Debates of May 31st, 2017

Criminal Code

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her concern and for her idea that this only be allowed to be used in homes. I do not think that is a reference to the medical consumption of marijuana. As I said in my earlier remarks, if we are naive enough today to think we can keep it in homes, or people are not already intoxicated, or have imbibed, or have already consumed marijuana, or are in vehicles, we are kidding ourselves.

While it may be a decent suggestion, it is not practical once we have licensed it. It becomes much more wide open than that. It becomes much more of an opportunity for people to use it in an illegal manner than what they may even do with alcohol today. Just because we have had those laws, the police are still picking up people who are impaired. I believe we will not just have the same number that we are picking up today for illegal use of drugs, but we will have many more of them if we license it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his reflections on those who have lost loved ones. It is a terrible tragedy in our society that so many people have either lost their lives or have had their lives irrevocably and traumatically changed as a result of the criminal actions of an impaired driver. I think we all share a common goal of making our roadways safe and doing what is necessary and right, under our constitution and within our laws, ensuring we do that. I am grateful for the member's comment.

I also want to assure the member and ask him if he thinks this will be of some assistance. He indicated that there was a legitimate concern in municipalities across the country, and I come from a municipality myself, about having adequate resources to do the job we ask them to do. I want to assure him of our government's commitment to ensure that law enforcement and our courts have the legislation, the technology, the training and the resources they need to do the job we ask them to do.

The bill provides that legislation and those authorities, but we also recognize those municipalities will need some assistance to ensure they have access to the technology, that their police officers have access to the training they will need, as both drug recognition experts and to use this device, and ensure the resources are there.

This is a commitment the entire country shares. I want to provide the member with that assurance and ask him if he agrees me that this is a very important commitment we make.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his assurances that it is in the bill, that they will be looking at the costs to municipalities, police forces, and others. The Liberals have not assured the police societies of Canada yet that the bill will do that. There are many questions left outstanding in the public.

With regard to the costs, stopping people on the highway for a breathalyzer test costs very little for the equipment to be reused. Costs for swabs for drug testing, which are not even proven yet, are in the range of $20 to $40 per stop, as opposed to cents on the dollar. The indication that they will bear this costs from their operations budgets is pretty tremendous. In the situation with which I am familiar, it would consume all of what they presently use for their training purposes just to train enough people to handle drug testing.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-46, regarding driving while under the influence of cannabis or alcohol.

I do not disagree with Bill C-46, quite the contrary. No one here opposes the broader value of protecting drivers and our children. There are still too many deaths caused by drunk drivers, and much remains unknown about cannabis. However, we cannot talk about Bill C-46 without first talking about Bill C-45 on the legalization of cannabis.

With the bill to legalize cannabis, the government is trying to shift the responsibility to the provinces. If we want to give effect to Bill C-45, then we also have to give the provinces a framework that would allow them to adapt to Bill C-46. We need to put structures in place to help our police officers, those who are on the roads, those who have to drive, or those who have to arrest people who are under the influence of alcohol or cannabis.

In my mind, Bill C-46 is full of holes and does not go far enough to establish a strong framework because not everything is defined in Bill C-45. Everything is downloaded, as we say, to the provinces, which must do everything themselves. Unfortunately, they will not have the time to adust because they will have only one year to prepare for the legalization of cannabis and the implementation of Bill C-46 on driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis.

This leads me to say that there is no mention of prevention in Bill C-45, and yet we will need information and prevention because driving under the influence of cannabis or any other drug is a big unknown. The support of all members of the House is contingent upon having a framework that protects our children, relatives, and friends so that they are not taken from us by irresponsible drivers. We need a coherent law.

Bill C-46 follows Bill C-45. If we want to legalize marijuana, we must ensure that Bill C-46 provides a much stronger framework to help our cities, police officers, and the people who work with the victims of traffic accidents. We do not see this in Bill C-46 or in Bill C-45.

Furthermore, Bill C-45 is a botched bill. The Liberals did not consider the ideas of those who work with people who have are addicted to alcohol or drugs such as cannabis. Everyone in the House knows someone, either a family member or a friend, who abuses cannabis. I believe that Bill C-46 needs to be fleshed out.

