other marginalized groups. That is the nub of the problem and why this is such a difficult bill for the House to deal with.... However, we have to get this balance right. We are not convinced that it has been achieved. We are still studying it and will continue to study it before the vote takes place in the next while. At the committee, the NDP did manage to get one amendment that would somehow address this issue. That amendment would add the proposed section 31.1 to the bill, which would require that this issue be studied and reported to Parliament within three years of enactment. The committee agreed with that, and I hope the House will accept that final amendment as well. We will see whether the concerns that so many experts have brought to the attention of the committee will prove true in practice.

I want to quote something else he said, because, unlike him, I did not have the privilege of taking part in the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He said:

We heard from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other countless witnesses at the justice committee, telling their heartbreaking stories of the loss they had suffered. However, the bill poses serious concerns, particularly in the area of mandatory alcohol screen....What is the concern with mandatory alcohol testing? The new police powers enacted through the legislation would remove the reasonable suspicion requirements for roadside inspection by peace officers that presently exist in the Criminal Code, instead moving to a mandatory system by which, at the discretion of the patrolling officer, motorists must submit to random breath samples without any justification whatsoever, in other words, on a whim.

I was saying earlier that our personal experience can inform our discussions of this type of bill. I often tell the House that before being elected, I worked for the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, was a municipal councillor, and also worked with youth for almost 20 years. In light of my experience with a youth round table and as the director of a community housing organization that served troubled youth, I cannot help but have concerns about the impact of this type of bill, which requires a very balanced approach. I sincerely hope that the only NDP amendment to be retained will remain intact. It is important that we do not target certain groups in society when we address impaired driving. As parliamentarians it is our duty to ensure that each and every citizen is treated fairly and that the laws we pass make that possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member articulates her concerns so well.

I want to respond to a particular issue. The member opposite expressed concern about the validity of oral fluids testing and the experience in other jurisdictions.

First, I want to share with her the results of a report done by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction, CCSA, which it submitted to the government in April of this year. It did a very thorough examination of the use of oral fluids testing in other jurisdictions. It makes note that, for example, in Victoria, Australia, these tests have been conducted within its legal framework since 2008. The oral fluids testing kits are also currently in use in such countries as France, Belgium, Spain, and, most recent, the United Kingdom, as well as in several states in the United States.

The CCSA also indicates that the Canadian Society of Forensic Science drugs and driving committee has recently done an evaluation of the oral fluids testing kits that currently exist. It has said that they have reached a sufficient level of accuracy to be useful in the Canadian context. Those have also been tested by eight different police services across the country to ensure they actually work in a Canadian environment.

Based on that information from the CCSA, might that respond to some of the concerns expressed by my friend opposite?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with comparing tests is that we can end up choosing tests that speak to our concerns. Let us talk about the collection of test data.

Here in Ottawa in 2016, a data collection project involving roadside tests and race was initiated following a complaint concerning human rights and racial profiling. Several points were brought to light. First, 12% of drivers were perceived as being Middle Eastern, while only 4% of drivers in Ottawa are Middle Eastern. Also, 8.8% of drivers were perceived as being black, while fewer than 4% of drivers in Ottawa are black. Lastly, males between the ages of 16 and 24 are stopped more often than expected given the proportion of drivers they represent.

When we compare university studies with the test studies, we need to listen to what Canadians are saying. Civil liberties organizations provide a great number of accounts. As I said earlier in my speech, I was never stopped 11 times. When someone says he was stopped 11 times over a short period of time, I think there is cause to ask questions. Our leader, Jagmeet Singh, said so himself. The reality is that, without extremely clear rules and laws that leave very little room for interpretation, we must make sure that every Canadian is treated fairly.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is always on point and keeps partisanship to a minimum, although she sometimes gets carried away, which is entirely normal, since that is the game we in the House play. She is very concerned about this issue.

When a member of the House asks a colleague a question, it might be a good idea to stay in Ottawa long enough to hear the answer. I understand why government members are unclear on all of the nuances of parliamentary language and the excellent comments made by people on this side of the House. When people ask us questions, they should take the time to listen to the answer. This is just something I’m throwing out there, because I was a little angry at the lack of respect I just witnessed in the House.

To return to my colleague’s remarks, I would like to know whether what I see as the government’s off-the-cuff attitude as it rushes to push through the marijuana issue might cause problems for the police and addiction workers down the line. I do not think we are ready.

What is my colleague’s opinion concerning Bills C-45 and C-46?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the first part of my colleague's question since we are not to refer to the presence or absence of members.

Rushing this will have an impact on our society. The government has said that it will allocate $161 million to help police do their job, but police officers in Saskatchewan are saying that they are not getting the proper training.

I used to work in this area, and I have seen cases where young people have had to wait up to a year to get into a detox centre. Young people who realize that they have a substance abuse problem have to wait a year. The government needs to allocate significant resources to help young people who need drug treatment before moving forward. The government is being too hasty on this.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again today on Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding offences relating to conveyances. Shortening the title, we are dealing with impaired driving and a review and updating of the old sections of the Criminal Code. It is impaired driving by alcohol or drugs.

I was a policeman for 35 years and held Breathalyzer operator certificates since 1970. I took part in probably well over 1,000 impaired cases involving alcohol and drugs. My first year, there were about 100, as a rookie. In those days, I could arrest a guy for impaired driving, bring him into the office, do up all the paperwork, and get back on the road within an hour or an hour and a half, except once. This is how bad impaired drivers can be.

