House of Commons Hansard #224 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was awareness.

Topics

EthicsOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, it is not a great idea to have a minister making decisions that he himself benefits from. His situation is reminiscent of the Paul Martin era. The minister says it is not all that bad, because he is going to make up for his mistake by donating to charity. After being caught with both hands in the cookie jar, he is offering us a cookie to look the other way. Is he trying to buy our silence?

I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us exactly how much money he earned from each decision he made.

EthicsOral Questions

Noon

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, every time the minister has made a decision, there has always been a conflict of interest screen in place. This was one of the recommendations made by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner when the minister was first appointed, and he followed it as he has always followed every one of her recommendations. This week and last week, he announced that he would go even further by divesting himself of all his shares in Morneau Shepell and placing all of his assets in a blind trust, so that he can continue to work for Canadians by reducing inequality and growing the economy, as he has been doing very successfully for the past two years.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, the heritage minister's officials said that she should tax Netflix, as did the experts, the artists, the producers, the creators, and the Government of Quebec, but she could not care less. Now, Quebec is left to clean up her mess by taxing Netflix on the provincial level, but she refuses to make the agreement public so we can know how to go about it.

Having failed to do her job, will she at least let others do theirs and disclose her deal with Netflix to Quebec?

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

Noon

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of our creative community and we are taking concrete measures to support them. Our vision for Canada's creative future is threefold: investing in our creators, ensuring their stories are told, and promoting Canadian content at home and throughout the world.

Our government is supporting our cultural sector with a $2-billion investment. Our new vision includes protecting our creative projects and investing even more in the Canada Media Fund.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, the Madrid government has proclaimed that the people of Catalonia cannot vote on their future. It declared it illegal to voice the people's will and dissolved the Catalan parliament just this morning. It is abusing, imprisoning, and violating democracy and the right of the people to self determination. Its intransigence will stymie any resolution to this democratic crisis.

In light of Madrid's show of force, when will the Government of Canada call on the international community to mediate, as it did with Ukraine and Crimea?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Orléans Ontario

Liberal

Andrew Leslie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)

Madam Speaker, Canada very much values its relationship with Spain. The situation in Catalonia remains a domestic matter within Spain. A dialogue between Spain and Catalonia within the constitutional framework is still the best course of action. In accordance with international legal principles recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, these decisions have to be taken within the constitutional framework. That being said, Canada recognizes a united Spain.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

Qujannamiik uqaqti.Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. While I was visiting communities in my riding, many constituents expressed concerns about Nunavut's outdated power plants. More than half of Nunavut's power plants have exceeded their operational lifespan, putting communities at high risk. They are also 100% reliant on diesel fuel, outdated, and inefficient.

Given the government's mandate to encourage the use of clean technology and reduce harmful greenhouse gases, how does the minister plan to work with the Government of Nunavut to address this urgent concern?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to moving rural and remote communities off diesel, as identified under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Canada's Arctic energy fund provides $175 million to Nunavut to be used for upgrading the existing energy systems to improve energy reliability and efficiency and allow for integration of renewable energy.

Northerners are on the front line of climate change. They want to be part of the solution. We will continue to work together to ensure a sustainable future for northerners.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton have a point of order?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a letter proving the Liberals made changes to the disability tax credit and I would like to seek unanimous consent to table it in the House.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the member have unanimous consent to table the document?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

There is no unanimous consent.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Palliative CarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand and present this petition from residents in my riding who request the House of Commons to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act so that provincial and territorial governments will be entitled to funds under the Canada health transfer system to be used to provide accessible and available hospice palliative care for all residents of Canada in their respective provinces and territories.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Scarborough Southwest Ontario

Liberal

Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has 17 minutes remaining.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off at the beginning of question period. I was talking about educating the public. At the risk of repeating myself, for those who are just tuning in, we can all see that the Liberals failed to really work with the provinces to ensure they have the planning time and resources they need to implement public education programs. These programs are so important to make sure people are educated about both marijuana use and, as we have been discussing, impaired driving.

