Debates of May 3rd, 2016

Criminal Code

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to watch my time, and I hope to be on the same timeline as you are.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-14, which is a bill that makes amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts that would, for the first time in Canadian history, make it legal for someone to have medical assistance in taking his or her own life.

It would also make it legal for not just a doctor, nurse practitioner, or somebody involved in the medical community, but an aid, somebody outside of the medical community to kill someone, should the person want to be killed, if the conditions that are set out in this legislation are met.

It is an extremely serious matter that we have before us, and no doubt it will go down as a historic matter. It is something that will go down in history.

I want to take a couple of moments to address a few things. I want to begin by talking about where and how we got to this place, and build on some of the things that my colleague just talked about. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled just over a year ago that it was a charter right for Canadians to be able to have medical assistance in dying. The court gave us a year, a very short time frame, to talk about it, to consult, and to come up with legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to articulate not only my frustration but the concern of many of my constituents and many Canadians in what seems to be happening over and over again. Certainly, the Supreme Court is within its purview to make these decisions that have huge and lasting implications on Canadian society. Unfortunately, what is happening is Canadians feel, and it is becoming more and more prevalent, that they have no say in these matters, whether it is issues like assisted death, which is before us right now, or legalized prostitution, which we had to deal with in the last Parliament.

We are also seeing laws that have been passed in both this House and the other place that are being overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have seen this in recent years and even recent weeks.

I would say for the record, and I would suggest, that it might be time for the government to start using the tools that we have at our disposal to bring some more balance back to our process. We have the legislative branch of our democracy and we have the executive, which are both accountable to voters. Then we have our judiciary, which is a very valuable part of it, but it has become what I believe and what my constituents are telling me imbalanced. They feel that there are nine people down the street in Ottawa who are making very important decisions, and the Canadian people have no say in them.

The tool that we had when the Conservatives were in government is the notwithstanding clause. For the record, I want to say that I think we might have to, and I know the government now has four years and there is a lot that can happen, for the people of Canada, start using that.

We are, though, at a place where the Supreme Court has ruled, and we absolutely respect that. Even though we might disagree with something that is said by a judge or a number of judges, in Canada, we respect the law and we follow the law.

Again, my colleague talked about how the Liberals could have asked for more time, and certainly that is something that could have been done, but we are now at a place where we have to look at a law and either pass the law or not.

I will not be able to support this piece of legislation. I believe it is flawed. My constituents have not had enough time to talk about it and be part of the process. A number of the issues that are concerning about the bill have already been articulated. I want to reinforce that I am very concerned there is not enough protection for vulnerable persons who may be victims or easily manipulated.

In my previous role, I worked a lot with people with disabilities with a variety of abilities. I met recently in Winnipeg with an individual who has an intellectual disability, but is a very smart, capable individual. He said to me, “Sometimes we can be taken advantage of when we are getting a new phone. It is so easy to manipulate us.” He said, “I am worried if somebody is trying to encourage some of us to die, we can be easily manipulated.” There is very little protection in this legislation for vulnerable Canadians.

There is also no protection, or very little protection, as has already been stated, for doctors, nurses, or other medical practitioners, or institutions for that matter, where killing someone goes against their conscience. The federal government has a duty to protect their rights. This bill could be strengthened by protecting those rights.

Also, it is very unclear and ambiguous, as far as language goes, around waiting times, around those who can sign for a patient, and there is very little oversight as far as who may have a financial benefit if somebody were to have an assisted death.

There are number of huge concerns. More time is needed to fix these flaws and to protect the vulnerable and rights of conscience.

Last, I want to talk a bit about my experience working in palliative care. I was a volunteer for a number of years. It was really something to behold to be with people as they went through those last stages of life.

However, there are a lot of misconceptions about what assisted suicide is, what assisted death is. I talked to one of my friends this weekend and she said, “Well, of course, Candice, if I'm in a vegetative state, I would like to be able to have the cord unplugged. I don't want to be kept alive.”

I said to her, “That's not assisted suicide. You absolutely already have that right in Canada to have a living will, to have a do-not-resuscitate order, to refuse medical treatment.” Those are all things that are already entrenched in law and that Canadians have the right to refuse. I think even our Prime Minister talked a number of years ago about his own father refusing medical treatment when he had cancer. Absolutely every Canadian has that right.

