Debates of May 31st, 2017

Criminal Code

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend's excellent speech was well thought out, and accurately portrayed some of the trepidations that people have while recognizing that going forward is the right thing.

It may be that the member cannot answer my question and I accept that, but one of the things that struck me about this is that ideally what we would all like to have is the same as we have with the breathalyzer: a reliable, legally calibrated breathalyzer that will stand the test. Everybody was hoping that would be found for THC, and it has not. Maybe the government needs to answer my question, not my friend, but if he knows I would like to hear his thoughts.

Maybe it is happening, but I am surprised that some of the jurisdictions around the world have not pooled their efforts together to try to find this scientific solution, rather than each of so many countries reinventing the wheel in terms of trying to identify some way of accurately finding out what THC levels are in anyone who happens to be pulled over.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague who has not only served the House for a long time but was solicitor general in the Ontario government, and is very attuned to issues of justice and making sure our justice system is working well, both in terms of enforcing the law and in defending the rights of Canadians.

It is an excellent point that he raises, which is to recognize that there are other jurisdictions in the world that are struggling and grappling with enforcing impaired driving laws in a world where people are impaired by substances other than alcohol. Exploring the experiences of other jurisdictions will be a very helpful mechanism as the bill goes through the House and to committee. I will say, though, that issues of testing technology and whether it is capable of measuring present impairment versus metabolites is a very important concept, and I am hoping that this process as it unfolds will help us craft a very effective—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-46, legislation that would have a significant positive impact on public safety. We are having a great discussion in the House on this today and I am glad to be a part of it.

In the time that I have available, I want to focus my remarks on the proposed new part of the Criminal Code, part VIII.1, on offences relating to conveyances. It would replace all the existing transportation offence provisions in the Criminal Code with a simplified and modernized part, which I believe will be better understood by all Canadians. Before discussing these changes, I believe it is necessary to understand how the current Criminal Code provisions dealing with transportation offences have developed and why there is a desperate need for modernization.

Driving while intoxicated by alcohol has been an offence since 1921, and driving while under the influence of narcotics became an offence in 1925. There have been countless amendments since then which include: creating the offence of being impaired by alcohol or a drug, in 1951; creating the over 80 offence, in 1969; authorizing demands for roadside screening breath tests, in 1976; enacting the offences of impaired driving causing death and causing bodily harm, in 1985; and in 2008, limiting the so-called two beer defence and strengthening responses to drug-impaired driving.

Unfortunately, these various piecemeal reforms have not always worked well together or kept up with improvements in technology. In particular, the provisions with respect to proving blood alcohol concentration reflect the technology that existed 50 years ago and not the modern electronic breathalyzers.

The current provisions are also very hard to understand, even for practitioners. This has long been the case. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission, in its 1991 report “Recodifying Criminal Procedure” wrote that some of the impaired driving provisions had become virtually unreadable. The current Criminal Code provisions are a minefield of technicalities that make the detection and prosecution of impaired driving cases, particularly with respect to the proving blood alcohol concentration provision, unnecessarily complex.

In the typical trial, the fundamental facts that prove guilt are not in dispute. The person was driving and the person blew over 80, yet impaired and over 80 trials are clogging the courts and are taking too long to conclude, in part because our laws are unnecessarily complex. It is time to clean up the provisions and focus trials on the relevant issues.

Under the new part of the Criminal Code, all of the offences are set out in sections that are easier to read and understand. For example, the provisions would set out the simpliciter offence first, then the offence involving bodily harm, and finally, the offence causing death. Under the new part, a person would not, for example, be charged with dangerous driving causing death while fleeing the police as in the current law. Instead, they could be charged with dangerous driving causing death and with fleeing the police, which are two distinct offences.

The penalties and prohibitions are also grouped so that consequences of the offences are clearly rationalized. There are mandatory minimum penalties and mandatory prohibitions for impaired driving and the refusal offences, but there are no mandatory minimum penalties or prohibitions for the other offences. It gets complicated. The mandatory minimum penalty regime for impaired driving and refusal offences makes sense from a policy perspective.

First, unlike many other offences that can be committed in a number of different ways and capture a broad range of offenders, impaired driving offences always require voluntary consumption of alcohol or an impairing drug and then making the deliberate decision to get behind the wheel, which puts all users of the road at risk.

