Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois' deputy critic for justice, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 116.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider amending the Criminal Code to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone, except in circumstances where an emergency situation can be demonstrated.
From the outset, we would like to say that we are opposed to the motion mainly because it is a blatant infringement on one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, namely, road safety regulations. We are opposed to the motion because it is vague and unfounded.
Of course, it is aimed at ensuring motorists' safety and, as such, it is worthwhile. However, the method it suggests is clearly unreasonable.
Cellphones have entered our life so quickly that they are now commonplace and usual. Cellphones have become part of our daily life.
People understand that the benefits of this device are huge. Once again, this new technology is here to stay.
Some see it as a threat. The same thing was said of TV sets. Some even thought they were harmful to our health and intellect. We now understand it is how we use TV that is the problem.
Indeed, there are risks linked to the use of a cellphone while driving a car. According to the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, anything that distracts drivers' attention from the task at hand, which is to focus their attention on the road, increases the risk of accident. Indeed, chatting with a passenger, smoking, eating and fiddling with the radio can be harmful because it is distracting, but none of these activities has been banned.
The motion mentions an exception where a emergency situation can be demonstrated. This is extremely vague. A physician driving to the scene of an accident could use his cellphone without restriction as it would be an emergency.
A parent stuck in traffic and who is going to be late to pick up a child at the day care centre may also be in an emergency situation. All this is way too relative to allow for proper assessment of the scope of this part of the motion. As a matter of fact, any individual will probably be able to justify using a cellphone and the emergency situation that made it necessary.
Furthermore, the motion makes no provision for using a hands-free cellphone. These are seen as much safer, but there is no provision for such a situation in the motion before us. Using a cell phone can of course be another driving risk, but there is no excuse for making it a criminal offence.
This is another reason why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Motion No. 116. Any restriction, if one is needed, should be accomplished through regulations and not through an amendment to the criminal code.
It is up to Quebec, and the provinces and territories to assess the need for regulations which would limit the use of a cellphone while driving a motor vehicle.
There are three states in U.S. which limit the use of cellphones while driving—California, Florida and Massachusetts—but no state prohibits their use.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that it is up to the governments of Quebec and the provinces and territories to consider measures to limit rather than prohibit their use.
Nonetheless, it would be preferable to begin with a public awareness campaign to alert drivers to the dangers of using a cellphone in the car. It would also be appropriate to consider a campaign to educate people about safe methods of use.
The Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec could insist on safety precautions such as pulling over to the side of the road if a conversation might be lengthy; using a hands-free cell phone; not taking notes while driving; programming in the most frequently dialed telephone numbers in advance; not dialing while the car is in motion; letting the voice mail take calls; and being thoroughly familiar with the operation of the unit before using it.
If these public awareness and education campaigns do not work, consideration could be given to tougher measures, but for now, we are a long way from that.
This is what needs to be done first and, more importantly, by whom. Amending the criminal code is an extreme step that must be avoided at all costs. The criminal code is not the answer to everything that is not working in our society.
We must trust the public to use its judgment, rather than try to implement rigid rules of behaviour.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this motion, because it represents interference in the highway regulations, which come under the jurisdiction of Quebec, and of the provinces and territories, and because its wording is too restrictive.