Debates of Oct. 27th, 2017

Criminal Code

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, offences relating to conveyances. At the outset, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their thorough review in consideration of this bill. Committee members heard over 45 witnesses and reviewed a significant amount of material on a highly complex topic, and I am grateful to them for their diligence and believe that the bill is stronger because of their efforts.

As I have indicated on previous occasions, the primary objective of this legislation is to save lives, lives that continue to be tragically cut short by irresponsible and reckless decisions to drive after consuming alcohol or drugs. I am continually frustrated and deeply saddened by the stories of families who have lost loved ones as a result of impaired driving. Mothers and fathers should no longer have to endure the anguish and heartache of burying their children following an alcohol- or drug-related traffic collision. Children should no longer be orphaned by a driver's careless decision to drive after consuming alcohol or drugs. This bill aims to reduce deaths resulting from impaired driving.

This bill also aims to reduce the impact of impaired driving on those who suffer traumatic, lifelong injuries caused by another person's irresponsible decision to drive drunk or high. No one should have to endure months or years of painful and costly physical rehabilitation. People should not have to give up their jobs or the pastimes they love due to injuries caused by an impaired driver.

Despite great efforts by governments and advocacy groups to raise awareness of the dangers of impaired driving, we still see far too many headlines about these tragic incidents. There is no excuse for this type of conduct in our society, yet by some estimates, more than 1,000 people lose their lives every year to this entirely preventable crime. Countless more are injured.

In my view, it is my responsibility as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to take any and all reasonable measures to increase deterrence and the detection of impaired drivers.

Bill C-46 aims to strengthen the criminal law response to both drug- and alcohol-impaired driving. The elements related to drug-impaired driving will come into force on royal assent to ensure that a robust drug-impaired driving regime is in place well in advance of Canada's legalization. Although it is difficult to predict the impact of cannabis legalization on the rate of impaired driving, information from other jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis suggests that there could be a slight increase. Canada needs to be prepared.

The measures proposed in Bill C-46 would increase the deterrence, detection, and conviction of those who engage in reckless and irresponsible conduct. Specifically, Bill C-46 would authorize police officers to use roadside oral-fluid drug-screening devices to help them determine whether a driver had drugs in his or her body. These are minimally invasive hand-held devices that expediently analyze a sample of oral fluid. If police officers had a reasonable suspicion that a driver had a drug in his or her body, they would be authorized to demand a sample of oral fluid for analysis at the roadside. A positive result on the drug screener would be highly indicative of recent drug consumption and could lead to further investigation, either by a drug recognition evaluation officer or through a blood sample taken by a qualified technician.

In addition to authorizing roadside drug screeners, Bill C-46 would also create three new driving offences of being over the legal limit within two hours of driving. This type of offence is similar to the offence that prohibits driving over the legal limit for alcohol, otherwise known as the over-80 offence. These offences would be proven through a blood sample, which provides the best, most reliable evidence that the drug is active in a person's body. The bill would provide that police officers could demand that a blood sample be provided by a driver when they had reasonable grounds to believe that either a drug-impaired or legal-limit offence had occurred.

These offences would facilitate the prosecution of drug-impaired drivers by setting strict limits for the amount of drugs one could have in one's body while behind the wheel. As I have previously indicated, the actual legal limits would be set by regulation. The proposed drug levels were recently published in part I of the Canada Gazette for public comment.

On that note, three legal drug-limit offences are proposed. There would be a straight summary conviction offence, which reflects our government's precautionary and public safety approach to THC consumption and driving. The draft regulations propose that only cannabis, in particular THC, would fall under this offence at this time. This offence would apply if a driver had between two and five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood within two hours of driving.

Bill C-46 also proposes two hybrid offences. One of these offences would apply to drivers found with impairing illicit drugs. For example, it would not be permitted for drivers to have any detectable level of cocaine or LSD in their bodies. This same hybrid offence would apply to drivers with levels of legal drugs that are expected to cause some driving impairment. For example, the offence would apply to drivers with five nanograms or more of THC per millilitre of blood. Finally, the third hybrid offence would apply to drivers with a combination of an impairing drug and alcohol, recognizing that combining drugs and alcohol can increase the impairing effects of both substances.