However, that is not at all what we are talking about today. That is not the decision that we are forced to make in a hasty way. That is not the decision that Canadians are being cheated out of being able to talk about, and being able to even, dare I say, vote on. It should be a major issue for Canadians to have major input. We are not talking about refusing treatment. We are not talking about saying “do not resuscitate”. We are not talking about palliative sedation, either.

My sister passed away nine years ago from cancer. Some of my family members said, “I think she died because the doctor gave her a lot of morphine when she was in pain.” No, she did not die from the morphine. She died from the cancer. Palliative sedation is not assisted suicide.

I find it ironic, in a very sad way. I just finished my 308 conversations in my riding last week. The 308 conversations was an initiative of the Canadian Mental Health Commission. It was a wonderful idea for 308—at that point 308 members of Parliament, now there are 338 of us—conversations around how we prevent suicide and how we better equip ourselves as community leaders, as health practitioners, as people working with youth, to prevent suicide.

I had these meetings. About 70 people were there, committed to preventing suicide in our communities in Portage—Lisgar. I said, “Folks, I am now going back to Ottawa and I am going to be debating how we can help people commit suicide.”

This is a very difficult issue. It is not one that we can just excuse and say, “Well, in this case, we don't want these people to die, because they're young people who have bullied on the Internet, so we want to make sure they don't commit suicide, but for somebody else who might have a mental illness and just has no hope, we want to be able to help them commit suicide.”

That is wrong and I do not think we can easily reconcile the two. I think we need to talk about it and we need to have protections in place.

Palliative care is very important. It is about giving hope to people. Studies show that if people have a terminal illness and they are assured they can die pain-free, they choose life and they let God decide when they go.

I think we can all agree, absolutely, that it is about helping people and giving them hope, whether it is a mental illness or whether it is a terminal illness; we give them hope and we help alleviate their pain. I do not think we ever want to see choosing death as the honourable way out. We never want our loved ones to feel like it would be more honourable if they chose death. I think we can all agree. Let us choose life every step of the way. Let us choose life.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want thank my friend, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for her contribution.

I want to go back to the beginning of her contribution, where she talked about the potential application of section 33 under the charter. It was actually part of the context of my own remarks when I talked specifically about its use and application. Of course, this Parliament has never actually used section 33 yet, to apply it to any particular piece of legislation. I am wary about its use, given that we are ultimately talking about where there has already been a determination by the courts and certain individuals' rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would then be subject to a legislative override under section 33.

Is there a particular test that my friend, the member for Portage—Lisgar, thinks should be applied, in terms of helping parliamentarians assess when it would be appropriate to use section 33?

I had suggested that we would use the same kinds of tests that would be found under section 1, in particular, trying to minimally impair the rights of someone where their charter rights have been protected.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, those are very important questions.

As my colleague has said, one of the things we have not done is that no parliament has used the notwithstanding clause. Those are discussions we almost do not want to talk about because there seems to be some negativity. Even now, if the current government were to talk about it in any context, there would probably be some. It is almost politically incorrect to talk about it. We should be having these conversations, whether in formal or informal groups. What would be the test? Personally, I think one of them would be that if a government decided to invoke the notwithstanding clause, it then commit to take that particular issue to the electorate so that there would be an extra layer of test on it.

Those are good questions. I do not have the exact answers. All I know is that there is a growing sense of voters who feel they have less ability, when they were not even asked about the issue of assisted suicide in the election. Some of them still think that palliative sedation is assisted suicide, when it is not. There has to be a better way whereby Canadians know that they have a voice, and that our system is equally empowered so that there is not one part of our democratic system that has more power over the other.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard talk on the government side about how important this debate and discussion is, and that it has done what it has done on other issues. It pointed fingers at the government of the past saying that it did not get anything done and that this is really important, yet earlier today we saw the current government try to force closure on this debate. My concern is this. The government has limited the discussion all along the way, whether in the special committee or within this debate today.

