Bill S-230 (Historical)

Drug-Impaired Driving Detection Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to authorize the use of an approved screening device to detect the presence of drugs in the body of a person who was operating a vehicle or who had the care or control of a vehicle. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily substances to determine the concentration of drugs in a person’s body, based on physical coordination tests and the result of the analysis conducted using an approved screening device.

Criminal Code

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved that Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving) be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving). This bill is critically important in the effort to protect Canadians from the growing scourge of drug-impaired drivers who get behind the wheel. It is a matter that is becoming more pressing given the Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana.

I want to begin by thanking Senator Claude Carignan and his entire team who worked extremely hard on drafting this bill and had the vision to get out ahead of the House of Commons by introducing this legislation in the Senate last year. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the work of all the senators who studied this bill and passed it unanimously. That is the collaborative, constructive, and non-partisan approach that I hope to see here in the House for this bill.

In fact, this bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to authorize police officers to use a drug screening device, not unlike a breathalyser, which is not possible under current legislation.

To clearly explain the problem, I will talk about a study on drug-impaired driving conducted by the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse. The centre published a report indicating that the percentage of Canadian drivers fatally injured in vehicle crashes who had taken drugs is 40% and exceeds the percentage of drivers fatally injured who had consumed alcohol, which is 33%. Furthermore, this study indicated that a driver who has used marijuana is six times more likely to have a motor vehicle accident than a sober driver. After using opioids, a driver is eight times more likely to have an accident, and after using cocaine is 10 times more likely to have an accident.

Therefore, it is obvious today that drug-impaired driving is an issue that is just as important if not more so than drunk driving. It would be understandable to believe that the number of arrests of drug-impaired drivers is similar to the number of arrests of drunk drivers. That is not the case and that is where the real problem lies.

In Canada, despite the fact that the number of drug-impaired drivers is about the same as the number of drunk drivers, the number of arrests is not. According to the Government of Canada, in 2013, 97% of prosecutions for impaired driving were alcohol related, while only 3% were drug related. This is completely out of line with the real statistics. Why?

Simply because there is currently no roadside screening device to detect drug-impaired driving. For example, as we all know, police officers who suspect a driver of being under the influence of alcohol can easily ask that person to take a blood alcohol test to check his or her level of intoxication. However, a police officer who believes that a driver is on drugs cannot use such a device because current legislation just does not allow it.

Here is how Canada's Criminal Code works now. If a police officer suspects a driver is impaired, he or she administers an initial blood alcohol test. If the individual's test result is negative, but the police officer has reason to believe that the driver is under the influence of a drug, the officer can ask the suspect to take the standardized field sobriety test. In other words, the person is simply instructed to walk, turn around, and balance on one foot.

Based on the results of the roadside test, the officer decides whether to take the suspect to the police station for evaluation by a drug recognition expert. If the driver is taken to the police station, he or she will undergo a series of 12 clinical indicator tests including blood pressure, pulse, and pupil dilation, as well as other tests related to behaviour and divided attention, such as standing up straight, feet together, arms extended, eyes closed, balancing, and so on. The tests take 45 minutes.

After these tests, if a drug recognition expert detects the presence of a drug, he or she will require a urine or blood sample. If the tests confirm the presence of the drug in question after a lab analysis, the driver could be charged with impaired driving under the Criminal Code and will stand trial.

That being said, in the absence of a device similar to a breathalyzer that would allow police officers to easily determine at the side of the road whether or not a driver is impaired by marijuana, the process is far too complex, not to mention the cumbersome administrative procedure that follows. More worrisome yet is that not every police station in Canada has a drug recognition expert. We hope to have one, or two at most, per police station in Canada.

Without a screening device to help easily and quickly detect errant drivers, the problem of drug-impaired driving will persist and continue to be the cause of countless deaths in Canada. That is why Bill S-230 is timely because it addresses this problem directly by making the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code.

First of all, Bill S-230 will give the Attorney General of Canada, and not the government or any political parties, the power to authorize the use of certain roadside screening devices to detect the presence of drugs in the body. The device would be approved by the Attorney General of Canada based on consultations with forensic science experts. The same process is already used to approve alcohol detection devices.

Furthermore, under this bill, a police officer who has reasonable ground to suspect drug-impaired driving can ask the driver to submit to a test using a drug screening device. The device would not be used without reasonable grounds. This approach is similar to the one used when impaired driving is suspected. This is no different than what police officers already do in the case of alcohol.

Lastly, in obvious cases of drug-impaired driving, a police officer could ask for a urine or blood sample at the police station without having to go through the 12 stages, since the evaluating officer will have already done the test with the screening device. This last part of the bill means that the physical coordination test, observations, and results from the screening device would give the police officer reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving.

I was lucky enough to speak with a senior official at the school that trains police officers in Quebec. I can assure the House that the current approach is very complex and that there are not enough evaluation officers to meet the demand. The screening device would be welcomed with open arms and would be an additional tool that would allow officers to save precious time. These changes would essentially help make drug detection closer to how alcohol is detected, thanks to the use of a screening device. This process would allow police officers to detect impaired driving more quickly.

Time is an important factor when drugs are involved. The more quickly a driver is stopped, the more quickly we can determine his exact state of intoxication because drugs are quickly absorbed by the body.

It is also worth noting that Canada is not the first country to adopt this approach. In fact, Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France, Finland, Germany and several other western countries that are not even considering legalizing marijuana have been using this tool for about 10 years. In these countries, this device allows police officers to better do their jobs and to prevent many accidents and deaths. Ultimately, public safety is improved and lives are saved.

Even more important, the use of this kind of drug detection device by police would deter drivers who are thinking of driving their vehicle after using drugs. At present, many people use drugs instead of alcohol because they believe their chances of being caught are lower.

That being said, if the introduction of a drug screening device increases the chances that users will be caught, it will likely have a deterrent effect and reduce the number of drug-impaired drivers. That is what happened when breathalysers were introduced to test alcohol levels. Although awareness campaigns and education are important, the risk of being arrested and charged with a criminal offence for endangering the safety of the public is certainly more convincing than an ad on television.

This evening, I invite those who are watching to talk to their teenagers and ask them what their friends think about drug-impaired driving. Surveys of teenagers and marijuana users show that many people do not believe that they are a threat on the road if they drive after taking drugs. The various studies that have been done show that over 50% of people who admit to using marijuana or other drugs say that they do not consider themselves to be a risk or danger to the public on the road.