The minimum penalties are also well tailored, starting with a fine only for a first offence but certain jail time for those who reoffend. This type of certainty provides a clear deterrent effect.

Some offences would not be re-enacted under the new part. Failure to keep watch on a person being towed or towing a water skier at night are summary conviction offences that are rarely charged. Removing them would leave no gaps in the law. If the activity is carried out in a dangerous manner or results in bodily harm or death, the person could be charged with dangerous operation or criminal negligence in the appropriate cases.

Also, sailing with an unsafe vessel or flying an unsafe aircraft are summary conviction offences that are not being re-enacted. Laying a charge for these offences requires the approval of the Attorney General of Canada. This activity is more regulatory in nature, and there are strict laws governing the safety of vessels and aircraft.

The provisions under the investigatory powers of the new part would provide new tools for the police. In particular, mandatory alcohol screening is expected to result in deterring more drinking drivers, and deterring those tempted to do so. Roadside oral fluid drug screening will detect drivers who have consumed cannabis, cocaine or methamphetamines, the impairing drugs that are most prevalent on Canadian roads which have been discussed earlier.

Under “Evidentiary Matters”, the new part addresses directly the most important causes of delay and litigation under the current provisions dealing with proving blood alcohol concentration. These are welcome changes given the significant challenges many jurisdictions are facing in terms of court backlogs. Bill C-46 sets out what has to be done to ensure that a breath test produces accurate results and provides a simple formula for determining blood alcohol concentration where the first test occurs more than two hours after the person has driven.

The new part also sets out what documents are to be disclosed as relevant to determining whether the approved instrument was working properly when the driver's breath was analyzed.

There are also improvements with respect to certificates. An accused who wants to cross-examine the qualified technician or an analyst who filed a certificate would have to explain why their attendance is necessary. This ensures there would be no fishing expeditions.

All of these provisions reflect the advice of the alcohol test committee, an independent committee which has been advising the Government of Canada on breath testing for alcohol for 50 years, and whose expertise has repeatedly been recognized by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are many other changes in the wording of the provisions. It would be tedious to list them all, but suffice it to say we need to clean up this legislation.

I am pleased to recommend to members that Bill C-46 be given second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so the committee can do its great work.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly there are some good measures in Bill C-46 with respect to holding impaired drivers accountable. One of those measures is increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life. However, what is missing from this bill is consecutive sentencing for individuals who get behind the wheel and kill multiple individuals. That was included in Bill C-226, introduced by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I was wondering if the hon. member for Guelph could comment on why consecutive sentencing is absent from Bill C-46.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the work that he does on the justice committee. I know that he will bring questions like this to the committee, and I am sure the committee will be able to get experts in to address those.

In general, I would say, rather than focusing on the sentencing provisions, what we are looking at is zero tolerance, and to make sure that people who have any drugs in their blood or saliva are not behind the wheel. When we look at mandatory screening, keeping people off the road is better than repeat offences, and the aim is to stop the offences from occurring in the first place.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions to this place, particularly his service on the industry committee, but I do think the member sidestepped the last question somewhat, so I am going to give him another chance.

If someone harms many individuals in an incident, the consecutive sentence recognizes that the punishment fits the crime. For example, the previous government worked to make consecutive sentences for human trafficking, so that someone would receive time not for a single incident but for multiple incidents. All would be taken into account when the person was sentenced.

This is not a mandatory minimum. This just recognizes that if someone gets behind the wheel and causes harm to many people, flexibility in sentencing is given to a judge to make sure that the sentence fits the crime.

Does the member believe there should be consecutive sentences in this area?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have the member in the House. He always asks great questions.

I am a mechanical engineering technologist, not a lawyer, and I do not sit on justice committee. What I said in my answer was that the justice committee would look at some of the details in application of sentencing, but our bill proposes to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place by deterring people from getting behind the wheel when they have any drugs in their body.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of questions around the science and testing of THC. For example, people are at a concert and many are smoking marijuana. Individuals nearby, even though they are not smoking marijuana, may absorb that into their system. Under this bill, those people could potentially be pulled over in their cars and tested only to find that THC is in their system even though they did not smoke any marijuana. How would that be dealt with? That is my big question and it is a big concern on a lot of people's minds.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a zero tolerance policy and detection would be at the very minimum standards. If individuals are above that standard, their licence would be suspended, their vehicle towed, and they would have to deal with things after that.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. What we are talking about here is enabling police officers to detect impaired drivers.