In sending this bill to committee, because ultimately that is where we are going with this, does the member believe that, given everything that we have seen with the government to date, there will be that fair and open consultation on this legislation that the government is telling us to just trust them with and that the assurance is there? Does the hon. member have the same concerns that I have with respect to what we have seen in the past?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am typically the first to get in a good partisan jab here and there. I definitely think that there are members of the government who want to shut this down quickly, get it over with, and move on to something else. However, I have to believe that there are members of the Liberal Party, members of Parliament who are part of the Liberal caucus, who have some of the same concerns we have, and my hope is that they will speak up.

I know we have heard a lot about the current government wanting to give backbenchers more say and more influence in the government. Therefore, I am hoping that they are hearing from their constituents, and that they also recognize how difficult and how important this is. I hope that there will be a free vote on this. Then, I hope that they will advocate strongly in their caucus for the appropriate amount of time to be given, and that they will consider amendments.

What we are counting on in this case is the integrity, the strength, and the individual ability of Liberal backbenchers to stand up in a strong way to maybe some of those in the front who want to move things along quickly. That would be my hope.

This is really difficult. It is not easy for anyone. I have to believe that the backbenchers and the government have the best intentions in mind.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House shall continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), at second reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?

And 15 or more members having risen:

There being more than 15 members rising, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)

Notice of time allocation motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have a more reasonable approach to managing some of the debate left for Bill C-14. Therefore, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the House shall continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), at second reading, and when no member rises to speak, or at 12:00 a.m., whichever is earlier, that debate be deemed adjourned, and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. opposition House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-247. If passed, Bill C-247 will prevent injuries and deaths from impaired driving, which continues to cause needless and heartbreaking tragedies in communities across Canada. Specifically, Bill C-247 will increase deterrence and rates of apprehension by allowing the use of passive alcohol sensors at roadside screenings for impaired drivers. I will explain the details of that proposal shortly.

In addition, Bill C-247 would rename the crime of “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular homicide” as a result of impairment. That change would denote greater moral responsibility for the crime of impaired driving, while preserving judicial discretion to tailor sentences to particular circumstances.

The change is based on a proposal called Kassandra's law that was brought forward in 2015 by the Conservative member for Langley—Aldergrove. I am grateful that he has seconded Bill C-247 and I am pleased that we can work together across party lines to prevent drunk driving for the benefit of all Canadians.

Impaired driving has touched constituents in every riding across the country. My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville is no exception. Last year during the summer, my constituents lost a local leader, educator, mentor, and most importantly a father and a husband. Out of respect for the family, I will refrain from using his name.

Sadly, one night during July of 2015, while riding his bicycle, he was struck from behind by an impaired driver and pronounced dead at the scene. As a secondary school teacher, he spent years dedicating his time to educating and inspiring youth within my riding. His former students and those who knew him conveyed to me what a positive impact he made on those around him. I understand that he inspired many of his students to pursue post-secondary education.

Tragically his life was cut short by an intoxicated driver, someone who chose to put lives at risk rather than call a cab. His death denied five children their father, denied a wife her husband, denied students their teacher, and denied future young people a mentor who could have helped them make positive choices in life.

Soon after being elected, I received an email from a constituent who was greatly saddened by what had happened and also concerned that such senseless tragedies continued to occur at alarming rates in our country. She implored me to take action, and I am now doing so with Bill C-247.

As I said, if passed, the bill will prevent injuries and deaths from impaired driving. It will do this with two measures to increase deterrence and rates of apprehension. The first measure authorizes the use of passive alcohol sensors at roadside screenings for impaired drivers. What would this change mean?

Currently law enforcement in Canada conducts organized stops at check points to screen drivers for impairment. For example, Ontario conducts a program called reduce impaired driving everywhere, RIDE. When stopping drivers, officers apply breath tests if they, through odour or appearance, reasonably suspect a driver has consumed alcohol. However, according to a 2009 report of the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, only a small fraction of impaired drivers are currently apprehended.

Bill C-247 would increase apprehension and deterrence by authorizing the use of passive alcohol sensors by police at organized stops, or when they had reasonable grounds to make a stop for suspected impairment. Passive alcohol sensors detect alcohol when placed near a driver's face. A positive reading would provide reasonable grounds to conduct a breath test on an approved screening device.