I will move on to something else for now, but before I do, I think it is very important to emphasize something. Despite some of the comments I heard in this morning's debate that practically insinuated the opposite, all members in the House, across party lines, agree that impaired driving, whether involving drugs or alcohol, is a scourge. We want to eradicate it. There is no doubt about that.

As is the case with illness, these tragedies do not discriminate. Everyone here, across party lines, has been affected, or knows someone who has been affected, by the horrible consequences of someone making the tragic mistake of driving while impaired. It is important to acknowledge that, because we might not agree on how to go about, on the one hand, dealing with the new reality of legalized marijuana, and on the other hand, keeping our roads safe.

One of the big issues with the bill is this notion of mandatory stops and testing. This came up during the public safety committee hearings on a private member's bill that was tabled by a Conservative member, which sought to do something quite similar. Nothing in life is random, particularly, and unfortunately, in some of the work that is done in policing.

If we call for random mandatory testing, the odds increase exponentially for things like profiling, people of a specific socio-economic background being targeted. The New Democrats cannot accept that. I know my party's leader, Jagmeet Singh, considers this extremely important. It was central to the work he did in his leadership campaign, but also the work he now wants to do as leader of the New Democratic Party. He has said, much more eloquently than I can say in this place, that as a person of colour, he has been a victim of this.

When we put laws in place to ensure public safety, it always needs to be done in a way that ensures we will not be unfairly discriminating against certain segments of the population. I am not pulling this out of a hat. This was shared with the public safety committee by experts, although not on the specific line of study of this bill, even though that comment was raised by different members of civil society, notably the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others. It was raised when other bills were tabled, both private members' bills and Conservative government bills that were discussed in the previous Parliament.

When we take this approach, we have to ensure we do not increase the risk of a problem that, let us face it, already exists, which is the problem of racial profiling. The is one of our concerns.

Another concern we have has to do with the THC levels that must be detected in a driver's blood before the driver can be charged with an offence. The bill barely mentions this, which is very troubling. How can police determine if an offence has been committed, or a crime in this case, if the law does not specify the precise quantity of THC that must be detected in the blood? That is extremely troubling.

In the United States, the various states that have legalized marijuana each take a different approach. Colorado and Washington state, for instance, have set a blood THC limit that must be detected before a driver can be charged with a traffic or criminal offence. Oregon, which has also legalized marijuana, decided to be more flexible and use the same test used for suspected alcohol-impaired drivers, that is, a test based on visual markers.

The lack of a fixed THC limit is compounded by the lack of police training. This is not to insult our men and women in uniform. It is something they themselves have said. This is yet another example of how the Liberals' planning fell short. Although we support the legalization plan in principle, we would have thought it was obvious that the consultation with police should have been much more thorough. The Liberals should have realized that police officers would need additional training, for example, to recognize the symptoms of marijuana impairment in drivers or to make proper use of roadside screening devices. They should have sat down with police to set a blood THC limit, something this bill does not cover. These are things they could have done in collaboration with police.

To go back to a question asked earlier by a Conservative MP, this also seems to be a case of too many players involved. There are the municipal police forces in some big cities, the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police, some cities' own police services, and of course the RCMP, which serves outlying regions in the other provinces.

I am not questioning the hierarchy or the division of powers within Canada's different police forces, but there seem to be a lot of players at the table. There are many voices that still need to be heard, and these people think there is a lot of work left to be done, something that has not happened so far.

The importance of that training was brought up in committee. Also, the importance of training police officers to recognize the symptoms and use these technologies goes in two directions. First, it is obviously essential for public safety so they can do their jobs properly. It goes without saying they need to properly identify people who are driving under the influence. However, they must also know who is not driving under the influence, who has not reached the legal limit of what they are allowed to either drink or smoke, depending on which substance they are dealing with. It is not only a question of public safety; it is also a question of protecting and ensuring the rights of Canadians, which police officers are willing to do, but require the proper training to do that, as the representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police mentioned.