This bill is necessary and will address a very real problem. I hardly need to point out that the Liberal government's bill to legalize marijuana by July 1, 2018, makes this issue and the need for this law all the more pressing. As alarming as the numbers are now, we can imagine how much more so they will be once Canadians can legally buy, grow, and use marijuana. It is not a stretch to suppose that the number of people using it and the number of drug-impaired drivers will go up. That is what happened in places that legalized marijuana. I would like to share some examples.

According to Washington State toxicology lab manager Brian Capron, since the state legalized marijuana, over a third of impaired drivers tested positive for the drug. They test over 13,000 drivers every year.

According to Dr. Chris Rumball of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, the Prime Minister's plan to legalize marijuana should take into account sobering U.S. experiences. In Washington State, fatal crashes among drivers who tested positive for marijuana doubled from 8% in 2013 to 17% in 2014 after legalization. In Colorado, the number tripled from 3.4% to 12.1%

Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser to Barack Obama, was very clear. He said that Colorado experienced an increase in road accidents directly related to marijuana use.

Even a Department of Justice Canada document obtained through access to information, even though it is hard to access certain documents, reveals some troubling facts. Here is what the minister's briefing notes say: “On Colorado highways, for instance, in the year following the legalization of marijuana, road fatalities linked to drug-impaired driving increased by 32%.” We do not make things up on this side of the House.

Colorado police officers have also issued a warning. They have said that law enforcement officials should be prepared for an increase in drug-impaired driving if the government legalizes cannabis. When Colorado legalized marijuana in 2014, police forces were not prepared for the challenges they faced.

A lieutenant colonel of the Colorado state police hit the nail on the head. After legalizing marijuana, Colorado was not prepared to deal with the sharp rise in drug-impaired driving, and this led to a 32% increase in fatalities in that state due to road accidents.

The bill has already been passed in the Senate and it could become law in a few months, perhaps in a few weeks, if the government so desires. If we wait for another bill to make the same changes, we will delay the implementation of these measures that will prevent fatalities.

Police forces are asking for detection devices. They do not want these devices on July 1, 2018, they want them this year before the government legalizes marijuana.

For that reason we need this bill now. That is why I am asking my colleagues opposite to put aside partisanship and support this bill, which will save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is very clear that Canada has the highest rates of cannabis use among its young people of any country in the world. Drug-impaired driving has been an issue in our country for literally decades, and certainly now as we do the important work of turning our attention to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have not only the technology but the legislation, the tools, training and the resources they need to keep our roads safe.

I wonder if the member has any comment or wants to expand on what additional things he believes law enforcement and our prosecutors will need, and the public will need, in order to make more socially responsible and safe decisions with respect to this very important issue, which has been with us for decades but is one that I think public safety requires that we address in a very urgent way.

Does he have any comments on not just the legislation before us today for discussion, but other things that might appropriately be provided to the police, to our courts, and to the public?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first step should be to equip police vehicles and to train police officers across Canada.

Despite what Liberal MPs may think, at this time police officers are asking for help. There are not enough trained people in Canada to take action in the event that the government legalizes marijuana. In any event, after the government announced its plan, the number of users increased.

No one is denying that Canada has the largest number of youth who use drugs. Therefore, let us imagine what will happen when marijuana is accessible. The use of marijuana has increased in every state and jurisdiction where marijuana has been legalized.

On February 8, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police released an urgent report indicating that it is worried about the situation and that we must not wait. Whether or not marijuana is legalized, we have to equip police vehicles even before we go any further or consider anything else.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's efforts in bringing the bill forward. I have recommended to my caucus that we support the bill. We think it deserves further study at committee.

The backgrounder that was handed out to all MPs in the House extensively quoted from Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada. However, when my office contacted the organization, its members stated that this kind of piecemeal approach that the legislation brought did not make sense. They would rather see a more comprehensive approach from the government in dealing with drug-impaired driving and all that.

While I support the bill in principle, I wonder if the member could comment on the reaction by Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada on the need for a more comprehensive approach to this issue from the government side, rather than a piecemeal approach.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his entirely relevant question.

We do indeed need a comprehensive approach. This illustrates the complexity of legalizing marijuana. I am a member of the House of Commons. I am not in the government, but I have the authority to sponsor a bill from Senator Claude Carignan that would first and foremost help equip our police officers and provide them the necessary training.

The Liberals have the majority. They can go ahead if they want, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legalize marijuana before training people, raising awareness, and implementing an education strategy. In our society we are fighting to reduce the number of smokers and promote healthy lifestyles, but I have before me a Prime Minister whose current priority for this Parliament and this session is to legalize marijuana.

That is what I wanted to say. That is all I had to add to this great debate to ensure that we equip our police officers. I have met with them and heard what they had to say. They say that they are not trained and that the action plans to train police officers are not in place. There is nothing in the budget to equip them. The budget allocates $9.6 billion over five years for legalizing marijuana, including $1 billion annually for prevention and education across Canada. It is totally ridiculous.

There ends my small contribution. Let us hope that the government does better to help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-230.

I would like to begin by expressing my very sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska for sponsoring this bill in the House to bring impaired driving to the attention of members for this important discussion. I would also like to express my respect and gratitude to the senator for Mille Isles, who sponsored the bill in the other place.

We can all agree that drug-impaired driving is a serious and growing problem. Like alcohol and driving, drug driving is present in all age groups and socio-economic groups. It is seen particularly, but not exclusively, in young males in their twenties who are driving after smoking cannabis. Frequently, they combine this activity with the consumption of alcohol. The scientific evidence indicates this to be significantly more dangerous than driving after consuming alcohol alone or cannabis alone.

Impaired driving, whether by drugs or alcohol, is a serious crime. We are all too aware of the cases of death, injury, and property damage resulting from people who make the decision to drive while impaired. This is not a victimless crime but a crime that can quickly victimize other drivers on the road and the innocent without warning. The difficulty is that too many people seem to think that this will not happen to them and they go ahead and drive while impaired by a drug, or alcohol, or both. We need to become a society in which the attitude is to never drive while impaired by a drug or alcohol.

On that note, I am pleased to advise that our government is firmly committed to strengthening appropriate laws and enforcement measures to deter and punish serious offenders on the road.

While we support the intentions behind the Senate public bill, I know my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford will be pleased to hear that the government will be bringing forward its own comprehensive response to the issue of drug-impaired driving as part of its approach to the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis, which we will bring forward in the spring of 2017.