I am confident that the use of passive alcohol sensors at organized roadside screenings will be charter compliant. I say this because, in its decision in Dedman v. The Queen, the Supreme Court held that the somewhat random searches in Ontario's RIDE program were constitutional because driving was a “licensed activity that is subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and property.” The legal takeaway is that driving is a licensed activity that is subject to reasonable limits because of the risk to others who share the roads. Using passive alcohol sensors would be a reasonable limit that is far more effective at catching impaired drivers than the current method employed at roadside screenings.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has endorsed Bill C-247, citing passive alcohol sensors' benefits. Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD Canada, said, “The ability for police to use Passive Alcohol Sensors will have a great impact on reducing the number of alcohol impaired drivers on our roadways. This private member bill...will allow police to maximize the technology that is available to detect drinking drivers at roadside. MADD Canada appreciates [these efforts] to lower the number of alcohol related crashes, deaths and injuries”.

Now I want to spend some time on the second measure in Bill C-247. As I said, the bill would also rename the crime of “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular homicide”. This change would denote greater moral culpability, and that is appropriate. The decision to get behind the wheel while impaired is completely reckless, and the devastating consequences are predictable. A conviction should reflect that culpability.

To raise a recent example, this is the crime for which Marco Muzzo recently received a 10-year sentence for killing three children and their grandfather. That tragedy was directly caused by his decision to get behind the wheel, with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit.

The Criminal Code of Canada states that a person commits homicide when directly or indirectly by any means causes the death of a human being. Drunk driving causing death would be a form of culpable homicide because it is morally and legally blameworthy. The moment an impaired driver gets behind the wheel, he or she puts others at risk. Words carry weight, they are not empty, and this culpability needs to be accurately reflected in Canadian law. At the same time, this change would preserve judicial discretion to tailor sentences to individual circumstances.

The proposal to call the crime of impaired driving causing death what it really is, vehicular homicide, was originally brought forward as Kassandra's law after Kassandra Kaulius of Surrey, B.C., a 22-year-old victim of impaired driving. The Conservative member for Langley—Aldergrove tabled Kassandra's law as Bill C-652 in the previous Parliament, and again I am pleased that he has seconded Bill C-247.

Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with Kassandra's parents, Markita and Victor. When I was discussing this upcoming speech, Victor pointed out that today, May 3, will mark five years to the day that their beautiful 22-year-old daughter lost her life.

Throughout her life, Kassandra was a lively and enthusiastic person who loved sports. As her parents recall, from the time she was three years old she was already running around her family's backyard playing sports with her older siblings. As she got older, her passion for sports grew. She competed on her high school volleyball, basketball, and softball teams, eventually receiving athletic scholarships, and had dreams of one day becoming a teacher.

On the one hand, the inspiration behind this bill was a teacher who inspired students and whose life was unjustly taken from him. On the other hand, part of the bill has been named after a young woman who dreamed of becoming a teacher and whose life was unjustly taken from her.

I also want to mention Families For Justice, the organization Markita and Victor have worked so hard to establish and have used to promote awareness of impaired driving. They have collected over 100,000 signatures in support of their cause. I commend their efforts to provide support and counselling services for families that have lost loved ones.

I do not need to remind the House of the harms of impaired driving. According to MADD, impaired driving continues to be the leading criminal cause of death in Canada, claiming almost twice as many lives per year as all categories of homicide combined.

In 2010, impaired driving accounted for approximately 1,082 deaths, 63,281 injuries, and $20.62 billion in financial and social costs. What is important to note is the fact that Statistics Canada indicates that 53% of all adult victims were between the ages of 18 and 35. This means that Canada is being denied young minds that would shape the future of the country.

Furthermore, our country's impaired driving record has been, and remains, poor in comparison to other developed countries. Millions of Canadians continue to drive after drinking, one reason being they believe they can do so with relatively little fear of being apprehended.

An international review of 15 countries reported that Canada has the second-highest rate of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. Similarly, a Transport Canada study found that Canada had the highest rate of impairment among fatally injured drivers of eight countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Furthermore, Canada had the highest rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities among 13 countries.