At this time, the draft regulation only proposes levels for alcohol and THC in combination, but in future, other drugs could be added. It is proposed that 2.5 nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood in combination with five millilitres of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood would constitute this offence.

Some witnesses who appeared before the standing committee did not support this proposed approach. They expressed concern that the science with respect to THC, in particular, was not clear enough to justify setting legal limits. However, let me be perfectly clear. One thing that all witnesses agreed on was that THC is an impairing drug.

Our government is aware that unlike alcohol, it is difficult to correlate the blood concentration of THC with impairment. That is why a summary conviction offence was proposed for the two to five nanogram range.

As indicated by the drugs and driving committee in its final report to the government on this issue, setting the legal limit at two nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood would reflect a precautionary and public safety approach, one that would strike the right balance between the science of measuring THC impairment with the real risks associated with driving after consuming THC. By adopting this lower THC level through Bill C-46 and the regulations, our government would be signalling that Canada will not tolerate driving after consuming impairing drugs.

I would like to add that the new per se offences for drug-impaired driving would contain several inherent protections to avoid charging drivers who were not actually impaired. These protections would include the requirement that the officer in question develop reasonable suspicion of drugs in the body of the driver before administering the roadside drug screeners or other roadside sobriety tests. Where the driver failed the drug screening test, this itself would be highly indicative of recent consumption. Ultimately, the officer would have to have reasonable grounds to believe that an impaired driving offence had been committed before arresting the individual and carrying out further testing at the station.

To sum up, the drug levels that are proposed for these new offences are consistent with the approach taken in other jurisdictions, and I am confident that they reflect the best available scientific evidence while at the same time ensuring that we are proceeding in a manner that protects the safety of the public.

I would like to spend my remaining time addressing other elements of Bill C-46 that propose to reform the alcohol-impaired driving regime. This area of the criminal law perplexes even the most seasoned criminal professionals. It has developed in a piecemeal fashion since the first offence was enacted in 1921. It has never been comprehensively reformed, and according to a 1991 report by the former Law Reform Commission, its provisions are “virtually unreadable”.

This state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue, especially in the area of criminal law that is among the most litigated. Bill C-46 proposes to create a clear, simplified, and modernized legislative framework to ensure that the public can better understand the law and also ensure that the police can effectively enforce it.

Another element proposed in Bill C-46 is mandatory alcohol screening. In my view, this proposed reform is the most critical reform respecting alcohol-impaired driving in this bill. Mothers Against Drunk Driving agrees. In May 2017, Andrew Murie, the chief executive officer of MADD, said the following:

Simply put, mandatory screening is one of the single most effective ways Canada can reduce impaired driving. It has been in place in many other countries for years and has helped them to reduce overall road crashes and fatalities.

Mandatory alcohol screening represents a significant change to the Canadian law of impaired driving, but it is a tool that has been used in many other countries, as I said, for several years. It was pioneered by the Australians in the 1970s with great success, and more recently it has been adopted in several European jurisdictions, including Ireland and Scotland.

This proposed element was the subject of much commentary and debate at the standing committee, and I thank all those who presented on this topic for their thoughtful and insightful comments.

Under the current law, police officers at the roadside must have a reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol in his or her body before they can demand a preliminary breath sample. Although this is a low threshold, the standing committee heard from witnesses who confirmed that a driver is often able to conceal visible signs of impairment from the police and thereby pass through a traffic stop undetected. The number of impaired drivers who can escape detection is simply astounding. In my view, this significantly undermines the detection and enforcement efforts of police as well as the public messaging with respect to impaired driving. If more than 50% of impaired drivers are able to escape detection following a traffic stop, a new approach is absolutely needed.

The chief concern raised by witnesses with respect to mandatory alcohol screening was that it would lead to racial profiling. While I strongly condemn racial profiling, I am confident that mandatory alcohol screening would neither facilitate nor encourage this conduct. In fact, Bill C-46 would guard against this in a number of ways.

First, the bill is clear that mandatory alcohol screening would only be authorized following a lawful stop. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that police are authorized to stop any driver at any time to ascertain whether they are complying with the rules of the road, including whether they have a licence and insurance. These stops are authorized in both common law and provincial highway traffic laws. If an officer was acting within this authorization, he or she would be authorized to demand a preliminary breath sample.