The issues to be resolved in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat drug-impaired driving are complex, and it is far too difficult to address through amendments to the non-government Senate public bill.

On that note, the Department of Justice has requested the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, which is its scientific adviser on drug-impaired driving, to assess the validity of oral fluid drug screening technology. The drugs and driving committee has reported that the technology reliably detects tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in cannabis, as well as for cocaine, methamphetamines, and several opioids. The DDC is in the process of establishing evaluation standards that would be used to evaluate drug screening equipment submitted by manufacturers for the approval of the Attorney General of Canada for use by police across the country. The DDC's research and advice will help guide the government in designing a system of regulation built upon evidence-based policies and science.

However, oral fluid drug screeners alone are not a sufficient response, and Bill S-230 is simply not sufficiently comprehensive to address the very complex drug driving problem in a significant way. The final report of the federal Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation indicated that drug-impaired driving was a major concern for witnesses who appeared before the task force and suggested that the government address the matter of a cannabis “legal limit” for driving.

The difficulty is that Bill S-230 only proposes authorization for police to use an oral fluid drug screener at the roadside as a tool to investigate the existing crime of driving while impaired by a drug or a drug-alcohol combination.

Currently, there is no legal limit in the Criminal Code for a drug other than alcohol, and Bill S-230 proposes no drug legal limit offence. If enacted, this bill would provide police with a new drug screening tool that would only be used to investigate the existing offence of driving while impaired by a drug.

It is quite understandable that this bill, in its limitations, does not propose any drug legal limits for driving. The Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation itself chose to defer to the work being done by the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science.

Therefore, I respectfully question the sense of Bill S-230 proposing oral fluid drug screeners without proposing some mechanism to create legal limit offences for drugs, at least for the most prevalent drugs found in drivers, which of course includes THC, the psychoactive ingredient that is present in cannabis.

The drug screener has a disposable, oral fluid collection kit and an analyzer phase. It checks for the presence of particular drugs in the oral fluid and not for impairment. The oral fluid drug screener would be used by police at the roadside under Bill S-230 for the sole and limited purpose of investigating the current drug-impaired driving offence.

By contrast, in 2016 the United Kingdom adopted legislation that created legal limits for drugs and introduced oral fluid drug screeners at the same time that would aid in the investigation of the THC and cocaine legal limit offences. The media have reported that drug driving charges in the U.K. have increased about tenfold in the year following the implementation of that far more comprehensive and effective legislation.

In the U.K., as implied earlier, only two drugs are in the panel of drugs searched for by the oral fluid drug screener. They are THC, which is the active chemical in cannabis, and cocaine. These are the two drugs most prevalent as impairing drugs found in drivers.

Even if THC or cocaine is detected by the oral fluid drug screen, there is no criminal charge based on that evidence alone. What happens is that the U.K. police will demand a blood sample from the driver and it will be analyzed in a laboratory for drug concentration levels, including some drugs that are not detected by the drug screener. Only if blood analysis shows that the driver exceeded a U.K. drug “legal limit” will there be a “legal limit” charge.

Now, we all know that there is a vast array of other impairing drugs besides tetrahydrocannabinol and cocaine. Therefore, other investigative methods are needed for the drugs that are not searched for by the drug screener.

In Canada, Parliament enacted its Criminal Code reforms in 2008, which gave police a roadside drug screening tool that was used to investigate the offence of driving while impaired by a drug. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion of a drug in a driver's body, they may demand that the driver participate in standardized field sobriety testing, or SFST. This is physical testing and includes, for example, walking a line, turning, and doing a one-leg stand at the roadside.

After the SFST, if the driver has performed poorly, the police have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver committed the offence of driving while impaired by a drug, or a drug-alcohol combination. The police can then demand that the driver participate in a drug recognition evaluation, or DRE as it is commonly referred to in our country, conducted by a specially trained evaluating officer.

This officer checks vital signs, performance of physical tests, observations of eye movement and pupil size, and an alcohol breath test on an approved instrument. When I say approved instrument, that is approved and listed in regulations approved by the drugs and driving committee. If the evaluating officer identifies a class of drug as causing impairment, the driver is then given a demand to provide a bodily substance to be analyzed in a laboratory for the presence of a drug, either blood or urine.

Bill S-230 has an aspect that parallels the SFST because a positive result on the drug screener could lead to a demand that the driver participate in DRE at the police station. However, I do not believe that enacting authority for police to use a drug screener is sufficient, by itself, to address adequately the very serious problem of drug-impaired driving. It would be far more effective if coupled with legal limits of drugs in the system.

Hence, the government is firmly committed to bringing forward a comprehensive response to drug-impaired driving. I think we can all agree that Canadians would be better protected from impaired drivers, including those impaired by drugs, by this more comprehensive approach.

Unfortunately, Bill S-230, though well-intentioned, does not provide a workable, new, legal framework to address drug-impaired driving. Therefore, l would encourage all members to await the introduction of that more comprehensive bill, so this Parliament can bring forward a more adequate response.

In my experience, and I have considerable experience in keeping our roadways safe in the policing community, what the police and our prosecutors need is the legislation, technology, training, and resources necessary to keep our roads safe. We need to invest as well in greater public education so all our citizens can make safer and more socially responsible choices not to drink or use drugs and drive.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill S-230. I would like to thank the leader of the opposition in the Senate for crafting this bill and shepherding it through the Senate, and also the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for bringing it forward in this House.

As the NDP critic for justice and the Attorney General, I have recommended to my caucus that we support this bill so that it can get further study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I also appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his remarks tonight. It is indeed heartening to all members in this House to see that with the government's plans for legalization and regulation of marijuana, there is a comprehensive approach forthcoming.

When this bill was brought forward and introduced to members in this House, it was accompanied by an extensive handout. I have recommended that we support this bill because I believe that we need to do everything we can to ensure Canadians are safe on the road. The statistics that were provided in that handout are quite illuminating. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada found that there were 614 road fatalities in 2012 in which drivers had drugs present in their body, compared to 476 fatalities in which alcohol was present. Therefore, there is an obvious need for this.

That said, there are stakeholders who have been consulted on this bill, and some of them do have issues with it. We have heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who support the principle of the bill, but they have looked at all of the different pieces of legislation that deal with this subject matter and they would rather see it combined into a coherent government strategy.