Our police officers need a little more support, and I am not just talking about money. Everyone involved needs education.

There have been shock advertising campaigns about drunk driving in Quebec. The ads did not stop people from drinking, but they did make people a little more informed. Now people call a cab or have a designated driver. We should do the same for cannabis.

We cannot talk about Bill C-46 without also talking about Bill C-45, which comes before Bill C-46. I will be voting to send it to committee, but it needs more teeth and it needs to be totally unassailable because Bill C-45 is an empty shell. The government is handing things over to the provinces, and they have to figure out how to deal with it. This is where the bill was drafted, and this is where we need to give it more teeth.

Personally, I think that the coming-into-force date for Bill C-45, 2018, is unrealistic. That is way too soon for the provinces, and it is way too soon considering all the conversations that need to happen with municipalities. How is the government going to make sure that the message in Bill C-46 gets to the municipalities, the provinces, the decision-makers, the organizations, the police officers, and everyone else involved in the day-to-day implementation of this bill? We must never forget that we are here to protect Canadians.

On this side of the House, we want to protect Canadians, and we want to make sure that the bills we pass contain all the necessary provisions, which is not the case with Bill C-45. I think that is what all parliamentarians think of these two bills. If we want to pass Bill C-46, Bill C-45 must have more teeth. Bill C-46 needs to establish structures that will help support and protect our drivers, our children, our parents, and people who work with individuals arrested for impaired driving. We also need to ensure that the right elements are in the right place. We need to ensure that any devices used to detect alcohol or cannabis are very sophisticated. Still today, breathalyzers are not 100% accurate.

I would like Bill C-46 to have more teeth, because it is missing an important element from Bill C-45, that is, ensuring that everyone affected by legalizing cannabis has all the resources needed to ensure that this legislation is rock solid. One year is far to soon for the municipalities and for everyone involved in enforcing this bill.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned in her presentation, rural areas still do not have access to all health services, which would undoubtedly be useful for blood analysis. Some of these communities are quite remote.

My colleague is quite right in saying that municipalities will have to cover most of the cost and there is little or no provision in the bill especially for public education and information.

The bill provides for $9 million over five years, which is less than $2 million a year. That is totally ridiculous given the size of our country. We are not talking about just the province of Quebec, but of the entire country.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the ridiculous amount allocated to training and information.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Nine million dollars is very little when it comes to implementing structures in rural areas. We are a big country. We can agree that cities such as Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, and Vancouver have the necessary structures in place. Very remote rural areas such as Baie-Sainte-Catherine and La Malbaie are going to need money. Nine million dollars over five years will not be enough. That is equivalent to less than $1 a day per citizen.

I sincerely believe that if we want structures to be put in place for Bill C-45, we must give municipalities and the provinces the financial means to do so.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I quoted the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who said that this piece of legislation was much needed and very positive. The association also said that in the past it had made requests to have the driving provisions in the Criminal Code modernized and that this piece of legislation does that, and it also supports mandatory alcohol screening and the elimination of common loopholes. These individuals are on the front lines of our streets looking after individuals in our communities. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said that this piece of legislation is strong. I wonder what my hon. colleague has to say in response to the police chiefs.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am not saying that the bill is no good. I am saying that it does not do enough. It does not give enough resources where it should. Five years ago, no one was considering legalizing cannabis. We cannot talk about Bill C-46 without also talking about Bill C-45 on the legalization of cannabis. No one was talking about legalizing cannabis five years ago. We were talking about decriminalizing it but not legalizing it.

Now that we have this bill to legalize marijuana in front of us, we need to give police the resources they need. We need to give them the funding they need to do their job. Everyone in the House agrees that we need legislation to protect people from impaired drivers and above all to equip those who will have to arrest impaired drivers, as well as hospitals. We are not against virtue.