Before I begin, I want to make one thing clear. I think we all want to support measures that protect Canadians on our roads no matter where they are. However, I am not convinced that the bill before us addresses all of our questions and concerns.

This is an issue that matters a lot to me and that I have done a lot of work on because it ties in with marijuana legalization, which the government wants to implement on July 1, 2018.

First, I want to point out that I supported the bill introduced by my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill also amends the Criminal Records Act so that the offence of impaired driving and the offence of failing or refusing to comply with a demand are no longer exceptions to the offences, rendering null and void the record suspension. My colleague has done an excellent job. However, unfortunately, this was rejected by the government. This bill makes consequential amendments to these laws and others that are directly related to the bill we are debating today.

Second, I also sponsored Bill S-240, introduced by Senator Claude Carignan. This bill sought to implement measures to combat impaired driving. The bill amends the Criminal Code in order to authorize the use of a screening device approved by the government to detect the presence of drugs in the body of a person who was operating a vehicle or who had the care or control of a vehicle. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily substances to determine the concentration of drugs in a person's body based on physical coordination tests and the result of the analysis conducted using an approved screening device.

Once again, even though all senators, regardless of their political stripe, and all opposition parties unanimously agreed, the government nevertheless decided to reject all the Senate's hard work. The bill had passed all three stages of the legislative process, but now we have to start from scratch. It will be too late and no one will be ready if the bill to legalize marijuana is rushed through.

Third, I asked about 15 questions and I took part in many of the debates we have had here in the House of Commons.

Fourth, I met with representatives from various businesses that produce drug screening devices in order to learn more about these devices' ability to screen for faculties impaired by drugs.

Fifth, I met with senior officials responsible for training police officers at the École nationale de police du Québec. Unfortunately, I learned that they had not been consulted as part of this process and that they feel unprepared to deal with the consequences of this bill to legalize marijuana.

Sixth, I asked the citizens of my riding for their thoughts on this plan to legalize marijuana, and more specifically the consequences it will have on road safety.

Seventh, I studied the cases of Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington in particular, and I reviewed all of the legislation on the subject from other places in the world.

That is why I can talk about this issue today with a full knowledge of the facts and confirm that Canada is not ready to legalize marijuana, especially not by July 1, 2018. Before any bill to legalize cannabis is passed, the police must have the proper tools to prevent many lives being lost on our roads.

To be frank, I find it hard to understand why the Liberals dragged their feet for so long before introducing a draft bill that they are now saying must urgently be passed before the summer recess. Let us be serious. The legalization of marijuana has been part of the Liberal platform for years. To get elected, the Liberals even told Canadians that they had a plan.

Once elected, it took them two years to introduce a bill in the House because their legislative agenda has been flawed from the start. Ironically, the Senate is not working very hard compared to when other governments were in office. Now, all of a sudden, things have picked up and the Liberals are trying to quickly pass bills without allowing them to be thoroughly studied in committee.

Two bills need to be quickly passed so that everything is in place in time for the next election. That is simply irresponsible, and the Liberals are to blame. In short, this bill is critically important in protecting Canadians from the growing scourge of drug-impaired drivers who get behind the wheel. It becoming increasingly urgent to eradicate this scourge in light of the Liberals' bill to legalize marijuana.

Every jurisdiction that has legalized marijuana has experienced an increase in the number of accidents and impaired drivers. Here is what the Canadian Police Association told the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs:

Driving while intoxicated by drugs impairs judgment and motor coordination. In one study involving aircraft, ten licensed pilots were given one marijuana joint containing 19 mg of THC, a relatively small amount [for users, or so I am told]. Twenty-four hours after smoking the joint, they were tested in a flight simulator. All ten of the pilots made errors in landing, and one missed the runway completely.

The report also said that, according to a recent opinion poll about drug-impaired driving, 58% of Canadian drivers did not know if their province or territory had any administrative laws on drug-impaired driving. The clearly demonstrates the need to sort out the drug-impaired driving issue before cannabis is legalized. Unfortunately, I doubt that can happen given the Liberal government's unrealistic and irresponsible timelines. for things to happen that fast, the Liberals will have to rush the process, which will jeopardize Canadians' health and safety. That is extremely unfortunate.