Second, mandatory alcohol screening is most effective when all drivers know that they can be tested. Under our approach, drivers would know that they could be tested at any time and at any place to ensure that they were not drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol.

Finally, the standing committee amended the preamble of the bill to reflect the expectation that all investigative powers, including mandatory alcohol screening, must be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While this is implicit in all our legislation, given the concern expressed with respect to the potential impact of mandatory alcohol screening, I understand the motivation behind this amendment.

I would now like to discuss two more key changes proposed in the bill, in particular the proposed changes to the “over 80” offence. Currently this offence is committed if the driver has in excess of the allowable blood alcohol concentration while driving. The proposals in Bill C-46 would change this time frame so that it would be an offence to be over the legal limit within two hours of driving.

The purpose of this revised formulation is to eliminate the risky behaviour associated with bolus drinking, sometimes referred to as drinking and dashing. This is when a driver consumes a significant amount of alcohol immediately before or even during driving in an attempt to get home before the alcohol is fully absorbed. This proposed formulation of within two hours also has the benefit of limiting what is known as the intervening drink defence. This can occur when a driver consumes alcohol after being stopped by the police but before a breath sample. This has the result of frustrating the breath-testing process, and this is unacceptable.

Some witnesses raised concerns that this could criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, who have simply had a few drinks after arriving home after a long week. I would like to clarify that the bill provides for this scenario by proposing an exception to the offence. It is intended not to apply to cases of innocent intervening drinking.

Furthermore, in situations where a driver's breath is tested outside of the two-hour window of the offence, a legislative formula is proposed to calculate what the blood alcohol concentration would have been at the time of the offence. I would like to thank the standing committee for its amendment to this provision, which clarifies that before a judge can resort to the formula, there must be at least 20 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in the driver's body.

The final element that I wish to discuss aims to end what some have referred to as the “disclosure wars”. Bill C-46 aims to clarify that the maintenance records of the approved instruments are not relevant in determining whether or not the results of the breath tests are accurate. It is enough that the crown disclose the test results, any error messages, and the results of the calibration or system-blank checks.

Bill C-46 proposes many other changes aimed at improving the law of alcohol-impaired driving. A legislative backgrounder to Bill C-46 and the accompanying charter statements outline many of the key proposals, including the rationale and the charter considerations. If members have not yet done so, I would encourage them to review these documents.

I am immensely proud of the reforms proposed in Bill C-46. I am confident that they will reduce deaths and injuries. I am also grateful to all the witnesses who presented their views on the bill before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In my view, the bill is stronger for their input.

In closing, I urge all members to vote for public safety and support Bill C-46. We must all work together to eliminate impaired driving and all of its tragic consequences.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, an important witness that the minister did not hear from in committee is Families For Justice.

Families For Justice is a group of traffic accident victims. They want a deterrent. They want the government to send a strong message that Canada does not tolerate impaired driving. One way of doing that is to impose a minimum sentence of five years for impaired driving causing death. We can see that this works as a deterrent since the prison population is decreasing.

Why did the minister not listen to Families for Justice and implement a five-year minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend across the way for his substantive work in this area. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him.

I have had the opportunity to meet with several members of Families for Justice. I would like to acknowledge the significant loss they have suffered and recognize that the intent of Bill C-46 is to ensure we do everything we can to promote safe and responsible driving.

In terms of the question around mandatory sentencing with respect to this particular piece of legislation, it has been found that the mandatory sentences are not the deterrents. As proven and supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the deterrence in Bill C-46 is the mandatory alcohol screening. At the justice committee, national Mothers Against Drunk Driving president, Patricia Hynes-Coates, said the following with respect to mandatory minimum sentences:

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.

That is where mandatory alcohol screening comes into place.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we will find a parliamentarian in this House who does not agree that we need to do everything possible to discourage and, hopefully at some point, eliminate impaired driving. As one of my colleagues said the other day, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. The right of people to peacefully and safely drive on our roads must take precedence over any other person's right to drive while impaired.

On the other hand, as legislators, we have a responsibility to make sure that this legislation is very carefully calibrated. The Supreme Court has told us that in R. v. Oakes and other cases.