It is quite a coincidence that for the second private member's bill that we are debating tonight, Bill C-247, which dealt with passive detection devices, one of the recommendations was that the government needs to take a leading role to make sure that the Department of Justice and its resources are fully involved. When we look at the various private member's bills that deal with these issues, sometimes I think they concentrate on fixing individual trees rather than looking at the whole forest. That is one issue to take note of.

Of course, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as I referenced in my question for the hon. member, has stated that there are problems. The organization would like to come to the parliamentary committee, but it believes that a piecemeal approach to this issue is not the way to move forward.

One of the issues in the bill is with the fact that there is no mention of a per se limit on THC. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice made mention of that. It is unclear as to how much THC, or indeed any kind of drugs, in a person's blood would need to be found to fine for impairment.

As was mentioned, cocaine is of course illegal to possess. We still do not know what the amounts are of that drug or of THC that can cause legal impairment as per the Criminal Code. I can compare it to blood alcohol content, just to explain for members what the per se limit is. Blood alcohol content of 0.05% or 0.08%, depending on the jurisdiction, is enough to move to prohibitions and to punishment.

It is important to stop impaired driving, but we want to make sure that have a clear definition of the amounts that constitute impairment. Different people of different weights will synthesize drugs in a different way, so we need to really lock down what that basic amount is that causes impairment.

We have been talking about the need for a comprehensive strategy. I am sure we will get new news on that in the following week, but one thing that we can point to is the extensively quoted Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation and the report that it issued.

The task force recommended many of the steps that I feel this bill does not cover, among them investing immediately and working with the provinces and territories to develop a national comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis causes impairment, and that the best way to avoid driving impaired is simply not to consume beforehand. It also recommended investing in research to better link THC levels with impairment and crash risk to support the development of a per se limit.

It recommended to determine whether to establish a per se limit as a part of a comprehensive approach to cannabis-impaired driving, acting on the findings of the DDC; re-examine per se limits should a reliable correlation between THC levels and impairment be established; support the development of appropriate roadside drug screening device for detecting THC levels and invest in these tools; and finally, invest in baseline data collection and ongoing surveillance in evaluation and collaboration with the provinces and territories.

We are happy the comprehensive strategy will be developed in conjunction with the rollout of regulation and legalization of cannabis. Ultimately what Canadians primarily think that their members of Parliament should be doing is looking at ensuring public safety is a big part of our regulations and the laws that we develop, especially when something as revolutionary as cannabis legalization in Canada has a long history of prohibition and punishment. This will be quite a change for Canadian society. We want to ensure that is rolled out in a responsible manner and that we also look at the dangers to drug-impaired driving.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse states in its 2016 report that we must implement per se drug laws for certain substances as a part of that comprehensive approach to drug-impaired driving. As was made mention, this includes the enhanced training of all police officers in the recognition of the signs and symptoms of drug use, a strong drug evaluation and classification program, and the implementation of a roadside oral fluid drug screening.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse from the United States states “that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash”. However, THC can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication.

We do not want to get into that situation where someone has consumed something on a Friday and by Monday, he or she is no longer impaired. However, if it is still detected in a person's body, that is why it is so important to establish what the exact limits are, the exact amounts that cause that impairment.

With these facts in mind, we are glad a comprehensive program and approach to this problem will be rolled out so we do not miss the mark.

I have encouraged my caucus to support the bill. I believe, in principle, that it does deserve further study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, just simply for the fact that impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. It causes the death of more than 1,200 Canadians per year.

When it comes to supporting a bill that has this in mind, the principle of the bill, I will lend my support behind that. I hope all members will do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill S-230, the drug-impaired driving detection act.

I would like to thank Senator Claude Carignan for his dedication to the bill and for guiding this piece of legislation through the Senate and I thank my colleague for bringing it to the House.

This bill seeks to authorize law enforcement officials to use roadside screening devices to detect the presence of drugs in the body of a driver suspected of being impaired.

The authority to use non-invasive drug screening devices similar to our current alcohol screening devices would allow law enforcement officers to immediately recognize a driver operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs. About 3,000 of 75,000 impaired driving incidents reported by police across Canada in 2015 involved drugs, seven of which were fatal.

To me, the bill is trying to make our roads and our communities significantly safer. Although there is a lack of statistics on the subject of drug-impaired driving, the information we do have is staggering. What is even more concerning is how the Liberal government is moving so quickly toward legalizing marijuana while not addressing one of the more dangerous effects of impaired driving. This bill is necessary and timely as we approach the deadlines the current government has set for itself regarding marijuana legalization.

I will mention a couple of statistics from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse regarding marijuana and road safety. Marijuana was the most common illicit drug present among drivers in fatal motor vehicle collisions. It is also the most common illegal drug among young drivers. More young drivers in Ontario drive after using marijuana than after drinking alcohol. In 2011, 13% of young Canadians aged 15 to 24 admitted to driving after taking marijuana, but only 11% reported driving after drinking.

Statistics show that there has been a rapid rise in the presence of drugs in fatal motor vehicle accidents. MADD Canada states that drug-impaired fatalities now exceed the number of alcohol fatalities by 25%. We invest a lot of effort and money in the prevention of drinking and driving and in support of groups working to prevent the same, yet we are beginning to learn that drug-impaired driving is statistically even more common.

Law enforcement officers currently have the tools they need to measure blood alcohol levels roadside, but the tools to measure drug impairment are still not available across Canada. As such, it is significantly harder to prosecute drug-impaired driving, which is a necessary first step in preventing further risk on our roads. Without the necessary tools, fatalities and crashes as a result of drug-impaired driving are on the rise, but arrests and charges are not. This is unacceptable and does nothing to prevent this dangerous habit.

This needs to become a priority for the federal government, especially before the legalization of marijuana. Other countries have already undertaken this challenge and are responding very well to legislation against drug-impaired driving. There are best practices that we could be using as models, or we could create an entirely Canadian system. Regardless, legislation on drug-impaired driving needs to be finalized as soon as possible.

I would like to outline exactly why I believe drug-impaired driving is dangerous and wrong. As a youth leader for over 32 years, I can explain first-hand some of the many consequences drugs can have on the human body. I will try to stick to drug-related side effects or consequences that would have an effect on driving.

Drug-impaired drivers may have a slower reaction time, be disoriented, or be overly tired. Drug-impaired drivers may have difficulty concentrating, staying in their own lane, judging distances, or judging or maintaining a constant speed. Drug-impaired drivers may be more easily distracted by their surroundings, both inside and outside the vehicle. These consequences are only magnified when alcohol is also present in their system. Drug-impaired drivers may show other signs of poor judgment, such as texting while driving or talking on a phone while driving, both of which are root causes of fatalities.