I would like to share a few quotes that I compiled about impaired driving because I want to give everyone a real sense of just how big an issue this is even though the Liberals are trying to downplay it.

According to Washington State toxicology lab manager Brian Capron , since the state legalized marijuana, over a third of impaired drivers tested positive for the drug. They test over 13,000 drivers every year.

According to Dr. Chris Rumball of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, the Prime Minister's plan to legalize marijuana should take into account sobering U.S. experiences. In Washington State, fatal crashes among drivers who tested positive for marijuana doubled from 8% in 2013, before legalization, to 17% in 2014 after legalization. In Colorado, the number tripled from 3.4% to 12.1%.

“The number of car accidents in Colorado increased because of marijuana usage,” said Kevin Sabet, former advisor to Barack Obama on drug policy.

According to the Quebec police, “Canadian police forces are worried about drug-impaired driving [in the wake of Ottawa's announcement that it intends to legalize marijuana]. Police are concerned about trivializing consumption [and] an increase in drivers under the influence of drugs.”

I also have this quote from Annie Gauthier, CAA Québec's spokesperson. “We must continue to collect data, put technology in place and establish guidelines that will enable police officers to properly control and deal with this new situation in order to prevent it from spiralling out of control.”

I have many more similar quotes and I could go on at length.

In closing, every effort to make our roads safer is critical. I sincerely hope that the Liberals will allow sufficient time for a thorough study of the bill in committee. The Liberals' irresponsible marijuana legalization proposal aside, there is still the issue of impaired driving that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, whether or not legalization is about to happen.

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

Madam Speaker, the member quoted a number of unnamed police organizations. I was curious about a number of things and I would like to inquire about them.

First, since we have introduced Bill C-46, I want to share with the member a fact with which he may not be familiar. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police traffic committee has put out the following statement in response to Bill C-46. It says:

The government has put forward strong legislation not only focused on impairment by drugs, but also addressing on-going issues related to alcohol impairment.

Steps that have been introduced to reform the entire impaired driving scheme are seen as much needed and very positive. The CACP has called for such changes in the past, specifically in support of modernizing the driving provisions of the criminal code, supporting mandatory alcohol screening and eliminating common ‘loophole’ defenses.

I have looked back at some of the data over the past decade. For over a decade, Canada has had the highest rates of cannabis use. It is estimated that over 3.5 million Canadians have used cannabis. Therefore, driving under the influence of cannabis has been a significant issue.

I wonder if the member opposite might offer some insight as to why his government did nothing about that for a decade.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that my colleague read the transcripts of the speeches. As we know, they are all translated.

He would see that I supplied sources for all my sources. If he needs the resources to find these quotes, study what has been done around the world and see for himself just how much of a hazard this is to road safety, he need only ask. I sincerely think that if the government was as serious and thorough as it claims to be, it would put a system in place, equip police cars, train police officers and set up a prevention, awareness and education program in every school in Canada to make sure everyone is very cognizant of what is going on before even thinking of legalizing marijuana.

After all that, if marijuana use does not decrease, then the government can consider legalization. The Liberals are putting the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. They refused to move forward with my colleague's Bill S-230, which aimed to get tough on impaired drivers. Even if the government follows the current schedule, it will not meet its July 1st, 2018 deadline, unfortunately. We are headed straight for a wall. It is time that the government realize how irresponsible this is. The government needs to get to work and give police officers the cars and equipment they require as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the question from the parliamentary secretary was fairly straightforward, and I would like to get an answer from the member.

Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Conservatives were in government for over 10 years. We very much recognize this is an issue. Individuals who were using cannabis were driving, yet for a decade-plus the Conservative government did absolutely nothing.

The member says that we are the ones who are being irresponsible. The Conservatives completely ignored the issue. If anyone was behaving in an irresponsible fashion, it was the Stephen Harper Conservative government. Would he not agree?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a first: I have never heard anyone else insinuate that the Conservatives were not tough on crime. We heard quite the opposite from the Liberals and the second opposition party, in fact. They used to say that the Conservatives were too tough on criminals. It boggles the mind that the member opposite would try to paint the former Conservative government as anything but extremely tough on crime.