I remember a case when I arrested a guy for impaired driving and brought him back to the office. At the time, the policy of the attorney general and the province was not to hold or detain, or remove vehicles from the road. I brought the man in and he blew .26. We had to release him, so I released him. Fifteen minutes later, I saw him driving down the road. I picked him up, brought him back to the office, processed him, and gave him an appearance notice because I could not hold him, and let him go. Twenty minutes later, lo and behold, he drove by me again. This time, I brought him in and arrested him. Impaired driving has always been a very serious part of our society.

Is impaired driving going down, whether it is due to drugs or alcohol? That is debatable. We have to thank groups like MADD for their work, but I do not believe it is going down, and I will provide two specific reasons. One is that the time to process a simple impaired driving case takes anywhere from three to four hours, and closer to four hours. Therefore, the police officer is off the road for four hours in order to do the paperwork. Why does it take that long? It is because of all the different wording in all of the legislation. He has to cross all of his t's and dot all of his i's to get a conviction. All we are doing right now is bringing in more legislation, more work for lawyers, and it is going to complicate it that much more.

The second reason is deterrence. I had the good fortune to find a court book from 1950 for Vancouver Island and impaired drivers were being fined anywhere between $100 and $300 in 1950. The average salary in 1950 was about $1,700. In 1970, the fines were still $100 to $300, but people were earning about $5,700. Today, the minimum fine is $1,000 and people are earning an average of $50,000, though I think it is a bit higher than that. Therefore, there is no deterrent to cause people to think about drinking and driving.

I will comment on what my hon. friend from St. Albert—Edmonton said. He brought up in committee that we need to strengthen some of the legislation. An example was to have a five-year mandatory sentence for someone who drives a vehicle while impaired and kills a person, and the Liberal government said no and voted against it. Right now, the minimum fine under summary conviction is $1,000. If we go to the more serious offence of causing injury or death, it is $500 more. That is ridiculous. It was more effective many years ago than it is today.

I will provide some simple statistics for those in the room. One shot of whisky is equal to 12 ounces of beer or a glass of wine. An average 140-pound woman who has three ounces in an hour would probably have a reading of .11, which would put her at .03 over the limit. Here is one place where I can say men might be just a little better than women. A 140-pound man having three ounces in an hour would have a .09 reading. That is because our dissipation system seems to be a bit better, and I will leave it at that.

Science gives us the ability to calculate the effects of alcohol. I could sit down with any person in this room, and if he or she told me what he or she had to drink I could probably break it down and tell him or her what the reading would be.

Proposed section 254.01 of the Criminal Code, the new one that we are talking about, states:

The Attorney General of Canada may...approve

(a) a device that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in a person’s blood;

(b) equipment that is designed to ascertain the presence of a drug in a person’s body;

(c) an instrument that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of a person’s breath to determine their blood alcohol concentration

Paragraphs (a) and (c) have been in existence since the 1960s. With respect to paragraph (b), we are told that some countries have some form of testing that they believe is correct. We are looking at that and testing it right now. However, it is not definite, for sure. I do not believe we have enough scientific evidence out there. However, we will be going ahead with this law to make marijuana legal.

Impaired driving, under proposed section 254 of the bill refers to any conveyance. Therefore, we will be able to go after anybody riding an electric bike, an electric wheelchair, an ATV, a lawnmower, all the way up to a transport truck. All these people will be subject to the new rules and regulations that we are imposing. Some of them will be able to use legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and others will use legalized marijuana for recreational use.

We all know that marijuana goes through the lungs into the bloodstream, then into the body, and gets stored in the fat cells. The sad part about it, which is different than alcohol, is that alcohol dissipates at about one ounce per hour for an average person. Therefore, it is gone. If one has three drinks in an hour, probably three to four hours later one's body is clear of that alcohol. That is not the case with marijuana. It stays in one's brain tissue and fat cells and can come up anytime one agitates one's body or gets excited. What does marijuana do? It knocks the heck out of our senses: sense of time, moods, movements, thinking, the ability to problem-solve, and memory. If we overindulge in the use of marijuana, then we can go into hallucinations, delusions, and psychosis. However, most people will just experience the former part, which is a form of impairment.

Duke University in New Zealand did a number of tests in the last few years with young people. I am saying this because it has proven that kids using marijuana on a regular basis had an IQ that was eight points less than their counterparts who did not use it. That is already a form of impairment right there.

According to Colorado State University, the tests it has done over the last few years show that the THC level of marijuana has increased over 30% in the past 20 years. It is much stronger than it used to be, which is another form of impairment.

My concern is that marijuana stays in one's body for three to 10 days immediately, and it takes up to three months for it to completely dissipate.

The shocking fact is that Colorado sold $14.6 million worth of marijuana in January of 2015. In the month of January 2016, it sold $36.4 million. That is more than double. To me, if the amount has doubled, so has the amount of impaired driving, which means we need to double the amount of money that we are going to spend on education. The current government has told us that it is going to spend a certain amount. We know that as soon as it becomes legal, the use of marijuana is going to at least double.

The legislation in Bill C-46 has some good intentions, and I do not disagree with it, but it needs to be reviewed with more scrutiny. It needs to be looked at. We need to get rid of a lot of the ambiguous parts that are written in there because it is going to tie up police officers on the road and make it very difficult for us to enforce impaired driving, especially with respect to drugs.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech and his years of service in law enforcement. He is truly a tremendous addition to our caucus, and his wise counsel is very important to us.

Is there any test available to determine the concentration of drugs in a person's body?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated in this House that there are certain tests being done and certain countries have accepted them and that we have been doing some tests in Canada with certain police officers, but yet we stand here and we have a government that wants to put legislation forth. We are getting close, with seven months to go, and yet we do not have an approved test in this country, that is approved scientifically, that is going to guarantee us that the results given on a roadside screening test are right. We need to have that done prior to putting the legislation out there and prior to setting up people in Canada for criminal convictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way would acknowledge that Canada has the highest youth engagement in the consumption of marijuana of virtually any western country in the world including United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and so forth. We know that our youth are engaged in the consumption of marijuana and cannabis. I am sure the member, being a police officer, is very much aware that there are people who are smoking cannabis and driving their vehicles.