One's reaction to drugs can also evolve over time and can both escalate and de-escalate rapidly. Drugs can impact one's mood, vision, mental state, and even have physical effects on drivers.

Any of these factors can increase the number of accidents, injuries, or casualties on our roads. Legislated screening tools would allow our law enforcement officers to properly patrol our streets and allow them to remove dangerous drivers from the roads. The evidence from the screening devices would lead to higher conviction rates and would help raise awareness on this issue.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, just as many drivers die in road crashes while under the influence of drugs as those who are under the influence of alcohol. MADD has very similar statistics which demonstrate that, in 2016, there were 614 vehicle accident fatalities where drugs were present in the driver's system, compared to the 476 fatalities where alcohol was present in the driver's system. Looking at these numbers, drugs seem statistically more dangerous than alcohol.

Along the same lines as the MADD study, a roadside survey in British Columbia, conducted in 2012, collected voluntary saliva and breathalyzer samples from drivers. The final results indicated that 7.4% of the drivers were drug impaired and only 5.4% were alcohol impaired.

If we can agree that drug-impaired driving is more prevalent than alcohol-impaired driving and that drug-impaired driving causes a significant number of fatalities, should we not be legislating drug-impaired driving the same as or more severely than we legislate alcohol-impaired driving?

Logically, legislation preventing drug-impaired drivers from operating a vehicle would have a positive impact on our communities. As we near the date on which the Liberal government announces its marijuana legislation, we need to equip our law enforcement officers with the proper tools to keep us safe.

It is also important to remark that drug-impaired driving cases often take up to twice as long to be completed in court than their alcohol-impaired driving counterparts. Drug-impaired driving cases are also less likely to result in a guilty sentence.

The use of drugs while driving, or prior to driving, is on the rise and will only increase with the government's legislation. The statistics correlating drug-impaired driving with vehicle crashes are astounding. The crash rate of marijuana users is two to six times higher than it is for drivers who are not impaired. Drivers who test positive for the use of sedatives are two to eight times more likely to be involved in a fatal traffic crash. Drivers who test positive for the use of opioids are up to eight times more likely to be involved in a traffic accident, and drivers who are impaired by cocaine are two to 10 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

Legislation similar to Bill S-230 is already present across the globe. In the United States, several states that have legalized marijuana have also introduced legislation on its use while driving. Washington and Colorado have set their legal limit at five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood, while Nevada and Ohio have a lower limit of two nanograms. Other states have declared zero-tolerance legislation. Determining what is safe will be difficult. I recommend leaving those measurements to the medical and law enforcement professionals.

Other countries with similar legislation include Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, and the United Kingdom, and the list goes on. All of these countries have found value in legislation toward preventing drug-impaired driving. We are behind on this matter. As a country, we have an obligation to respond to this issue. I hope that a response is ready before we legalize the most commonly used illegal drug in our country.

To conclude, I am pleased to speak to this important and timely piece of legislation. As we move closer to the deadline, there are many issues that need to be addressed, including roadside testing of impaired drivers. I could list many others, and I am sure that when we come to debate, we will.

I am calling on the government to ensure the safety of our roads and of Canadians. We now have good tools available in the world to prove a level of impairment for alcohol. We could have the same for drugs. We need to equip our law enforcement officers with what they need to keep our roads safe.

The social movement against drinking and driving has been tremendous. I am hoping that a similar effort will be put into preventing drug-impaired driving in Canada.

Until we get screening technology across this country, we are going to continue to do a poor job of detecting drug-impaired drivers on our roads. As we lower the age and legalize marijuana, these young boys, who are most prevalent in terms of drug-impaired driving, will only increase in number. We need stronger rules, and we need to equip our law enforcement officers with the tools to enforce those rules more effectively.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-230, which would authorize the use of approved screening devices to detect the presence of drugs in anyone operating a vehicle. I would like to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for bringing this important issue onto the floor for debate.

The government has been clear on the matter of impaired driving and the hazardous effects on its victims. Canadians cannot tolerate this type of reckless and irresponsible action without consequences. Authorities must have the appropriate tools necessary to ensure the public's safety. That is why our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness rose in the House on February 9 and reassured members that the RCMP and other police forces across the country, in co-operation with the Government of Canada, have been testing a number of scientific devices for roadside testing for drug-impaired driving. The minister also committed the government to having in place both the legal and scientific regime to deal with drug-impaired driving.

This legislation arrives at a critical time as the government prepares to fulfill an election promise to legalize, strictly regulate, and tax the production of cannabis. Bringing an end to this unsuccessful prohibition program is long overdue. New legislation would provide more protection for children who would no longer be able to purchase the drug from street dealers. Under the new regulations, the purchase of cannabis would take place in regulated businesses and require photo ID. This would protect our youth and remove control from the illicit market. Cannabis would no longer fund the activities of organized crime. Revenues from the sale of cannabis could then be taken back into the health care system, including counselling and education.

While this next step in progressive policy is welcomed by many Canadians, I acknowledge that this change will be cause for concern for some. This is why the government is proposing strict regulations on the production and sale of cannabis.

While regulation and legislation are necessary steps, they are not totally sufficient, and while I support the intent of the bill, what is more effective than punishing a driver who drives under the influence is educating people to prevent them from getting behind the wheel in the first place. Teaching youth about the effects of cannabis consumption is the best way to ensure they never get behind the wheel while impaired by drugs or alcohol.

The task force for legalization and regulation heard at length from Canadians on this very issue. That is why the members of the task force argued for a whole-of-government approach, specifically that Ottawa work with the provinces and territories to develop a national, comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis causes impairment.

The good work of the task force fell on receptive ears, and the government included funds to accomplish this very goal in budget 2017. Health Canada will support marijuana public education programming and surveillance activities in advance of the government's plan to legalize cannabis. The government would accomplish this by directing existing funding of $9.6 million over five years, with $1 million per year ongoing.

It is this kind of common-sense policy-making that Canadians voted for in the 2015 election. We made a campaign promise. We announced consultations for Canadians to provide further input, and the government listened to those concerns and acted.

Canadians and their government understand that the purely punitive approach is a failed one. We currently have the highest use of marijuana by youth in developed countries around the world. Ottawa must work with the provinces and territories to adopt a plan of action that comprehensively deals with the issues of drug use, based upon science as opposed to ideology.