My questions to the minister are on this new legislation around cannabis. A number of people are suggesting that a reading of two nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood may not indicate present impairment, particularly with chronic users of cannabis, maybe medicinal users, who use cannabis every day. Does the minister believe that measurement is an accurate measurement of present impairment?

Second, I am led to believe that many experts say we do not yet have proper screening devices that can prove true impairment. Does she have any concerns that by adopting those standards, we may be giving criminal records to Canadians who are using cannabis, as her government is going to legalize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, I have to allow for further questions as well. Remember that this is a questions and comments period, and there is a specific amount of time allotted. MPs should be able to ask those questions within one minute.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for underscoring that we all share the desire to keep our roads safe and do everything we can to keep those who have consumed alcohol or drugs off our roads.

In terms of the questions around legal limits and drug screeners, we have been working very diligently with the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. It has been providing advice on drug limits, as well as helping us ensure that, hopefully by the time of royal assent for this bill, we have drug screeners that are reliable and accurate. Drug screeners would not be approved for use by police unless they meet rigorous evaluation standards. We are confident that we will have these devices in place by the time this legislation comes into force.

Further, in terms of the legal drug limits, any level of THC is considered to cause impairment in an individual. We have three offences that we have introduced. We are taking a graduated approach to the offences. We trust in the science, and we will continue to ensure we work towards securing and setting limits as the science evolves to the place where alcohol screening is. This is an ongoing challenge, and we will continue to monitor it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of sections of this bill that make sense. I will not repeat the comments with respect to making sure that there at least is a penalty that people who kill somebody when driving drunk can and should pay. That being said, the minister, on a number of occasions during her speech, and in the comments, said we would like to do something to reduce impaired driving, yet she admitted that legalization could increase impaired driving. Would that not, in and of itself, give the minister pause that this is overall going to be a bad idea, if the minister is even acknowledging at this point that we will probably have more impaired driving on the roads? Did the Liberals take that into consideration when they brought forward these two bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and his ongoing work in this regard. Of course, we took into account the reality and the impact of bringing in Bill C-45, the cannabis act, and its companion piece, Bill C-46, to ensure that we have the toughest impaired driving rules throughout the world. Impaired driving on drugs and alcohol is an offence right now. We are working to ensure that we have the best scientific evidence and the necessary oral fluid screeners to detect that at the roadside. We are committed to ensuring we do everything we can to improve that process, which Bill C-46 significantly does, and to detect more individuals who are behind the wheels of their car while impaired by drugs or alcohol. This is a real opportunity to significantly strengthen our impaired driving laws in Canada.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House today. My question builds on some of the questions from my colleagues across the way, which were similar to questions asked during the debate on Bill C-45. My question to the minister is with respect to the timing of Bill C-46 and Bill C-45. I want to know how they work together, as well as the strategy of having Bill C-46 in place before Bill C-45 to ensure we have safe communities, safe people, safe roads. What is the importance of the legislation in the way it is now being presented to the House moving forward? Could the minister comment on that, please?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that this question speaks to the previous question of the hon. member across the way in terms of the objectives of Bill C-45, and Bill C-46, the cannabis act, and also wanting to improve the impaired driving laws in this country. What we are trying to combat is that the status quo simply is not working with respect to ensuring we do everything we can to keep cannabis out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals, as well as to keep individuals out of the driving seats of their car while they have been consuming alcohol or drugs. The objective of both of these pieces of legislation is to ensure that we move away from the status quo and put in place significant laws and regulations. There is no question that the Government of Canada is tackling these important issues and ensuring the safety of Canadians.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, offences relating to conveyances, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I will address a couple of things with respect to the bill, and one is the timetable for this bill and Bill C-45.

The government is making a mistake, quite frankly, first for even bringing in the marijuana bill and then pushing it forward to try to get it in by Canada Day of next year. Even though I have heard the minister say that the government will try to push through this bill in conjunction with Bill C-45, the whole thing is a mistake.

We heard considerable testimony from different groups that they thought this was being jammed through too quickly. The Canadian police services asked that the legislation be delayed so they would have the ability to train and put resources in place.

I suggest that the government has not done enough to put effective educational campaigns in place, despite statistics showing significant increases in fatalities due to drug-impaired driving. We have a problem already with drug-impaired driving. The Liberals tell us that by legalizing this, they somehow have come up with some solutions to this, but it is the exact opposite.