Unlike the current Liberal government, the former Conservative government—which will be back on the other side of the House in two years—protected victims, was tough on crime, ensured that justice was done and did not simply use buzzwords to pander to the public. I will never let anyone say that the Conservatives do not believe in equal justice for all. Let us keep our roads safe, forget about legalizing marijuana for now and educate the public and our young people about the harmful effects of this drug.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Victoriaville on his excellent speech and his commitment to public safety. We have been debating two complementary bills for two days now.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-46 on drug-impaired driving. We know that drunk driving is a major problem in Canada. It is the leading criminal cause of death. Now, because of the Liberals' improvised approach, drugs are going to be added to the mix. The government is improvising.

Unfortunately, my speech may serve to fuel Canadians' cynicism. I would like to talk this evening about Bill C-46, about what is contained in this bill, what is missing from it, and what is needed. I would also like to talk about a bill that was introduced in the House and even went to committee but that was unfortunately gutted by the Liberals, who came up with a watered-down version of a law that is supposed to protect innocent victims from repeat drunk drivers and people who cause fatal accidents while under the influence of alcohol.

We had a robust bill that we introduced in the House, one that could have already made it to the Senate by now and could have received royal assent in order to save lives now. Instead, we are stuck debating this bill that unfortunately has some serious flaws, which I want to point out.

First of all, what is in the bill? In the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, where I am from, an excellent MP, Claude Lachance, had a remarkable career. He said that, in opposition, it is our job to try to find what is positive in what the government brings forward.

One measure proposed by the government is called routine screening. This measure gives police officers the ability to ask an individual behind the wheel to submit to a blood alcohol test to screen for alcohol. This measure will save lives. This has been said many times in the House over the past few hours, and for the past few days, but particularly during the debate on Bill C-226. I have had the opportunity to say it myself. Routine screening is a measure that apparently has proven itself in many countries, for decades now, and it does save lives.

The government has been asked if this measure is constitutional. Unfortunately, the answers I have heard today have been evasive. Even so, it is one of the three pillars of an effective policy to reduce the number of accidents caused by impaired driving.

The second pillar has to do with the increasingly burdensome legal proceedings we have been seeing in recent years. Legal proceedings are interfering with the application of justice. I am not talking about the Jordan decision. I am talking about the last drink and intervening drink defences. The bill covers these issues to protect against abuse of process by drunk drivers. These are useful parts of the bill that would speed up proceedings and bring people caught driving while impaired to justice.

Now that I have mentioned two useful parts of the bill, I want to make an important point about how, if we want to tackle impaired driving successfully, the key is to make sure drivers know the police can stop them. Roadblocks are not working very well, which is why impaired driving still causes so many deaths.

An important provision not found in this bill, is one that would impose minimum sentences, or deterrent sentences. There is a consensus in the House that impaired driving is unacceptable in Canada, especially in the case of repeat offenders, who are a danger to society. We have to protect these people from themselves because quite often they have addictions and put the lives of innocent people at risk.

Members will recall the organization Families For Justice founded by Markita Kaulius, who lost her daughter. I want to recognize her, and I think of her in the context of safety and impaired driving. These victims and their families are asking elected members to send a clear message: it is unacceptable to drive while impaired, and repeat offenders must be kept behind bars. All too often, these accidents that cause irreparable harm are the fault of individuals who have been impaired before. This bill does not include any measures providing for a minimum sentence, a tool that the previous Liberal government did not hesitate to use.

Even the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister, approved of the use of minimum sentencing for bills on impaired driving. However, once again, the Liberals make promises and then, when it comes time to act, they give us half-measures. That is the case with the bill before us today. It contains measures regarding routine screening and speeding up the court process, but it has one major flaw. It does not contain any minimum sentences.

There is one thing that will certainly raise some eyebrows among those who are listening to us this evening. Our colleagues opposite had the chance to vote on the measures set out in the bill. Just a few weeks ago, the member for Montarville said that there was a flaw in Bill C-226. He said:

...the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

He ended by saying that the government was going to come back with its own bill. Well, today, we have before us a bill that does not contain any coherent measures regarding an education and awareness campaign. We are talking about impaired driving, but everyone here knows that this issue is related to the legalization of marijuana. The government is introducing two major bills, but it is allocating very little funding to one of the biggest societal changes that Canada is facing and that will have unbelievable social costs. It is also not adopting any awareness measures. This government’s botched bill is leading us to disaster.