Although the selective breath testing programs that are currently in place are a productive step toward preventing impaired driving, the majority of impaired drivers go undetected at sobriety checkpoints. MADD reports that of the four million to five million drivers who are stopped each year at sobriety checkpoints, less than 1% are subject to roadside breath testing on an approved screening device.

It is for this reason that the main measure in my bill, the authorization of passive alcohol sensors, is evidence-based and necessary. These devices detect the presence and approximate amount of alcohol in a driver's exhaled breath by sampling the ambient air near his or her mouth.

The device also contains a pump that draws in air over a sensor that reacts to alcohol and registers a reading within a matter of seconds.

Passive alcohol sensors provide an easy, reliable and non-intrusive method of efficiently screening a large number of drivers with minimal delay, which will ultimately save more lives each year.

Passive alcohol sensors have been around for some time. The technology is not new, however, initially they were units on their own. It is important to note that when discussing passive alcohol sensors, for the most part, we are simply discussing a feature built into many of the approved screening devices already carried by peace officers. This means that the express authorization of a passive alcohol sensor would most likely allow officers to use their current devices, optimizing the tools already available to them.

As Robert Solomon, a law professor at Western University, has said, “...currently nothing preventing Canadian police from using PASs”.

Regardless, amendments to the Criminal Code explicitly authorizing police to use passive alcohol sensors would be effective. It would create a national standard which would ultimately reduce the confusion that otherwise arises from having 13 different provincial and territorial enforcement powers and practices. Police officers would also be more likely to use PASs if they are given express statutory authority to do so. Furthermore, the publicity surrounding the introduction of a national passive alcohol sensor program together with the knowledge that police officers are using more sophisticated detection methods would increase the perceived risk of apprehension and ultimately have a deterrent impact.

Over the past months, I have consulted with numerous police officers and police chiefs all over the country. It is apparent that the overarching consensus is that the more tools available to the police, the better.

To conclude, the problem of impaired driving needs to be better addressed by Parliament. The goal of my bill is not only to change how we view impaired driving offences, but to reduce instances of deaths and injuries by employing modern technology. Hopefully, with the passage of Bill C-247, we will further deter drinking and driving to safeguard Canadians, their families, and our communities.

I look forward to this bill going to committee, and I welcome amendments as well.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his first private member's bill, and also for his sincere effort in confronting and combatting impaired driving.

The hon. member and I represent the same city, the city of Mississauga. The Peel regional police frequently conducts RIDE programs. Could the member elaborate on how his bill would enhance or help the efforts of the Peel regional police in confronting impaired driving?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when using the passive alcohol sensor, not only would we speed up the RIDE program but we would have a greater degree of accuracy. It would allow the current approved screening device to use the feature of the passive alcohol sensor to pretty much detect whether there would be alcohol in the ambient air around an individual's face with greater accuracy. Once there is that greater accuracy and speed, the police would be able to go through a greater number of people, thereby capturing potential drunk drivers

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his first private member's bill.

Perhaps the member mentioned this in his speech and I missed it. Could he tell us of other jurisdictions that are using this device? Have there been any constitutional or charter challenges on the use of it with a police agency wherever this new technology is being used?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, it is being used in the United States, specifically California. I believe similar devices are being used in Australia.

I do not know of any charter challenges that may have occurred in those jurisdictions, but I believe this passive alcohol sensor would survive a charter challenge, as I stated in my speech, due to Dedman v. The Queen. It pretty much states that it is a reasonable limit to regulate, because when one has a driver's licence, it is pretty much a privilege, and in order to keep others safe, that is a reasonable grounds to interfere on someone's rights of driving.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. Having lost a brother early on to drinking and driving, this is obviously something that hits home for me.

I have tabled a few private member's bills, going through the process and crafting the legislation, and also dealing with stakeholders. The member mentioned MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Are there other agencies, including perhaps police agencies or police associations that are in support of the use of this? Could the member enlighten the House on this as well?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear of the member's loss. As he said, MADD does endorse the bill. I have spoken to a number of police agencies. I have yet to have an official endorsement, so I would rather have them unnamed at the moment, but I am working in consultation with them. I hope to have those endorsements soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for a job well done in terms of presenting a private member's bill that appears to have some fairly wide support both inside and outside of the chamber. I understand the member is open to some potential amendments.