Is the member trying to tell Canadians that there is no way drug-impaired people can actually be detected or that the Stephen Harper government did absolutely nothing to ensure that people who are impaired by drugs were being minimized? That is the impression that the member across the way is trying to give listeners. I wonder if he could provide any assurances that in fact we do have law enforcement branches or agencies that are fairly effective at what they do in keeping our streets safer, and this legislation would assist into the future.

Maybe the member could just share with us what happens today, or happened while Stephen Harper was prime minister, when someone is high on marijuana or cannabis and is caught driving a car.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Harper was prime minister our government was not wasting its time on a ridiculous legislation of making marijuana legal. We were more involved in making crimes more serious so offenders paid for the crimes they did. We were looking at the most serious crimes in Canada.

I am not saying that there is no test for marijuana for impaired driving because I charged a person back in 1970 for using marijuana and I used the simple old-fashioned way of looking at his eyes, physical symptoms, etc. In Canada, we have approximately 600 police officers who are trained to recognize impairment by drugs. We have 65,000 police across Canada so we have roughly 60,000 police officers who are not trained properly to stand up in a courtroom and say that a person was impaired. We have about 600 trained officers, and yet we are bringing in legislation in seven months down the road. How are we going to train enough officers to be able to detect people when they have marijuana with the device that the Attorney General may approve? It is not “approve”; “may approve” is written right in there.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to speak about the shortfalls and the negative consequences of Bill C-46.

When I last voiced my concern about the bill back in May, I brought to the attention of the House a devastating tragedy that was suffered by the Van de Vorst family in my city of Saskatoon. Early last year, they lost four members of their family to an impaired driver. It is an unimaginable tragedy. Some say it was the worst accident in the city of Saskatoon's history. Linda and Lou Van de Vorst lost their son, their daughter-in-law, and their two grandchildren when an impaired driver blew through the intersection of Wanuskewin Road and Highway 11. Four members of their family were wiped out on that January night. Two nights ago, the first official roadside memorial sign, with the names of the Van de Vorst family, was put up at this intersection as a reminder.

I am sure all of us have driven through an intersection where we spot flowers, a white cross, and teddy bears from time to time, but this is the first sign with actual names in my province of Saskatchewan. The names are Jordan, Chanda, Kamryn, and Miguire Van de Vorst. I ask members this. Will Linda and Lou Van de Vorst be able to drive that road again, or will they look for an extra-grid road so that they do not have to pass by that sign? The impaired driver was three times over the legal limit. The sentence then for killing all four innocent people was a mere 10 years.

I have another story of Melanie and Allan Kerpan, another family that has suffered a tragic loss. Just a week ago today, the Kerpan family unveiled a sign on Highway 11 that reads “In memory of Danille Brooke Kerpan”. Three years ago this month, their daughter, Danille, was driving on a double-lane highway when a drunk driver going the wrong way—we understand for many kilometres and many minutes—ran into her vehicle, taking her young life. Allan Kerpan came to Ottawa about a year and a half ago and spoke on this.

I mentioned Kerpan's name, because Allan is a very good friend of ours and he is also a former member of Parliament for Blackstrap. The Kerpans' entire family have been outspoken about the changing attitude toward drinking and driving, the need for awareness, and the need for education.

There was a province-wide campaign led by Saskatchewan Government Insurance, or SGI, showing real-life victims of impaired driving crashes. Let us imagine on the television set that one by one these faces disappear. We lose one and then another and then another. It is a 30-second spot on Saskatchewan television.

Again I ask, every time Melanie and Allan Kerpan leave their family farm in Kenaston to go south on Highway 11, as they approach Bladworth, where this accident occurred, will they be reminded now of this tragedy, because of a sign?

Unfortunately, my province of Saskatchewan has one of the highest rates, if not the highest, of impaired driving in this country, as per Statistics Canada 2015, and families suffer as a result. I just talked about two of many families in my province. In 2016 alone, there were 6,377 incidents of impaired driving in our province of Saskatchewan. In my city of Saskatoon, with a population of under 300,000, we had 649 incidents of impaired driving.

This is an unacceptable statistic, which represents serious harm to the lives and the well-being of people not only in my constituency but in our province and certainly our country.

We are left here with Bill C-46, a bill concerning driving under the influence of drugs, notably marijuana. It is a bill with substantial flaws, which the Liberal government refuses to address.

Actually, the motivating force for Bill C-46 would be Bill C-45. The claim that this legislation will keep marijuana out of the hands of children and drive criminals out of the business of profiting from the sale of marijuana is simply ridiculous. I have stated before in this House that this is simply not true. It is fake news, if I could say that. A legal age for consuming alcohol has not stopped underage children and teenagers from consuming alcohol if they want it. Criminals will always be able to profit from a black market for illegal marijuana and will find more desirable targets in underage youth because of this Bill C-46.

We have talked about the burdens on police and the justice system due to this Bill C-46. When we look at statistics from 2015, we see that drug-impaired driving is on the rise nationally, even before marijuana becomes legalized. That should be deeply troubling to all members, combined with the fact that cases of drug-impaired driving take longer to resolve before the courts when compared to drunk driving, and are less likely to result in a guilty finding.

