House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was s-6.

Topics

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact the Minister of the Environment has just spoken and I am going to draw a connection for Canadians who are watching between the whole question of quality of life and economic opportunity in Canada's north, for Canada's northern peoples, and the linkage with this incredibly important crisis we are facing, called climate change.

There perhaps is no more powerful force at play in Canada's north than climate change. The minister knows this. Therefore, I want to give her an opportunity to share with the House today how she and the government will do what they have promised to do. They say that they will reduce emissions by 30% from 2005—

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

What's this got to do with the bill?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

I hear on the other side that its does not understand the connection between this bill and climate change, Mr. Speaker. I will restate it again for the members, if they so desire.

However, the whole question for the minister is this. In the United States, the congressional team has put together some 400 pages in a plan to achieve its target. The European Union has a 1,200-page plan.

Could the minister table today, for northern peoples, the operational plan, in detail, to achieve this 30% reduction?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to the Liberal record in the north. For 13 years, the Liberal government did not implement the Nunavut land claims agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated filed a lawsuit against the federal government for lack of implementation of the land claims agreement. Our government settled that dispute out of court recently, and awarded Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated $255 million for the lack of implementation from that government.

Our government is listening and moving forward. The next step we will take is to negotiate a devolution agreement. We are hoping to reach an agreement in principle in the next little while. Again, this legislation would support the implementation of that land claims agreement.

That party and that government cut transfers to the territorial government. The Liberals did not implement the Nunavut land claims agreement, which brings us here today. Northerners want this legislation. Northerners want the tools to make decisions about their future and under what terms and conditions.

As Minister for the Arctic Council, I can also say that the initiatives we undertook over two years of our chairmanship were to address the issues that were important to northerners, hence, our overarching theme: development for the people of the north by incorporating the traditional knowledge of Inuit to science in addressing climate change and by incorporating the traditional knowledge and traditional ways of life of indigenous people in policy work that is done through the Arctic Council. We moved on black carbon and methane for the north, because it was important to the north.

Under the Liberal government, nothing happened.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for her leadership, both in the portfolio she has been given in cabinet and also for her leadership in the north. It is unfortunate that the member for Ottawa South kept trying to interrupt her while she was speaking. She passionately defends the north, her communities and her territory both in the House and at the cabinet table. We are very proud to have her as the leader of our northern caucus. She does a great job in that regard.

No government in Canadian history has done more for Canada's north than our Conservative government. One can see the legislative steps that we have taken through our northern strategy, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act.

This is the final step to improve the regulatory process in the Yukon and in Nunavut. As the minister has outlined, on the Nunavut side we are protecting the environment by increasing the ability to levy fines. We are giving the people of Nunavut more control over their own territory, which is something we believe in on this side of the House.

It is unfortunate that through this whole debate when we talked about devolution to the territories and giving more powers to the territorial governments, the NDP and Liberals fought against it. They want to keep more power here in Ottawa. We want to give more power to the people of the north and their governments because we believe that the power should be closer to the people.

What have we seen with the bill? Why is the bill necessary? We have seen through independent reports that because of the improvements that have been made south of 60 to the regulatory regime, the Yukon territory has fallen behind in its regulatory environment. It used to be number one in the world in terms of attractiveness for mining companies for resource development. It has fallen to ninth according to the recent Fraser Institute report. Also, in terms of perception of regulatory policy, it has fallen to ninth in Canada. When devolution occurred over a decade ago, Yukon led Canada in terms of its regulatory regime. It has fallen behind and we need to get it back up on par with the rest of Canada.

I want to talk briefly as well, in the limited time I have, about some of the issues that have been raised. The first was raised again by the Liberal Party. It said there has been a lack of consultation, which is demonstrably false. There have been dozens of meetings that have taken place, just on the four contentious amendments alone. There was $100,000 given to first nations groups who participated in those consultation sessions. They submitted receipts to the government saying they had consulted with us and would like to be reimbursed for that. Of course, we have paid those funds. There has been consultation. It has been paid for by the government and those consultations have been meaningful. We certainly believe they have been adequate.

Also, we have seen that this is something that is necessary for the continued economic prosperity of Yukon and Nunavut. We heard from the Yukon Chamber of Mines that said, specifically on the issues of timelines and significant change, we need to bring the regime in Yukon in line with what is happening in the rest of Canada. It is seeing investment decisions and investment dollars leaving the territory because of the uncertainty that its regulatory regime presents.

We have also seen that the bill is completely 100% compliant with the Umbrella Final Agreement. The minister has asked anyone who has a concern with that to point him to the section of the legislation that violates the Umbrella Final Agreement. No one has been able to do that.