Lastly, I will add that another flaw of this bill is the lack of consecutive sentencing provisions. If a repeat drunk driving offender kills three people, the government does not want to impose consecutive sentences for that crime.

These are all flaws in the bill. It falls short on so many fronts that I fear it will not be possible to amend it in committee. It is so full of holes, it looks like Swiss cheese. The government could have done much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and also for bringing forward Bill C-226, a private member's bill that presented a number of very significant and important advances in dealing properly with impaired driving that the government took very seriously. As the member knows, I supported the bill at second reading and it went to the public safety committee, but, unfortunately, upon further examination of it and testimony from expert witnesses at committee, it was found to be flawed in many respects. It came back to the House and was not successful at third reading.

I hope the member is encouraged by the fact that many of the issues he attempted to address in his private member's bill, such as the various loophole-type defences, the bolus drinking defence, the intervening drinking defence, the St-Onge Lamoureux matter, the clarification of blood alcohol concentration presumptions, and the introduction of a system whereby the police would be able to demand and require mandatory roadside alcohol screening are all very important innovations.

I would agree with the member that after the passage of this bill, we should make sure that the public is well aware of the consequences, because the great benefit from those measures is in prevention. It is not merely in catching, detecting, and incarcerating individuals, but through saving lives.

I would also point out to the member that Bill C-46, as presented, does in fact contain minimum penalties for impaired driving. For example, I would bring to his attention proposed section 320.15, which allows for a maximum penalty of 10 years, exactly as in his bill, a minimum fine on first offence of $2,000, on second offence 30 days, and on third and subsequent offences 120 days. I would ask the member to comment on whether he believes that the measures contained in this bill would achieve what he sought to achieve through his private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for the question.

The member is a former well-respected chief of police. I had the chance to get to know him when I was Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when we honoured police and peace officers who have fallen in the line of duty during a ceremony held right here in front of the Parliament buildings.

Far be it from me to question the member's dedication to public safety. I thank him for the support he has given my private member's bill, that the Liberals unfortunately killed. He recognizes that major components of my bill are included in this bill, but in an incomplete fashion.

I also want to mention that not only is there no consecutive sentencing, but there is also the issue of testing. That is why I would have liked my bill to have been amended instead of being so casually shot down. There is another flaw in the bill. We have routine screening for alcohol-impaired driving, but what about drug-impaired driving? Again, we have reasonable doubts. People will be more at risk of being hit by repeat drug-impaired driving offenders.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was involved with impaired drivers—and I am dating myself—going back to about 1968. When the impaired driving laws changed, the breathalyzer came out. We went through an era of almost 10 years of case law. Everybody thought of every excuse. I read this new bill and I have some concerns, a couple of which go back to old experiences.

The bill talks about a roadside screening device for drugs, but there is nothing approved. I want to ask the member how he can see bringing this into law, which the government is proposing to do next year, when we do not have the proper tools available.

Also, blood alcohol tests are done with impaired driving, and if a person is a chronic drinker, he could build it up for two or three days. If he stopped drinking, it would decrease, but with drugs, the THC levels remain in the body for a long time. Theoretically, a person could have smoked five or six joints the week before, then smoke one joint a week later and get pulled over. If police officers are using the screening device the government is talking about, which still is not approved, how can they say that person is impaired? The person may not be impaired at that particular time.

I would ask the member to comment. I think the government is jumping the gun before it has the right tools.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's comment is down to earth, and shows how almost improvised the Liberal approach is in providing the device to our police officers so they can effectively enforce the proposed law.

I want to thank the member. We are privileged to have people who have served the country as police officers and who are involved in the debate, which is so critical to keeping Canadians safe. I want to recognize my colleague's great experience.

Not only will police officers not have the device, but there is no prevention in the bill. That is a big hole. Again, this shows the government is rushing through a disaster, and that is unfortunate because Canadian lives are at stake.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening 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. This bill was introduced in conjunction with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, and aims to update Canada's impaired driving laws.

Updates to these laws are welcomed and there is unfortunately much to be improved on in Canada regarding impaired driving. Over the past three decades, all provinces have seen significant decreases in their impaired driving rates.

For a significant majority of Canadians, a group that is growing larger each year, gone are the days when drinking and driving was totally socially acceptable or even something that was excusable once in a while. This has been a very important shift in culture that has saved countless lives.