The issue of training also extends to the technology used. When we hear the experts and look at different jurisdictions throughout the world, the jury is still out as to the efficacy of certain tools that can be used, particularly when it comes to marijuana, to measure someone's physical state after consuming marijuana. One great example of that, as we heard in committee and as has been mentioned in other platforms over the course of the debate, both here in the House and throughout civil society, is the issue of how long traces of marijuana can be found in someone's system. Traces of THC can still be found in someone's blood for days, even weeks in some cases.

It is difficult for me to fathom a situation where someone might use marijuana recreationally, in what will then be a legal and appropriate way in the privacy of their own home, make the responsible decision to save lives and not go behind the wheel. Then a couple of days later, while driving into work, could potentially be found as having a false positive, even though he or she is no longer under the influence and is at 100% of his or her mental faculties and physical abilities to drive a vehicle without putting anyone's life in danger. That is extremely problematic, particularly when we connect that with some of the issues and concerns we have with regard to certain types of profiling that might happen with these random mandatory tests. We are extremely concerned about that.

I heard the Minister of Justice talk about that this morning, when she said that there would be rigorous evaluation of the various technologies and that law enforcement would be properly informed and would participate in the process. The problem is that this is all happening very quickly, without the necessary consultations, and we are very concerned about how effective these technologies will be to ensure that the tests are viable.

For example, after a person provides an oral fluid sample, he or she could go to the police station and have to provide a blood sample. We are then talking about several types of tests, which shows a certain inefficiency and uncertainty relative to the samples taken for determining a driver's state and the levels of various substances in the person's blood. A number of experts have raised this serious concern, which the bill does nothing to address.

As I said, this is directly connected to our concerns about profiling. If someone who had allegedly consumed a substance long before being stopped, according to the proposed criteria, this individual could be be caught and suffer some serious lifelong consequences, even if he or she is a responsible citizen. This person could end up with a criminal record and could even go to prison. This could even lead to some very complicated legal proceedings that will have an impact on the legal system.

In Quebec, with the Jordan case and the shortage of judges, a number of violence and murder cases were thrown out because of delays in the legal system. We could draw a link between this reality and the challenges that could arise from this bill. We have to take that into account.

The Conservatives are talking a lot about mandatory minimum sentencing, a public policy that failed under their watch here in Canada, as well as elsewhere in the world. Judges are appointed to use their judgment on a case-by-case basis. Taking that discretion away from them is not one of the values we promote in our justice system and it is not something we want to promote as legislators. Mandatory minimum sentencing goes completely against those principles.

I mention that because the Conservatives keep bringing up this argument and, if I understand correctly, it is one of the reasons why they are opposed to Bill C-46. Meanwhile, a bill on random breath testing was introduced by a Conservative MP. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard not only from legal experts, but also from psychologists, who explained to us the way of thinking of those who make the reckless decision to get behind the wheel when impaired, something that often proves to have tragic consequences.

Those experts shared something extremely interesting with us. They explained to us that the key thing we needed to look at as parliamentarians when it came to this issue was dissuading people. After all, that has to be the objective. If we are not dissuading people, then we already are dealing with the tragic consequences of driving under the influence. If we do not want to live with those kinds of consequences, then we need to dissuade people in the first place.

The argument is that punishment is one way of doing it. However, these experts told us that the magnitude of the punishment was not the disincentive to driving under the influence. The true disincentive was the likelihood of getting caught. That requires resources to the communities, to policing, and to education. This would allow us to teach fellow citizens that getting behind the wheel under the influence would not only be putting their own lives in danger, but they would be putting the lives of others in danger as well. This point is extremely important. Dissuasion and prevention are the objectives here. We do not want to see any more lives lost because of driving under the influence.