With an increase of people using marijuana or trying it out for the first time, we can only expect that these stats will become much worse after it becomes legalized. The government does not appear to be considering how difficult it will be and how many resources it will need to properly police drug-impaired driving. Unlike drunk driving, which we can predict will peak at times such as Friday and Saturday nights, drug-impaired driving is a problem, I think, which will occur any time of the day, any day of the week. Stats Canada reports:

What this suggests is that drug-impaired driving may be more difficult to combat than alcohol-impaired driving since research has indicated that targeting known peak periods is one of the most effective ways to combat drinking and driving.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, including my own Saskatoon police service, told the federal committee they need more time to properly train officers about the new cannabis laws, and they need more than double the number of police officers who are certified to conduct roadside drug-impaired driving tests. Police have asked the Liberal government to postpone the date for legal pot because there is zero chance they will be ready by July 1.

We also have the issue of growing marijuana plants. That is going to be a major issue. Just last week I had a delegation from the Association of Saskatchewan Realtors wondering about landlords' rights when renting out their property. Do they have any rights? This is an issue on which they have not been consulted.

As I mentioned, this issue is a burden that police face in response to how rushed we are now on this Bill C-46. In my last speech I talked about it. However, I wonder if the Liberal government is even listening to these concerns.

The most important issue is education. We have not even started that. The Liberal government claims it is going to start it in the month of December, which is six or seven months prior to when we legalize pot on July 1. It has not even contacted the Canadian School Boards Association, yet these are the vulnerable people, age 15 and up, whom we are talking about, and they have not been educated on drinking and driving or the effects of marijuana. We are deeply concerned about the lack of education, and that the government has not progressed at all.

In conclusion, there are many glaring shortcomings that are present in Bill C-46, which need to be addressed in order to improve the safety and well-being of my constituents and others in this country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, which once again shows how the Liberal government is improvising when it comes to the legalization of marijuana. He also talked about the potential impacts on would-be marijuana-impaired drivers. My question is very simple.

Does he truly believe that Canada's young drivers will be ready on July 1, 2018, when the Liberal government makes marijuana a legal and commonplace drug?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course they are not going to be ready when July 1, 2018, hits. I talked about the lack of education the government has done. It has not consulted the premiers or the provinces. I have the attorney general of Saskatchewan in my riding, and he is scared to death about July 1, 2018. They have no idea how they are going to progress with the bill. They have been told, “Here it is, you deal with it”. What are the resources needed? We talked about the lack of police force and training to detect marijuana in someone.

Yes, there is great concern because my province, unfortunately, leads the country in impaired driving. I cannot wait to see the stats once marijuana is legalized on July 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party seem to have their heads in the sand on this issue. Do they not realize that we have the highest amount of youth engaged in consumption of cannabis?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I want to remind hon. members that I am trying to hear the question, and they are making it very difficult for the Speaker.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative MPs seem to think there is no one in the history of Canada driving around after having smoked up on marijuana or cannabis. It is almost as if the Harper government had gotten rid of cannabis. I have a news flash of reality for the Conservative caucus. Cannabis is something very real. It is tangible. It is happening today in our society. In fact, we have more youth engaged in cannabis consumption than any other country in the world, including the U.S.A.

We finally have a government, unlike the Harper government, that has said we need to have legislation in place that will help make our communities and roads safer. How does the member justify voting against legislation that is going to make our road system safer, when the previous government ignored the issue and we had people who were high driving on the roads?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it will not make our roads safer in this country. I gave some statistics from my province of Saskatchewan: 6,377 incidents of impaired driving alone in my province. With the Liberals legalizing marijuana we could double those numbers. We have no police protection right now. There is no training.

We heard from the Saskatoon police commission, who came to Ottawa to testify. They are not ready for this. What more do the Liberals need to be told, when outgoing police chief Clive Weighill stood and told the committee they were not ready to even look at the legislation? However, even though we do not want it, the government seems hell-bent on bringing it forward to Canadians.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, I took on the task of holding five town halls on the government's legislation to not only legalize recreational marijuana, but also on Bill C-46, which we are debating in the House today. I threw open the doors and invited constituents who cared to attend, so everybody would have a full understanding of what was being proposed in both pieces of legislation. It was from those five meetings that I got a better understanding of the concerns of not only everyday residents, but also from community leaders such as mayors, reeves, and councillors.

Listening to one's constituents should not only happen during town halls, it is a practice that every elected official should subscribe. If truth be told, not many members of the government hosted a no-holds barred public meetings on either Bill C-45 or Bill C-46.

I would argue that legalizing recreational marijuana is one of the largest changes to the Controlled Substances Act in my lifetime. However, not many government MPs took the opportunity to meet with their constituents in an open door forum. If they did, they would have quickly become aware that not only was the Liberal government's political deadline of July 1, 2018, to implement legal recreational marijuana usage untenable, it would unnecessarily raise the risk of bodily harm and injury on our roads and highways.

At a recent Council of the Federation meeting, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister requested an extension of the Liberal government's deadline of July 1, 2018. for marijuana legalization. In response to Premier Pallister's request, the premiers established an official working group on marijuana, co-chaired by Manitoba justice minister Heather Stefanson. Since then, it has been closely following the debate in the House and in committee meetings that were held on this legislation.

As was stated by many expert witnesses at committee or quoted in the news, it is simply unfathomable to expect that police departments and the RCMP will be prepared for the July 1 deadline as currently set out.

I would like to quote Director Mario Harel, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who stated at committee on Wednesday, September 20:

The question many in policing have is what level of readiness the government, and more importantly, our communities, expect law enforcement to deliver. We can be ready at some level July 2018, but are we delivering on the public safety objectives Canadians would expect of us?

That question gets to the very heart of the concerns that many members of Parliament, including backbench Liberal MPs, have publicly voiced.