I would ask the member to provide comment on how technology can often assist our police in having something added to their tool belt, if I can put it that way, to make our streets safer.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should always use technology as it advances. As I mentioned, the passive alcohol sensor has been around for quite some time, but before it was a self-contained unit. Now it is a feature in the approved screening devices that many of the agencies carry.

It is a tool at their disposal, and at the moment it is not being used. It is available for them. We should use these technologies to stop drunk drivers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-247.

At the outset, let me congratulate the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his impassioned speech. While I will not be able to support the bill for reasons that I will explain momentarily, I do want to acknowledge that this legislation is well intentioned and that the objectives of the hon. member are noble.

Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. In 2016, that is simply unacceptable. However, that being said, it is important to acknowledge that over the last several decades, Canada has come a long way to combatting impaired driving. Indeed, over the last two decades, the percentage of motor vehicle deaths involving impaired drivers has decreased. In some year-to-year comparisons, there have perhaps been increases, but the trend line is clear and they are going down. While that is not a reason to celebrate, it is evidence that the combination of public awareness, policing efforts, and legislative changes over the last several decades are having a positive effect.

Nonetheless, there continues to be people who drink, drive, and cause carnage on our roads. These are people like Johnathan Pratt. He was someone who, in 2011, killed three young men outside of Beaumont, Alberta. Pratt was more than three times over the legal limit, driving 199 kilometres an hour down a highway when he rammed into a vehicle occupied by the young men, effectively crushing them to death.

Then there is Roger Walsh, someone who killed a wheelchair-bound woman while he was impaired and behind the wheel. This was Walsh's nineteenth conviction for impaired driving.

The vast majority of Canadians understand that impaired driving is dangerous, that it is illegal, and most importantly that it is wrong. The vast majority of Canadians not only understand those facts, but are heeding the message and choosing not to get behind the wheel while impaired.

However, there are some who continue to do so. There is no one profile of an impaired driver. There are many instances of people who rarely drive impaired, or perhaps someone decides to do so one fateful night and in turn causes injury or death on the road. However, a big part of the problem in terms of those who are causing carnage on our roads is that they are regular, repeat, hard-core drunk drivers.

The question that we must ask as parliamentarians is, how do we deal with a relatively small number of people who are causing a disproportionate amount of grief, death, and injury on our roads? The answer is that we need to ensure that those types of offenders are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, some of the laws on the books today are simply not doing the job to the degree that they ought to.

That is why I was very pleased to see that my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-226. Bill C-226 contains some important measures to hold serious impaired driving offenders accountable. It would impose a mandatory minimum for an impaired driver who causes death. It would increase sentencing for impaired drivers who cause bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years. It would also allow for consecutive sentencing for impaired drivers who cause multiple deaths to ensure that every victim of impaired driving is accounted for.

When it comes to holding regular, repeat, and hard-core drunk drivers accountable, unfortunately, unlike Bill C-226, I believe that Bill C-247 falls short. While Bill C-247 falls short in this regard, it would impose a form of random breath testing, passive alcohol sensors. Certainly I would acknowledge that Bill C-226 does not contain passive sensors, but I have some reservations about any form of random breath testing.

Under sections 8 and 9 of the charter, it would most certainly run afoul. It is quite arguable that it could be saved under section 1 of the charter, and I believe there would be a reasonable chance that it would be saved. However, the issue is what impact it will have in reducing the number of impaired drivers and deaths on our roads. The evidence is mixed on that question.

Indeed, there is some body of statistical evidence that indicates this type of testing has no more impact in reducing impaired driving than things that are currently employed by law enforcement, such as checkstops. Indeed, in the city of Edmonton in the last few years, one thing that had the biggest impact in reducing impaired driving was the city posting signs saying that if people see impaired drivers, they should phone 911. Therefore, I think we have to perhaps look at other alternatives to random breath testing. What is more, I believe this legislation just does not cut it when it comes to holding the most serious offenders accountable for impaired driving.

It is on that basis that I regretfully will not support this particular bill. However, I want to commend the hon. member for bringing it forward, because it is an important debate and an important issue that Parliament must continue to address.