The year 2015 marked the lowest rates of impaired driving incidents since data on this had been collected, starting in 1986. Since 1986, incidents have decreased by 65%, with a 4% drop from 2014 to 2015. However, there is still work to be done. In 2015, police reported 72,039 impaired driving incidents, representing a rate of 201 incidents per 10,000 of population. This is significant.

Impaired driving is still one of the leading causes of criminal death in Canada, and Canada continues to have one of the worst impaired driving records in the OECD. It is clear that we need to keep making progress on this front.

Criminal penalties for impaired driving, while an important component of restorative justice as a signal that our society condemns a behaviour and as a deterrent from committing an act, will not alone prevent a behaviour from occurring.

Simply put, if someone is being charged with an impaired driving offence, the damage is already done. In the worst situations, it means an innocent life has already been lost. Once someone is impaired, be it due to illegal drugs, legal narcotics, or alcohol, it represents a failure in our duty to properly educate the public about the dangers of this behaviour.

Given that government is moving forward with legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, now is a crucially important time to embark on public outreach, awareness, and education programs to inform Canadians. Canadians need to be informed, not just about legalization, not just about new criminal sentences for this or that, but about what constitutes impairment, what the dangers of impairment driving are, and alternatives to impaired driving.

The NDP, from the outset of this initiative, has been calling on the government to take the lead on public awareness campaigns that promote deterrence before anyone gets behind the wheel. The statistics show that campaigns and programs like these have resulted in a decline inn alcohol-related incidents, so these efforts should be continued and expanded, given the current context.

The campaigns have helped Canadian contextualize impaired driving to understand it better for themselves and to intervene when others might be about to engage in it. Education as simple as one glass of wine has a similar amount of alcohol as one beer and one shot helps dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings of impairment.

Unfortunately, thus far, the government has not held that leadership role in helping contextualize what constitutes what constitutes drug impairment. In fact, the government has shown a lack of leadership by leaving the legal limits up to regulation to be set later.

The government has made recommendations around two nanograms, five nanograms, and a hybrid offence for those with alcohol and drugs in their system, but these are not set. It has also not taken the lead on explaining to Canadians how a person reaches those levels of impairment, for how long they can expect to be impaired, and other important aspects of conceptualizing this new legal landscape.

It also is not clear that the limits suggested will not result in the arrest of individuals who are not impaired. The Canadian Medical Association has stated, “A clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who use marijuana and drive absolutely needs to be in place nationally prior to legalization.”

This is because, like alcohol, consumption method, consumption frequency, and personal metabolism can impact the level of impairment. Some experts are questioning using nanograms as a result. We need to ensure we are making evidence-based decisions, decisions based on science.

Canadians need to be able to make informed decisions. In the absence of information, there will be misinformation, and that would be a serious failure on the government's initiative should that occur.

The goal should be to create the social conditions where the criminal penalties being brought in by Bill C-46 are used as little as possible. People are not getting behind the wheel in the first place.

Like my other colleagues who have spoken on the bill, I am supportive of updating our impaired driving laws to reflect the changing realities and severity of these offences. However, like my colleagues, I am concerned with striking the correct balance regarding the civil liberties of Canadians.

Civil liberties groups and the legal community have expressed serious concern about the removal of the need for reasonable suspicion to conduct a roadside breath or saliva test. The concern stems not only from the potential infringement on civil liberties, but also that it will be disproportionately applied to certain visible minority groups.

It has been spoken about in the House that random and mandatory breath tests for alcohol screening could be challenged under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It has also been mentioned that it could be challenged under section 9, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has stated quite clearly in the past on mandatory breath testing that “Giving police power to act on a whim is not something we want in an open democratic society.”

It is my hope that at the committee stage the government takes the study of the bill very seriously. It will be imperative to hear from civil liberty experts, constitutional law experts, and health care experts. We need to understand the science of the testing. We need to ensure there is a robust educational program for Canadians so they know about this law, they know and learn about what the consequences are so they are responsible for their actions.

I sincerely hope the government will be open to amendments, even significant ones, should the evidence suggest that they are needed. This is simply too important to get wrong.

There are the outstanding questions.

Earlier I asked about the possibility of someone being in a room where there was a lot of marijuana smoking and whether that could get into the person's bloodstream even though that person was not actively smoking marijuana. In those cases, how would that be dealt with? Do we have the science in place to ensure people are protected in those circumstances?