We know the science surrounding the impairment of one's ability to drive after consuming cannabis varies widely from one individual to another. We know that one's level of impairment can be impacted by how long an individual has either legally or illegally consumed cannabis. For instance, if one has been consuming cannabis on a daily basis for 20 years, that person's mind and body will be impacted differently than someone who consumes it on a monthly basis. Let me give the House a specific example.

During one of my town halls, a constituent stated that she had taken medical marijuana for years. She consumes cannabis in an edible form for her chronic pain. She said, not only in our public meeting but also publicly in the local newspaper, that it would be more dangerous for her to drive while not under the influence of medical marijuana. While I am not a medical expert, nor proclaim to understand the precise impacts of one's cognitive functions, driving under the impairment of marijuana is just as dangerous as driving under the impairment of alcohol or other prescription drugs.

While this is my belief, it was quite a shock to hear that some individuals who had consumed marijuana for years, if not in some cases for decades, pushed back on this premise. They pushed back because they felt that under no circumstances was public safety at risk because of their consumption of cannabis while driving a vehicle. This is a huge concern and I am quite certain that if a Conservative member of Parliament is being told this, it begs the question, What other long-term beliefs are held by Canadians who have long consumed marijuana?

In respect to the legislation, beyond a shadow of doubt, as it is currently written, it will be challenged almost immediately when brought into force. The reason I am so confident in saying this is that unfortunately Canadians will be caught and charged for driving under impairment of cannabis. It is safe to suggest that criminal defence attorneys will be looking at every available avenue to lessen the client's charge. There is empirical evidence to suggest this is exactly what will happen.

We know that the current drinking and driving laws are some of the most heavily litigated areas of criminal law. In respect to determining the exact nanograms of THC per ml of blood, it was good to hear even Liberal MPs, such as the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, ask about the objectively determined standards for marijuana that the police could measure against.

What was disconcerting was that the Minister of Justice did not respond directly to her colleague's question. She noted that the government had set up a drug impaired driving committee, but neglected to answer his question of setting the benchmarks to determine impairment.

Now, I am not the only one who is asking these questions. The Canadian Bar Association recommends that the federal government base any measurement of blood drug concentration on proven scientific evidence that links the concentration of THC to impairment. According to the briefing to the Minister of Justice, it outlined the difficulties of introducing specific blood drug concentrations of setting an objective standard for penalizing a person and then linking the findings to impairment. It even goes as far as saying that legislating specific blood drug concentration levels is problematic.

While the Canadian Bar Association is probably well aware of the legal quagmire that will soon engulf our nation's courtrooms, it is wise to take a moment and reflect on whether the government is rushing ahead without the scientific data to back up its legislation.

We all want our roads and highways to be safe from those who make the callous decision to get behind the wheel after one too many beers, and soon to be one too many tokes. With that in mind, it is troubling to hear from legal experts and marijuana users that the Liberal government's legislation may not hold up under heavy scrutiny of a well-funded legal defence team.

The other aspect of concern is that the costs associated will be borne by the provinces and municipalities regarding Bill C-46. This was one of the most concerning matters raised by other levels of government.

Earlier this summer, I wrote the parliamentary budget officer requesting a costing analysis for implementing the Liberal government's legislation to legalize marijuana. I received a response from the PBO last month, describing both a lack of transparency by the Liberal government and an intention to offload costs onto provinces.

According to the PBO's letter, Justice Canada responded to its requests for information by stating that the estimated costs of marijuana legalization were a cabinet confidence. Similar responses were provided to the PBO by Public Safety Canada and Health Canada. In response to my letter, the PBO wrote:

This clearly indicates that the federal government does have access to some cost estimates of Bills C-45 and C-46, but without that information it would be difficult for the Office of the PBO to provide a reasonable cost analysis.

I requested an in-depth costing analysis for several areas of concern for my constituents, including the cost of education campaigns and workplace health and safety regulations. We know the Prime Minister has thrown out the idea of sharing any federal excise tax equally with the provinces, but even that was not enough to calm the nerves of the premiers and their respective finance ministers.

May there be no illusion of any member in the House that with the passage of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, the policing, legal costs, and court delays will go down. The fallacy purported by some well-meaning but ill-advised commentators about how police resources will now miraculously be shifted from cracking down on simple pot possessions to much more serious matters is but a dream.

First, as with anything the government regulates, legislates, and oversees, there will be no cost savings when equipment, training, bureaucracy, and simple paperwork are all accounted for. Second, as the provinces have announced, the government will make the purchase of legal recreational marijuana so restrictive that the neighbourhood pot dealer just gave a loud round of applause as his business will prevail in the near future.

The issue of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, while also updating the Criminal Code so police officers have the necessary tools and legal framework to keep our streets and highways safe, are not necessarily bound by one another.

Under no circumstances should the legalization of recreational marijuana be pushed forward without at least some time after Bill C-46 is brought into force. Not only should Bill C-46 be allowed to be tested, prodded, and probed, but the federal government has the responsibility to fund the vast majority of upfront costs of doing so. The provinces and municipalities should not be taken for granted and their cause of concern on the timelines proposed in the Liberal legislation should be heeded.

As I have stated on many occasions, the Liberal government should wade carefully into the full legislation of recreational marijuana. It needs to move beyond its politically motivated deadline, disclose the true cost of marijuana legalization, and provide municipalities and provinces with the resources they need to ensure safety for all Canadians.

Until that time, the legislation should not move forward. I encourage the Liberals to listen to the myriad of voices that echo similar apprehensions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris will have five minutes for questions and comments when we return after question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are five minutes remaining for questions and comments following the speech of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the member for Brandon—Souris for the effort he put into going to his constituents. I am aware that he conducted several town halls and constituent consultations which were very helpful. I also want to offer my personal thanks for sharing the results of those consultations. I am very grateful for the effort the member made and I commend and thank him for that.