That is why we must invest in education. That is why we must ensure that our police have the resources they need to make arrests over the holidays, for example. Not every police force is able to do that because it takes human and financial resources. The numbers speak for themselves. We could work with organizations, such as Operation Red Nose, and support them. We know that, by putting these measures in place, we can reduce this alarming statistic, the scourge on our society that is impaired driving.

Let me conclude by saying that we will oppose Bill C-46 for the reasons I explained, because of the risks of profiling, because we feel these technologies are unreliable in measuring the level of THC in someone's blood, and because of the lack of a clear number of what the level of THC in someone's blood has to be in order to consider it a criminal offence.

However, let me be clear. That does not take away from the fact that no matter which party we may be in, we all agree that this is an alarming situation that needs to be dealt with.

We think that the government needs to focus on education and on giving the police the resources they need to eliminate this problem once and for all. I think everyone can agree on that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am very concerned about are the lack of resources that have been devoted to get the police ready across the country for the doubling of impaired drug driving charges we are likely to see with the legalization of marijuana.

The government seems to be very proud about the $161 million that it has given for the police, and the $9.8 million for training. However, these are very small amounts compared to what has been done in Washington and Colorado, for example.

I wonder if the member shares my concern that not enough resources and time have been allotted to this.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I absolutely share that concern. As I said at the outset of my speech, one of the criticisms we have had with this plan is on the inadequate consultations that have taken place with the provinces. We see how some of them are reacting, particularly when I look at my home province of Quebec, for example.

That point is even more important when we consider that, both in Quebec and Ontario, with such large populations, we have provincial police forces that are obviously going to be ensuring road safety and doing roadside stops. They need to be working with their provincial ministries, which the government seems to have left twisting in the wind.

I also believe that police officers will be the first ones to talk about the virtues of education and prevention. Police officers do not want to make these arrests. They, as we do, want to see prevention, so that we do not see lives lost in the first place.

How will education happen? It is hard to say right now. Certainly the provinces will bear a big load of that burden, which is part of the failure that the Liberal government has had on this front, despite our support, more broadly speaking, of legalization.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for bringing to light so many of the shortcomings in Bill C-46, which the Liberals are trying to ram through before July 1, 2018. They are putting the cart before the horse.

Of the many shortcomings he listed, one really touches a nerve with me: the lack of resources for prevention. We know that young people between the ages of 16 and 25 consume more marijuana than any other drug. We know that drug-related traffic accidents often involve young people between the ages of 16 and 25. The Liberals have, on many occasions, refused to invest more in prevention. Youth advocacy groups are calling for more prevention, and people on the front lines who work with youth want more money for prevention because there is not enough. Every time the Liberals talk about legalizing marijuana, young people figure that if the government wants to legalize it, it must not be bad for them, what could be the harm, it is already legal, they can use it and nobody is going to stop them. There are consequences to using marijuana, however, and young people need to be aware of them. If the government does not invest money in prevention, that is a problem.

Even though we are in the midst of an opioid crisis, the Liberals said they would spend $2 million on prevention campaigns targeting all drugs. By comparison, Colorado spent $4 million on prevention in 2015 alone.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this subject in particular?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I also take this opportunity to congratulate her on her work on this issue. She has had the opportunity to ask the government a number of questions in the House of Commons on this very topic. However, the responses have been less than convincing, not only in terms of figures, as I mentioned in my speech, but also regarding taxation.

After all, the government could have committed to dedicating a certain percentage of the proceeds to education and prevention. It could have discussed and negotiated with the provinces to ensure that they do the same on their end. I know that the various ministries involved in the Quebec government have talked about the importance of education and prevention, and have spoken out about this shortcoming regarding legalization more broadly.

This is directly related to Bill C-46, because anything we do to try to tackle the scourge of impaired driving must include education and prevention; I want to reiterate that. After all, we do not want to be left only to deal with the consequences; rather, we want to prevent them altogether.