Mandatory roadside testing, in addition to the large number of officers who still do not have sufficient training to adequately detect drug-impaired driving through drug-recognition training, is another part of this, as well the refusal of the government to mandate proper storage restrictions of cannabis plants in homes. The government, in its excitement, was pleased to announce that everyone would be able to have a small grow-op in the kitchen. We were very much against this, for the reasons I stated at committee and before this. How can we make it any more accessible and easier for kids if the plants are in the kitchen?

I thought I received some good news a couple of weeks ago when a woman in my office, Cheri, said that I would be interested to know that the Liberals had made some changes about grow-ops in kitchens. I thought that was wonderful and that the Liberals had listened to us. However, the government said that the three feet was not high enough, that the plants would have to grow taller than that. Therefore, after getting criticism about this, the Liberals did the exact opposite. They would let people have four-, five-, or 10-foot plants. I guess there would be more joints available the higher these things grew. This is a huge mistake, one that we will hear about in the future if the bill passes.

Canadian police services from across the country have called on the government to delay the legislation beyond 2018 to allow law enforcement time to properly manage the threat of increased drug-impaired driving and the association that this would take place with the legalization of marijuana. The Canadian police services stated that there was zero chance they would be ready by July 2018.

Why are the Liberals so intent on not listening to Canada's law enforcement? They have imposed this deadline, again, with little regard to the health and safety of Canadians.

During the recent meetings our committees had, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police warned that it needed more time to train officers under the proposed new law and more than double the number of police officers certified to conduct roadside drug-impaired testing. It also called for more time to implement public education. If we look around, officials in Washington State and Colorado have stressed the importance of implementing educational campaigns on drug-impaired driving as soon as possible and long before legalization.

The government's timetable is just too tight. The Liberals say that they will get Bill C-46 in before Bill C-45. However, with the timetable they have insisted upon for Bill C-45, we will not be ready.

The Liberals have not taken the advice of members of the police association or Canadian premiers who have voiced their concerns. The provincial governments need more time to get their rules and regulations in place.

The minister mentioned MADD Canada. It has also called for the government to ensure the legislative framework is in place under the Motor Vehicle Act, giving police the powers to lay drug-impaired charges. Currently, the standard breathalyser will not detect drugs, This was one of the things we heard.

My colleagues mentioned how challenging it was to exactly measure the level of THC and thus measure the level of impairment. It is further complicated now that we are encouraging people to smoke marijuana, especially in combination with alcohol. This is going to become more complicated. In the hearings and testimony on Bill C-46, it became very clear how difficult this would be. We heard different experts say that THC could be in a person's system for days afterwards. The THC level spikes with the first couple of joints and then it goes down. How quickly it goes down is the question and what happens when marijuana is used in combination with alcohol.

Again, we need to have people who are expert in this area. The police services have said that they need at least 2,000 experts to do this. I will quote Ms. MacAskill from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She said, about the disposable saliva test, “If every officer can have that in their vehicle it will certainly have a positive impact on road safety.”

Unfortunately, the government is not in a position to guarantee that those drug experts will be in place. It has not made the necessary provisions to make this happen. Again, the Liberals are focused on getting this through. Somehow it will be a wonderful that on the next Canada Day, everyone will be smoking a joint. However, this has been a huge mistake.

As well, I have to mention the penalties. The Conservative party is very clear that a $1,000 fine for a person who kills because of drunk driving is unacceptable. Quite frankly, it sends the wrong message. My colleague talked about mothers for justice. They were very clear that it was not enough to say a person was arrested. We want to send a very clear message that if a person is drunk, starts to drive and kills people, that there are serious consequences, not just a $1,000 or $1,500 fine with a slap on the wrist. Our job is to ensure people get the message that they have to take responsibility for the crimes they commit. When we were in government, that message was consistent. There has to be serious consequences for people who commit serious crimes and victimize others.

Statistics show that impaired driving due to drugs is on the rise. This is why we need to have nationwide public education. We know, having looked at Washington State, what will happen in our country. Fatal crashes among drivers who test positive for marijuana went up from 8% in 2013 to 17% in 2014. In Colorado, between 2005 and 2014, the number of drivers in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana, without other drugs in their system, went from 3.4% to 12%. It multiplied four times when marijuana was legalized in that state.