Currently, anyone, including minors, can access cannabis with greater ease than alcohol or tobacco. This is because minors do not have to go through a regulated business to get cannabis. As it stands, the dealers are the only suppliers, and they have only one motive: profit. They do not care about age, quality control, or the strength of cannabis. Prohibition, even decriminalization, will not change this attitude.

While the members of the official opposition may still look upon legalization with skepticism, those on this side of the House understand that it is long past time for change. A comprehensive policy will allow Canadians the freedom to choose but to also encourage responsible consumption. At the same time, we will protect Canadians from impaired drivers using the most up-to-date technology.

In conclusion, Canadians can be assured that their government and their representatives in Parliament will not compromise when it comes to their safety and the safety of their communities. An important step is providing law enforcement with the tools they need now and will need in the future to ensure that drivers operating vehicles are not under the influence of cannabis.

This is only one step toward effective public safety policy. All orders of government need to work on providing devices and training so police forces are able to ensure that citizens and communities are safe from impaired drivers.

Governments also need to provide effective legislation for distribution, control and testing, and even municipal zoning regulations. Our government is committed to an all-of-government approach to personal and public safety policy and legislation. We will work with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners, as well as our police forces, to provide improved safety and security for communities and the people living in them. We have to do better in the future than we have done in the past to provide safety for our citizens, especially our youth, and for our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure tonight to speak to Bill S-230.

There is a problem in Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan has had the highest number of impaired driving charges in all of Canada. The problem has existed for decades, if not a century, and the people of Saskatchewan are very concerned.

A daughter of a former member of Parliament for Blackstrap, Allan Kerpan, was involved in an accident involving drunk driving. He is one of many who has taken to the stage in the last couple of years to deal with the effects of not only drinking but also drugs.

Impaired driving due to drugs is an interesting one, because we all believe devices should be in cars now so police have a way of testing people. We are concerned with the government legislation on marijuana. It has not thought it out.

Last week I had a chance to go to one of the high schools in Saskatoon, Walter Murray Collegiate. It is the biggest high school, with over 1,500 students. I had a chance to talk about the marijuana legislation. Much to my surprise, most kids in the assembly did not want the legalization of marijuana. That was kind of a surprise because the Liberals assumed everyone was in favour of marijuana, and that is not the case. The students have spoken out against it. They are concerned about it. They have seen what alcohol and now marijuana can do to families.

I mentioned Allan Kerpan, an MP who was in the House of Commons in the 1990s and 2000, and his family. We need a way of testing if this is to come about. As people know, the municipal and provincial police and the RCMP need devices in their cars right now. We know what is going on in the country, not only on the back roads of Saskatchewan but from coast to coast to coast. That is very important when we deal with this private bill, Bill S-230. We have to get out in front of this, and that is why my hon. colleague brought the bill forward now. This is an important part. Families in our country have been absolutely decimated due to the accidents and deaths that have occurred.

It is very important that the hon. member bring Bill S-230 forward at this time. Police officers need the devices now. We have heard from coast to coast. The University of B.C. may have a device ready for testing. We need it right now. UBC is one of many places in the country trying to get a device that could be put in every police car. That is where we need to go. We need to get out in front of the government legislation that will be brought forward later this year, and possibly will be in law by July 1, 2018.

When we look back through the years, we see how many families have been affected by alcohol. Could we have prevented it? We sure could have. Devices are needed in vehicles today that can read .08. We have brought that number down in almost every province and territory, because we know drinking and driving is a problem. We know drugs, like marijuana, will be a problem when the law is passed. That is why I am very pleased to speak to Bill S-230 and give it my support in the House of Commons tonight.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood will have five and a half minutes remaining in his time, should he wish it, when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking against Bill S-230. I want to acknowledge that the bill is well intentioned and its sponsor in the chamber, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, is to be applauded for the aim of the bill, which is to address drug-impaired driving. Similarly, the sponsor of Bill S-230 in the other place, the senator from Mille Isles, must be recognized for having had the same laudable aim when he initiated this bill.

Our government understands the significant impact that impaired driving, including drug-impaired driving, has on the safety of our roads and highways. We are firmly committed to strengthening appropriate laws and enforcement measures to deter and punish serious offenders on the road. That is why, while we support the intentions behind the Senate public bill, our government has brought forth its own comprehensive regime to drug-impaired driving, which as we know, is reflected in Bill C-46. It is part of our approach and consistent with the work we are doing with regard to strengthening the strict regulation and legalization of cannabis.

The issues to be resolved in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat drug-impaired driving are complex and too difficult to address through amendments to this non-government Senate public bill. Bill C-46, on the other hand, fully addresses the concerns we have with Bill S-230. Bill C-46 would create one of the toughest regimes against drug and alcohol-impaired driving in the world. It would improve the detection and prosecution of drug-impaired drivers and build on existing measures by authorizing the police to use new tools to better detect drugs in drivers and by creating new driving offences for being over the legal limit for certain impairing drugs. Police would also be able to demand an oral fluid sample at the roadside if they suspect a driver has a drug in the body. This will be similar to the current method of testing for alcohol at the roadside with an approved screening device.

In this light, the Senate public bill's proposals are flawed and would be highly problematic for a number of reasons. Bill S-230 proposes to authorize police to demand from a driver an oral fluid sample on a drug screener at the roadside. The officer, following a lawful stop, first must reasonably suspect that there is a drug in the driver's body. Of course, the Criminal Code already authorizes police to demand a breath sample from a driver on an alcohol screener at the roadside if the officer suspects that there is alcohol in the driver's body.

It is easy, therefore, to understand the interest in a similar screening device for drugs. However, the reason why the alcohol screener is so very useful is precisely because we have the crime of “driving with a breath alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood”. A fail on the alcohol screener leads to further police investigation of a possible over-80 offence. However, unlike our government's Bill C-46, Bill S-230 proposes no similar legal limit for any drug. Therefore, the only charge available to police would be driving while impaired by a drug, which requires strong evidence of actual impairment. An oral fluid drug screener does not provide any evidence of impairment, but only the presence of a drug. For this reason, I believe the bill's usefulness is minimal.

To explain further, an oral fluid drug screener proposed by Bill S-230 could only be used, among other factors, to help police develop the reasonable grounds to believe that a drug-impaired driving crime has occurred. The drug screener result could not be used, as it is in the U.K., for example, to further investigate a drug legal limit offence because, until C-46 is adopted, there is no drug legal limit offence in Canada.