With alcohol, for example, we have designated drivers. If people are in a crowd with people who are drinking but they are not, they will not be impacted. However, it may not be the case with marijuana.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, the NDP health critic, raised some very critical questions, particularly for those who would use medicinal marijuana. When they consume the substance, and some of them may have to consume a lot because of a medical condition, what does that mean for them with respect to these implications? The THC could be stored in their bodies for an extended period. It theoretically could be the case that they did not smoke while driving. How would that be dealt with and are what are the implications? Does it mean in those instances they would still be liable?

There needs to be a lot of clarification with respect to that and there needs to be public education. People need to know and understand that. People in the medical community who are prescribing medicinal marijuana need to let the patients know the risks and what impairment might mean.

I am, at this stage, not sure where the science is. There are a lot of questions out there. The science has to be solid as we move forward.

Finally, we do not ever want to see tragedies. We do not want to see anyone's life lost because someone was behind the wheel impaired, whether it be from alcohol or any other substance. That has to be paramount. We have to move forward to bring in laws to ensure that it takes place through education, through enforcement, and most important of all, through our own self-imposed responsibility for our own actions. People need to be clear about what those laws are so that they can make sure they do not do what is so wrong. Once it is done, they cannot take it back.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is likely aware that the government has already committed to a public education campaign focused on young people. In fact, in the last budget, which the member across the way voted against, there was an allocation of over $9 million to do just that.

My question is related to the member's last statement. We do not have any desire whatsoever to see individuals behind the wheel who, whether from cannabis or drinking, are not in the proper condition to do that. Sadly, it happens, and the best way to combat it is to have good, solid legislation. This is solid legislation.

The member asked about amendments. If there are good amendments, I would encourage the member not to wait until committee. If she already has some amendments she wants to share, nothing prevents the member from doing that now.

We are a government that is providing good legislation, but we also have to work with stakeholders. Provinces play an important role. Municipalities play an important role. Would the member not agree that the best way to deal with the issue is to also work with our stakeholders?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on education, I have heard over and over again, from previous governments and from the current government, about education. The reality is that there is still drinking and driving and impairment out there. People are still being killed as a result of that. Now we are charting new territory, so it is absolutely imperative. I am glad there is some money set aside, particularly for youth, but I would say it should not be just for youth but for all Canadians. There is a real question about whether there are sufficient resources in place to make sure that education is effective on the ground so people have that information.

In terms of working with stakeholders, of course we should be working with all sorts of stakeholders—municipal governments, provincial governments, community groups, civil liberty associations, and constitutional experts, among others—to make sure that this legislation is done right. Nobody wants to see an unnecessary death, so yes, let us get on with it. I am glad to hear from the member that the government is open to amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the consequences of the legalization of marijuana is that there are going to be more people using marijuana and therefore more drug-impaired drivers. What that means is more injuries, more deaths, and more carnage on our roads. It is precisely the reason the marijuana task force recommended a comprehensive national public education campaign.

Maybe I should not be, but I was rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader talked about $9 million in funding in the budget. That is $9 million over five years. I would remind the hon. member that it is a pittance compared to the State of Colorado, which is approximately the size of the member's home province of British Columbia, which has spent tens of millions of dollars in a single year. I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on the lack of support and the lack of a plan from the current government when it comes to prevention and education.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out that there is no evidence that decriminalization would increase use. We actually do not know that, and there is no evidence to indicate that. I would love to see evidence, if the member has it to share with all members of the House.

That being said, there is no question that we need to have a robust program based on what I call a four-pillars approach. It is an approach that deals with prevention, enforcement, harm reduction, and treatment. There is no question that it is absolutely necessary when we are dealing with addiction issues. I know that very well in my own community of Vancouver East. All of that is essential.

We have not had enough resources invested, not by the Conservative government, not by this government, not by any government, for that matter. We had better understand that human lives are at stake. Mental health is tied into this issue as well. We have many people in our community who are dual diagnosed, and they end up in the community using drugs and being preyed upon.

Where is the mental health program? Where is the housing program? Where are the social determinants of health in determining the support that is so necessary for the people in need?

I call for all members of the House to step up and support a robust program and invest in it so we can get on with dealing with critical issues in my community and in every community across the country.