Dr. Mark Ware, co-chair of Ottawa's marijuana task force, stated, “Canada should immediately boost spending on intensive public education and research into the impacts of marijuana and not wait until 2018.” I would go beyond that and say not to be forced into putting this in place by next Canada Day.

Dr. Ware told a drug policy conference in Ottawa that a bill to overhaul Canada's marijuana laws was the first step in what he predicted would be an unbelievably deep and tangled web with the provinces, territories, and the municipalities, which would be responsible for much of this scheme.

Here is what is going to happen when this legislation gets enacted. The federal Liberals will blame the provinces when this thing becomes a complete national mess. They will say that they legalized it but it is the responsibility of the provinces. They will point the finger and claim that it is not them who have made the mess. Once they get this off their hands, it will be up to the provinces, or they will say that the police services are screwing this up, that they are not doing enough. That is what is so unfortunate about this.

The government has been warned about the implications of legalizing marijuana and the required safeguards that should be in place. The Canadian Automobile Association has made the case that a public education campaign has to be put in place.

This will complicate our judicial system. It was made very clear that there would be charter challenges. I understand that whenever new legislation is put in, there is always the possibility that people will challenge it. Nonetheless, there will be a lot of cases that will compound the challenge this will have on the courts. We have raised this with the government on many occasions. We have told it to ensure enough judges are appointed. This has been a slow process, and not enough judges will not help the situation. When these cases are before the courts and there are delays, et cetera, it will not help things if the Government of Canada does not move forward as expeditiously as possible in appointing judges.

The other thing we have to worry about is not just people smoking marijuana, but people who will turn marijuana into edibles. The Liberals will again say the that provinces are to blame if this is the case. I understand that, but we all have a responsibility. When this gets turned into an edible product and children have access to that product, it will be a serious problem. I appreciate that not all children will go after the pot plants in the kitchen and nor should they, but edibles will be another danger to young people and a danger that the government does not seem to take with the seriousness it should take.

I do like some sections in the legislation. The minister talked about one section that refers to marijuana tests being taken about two hours afterwards. Among other things, this will go after those individuals who will try to avoid an impaired driving charge by having a couple of drinks after the accident, using the excuse they needed those drinks to calm down. We all know that this is a way of avoiding or complicating an impaired driving charge. I actually agree with that section.

However, when my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton came forward with a group of reasonable amendments to ensure people would live up to their responsibilities when they finally were convicted of impaired driving and impaired driving which resulted in somebody being killed, those penalties were completely rejected by the Liberals on committee. When somebody kills a child and receives a $1,500 fine, the whole justice system is compromised. It decreases people's confidence in the criminal justice system when people are not given penalties that are commiserate with the crimes they have committed.

My Liberal colleagues do not want to put these tough penalties in the bill because they believe they will not stop people from committing these crimes. However, I think it does send a message to people that there are serious consequences for what they are doing. Yes, there are people who say that they had better be careful because there are serious consequences for their impaired driving.

I appreciate that Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 go together and that the latter bill complements the first, but my colleagues and I want the government to reconsider everything about this, its implementation and the whole question of legalizing marijuana and what it will do to our children. I promise that if the government implements this and the Liberals start to run away from it and say, “I don't know, you better talk to the education department, or the police, or the provinces”, we will hold them accountable for everything, the complete mess this will create. We will not let them off the hook by pointing to someone else.

I have appreciated the opportunity to make comments on this. I know the government has not listened to us up to this point, but I hope it will in the future.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government is investing up to $270 million to support law enforcement and broader efforts to deter and detect drug-impaired driving in order to enforce the proposed cannabis legislation. We are committing up to $161 million for training front-line officers in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving and to build law enforcement capacity.

The previous government invested $2 million in 2008 under its drug recognition expert program. If the hon. member feels so strongly about this issue, why did his government not make a much more robust investment in drug recognition programs so we would not be so far behind today? What comes next? Why does he feel the status quo would be sufficient if we do not pass this bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the differences between this government and our government was that we were not legalizing marijuana for everyone to smoke. We completely disagree with the idea that somehow everything is going to be cleared up in the whole area of impaired driving as soon as marijuana is legalized.