What I am saying is that Bill C-46 should be sent back to committee where we can give it more teeth so that all parliamentarians are satisfied with it.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in this place and represent the constituents of Saskatoon—Grasswood. Today, we are debating the merits and, more important maybe, the lack of merits of Bill C-46. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, in other words driving under the influence of drugs, notably marijuana. This is a topic unto its own and cannot be discussed without reference to the accompanying legislation, Bill C-45, which seeks to make the use of cannabis legal in Canada. Both pieces of legislation actually go hand in hand. In fact, if it were not for the introduction of Bill C-45, we would have no need really for Bill C-46, but here we are tonight debating this.

We have talked for many hours in the House about the bill, and I should note tonight that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, during her introduction of Bill C-46, made a reference. She made a reference to a Saskatoon family, the Van de Vorst family. I am going to give some background on the members of this family. They suffered a devastating loss of four family members at the hands of an impaired driver.

The date was January 3, 2016. Many in my city of Saskatoon call this the worst accident in the history of Saskatoon. I wonder tonight if the Minister of Justice knows or appreciates the devastation that this family has gone through in the last year and a half. I do, because this past February I phoned the Van de Vorst family. The family has been on the front page of my newspaper in Saskatoon for the last year and a half. It was one of the toughest phone calls I have had to make. I made the phone call because I knew the mom, Linda. The father, Louis, I did not know. They lost their son Jordan along with their daughter-in-law and two grandchildren.

I felt that as a member of Parliament I needed to make the call and I did. It was not in my riding. They live in the northern part of the riding. It could be Saskatoon—University or it could be Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I had to make that call and I made the call this past February. It was 13 months after the accident on January 3, 2016. They were shaken because the person charged was moved to a healing lodge less than a year after killing four members of their family.

I and the Van de Vorst family sat around the kitchen table. I was there at 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning. There was a phone call to the house while I was at the kitchen table with Linda and Louis. I said, “Go ahead, answer the phone”. She answered the phone. There was nobody on the end of the phone line. She said, “Hello,” but there was no answer so she hung up. We went on talking about the case. They had lost four family members. About half an hour later the doorbell rang. Unknown to Linda, a man had been driving around their neighbourhood for the last year trying to get up the courage to knock on the door or phone the family to say, “On January 3, 2016, I saw your son, I saw your daughter-in-law, and I saw your grandchildren having so much fun at a hockey rink outside in Saskatoon”.

This man spent 13 months driving around their house. It took him 13 months to ring the doorbell. He did not know the family. I just happened to be there. This was not staged. Linda went out to the porch and talked to this man for half an hour. They wept. This man had pictures of her family because they were at a skating rink that day, January 3, 2016, and less than 12 hours later all four members of that family were killed because the person charged with their deaths was three times over the limit of alcohol. This was one of the most emotional mornings I have ever had.

This person did not know the family, but he spent 13 months driving around that house, getting enough courage to ring the doorbell to say, “I care.” This is what the communities in this country are going to experience with the bill. There are going to be other families. I just happened to be at this household at this time.

In the province of Saskatchewan, believe me, we have a horrific record of accidents due to alcohol. Because of this accident that occurred in 2016, there are tougher impaired driving laws in Saskatchewan. As I said earlier, we cannot discuss one bill without bringing the other bill, the driving force, into the discussion.

Let us go back to the expert task force and its objectives in studying this issue. I keep hearing the same refrain in reference to this legislation: it will be “keeping marijuana out of the hands of children” and it will “keep profits out of the hands of criminals”. Do we really believe that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would ask the hon. member to hold for a second. I am starting to have a hard time hearing the member. It is nice to hear everybody talking together, but if you do not mind, if you have something to talk, about you can go to the lobby or maybe listen to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish some of the members across from me had been with me at that house on that morning on February 3. This is a true story.

The legal age for consuming alcohol does not keep alcohol out of the hands of children. It simply means it is a bit more difficult to get, but it does not keep it out of the hands of children or young adults who actually want to consume it. By the same token, criminals will always have a market for illegal marijuana, and in fact it will, I believe, make underage youth more of a target for them.

Another objective from the task force is to “reduce the burdens on police and the justice system associated with simple possession of marijuana offences”. We will replace those burdens with the burden of producing an additional 1,165 drug recognition experts, bringing the numbers up to what is actually required today. In fact, in the province of Ontario, that number falls well short, and it is the shortest list in all of Canada.