In the U.K., drug screeners are very helpful in investigating the legal limit offences for THC, the active chemical in cannabis, and for cocaine. These are the two drugs that are most prevalent in drivers and that are screened by the U.K. drug screeners. In contrast, under Bill S-230, a drug screener could only be used in Canada as an investigative tool in an investigation into driving while impaired by a drug.

Despite the fact that Parliament had enacted the offence of driving while intoxicated by a narcotic in 1925 and the offence of driving while impaired by a drug in 1951, drug-impaired driving investigations remained a huge challenge for police until 2008. This challenge of investigating a drug-impaired driving offence was not unique to Canada. In the 1980s, in the United States, a series of tests was developed that helped to show impairment. This knowledge was used to develop a standardized field sobriety test for screening at the roadside plus a drug-recognition evaluation, or what we commonly refer to as a DRE, which is a broader series of tests that is conducted at the police station.

In the early 1990s, some officers from British Columbia were trained in SFST and DRE and commenced using these tests on those suspected drug-impaired drivers who were willing to participate on a voluntary basis. In time, many drug-impaired drivers simply declined to participate.

In 1999, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that experts consider what tools might be used by police to better investigate drug-impaired driving, and SFST and DRE were put forward. After several unsuccessful attempts, Parliament in 2008 enacted authority for police to demand that SFST tests be performed by a driver at the roadside. Before making the demand, the police officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect there are drugs or alcohol in the driver's body.

The 2008 legislation also authorized the police to demand the DRE series of tests at the police station if the officer at the roadside had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was impaired by a drug. This belief is based on observations at the roadside, including the driver's performance of the standardized tests.

The DRE testing is conducted by a specially trained officer called an “evaluating officer”. It includes tests of the driver's balance and ability to perform divided attention tasks, and physical measurements of pulse, eye reaction to light, and muscle tone. If the evaluating officer at the police station identifies a drug as causing impairment, that officer may demand a bodily sample of urine, saliva, or blood to confirm or eliminate the possibility of the presence of a drug.

At best, under Bill S-230, a drug screener might help police form the necessary grounds to make a DRE demand. This would be a tool that could be used at the roadside, with or without SFST. Again, the police would be investigating a driving while impaired by a drug charge. This contrasts with Bill C-46 and experiences in the U.K., where drug screeners are very helpful in investigating the legal limit offences for THC and cocaine.

No one here will be surprised that drug-impaired driving is a growing problem in Canada. This trend is confirmed in the Juristat report entitled “Impaired driving in Canada, 2015” from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, published in December 2016. The number of charges for drug-impaired driving has increased fourfold or almost in the few years since the adoption in 2008 of new tools under the Code to help police investigate drug impaired driving.

As cannabis reform draws nearer, drug-impaired driving is a growing concern for Canadians. According to what I have been told, surveys show that the idea that cannabis does not affect driving is particularly widespread among young drivers. Young drivers may compare the effects that alcohol and cannabis have on their driving.

However, it is important to know that the human body absorbs, distributes and eliminates the two substances in very different ways. They also do not have the same effects.

We have a project that is being successfully completed on the government side. Bill C-46 looks very constructively at how we can use these new devices, like the oral fluid drug screeners, in the field. We are using the bill and the robustness of the regime it proposes to ensure that we keep our roads safe and, at the same time, reduce access to cannabis by our children.

As I have indicated, having drug screener legislation without drug legal limit legislation does not take us very far. Therefore, I intend to vote against Bill S-230. I support our government's far more comprehensive approach in Bill C-46 and encourage all members in the chamber to do the same.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by thanking the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who sponsored this bill from the Senate. I had the opportunity to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I also know his history as a school principal. Regardless of the political or ideological disagreements that we may have from time to time, I believe in his sincere efforts to improve public safety and national security.

First, we need to be clear: regardless of our opinion or our approach to eliminating the scourge of impaired driving, we agree in the House that it is something that must be done. It is particularly important and we all recognize that. Statistics show that there is an increase in impaired driving, particularly from marijuana.

For that reason, I support sending the bill to committee so we can hear more about it, because my past experience has not been very convincing. I refer here to another bill that we studied, but I forget the number; I apologize. I refer to the bill regarding random breath testing sponsored by a Conservative member. Many testimonies that we heard during the study of that bill can apply to the discussion of the bill before us today, in addition to other factors that we must consider.

First of all, one of the problems the parliamentary secretary just spoke of is that the bill only mentions the criteria already specified in the Criminal Code relating to alcohol-impaired driving and applies them to drugs. This is about the signs that police officers pick up on. Nothing much would change in that respect.

The maximum allowed blood alcohol concentration in the Criminal Code is .08, and in some provinces, it is set at .05 in matters of traffic safety. There is no mention in the bill, however, of a THC concentration that would allow us to determine how much marijuana a person has actually consumed. That is a major flaw in the bill. Why? Because we would need to rely on a person's behaviour, on what visual and physical cues might be present.

It is problematic because it is clearly a lack of training. We certainly believe that the men and women in uniform who ensure our safety are able to do this work. However, according to the study of the legalization bill and the government’s plan for impaired driving, we know that there is a lot of work to do to offer more training to the men and women in uniform to ensure that they can properly recognize the physical symptoms—if I can use that term—to properly detect cases of drug-impaired driving. That is certainly something that is extremely important in this case.

As well, the bill refers to a saliva test. The problem is that experts tell us that the presence of THC can be detected in bodily fluids several days and even several weeks after the drugs in question have been consumed, particularly marijuana.

The problem with that is that, without a fixed limit set out in the law, we could see situations where the presence of THC could be detected in the blood of someone who had, for example, smoked marijuana several weeks earlier—or several days, maybe; I am not sure about the scientific issues surrounding that, but that is a problem that we will face. So the presence of THC could be detected in someone’s blood, but the concentration would not be high enough to deem someone to be a criminal. For example, the state of Colorado has set a specific limit for the THC levels in people driving while impaired. That is a problem in itself because we could end up in a situation where someone is arrested who is actually not impaired, but who simply used marijuana at some point in the past. That is very concerning.

The other element that I refer to is the ability of these tools to properly measure what we want to measure, namely the level of THC in a person’s body. In the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security’s study of the bill regarding random breath testing, some members raised this question, knowing that the government was preparing a plan for the legalization of marijuana. Several experts, including police representatives, told us that a lot of discussion was still needed and that, at this time, no method was more reliable than another in measuring what we want to measure to ensure that drivers are arrested who are truly impaired.