With respect to the remarks he made on Bill C-46, I believe he would agree with me that we currently have a problem with road safety inasmuch as Canada has the highest rate of cannabis use in the world, and evidence and research have told us that many people do not understand the risks that using cannabis or other drugs can have when they operate motor vehicles.

Would the member agree with me that there is an urgency, that Parliament has the responsibility to act, that by bringing this legislation forward, by ensuring law enforcement has access to the training, tools, technologies, and authorities it will need to keep our roadways safe, we have an opportunity to move forward and make our roads safer, and that the provisions contained within Bill C-46 have the potential to save very many Canadian lives?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thanks for the work I did in my constituency and the five public meetings we held.

Whether people at those meetings were in favour of or deadly against the use of marijuana, the consensus was, if there was one, that we should defer this for some time, not necessarily a year or whatever, until training could take place, and I question whether the bill actually says it has to. However, my constituents felt that whether people were habitual users or not, the government should take more time to ensure the enforcement was put in place. That involves training taking place outside of the country. It was pointed out by one of my colleagues earlier today that only about 600 people out of 65,000 on the police forces in Canada were currently licensed to deal with cannabis.

While I commend the member for his question, I want to acknowledge that a lot more time is needed to ensure road safety is upheld. There is nothing to determine whether increased usage will ever reduce the impact of deaths and accidents on the roads.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I posed to a number of the member's colleagues is about recognition. For many years, we know that many individuals have been driving on roads in all our communities when they are, unfortunately, high or when they should not be driving because of cannabis or marijuana. If this legislation were passed, it would be an effective tool going forward in terms of trying to make our roads a safer place.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer will be similar to what I just said. There is a definitive time frame that the government wants to move forward, which is next July 1. The people who spoke to me in my constituency, as well as police chiefs of Canada, have indicated there needs to be more time. In fact, some of them do not want it licensed at all. There needs to be more time for training and to make sure the roads can be made safer. We have law enforcement people who can make those decisions with the credibility of being able to go to court, because this will be challenged in court. There is no doubt about it, as I said in my speech today.

We have to look at the United States. The people I have spoken to in several states in the U.S. have indicated that when it is allowed to be licensed there is a sharp increase in usage, but it plateaus off and then it is a matter of whether there are fewer accidents on the roads at that point or not. Their situation has indicated there is not a reduction in accidents.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this important bill, which deals with impaired driving. Impaired driving is a major problem on our roads and a very serious issue that we must consider.

That is why the NDP chose to support Bill C-46 at second reading, even though we still have some unanswered questions. Personally, I must admit that I have not yet decided what my final vote will be after report stage and third reading.

Second reading is often the step where members decide whether the underlying principle of the bill is important. This bill deals with impaired driving. It seeks to do more to prevent impaired driving and to go after those who choose to drive while under the influence. There is no doubt that the underlying principle of this bill is important. At third reading and report stage, members must determine whether the bill really supports that principle. Right now, I have my doubts, and I will explain why by talking about the medical concept of drug tolerance.

For instance, when one drinks alcohol, one's body becomes habituated, but it does not develop a tolerance. We cannot say, for example, that if someone does not drink alcohol and then starts drinking every day, he will be able to drink 40 times more without any effect because he is habituated.

Alcohol does not produce a tolerance effect; the same dose will always have the same effect. For example, we can expect someone who drinks three beers to present certain symptoms, and we can expect someone who drinks five or six alcoholic beverages to display other symptoms. The clinical picture is pretty clear. There can be small variations from one person to the next, but they are minor.

Some drugs, however, can produce a tolerance effect. This means that the body becomes habituated and that larger and larger doses are needed to produce the same effect. Morphine and fentanyl patches are good examples of these types of drugs. A cancer patient will be given a certain dose, a fentanyl patch, and this should relieve the symptoms. However, as the illness progresses and the patient takes the drug over a longer period of time, the body becomes habituated and the patient needs larger and larger doses to obtain the same relief.

A test was conducted on a cancer patient. He was given fentanyl patches until he felt relief. If he was still in pain, he was given a larger dose. Eventually, he was able to tolerate 140 fentanyl patches. I can assure the House that if anyone here were given a dose that size, he or she would die on the spot. That is an example of the tolerance effect.

That is why it is difficult to establish a dose of medication or any other substance that produces a tolerance effect because the results change depending on the person, the dose, the time and the causes. It is extremely difficult to establish dosage limits to determine at what point a person will be impaired or at what point it would be dangerous to increase the dose, because the tolerance effect changes for the patient during treatment.

Marijuana appears to have somewhat of a tolerance effect, which means that its effect will be completely different depending on the person.

So, even if you set serum level limits, a person who took a legal dose may be completely unaffected, while another person who took the same dose may be totally dysfunctional and impaired. Some people could take a quarter of the legal dose and be extremely dangerous on the road. So, if we set an arbitrary limit, we might not be able to convict drivers who did not exceed the legal dose but who are still impaired and in no condition to drive. We also risk convicting drivers who are not impaired because their body has developed a tolerance.

By establishing a serum level limit, I think this bill will cause problems with cases that go to court. I spoke with a few defence attorneys, and they told me that no scientific studies have been able to establish a specific dose that can determine whether a person is impaired.

In my opinion, if we want to prove that a person is impaired, we might have to consider other avenues with respect to drugs such as marijuana that produce a tolerance effect. For example, we could use the same tests and tools police officers use to detect the presence of drugs. That is a good test. If we suspect that a person has used marijuana, we could administer the test and determine if we are correct.