This is the final piece of our northern agenda. It is the final legislative step that we need to take to bring about economic prosperity and growth in the north. We are proud to support the bill.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 3, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is that agreed?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

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 proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

(Motion agreed to)

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for agreeing to trade his scheduled private members' business time with me, so that I could rise before my scheduled surgery next week. It is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for unanimously passing Bill C-590 at committee stage.

The committee amended Bill C-590 to address its concerns that the bill's very significant penalties, particularly for first offenders, could lead to many cases where the driver refuses to provide a breath sample because the penalty for refusal has only a mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000. The amendment passed by the committee classifies the offence of driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.16% as a hybrid offence. On indictment, the penalties would remain as proposed in the bill. On summary convictions, the mandatory minimum fine for the first offence would increase to $2,000, which is double the minimum fine for impaired driving. For a second and subsequent offence, the minimum penalty would be 30 days in prison.

The amendment would ensure in most cases where drivers have a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.16% but there is no injury or death that a $2,000 fine combined with a mandatory prohibition on driving for one year would be a sufficient deterrent. Further, very severe penalties on indictment would be reserved for the most serious cases where a motor vehicle operator's blood alcohol concentration is well above 0.16% or the driver caused significant property damage.

According to Stats Canada, almost half the fatally injured drivers in Canada had a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. This level of impairment has had a devastating impact on our youth as they make up 31% of the alcohol-related deaths.

A June 2009 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on alcohol use among fatally injured drivers also found that the bulk of the impaired driving problems lie with those drivers having a blood alcohol content over the current Criminal Code limit of 0.08%. Although the drivers with high blood alcohol content represent about 1% of the cars on the road at night and on weekends, they account for nearly 50% or half of all the drivers killed at those times.

My home community of Prince Albert, as most communities in our nation, has been scarred by the toll of this selfish but preventable crime.

In July 2013, Taylor Litwin and Brandi Lepine, who was pregnant at the time of the accident, were both killed when a 21-year-old drunk driver slammed into Taylor's vehicle. Brandi, who initially survived the crash, was able to give birth to her daughter Aurora before she succumbed to her injuries. The driver who took the life of these two ladies is to be sentenced this fall.

In May 2012, Prince Albert lost a strong community leader, Mr. Ben Darchuk. Ben was the owner of an auto glass business that is located next to my old constituency office location. The 22-year-old driver who pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing Ben's death received two years less a day at a provincial correctional centre for his sentence. He also received a three-year driving prohibition and was ordered to pay a $100 surcharge.

Bill C-590 would target these young drivers with high blood alcohol content by increasing specific penalties for their actions. The goal is to prevent these drivers from getting behind the wheel as they cause a greater number of fatalities and are more likely to be repeat offenders.

As time at the end of this Parliament session is quickly running out, I therefore ask that we pass Bill C-590 as quickly as we can to give the Senate enough time to deliberate and pass it before the fast-approaching summer is upon us.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for bringing this bill forward. I wanted him to take a few more minutes of explanation, if he could, for Canadians who are deeply concerned about the question of driving under the influence, not only of alcohol of course but under the influence of other drugs, medications, prescription pills. Of course, there is some linkage as well to the whole question of distracted driving.

Could the member take a minute just to amplify a bit more on the net effect of what he is proposing in terms of how he sees it affecting potential prosecutions, convictions and penalties?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I thank the Liberals and the New Democrats for their co-operation in committee as we looked at improving and strengthening this bill.

I think every member in this House knows somebody who has been impacted, either through family members, through loved ones or through neighbours or friends, by drunk drivers. The reality is that we need to do what we can to educate our youth, when they are going through the system of learning how to drive, on the implications of drinking and driving. One of the things we would do here by having a tougher penalty is we would drive home to youth and to the people who are learning how to drive the importance of not drinking and driving, and that there are serious consequences if drivers should proceed to act that way.

The reality is, as I said, that 50% of motor vehicle fatalities are of people with over a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. If we look at the fact that there are drivers with blood alcohol content of 0.16%, these people are causing half the fatalities on the road. They need to be taken off the road.

There is no question whether they are drunk. When drivers are at blood alcohol content of 0.16% or higher, they are two sheets to the wind. They are not in a situation where they should be driving any vehicle, whether it is a car, a boat, a motorcycle or any type of vehicle that is operating. The reality is they should never be in that scenario. In this case, we would address those people and ensure that they are not going to get behind the wheel and hurt somebody else, because they tend to be repeat offenders.