They do not have to take my word for it. They should check with police services. Ask them if they are going to be ready. They are the ones who are going to be doing this. The Liberals are turning our country into one where everyone can have a grow op in their kitchen and edibles will be available to everyone.

The police services came before the committee. The hon. member should check their testimony. They said they would not be ready, but the government is saying that it wants legalization in place by Canada Day. That is wonderful, but the police services are telling us they are not ready to implement this.

The hon. member says there will be money. There is money for everything on their side. They need to listen to what the people on the ground are saying and what the provinces are telling us about how ready they will be.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives once again are advocating for mandatory minimums, as they always do, despite the fact the statistics show a rising number of people driving under the influence, as the member recognized in his speech. Some of the experts we heard at the public safety committee on a similar bill for mandatory Breathalyzer tests said that the psychological impact of a mandatory minimum on a person would not affect their decision whether or not to get behind the wheel when they are obviously unable to do so, thereby putting others' lives at risk. What really matters is whether they believe they will or will not get caught.

The Conservatives and the government should instead focus on providing police with resources for roadblocks and such things. The sentencing itself is not what dissuades someone, but the likelihood of their getting caught. Does my colleague not agree that the important thing to focus on is not sentencing but making sure that the police have the proper resources and that we have proper education programs in place so that people will not put others' lives at risk by making this kind of horrifying mistake?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, we believe that we have to do everything. However, I do not get the New Democrats. They say that impaired driving is increasing and therefore we should reduce or lower the mandatory sentences. What kind of a message does that send?

When someone is drunk and gets in his or her car and ends up killing people, it hurts the justice system if that person gets a $1,500 fine. It hurts the credibility of our justice system. It does no good whatsoever.

As to the idea that if we just got rid of tough penalties, people would say they would not drive impaired because the penalties were lower, no, it does not work that way. We want to send a message to people that there are serious consequences if they commit these disgusting crimes. That is what we want to do. This is what we say on this side of the House.

That said, we have to do everything we can to stop impaired driving.

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

Madam Speaker, the other side would like to rattle off quotes. Here is what happened to my family: 27 years ago, my brother, Fabian, was killed in a drinking and driving accident by someone who was impaired. That was 27 years ago and it is shameful today that we are looking at lessening the sentences, that we cannot get tougher on this, that we are going to make it easier for someone to drink and drive and toke and drive, and that if he or she gets caught, they will only be fined. That is shameful.

To my hon. colleague who mentioned this, we know that the municipalities and the police services will bear the brunt of this. The government has done nothing to help those charged with rolling this out. Has there been any discussion about what the government will give to the municipalities? When municipalities' number one cost is policing, will the Liberals be funding those municipalities and police services to make our roads safer?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the one hand, the government has made it clear that it has money for everything. The Liberals do not worry about balanced budgets; forget about it, there is money for everything. Certainly support for the municipalities and police services would be a huge and important part of what needs to be done on this. I have suggested to the Liberals that they should listen to what the police services are saying. They need more drug recognition experts because the Liberals are legalizing dope in this country. The Liberals should listen to what the municipalities have to say, listen to the provinces, and listen to the police. Although the Liberals will not listen to us because we are in the Conservative Party, they should listen to what the provinces, municipalities, and police services are saying. They are on the right track and the Liberals should listen to them.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the law and order approach taken by the Conservatives over the past 10 years did not work. I am not the one saying it. That is what we have been hearing from a number of experts.

The number of impaired driving offences increased under the Conservatives, despite the longer sentences the Conservatives put in place in 2008. In 2011, Statistics Canada noted that “[t]he rate of impaired driving increased for the fourth time in five years...and was at its highest point in a decade.”

Why do the Conservatives keep insisting that their measures lowered impaired driving rates even though statistics and scientific studies show that this is not the case?

Something that would work would be holding Canada-wide awareness campaigns and making more investments in this area. That is what CAA is saying as it calls on the government to launch a public awareness and education campaign before marijuana is legalized, for example.

Do the Conservatives not think that it would be better to do that instead of continuing to focus on a law and order approach that did not work, statistically speaking?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, the number of impaired-driving charges has increased because police have been given the tools and we have helped train drug recognition experts in this area to do the job they are supposed to do. The only promise I can make to the member of the NDP and indeed to all members of the NDP is that I have news for them. Once the government starts to legalize marijuana and there are grow ops in kitchens, impaired driving will go up dramatically. We will stand and bring it to the attention of this chamber. When the Liberals shrug their shoulders and say, “It is not us, the provinces must have screwed up”, we are not going to stand for that.