Another objective is to “ensure Canadians are well-informed through sustained and appropriate public health campaigns, and for youth in particular, ensure that risks are understood.” We are only 13 months out from this legislation becoming law, and I have yet to see any kind of campaign or even hear of one being planned. Where is the plan? I have been in many high schools in Saskatoon. I have talked to students in grade nine, grade 10, grade 11, and in grade 12. These are the same students who are going to graduate a month from now. There is no prevention plan, no education or dialogue with the school boards in this country, the ones who will probably have to talk about this in every classroom in this country. Not one word has gone out to any education system in this country about the bill, yet this is the government of consultation. We hear that every day in the House. Who are they consulting? Where are they talking to school boards in this country about bringing this education into the classrooms where it should start?

There is no consultation. We are only 13 months away, and there is no national plan. We hear that there is a device out there, but it is not approved. We have also heard discussion tonight about who pays for this. The Liberals put together $9 million over five years, and they have some money, yet the municipalities are worried about this. I talked to my mayor and I talked to the Attorney General in Saskatchewan, and they have no idea where this is going. We are 13 months away, and there still are big questions.

As we talk about this tonight, we are on the heels of the report of the task force on marijuana legislation, and there are some serious concerns being raised throughout this country, especially by the Canadian Automobile Association. It says urgent work is needed in order to implement a system to keep Canadians safe on the road.

I experienced hell in February when I went to that house, but I also experienced education, and I am worried that the rest of Canadians, who need the education, are not going to get it in time.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, let me extend my condolences to the family he referenced. It is a terrible story. I am glad he took time to be with that grieving family. I think anyone in the House would share our sentiments that what they went through was a nightmare we would not wish visited upon anyone.

The problem we have in the country is that existing policies as they relate to cannabis have been wholly ineffective. The rate of use of cannabis among the younger cohort, those under 24 years of age, is around 20%. That is double what tobacco is, yet tobacco is legal.

I was formerly head of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. The strategies it used for tobacco was to de-normalize it, to go after it, to have public education, and to do so in partnership with government. That is a good strategy for trying to reduce harm.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that when we look at folks who are driving right now, we have no regime. There is that incredibly high prevalence rate among young people, which is over 20%, and those young people are driving right now, and we have no mechanism to help police identify when they are impaired or charge them.

Does he not see, given the fact that the status quo has been such an abysmal and abject failure, that this family, and every family, deserves good, sound policy?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have spent probably 20 years in our country telling people smoking is not good for them. We have had ad campaigns for the last decade telling people about the effects of smoking, yet we are bringing this bill forward. We have not educated anyone in the country about marijuana. It is amazing, because second-hand smoke really was not realized until five or six years ago, and now we are bringing in this bill on marijuana, and we have not linked the two, smoking and marijuana, along with alcohol.

Yes, this is a serious bill. I appreciate the member from Ajax, but he must know that we have to start in schools, with our education system, and no one has done that. No one on the government side has thought about who we are trying to prevent from using marijuana. They are the ones who are driving vehicles at 16 and 17 years of age.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, for his impassioned speech. He is absolutely right about the need for education and awareness.

We know that with the legalization of marijuana, more people are going to be impaired. More people are going to be injured and die on the roads. The member for Vancouver East challenged me when I made that assertion, but one can look at the statistics in the State of Colorado, where there was a 62% increase in motor vehicle deaths involving drug impairment in the first year of the legalization of marijuana.

The government has boasted about $9.6 million. That is only over five years. That is a pittance. That is inadequate. I wonder if the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood could comment on that.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. He is right on. Years ago, when Colorado started this marijuana mission, the state put tens of millions of dollars into educating people about marijuana. We do not even have $10 million over five years. That is a major concern.

However, let us talk about prevention, because that is our health care. No one has talked about it on that side. How do we prevent kids from taking marijuana? How do we educate them? No one has done that. I know, because I have talked to the Canadian School Boards Association, and no one from the government has stepped forward and had a plan.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to deliver my first speech in the House of Commons. I am honoured to use this opportunity to address Bill C-46, which deals with offences and procedures related to impaired driving for both cannabis and alcohol.