In this case, the level does not matter. We would merely have to detect the presence of drugs, which we could prove, then we could administer standardized tests like the ones used for drunk drivers. For example, we could ask the person to walk a straight line or recite the alphabet backwards. There are a number of similar tests that we could use to prove that the person is impaired.

If we relied more heavily on these tests, which, incidentally, can be filmed using body cameras, we would be able to prove that a person is impaired because he or she does not have the cognitive or physical ability to perform certain tasks that a person who is not impaired could. This might be an option that would carry more weight in court.

That is why I question this bill, because it appears obvious that we cannot pass a bill without knowing whether the cases that make it to court will lead to accusations and convictions. There is no point in passing a law if we are going to get clobbered in court. We are in a situation where cannabis is legal and we do not have the tools we need to get convictions when someone is caught driving under the influence.

These questions are the reason I still do not know how I am going to vote in the end. We cannot ignore the fact that THC effects individuals differently. We must also consider the fact that people are already using marijuana for medicinal purposes and that regardless of whether or not legalization occurs, we still do not know how to determine whether a medicinal marijuana user is impaired. It is clear that blood levels are not a reliable measure. We need to consider other tools that would more effectively help determine if a person is impaired and would give crown prosecutors a better chance of getting convictions.

We have a lot of work to do to get a better grasp of this issue and I think we need to base our decisions on science, as with anything else. So far, the science is telling us that there is no blood test that can determine with 100% accuracy that a person is impaired by marijuana since there are too many interindividual variations. We have to find another way to determine whether a person is impaired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a question about the member's last point concerning science.

First of all, I want to assure the House that the government very much desires to introduce evidence-based policy. To that end, we have relied on the advice of the scientific community, as represented by the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, which has established a drugs and driving committee made up of scientists. We have asked for their advice on the establishment of per se limits and the approval of devices, namely oral fluid test kits, that can test for that.

We have made a commitment to seek evidence based on the science, not on news accounts of science or people's opinions. We have gone to the scientific community. In this country there is a bona fide recognized body, the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, with a drugs and driving committee that gives advice to government on the approval of devices and standards. We have sought their advice. They have established a committee and done the research. They are providing us with that evidence.

Would that address the concerns expressed by the member opposite with respect to the importance of science informing this debate?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the experts do not agree when it comes to serum level limits. It is extremely difficult to prove that a specific dose will cause a person to be impaired.

In other scientific tests, in the case of cognitive tests, for example, if you ask a person to perform a task that he or she cannot do, you can prove scientifically that the person is not fit to drive. It might be simpler for the government and the police to use these types of tests to prove that a person is unable to drive, because there would be a direct link between the task and the person’s ability to drive. Let us say that a person is required to have certain reflexes. If we test the person’s reflexes and determine that they are too slow, we are making a direct link between substance use and reflexes that are slow enough to raise questions about the person’s ability to drive. It is also much easier to prove in court than obtaining a blood test.

Also, you may have to wait an hour or two before you can do a blood test in some rural regions. As an emergency nurse, I am resuscitating someone, so my priority is not to do a blood test to determine a patient’s serum THC level. My priority is to save a life.

When we administer a standardized test, we do it right away and we get the proof we need. It is far more difficult to challenge, because we have a video of the person failing to perform physical tasks that show that he or she is unable to drive.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to build on my colleague's previous question about what happens after this piece of legislation goes forward and we ask law enforcement to be the ones to detect the ability of individuals to drive.

Our government is investing over $270 million to support law enforcement, to be better able to detect drug-impaired driving, and another investment of $160 million to train front-line officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of someone driving under the influence.

Does the hon. member think these initiatives, along with what my colleagues said previously, strengthen the ability of law enforcement to detect impaired driving?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I would say that we could invest billions of dollars in drug detection, but if we do not have the appropriate tool, the money will not do any good.

That is why I would like to know what tools we are going to use, which ones are most effective, which ones will get a conviction and which ones are most reliable. It is not a question of money. It is a question of asking what will work and what will allow us to prove beyond a doubt that a person is drug impaired. That is the question at hand. It is not a question of budgets. It is not a question of saying that, with this much money, it will be effective and, with that much money, it will not. It is a question of what we are using. That is why I have concerns about the bill, any why I am still deciding how I will vote in the end.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-46. I want to commend my colleague for her great speech and her responses to the questions she received.

As everyone knows, Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances), is a piece of legislation I have quite a number of concerns about.

I would like to echo a comment I have been hearing from a number of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. It is that the government's arbitrary and self-imposed deadline for marijuana legalization needs to be abandoned. Many find it reckless on the government's part to be moving at such a rapid speed on a very sensitive issue. There are many unanswered questions when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, many of which deal with the topic at hand in Bill C-46, impaired driving.

I want to point out that if a person is impaired and is going to drive, it does not matter whether it is alcohol or whatever. A lot of people think that someone who is impaired must have been drinking. No. The use of marijuana or any other drug impairs a person. Anyone impaired like that should not be driving. These concerns, of course, are valid.

Canadians are looking south of the border at states like Colorado and are seeing an immense increase in the number of traffic deaths attributed to the use of marijuana. I would like to present the House with some statistics from Colorado on marijuana-related traffic deaths.

Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 48%, in the three-year average, since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. In the year following legalization, marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 62%, from 71 to 115 persons.

In 2009, before legalization, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado involving operators testing positive for marijuana represented 10% of all traffic fatalities. By 2015, after legalization, that number had doubled to 21%. There has been a 67% increase in the number of operators testing positive for marijuana involved in fatal accidents since recreational marijuana was legalized in 2013.

