Debates of Oct. 20th, 2017

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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