If we want to solve a problem, we have to do it properly. That is why I want to talk about one of the shortcomings of Bill S-230, which is the same one that was raised in our debate on the bill I mentioned about random breath tests. The issue is that this approach is not comprehensive; it does not address all aspects of the problem. When the committee studied this bill, important stakeholders such as MADD pointed out that it has the same shortcoming.

We have been trying to figure out whether all these tests should be random, and we have talked about the burden that places on the law enforcement agencies responsible for keeping our roads safe, but each of those elements addresses just one aspect of the problem. If we really want to keep our roads safe, we have to look at a broader set of elements.

People often talk about education, for example. Some have suggested that we can figure out the best approach by looking at how things are handled by other countries with more all-encompassing marijuana legislation and some of the U.S. states that have already legalized marijuana.

Washington State and Colorado have rules about exact THC concentrations in blood, which must be measured before an individual can be arrested. Oregon does things differently. There, an officer who stops a driver uses visual cues to determine whether the driver is impaired before proceeding to other tests like the ones the parliamentary secretary listed. Other countries, such as Great Britain, have more specific measures related to blood THC concentration.

Again, I want to congratulate my colleague for sponsoring this bill in the House of Commons. What I said from the outset bears repeating. There is no doubt that every member of the House wants to eradicate this scourge. Too many lives have been lost to impaired driving. We need to do more to raise awareness. We need to give our police forces the tools they need to keep the public safe and do their job properly in order to improve the ever more staggering statistics. However, this needs to be done in a comprehensive manner. We cannot simply rely on meaningless indicators. We must set a very specific and discernible concentration level. That will be even more important in the context of legalizing marijuana.

Finally, I would remind hon. members that we need to have private members' bills from senators or members. Even so, the Liberals have had a hard time with the legalization bill. Even though we are in favour of legalization, the fact remains that the Liberals have botched this process in a number of ways, including when it comes to consulting the provinces. That speaks to the complexity and scope of such a bill. A lot of work remains to be done to ensure that everything is done properly. Nevertheless, I will vote in favour of this bill so that we may study it in committee. I look forward to seeing the end result.

Again, I will vote in favour of the bill to ensure that we can study it in committee, and I look forward to seeing the end result.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving).

This bill is critically important for protecting Canadians from the growing epidemic of drug-impaired drivers, people who take the wheel while impaired.

It is becoming increasingly urgent to deal with this problem, especially with the Liberals' bill to legalize marijuana looming on the horizon. In fact, this bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to allow police officers to use a drug detection device, not unlike a breathalyzer, which is not possible under current legislation.

It is obvious today that drug-impaired driving is just as important an issue as drunk driving, if not more important. It would be understandable to believe that the number of arrests of drug-impaired drivers is similar to the number of arrests of drunk drivers. That is not the case, and that is where the real problem lies.

In Canada, despite the fact that the number of drug-impaired drivers is about the same as the number of drunk drivers, the number of arrests is not.

According to the Government of Canada, in 2013, 97% of prosecutions for impaired driving were alcohol related, while only 3% were drug related. We know that the numbers for alcohol- and drug-impaired driving are the same, but 97% of prosecutions are related to alcohol while only 3% of prosecutions are related to drugs. That is a problem.

Why do we have this discrepancy?

Simply because there is currently no roadside screening device to detect drug-impaired driving. For example, as we all know, police officers who suspect a driver of being under the influence of alcohol can easily ask that person to take a blood alcohol test to check his or her level of intoxication. However, unfortunately, a police officer who believes that a driver is on drugs cannot use such a device because current legislation just does not allow it. In the absence of a device similar to a breathalyzer, which would allow police officers to easily determine at the side of the road whether or not a driver is impaired by marijuana, the process is far too complex, not to mention the cumbersome administrative procedure that follows.

Of even more concern is that not all police stations in Canada have drug recognition experts. That therefore leaves the door wide open to drug-impaired drivers. The hope is that there will be at least one or two such experts at every police station in Canada.

Without instruments to easily and quickly detect impaired drivers, the problem of drug-impaired driving will persist and will continue to cause many deaths in Canada. That is why Bill S-230 is timely. It directly addresses this problem by making the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code.

First, Bill S-230 will give the Attorney General of Canada the power to authorize the use of a device or several types of approved devices to identify the presence of drugs in the system at the roadside.

Such a device will be approved by the Attorney General of Canada following consultations with forensic science experts. The same process is used to approve devices for detecting alcohol.

The bill would also ensure that police officers who have reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver is drug impaired could ask them to undergo a test with a drug detection device. The device would therefore not be used without reasonable grounds.

This is no different from what the police do in cases involving alcohol. It is quite simple. We are not asking for a lot.

With drugs, time is an important factor. That is where it differs a bit from alcohol. The sooner the driver is identified, the sooner the level of impairment can be accurately determined, as drugs are quickly absorbed into the body. It is also good to note that Canada will not be the first country to adopt such a method.

In effect, countries that are not considering legalizing marijuana have already been using this tool for about 10 years.

That includes Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France, Finland, Germany and several other western countries. In those countries, this tool allows police to do their work better and prevent many accidents and deaths. Ultimately, public safety is improved and lives are saved.

Even more important, the use of such a drug detection device by the police discourages drivers who consider driving their vehicle after consuming drugs. Indeed, many people currently use drugs instead of alcohol because they believe they have less chance of getting caught. With the possible legalization of marijuana, this problem will become even bigger. That said, if the risk of being caught increases for users with the advent of a drug detection device, that would very likely be a deterrent that would help reduce the number of drug-impaired drivers, as was the case for alcohol when breathalyzers were introduced into the system.

While awareness campaigns and education are important, the risk of being arrested and charged with a criminal offence for endangering the safety of the public is certainly more convincing than an ad on television. Furthermore, a document prepared for the federal justice minister and obtained under the Access to Information Act reveals some troubling facts. The minister's briefing document states:

For example, in Colorado, in the year following marijuana legalization, there was a 32% increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths.

We on this side of the House are not making this up. Police officers are asking for screening devices. However, they do not want them on July 1, 2018. They want them now, or as soon as possible, before the government legalizes marijuana. That is why this bill is needed right now. That is why I am asking my colleagues across the aisle to set partisanship aside and support this life-saving bill.