Therefore, we can see that Canadians have a legitimate reason to be concerned about how the legalization of marijuana will affect impaired driving in Canada. Canadians understand how important it is for the government to take its time and leave no stone unturned when it comes to ensuring that we are prepared as much as possible for when legalization becomes a reality.

We all know that the government promised to legalize marijuana. Whether one agrees with it or not, the government said that. However, I think it is obvious, from all the experts and from the observations made by members in this House, that the government is not ready.

Sometimes we have goals that we hope can happen at a certain time. Sometimes we have to just sit back and say that the right thing to do is delay it a bit and do it right. That is where I am coming from. This includes ensuring that police have the right tools and other resources to do their jobs and the proper training to identify the presence of marijuana use at the roadside. This should also be complemented by a public awareness campaign to educate Canadians about the dangers of marijuana use and driving.

The key question is about readiness, as I said. Will police agencies be ready when the time comes? Police themselves say that the answer is no. The July 1, 2018, deadline is way too soon. No number of legislative initiatives like Bill C-46 will be able to prepare the police for when marijuana becomes legal in July next year. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard this loud and clear when the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police appeared during its study of the legislation.

Here is what Mario Harel, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, had to say about the readiness of police forces across Canada in terms of resources and training.

He said:

While funding has been announced, details regarding how the funding will be allocated through the provinces and into the municipal police services' hands remain unclear. We need that to meet the training and implementation objectives. We clearly require many more officers trained in standard field sobriety testing and as drug recognition experts. Quite frankly, the capacity currently is not there to deliver the amount of training required.

Furthermore, police forces across Canada, including the RCMP, are still in the process of determining the best way forward when it comes to screening devices for roadside tests. Again, I will cite the testimony of Mr. Harel:

Standards for oral fluid drug screening devices are being developed.

He said, “being developed.” They are not there yet. Mr. Harel continued:

Devices are yet to be screened against standards approved by the Attorney General of Canada and made available to law enforcement to allow for implementation and training.

We can see that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that our police forces have the tools and training they need to be ready to keep our roads safe from impaired drivers.

It is also vitally important that drug screening devices respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This leads me to another aspect of the bill that I have a great deal of concern about, and that is mandatory alcohol screening. Proposed subsection 320.27(2) of Bill C-46 would go further than current Canadian law and would allow a police officer with an approved screening device to demand that a driver provide a sample, whether a breath test or another kind of sample, without any grounds whatsoever.

Recently, the House rejected Bill C-226, which created the same type of conditions. In Bill C-226, this was known as random breath testing. Bill C-46 would essentially recreate this practice. I had a great deal of concern about random breath testing with Bill C-226, and that concern remains with Bill C-46.

The Canadian Bar Association said this about the reincarnation of random breath testing:

The revised title does not change its essence and it remains a random test that can be administered without any grounds. Police now must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has alcohol in their system before making a demand, and even that is a low threshold.

Under Bill C-46, there would not even be a need for an officer to have any suspicion of the presence of alcohol. He or she could simply demand that a sample be provided. This runs counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could very well make this bill unconstitutional.

This provision could potentially create difficult conditions for some minority groups. I have heard of a number of cases where first nations groups and African Americans, of course, south of the border, have been forced to provide samples without reasonable grounds. These types of provisions only encourage an increase in these types of situations.

We can all go back a number of years, to a remote northern native community in The Pas, Manitoba, I believe. I have a lot of respect for police, and most policemen and policewomen have the highest integrity, but in this community, there were a couple of officers who had a disdain for native people in some ways. They would pick up intoxicated natives and take them to the edge of town, and it was only after someone froze to death in a snowbank that the issue was brought out. The reason I mention this case is that if we allowed random breath testing, it would open the door for abuse like that, where the wrong kind of officer or officers could target communities. That is the last thing we want. Again, it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, I stand with the Canadian Bar Association when it recommends that this section be deleted from the bill altogether.

With that, I will conclude my remarks by stating that I strongly encourage the government to slow down and re-evaluate this bill. Slowing down and doing it right is not a bad thing. It is not about saving face or whatever. It should just do the right thing. We want to make sure that police have the tools and training they need and that we are protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. With that, I am glad to take questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will get to questions and comments for the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound in a moment.

Before we do, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Ethics; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, Natural Resources.

We will now go to questions and comments, the hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard in the summary that my colleague is more concerned about the progress of the bill in terms of “getting it right”, as he put it. I wonder if he could comment, because from that I take that he in fact is in favour of the legalization of cannabis, and if so is it because Canada has the highest use of cannabis use, when it comes to our young people, in the industrialized world? I wonder if he could touch on that, please.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague heard, I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. There are parts of it that have to come out.

In response to his claim that we have the highest use of cannabis by young people, it is obvious he does not really want to hear the answer. However, if that use is as high as he implies, this will only encourage that and make it worse. Why on earth would we want to do that? There are too many flaws in this where the government is not ready to enact it. I accept the fact that it has the numbers to pass this bill, but it is not doing it right. It is pushing it ahead just for the sake of getting it through the House, and that is not right.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of Conservative members today have expressed concern about mandatory screening and cited the Canadian Bar Association's brief. We at the committee heard from multiple witnesses who said it was indeed constitutional. The Conservative Party supported the recent private member's bill of the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Bill C-226, which included mandatory screening. I am wondering why that position has changed.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification, maybe there were some Conservative members who supported the bill that my colleague referred to. However, he is looking at one who did not support that at all. I have never been in favour of random breath testing. I think it goes way too far. I am all for reducing impaired driving and increased penalties, etc., but random breath testing is not one of them. I never did support it, and I never will support it.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.

(Motion No. 1 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 25, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-46.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #371

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #372

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.