To the members of the NDP, I know it is always the same thing, that if we reduce the penalties these crimes will go down. I would say no, we do not buy that. People have to take responsibility for their actions. That is what our former Conservative government always said and this is what we will continue to say as a party.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before recognizing the next speaker, I should mention that I will have to interrupt him to proceed to the next item on the agenda.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the other part of the Liberal government's marijuana legalization plan, the impaired driving bill, which not only covers marijuana, but also makes changes to the laws governing alcohol-impaired driving.

We support this legislative proposal in principle. However, I just want to remind the House and everyone tuning in that the government's approach so far has been a miserable failure. I am, of course, talking about the consultations or lack thereof with the provinces, which will be saddled with the lion's share of this burden. The matter before us today, impaired driving, is no exception. As a member from Quebec, I have heard a lot from the Government of Quebec and my constituents about how the lack of consultation is seriously affecting their ability to plan adequately and to deal with the repercussions of this plan.

For example, the issue of education and public awareness, especially for youth, is very important. Obviously, it would be vitally important to launch a public awareness and education campaign with a view to preventing impaired driving. After all, there are already similar campaigns for alcohol, and we have to believe that there will be similar campaigns for marijuana. We are, however, assuming that the provinces and various provincial ministries will be the ones in charge of implementing these education and awareness programs. This is then very important, especially when we are talking about impaired driving.

Although we are not debating this today, we could also talk about sale, taxation, and all these issues. Furthermore, when we talk about impaired driving, I believe that sale and taxation are major elements. One point we have been hearing about since the beginning—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have 17 minutes and 25 seconds to continue his speech.

Public Safety

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are being told that at least 60 ISIS fighters have entered Canada after fighting a war against our allies and our own soldiers. Not only are these men criminals, but they also work around the clock to destroy anyone and everyone who does not share their ideology. These men promote hatred within their families and in public. How is it possible that these criminals are allowed to return to Canada and live here freely? We do not know who they are, where they are, or what their plans are.

Why has the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness not been proactive in informing Canadians about these criminals? Canadians have every reason to be concerned about these brutal men roaming our streets, not knowing exactly where they are. Just as frightening is the thought that this government has allocated millions of dollars to compensate them for their dedication to their cause. The members of the Conservative Party will be ever vigilant, and keeping Canadians safe will always be one of our top priorities.

Anniversary Congratulations

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize two exemplary citizens in my riding of Oakville on the occasion of their 60th wedding anniversary. Fred and Esther Wieler first came to Oakville in 1967, where they became active in the life of our community and were dedicated to improving the lives of their neighbours. They have never stopped.

Fred and Esther are each individually pillars of strength, spirituality, and caring. Standing together, unified by their marriage, they have provided a home for family, a shelter for refugees, and a virtuous example for all of us. Fred and Esther have truly exemplified the Canadian values of generosity and selflessness, and their children and grandchildren were raised with these same values and are continuing this legacy both in Oakville and across the country.

We are so fortunate in Oakville to have such generous and dedicated residents. I would like to take the opportunity of their 60th wedding anniversary to congratulate Fred and Esther, and thank them for their many contributions.

Marie-Anne Gaboury

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise once more during Women's History Month to recognize Marie-Anne Gaboury, a true Canadian adventurer and role model. Immediately after her marriage in 1806, in defiance of the customs of the time, Gaboury left the comforts of Montreal, tea and tourtière, with Jean-Baptiste Lagimodière to become Canada's first female coureur des bois. Gaboury led an exceptional life, trapping, hunting, and trading in the Prairies where she learned Cree and Ojibwa. During a buffalo hunt, Marie-Anne, nine months pregnant, went into labour, giving birth to her second child. Brave and fierce, Gaboury fought and killed a bear attacking a colleague.

The history of an amazing hero is mostly forgotten, but it is the story of Winnipeg, of a European settlement. Marie-Anne Gaboury's legacy included raising a grandson, Louis Riel, who would go on to lead the people of Manitoba into Confederation.

Let us close Women's History Month by paying—