The Minister of Justice tabled this legislation proposing that it would help address the problem of impaired driving, which we all agree is a serious issue, especially given the Liberals' misguided decision to legalize marijuana. However, in my opinion, they missed the mark.

I stand before the House tonight to express my views and the views of my constituents of Calgary Midnapore regarding this bill.

While the Liberals have proposed some good suggestions, this bill is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. As is, the bill is poorly structured. It fails to consider the significant issues that matter to Canadians, the issues that we ought to consider in an effort to keep Canadians safe.

In discussing the bill, we need to consider some very relevant details. Impaired driving remains one of the most frequent and deadly criminal offences. In fact, it is among the leading criminal causes of death right here in Canada. Each year, roughly 1,500 Canadians are killed by impaired driving and another 63,000 are injured in impairment-related crashes. This is no small matter.

The Liberal government's marijuana task force made a couple of key recommendations. It recommended extensive impaired driving education and awareness campaigns before the drug's legalization. Canada and our legal system are experiencing a changing political landscape. We must be careful not to make policy changes before we carefully consider any implied consequences.

Let us look to our neighbours in the south for the consequences which they have faced. The Globe and Mail reported that two states in the U.S. that have introduced recreational marijuana sales have seen a significant increase in the proportion of fatal accidents. This sets a very dangerous precedent we should be careful not to follow.

The task force also indicated research shows that youth underestimate the risks of cannabis abuse. Young Canadians are the future of our country. We do not want them causing harm to other Canadians. We certainly do not want them causing harm to themselves, and we certainly need to ensure the lives of young Canadians, or any Canadians for that matter, are not being put at risk.

Let me be clear. As a Conservative, I strongly condemn impaired driving of any kind. Impaired driving caused by alcohol consumption or drug use has no place on the streets of our country. I do not want that anywhere my young son and his friends play, and I do not want that in any of the neighbourhoods of Calgary Midnapore.

The Conservative Party supports measures that protect Canadians from impaired drivers. Mandatory fines and higher maximum penalties send a strong message that Canadians will not tolerate impaired driving. We need to be tough on crime. I support measures that deter and reduce incidences of impaired driving, but I cannot support the bill in its current form. The bill has multiple glaring flaws which must be addressed before we can even consider passing it through the House.

First, the bill compromises the safety of every single Canadian who uses a vehicle to commute. As I have stated, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Marijuana-impaired driving is yet another red flag about this legislation. Recreational marijuana use is illegal today, but we know the Liberals' agenda to legalize marijuana. I suspect that the Liberals are recklessly trying to rush through this legislation in order to make it easier to pass their legislation legalizing recreational marijuana. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Thousands of lives will be at risk if we allow this to pass. The safety of our citizens is my top concern. Let us please put safety ahead of recreation.

Second, this bill would do nothing to help deter impaired driving. As we know, not only do strong penalties deter criminal activity, but they also limit the potential for criminals to reoffend. However, the bill would actually give first-time offenders a break by reducing wait times to get their keys back and drive once again.

Third, the wording of the bill is incredibly unclear. Bill C-46 would enable law enforcement officers to conduct impairment tests using roadside oral fluid drug screeners, if they reasonably suspected that drivers had drugs in their body. How do we define reasonable? Is it the way someone drives, the smell of his or her breath, or his or her ability to articulate words? The government has failed to define what is and what is not reasonable. This leaves ambiguity for impaired drivers who can evade unsuspecting officers, and for officers to unlawfully violate the rights of law-abiding drivers.

This brings me to my final point.

In its current form, Bill C-46 is an infringement on the rights of Canadians. The bill would implement mandatory alcohol screening. This is a fundamental violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: innocent until proven guilty; the presumption of innocence. Mandatory alcohol screening shifts the burden of proof away from the crown, and toward the individual. This part of the legislation would likely face a charter challenge. Even if not, it is a very invasive practice of the state on an individual without justified reason. We, as representatives of our constituents, need to be awfully sure no legislation that the House passes is an infringement on the rights of Canadians. I fear the government has overlooked this fundamental freedom.

The House must consider three additional factors before proceeding with Bill C-46. I recommend a more cautious and evidence-based approach.

First, let us make the right decisions instead of making fast decisions. The Liberals want to rush these drug bills through Parliament by July 2018. This hurried timeline is unrealistic and puts the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Law enforcement has not been provided the resources or training required to deal with the increased threat of impaired driving associated with the legalization of marijuana.

Second, let us do a better job of consulting with the relevant stakeholders. Jeff Walker, the vice-president of the Canadian Automobile Association, said that legalization of marijuana should not be rushed and that educational campaigns and greater funding for law enforcement should be the immediate priorities.

I also want to point out that former Liberal minister of justice and health, the Hon. Anne McLellan who chaired the Liberal government's marijuana task force, said that the best solution was to give researchers additional time to develop proper detection tools. Let us listen to the experts.

Third, more education is crucial. My colleagues and I are concerned that the government has not developed effective campaigns to inform Canadians how dangerous it is to drive while under the influence of marijuana. Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have done an excellent job of helping Canadians understand the risks of drunk driving. However, Canadians must better understand the dangers of all types of impaired driving. This education needs to happen before legalizing marijuana.

The Liberal government has done little to deal with this. Instead, the Liberals propose high mandatory fines and maximum penalties for Canadians who may not fully understand the risks of driving under the influence of marijuana. If we can ensure the safety of Canadians by proactively educating instead of retroactively penalizing, then we can save the lives of Canadians. That is the avenue we have to focus on first.

It is for these reasons I cannot support Bill C-46.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome our new colleague from Calgary Midnapore to the House of Commons, and I congratulate her on her first speech.

I am a little puzzled by the hon. member's stating that the law is too strict in terms of mandatory screening and not strong enough in terms of deterrence. Mandatory screening was part of Bill C-226, which was a private member's bill brought by the hon. member forLévis—Lotbinière, which was supported by the entire Conservative caucus. This bill requires mandatory screening only to be done in the context of a lawful stop. That was was not the case in Bill C-226, which made it constitutionally much more challengeable than this bill. Why does the hon. member feel that mandatory screening, which should protect us by allowing more people to be screened, is a bad idea?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my previous colleague indicated, one certainly cannot reference Bill C-46 without giving thought to Bill C-45. I served as a diplomat for many years in many developing nations, including Latin American nations and particularly El Salvador, where I worked tirelessly for years fighting against narcotics, which of course is one of the major tenets of the western world.

I am also concerned that again we are not listening to experts in regard to Bill C-46. We have also seen this recently in the evaluation of moving the NEB out of Calgary, where we are moving away from the expert base. It is very important that we listen to experts in both of these regards.

Finally, I go back to my point about education, which is very important. The lack of education we see in regard to impaired driving is just the tip of the iceberg. We also need to think of the education that will be required in the workplaces should Bill C-45 be implemented. I think of the oil fields, the oil sands, the industrial heartland of Alberta. These things are very important.

On many fronts I am very concerned about Bill C-46.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her maiden speech in this House. We have heard a lot of profound commentary in this House tonight, so as we near the end of the night, I would like to ask a lighter question.

The Liberals have not been clear on the revenue side of the equation, on how they will tax cannabis. Does my hon. friend think that the imposition of the GST on cannabis will be a buzz-killing carbon tax?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given that this was my maiden speech and it is past 10 o'clock, I think I will now sit down so we can end this debate on a high note.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, and I certainly do not want to take away from her spectacular finish to her maiden speech. However, since she brought up the National Energy Board, I did want to remind members that the expert panel included a number of prominent industry experts, including the president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association . I know we are not actually debating the National Energy Board tonight, but that report was not without deep roots in the Calgary community in recommending that the National Energy Board be scrapped, renamed the Canadian energy transmission commission, and moved to Ottawa.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that comment. I appreciate the reminder regarding the findings of the panel and the makeup of the panel.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.