Robert Thibault

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a larger problem. With the information and public education provided by organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the risks of drinking and driving are well understood. If we look at the punishments that are now in place for young drivers, it is not a picnic. In Nova Scotia, for a person 17 or 18 years old who is caught with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit, number one is the loss of his or her licence for a year and number two is the difficulty in getting the licence back. Getting the full licence back takes over two years, plus, at that point, the person has to redo all the courses, which is a very expensive process, about $500 or $600. Acquiring insurance at that point is going to be around $5,000 for the average vehicle for a person 18 years of age.

There are punitive measures, plus a criminal record. If that person is interested in a career, he or she will have to face the fact that he or she has a criminal record and that society considers it to be very serious. There is no excuse anymore for drinking and driving. People consider it to be one of the most serious offences one can make.

I commend the organizations that are working out there. Again I will support this bill, but I do not think we should give the false perception that people get an easy ride now.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the possession of controlled substances, the member has missed some very important details.

If we look at the controlled substances in Canadian law, there are schedules. There are some that have different variations. We do not look at the penalties for possession, distribution or use of marijuana in the same way as we do for crack cocaine, crystal meth, or heroin. They are dealt with in codes. They are dealt with at different levels with different punitive measures.

Here it refers to possession of controlled substances. We are not talking about the other areas where it is already illegal to possess them. We are saying that having them in one's possession while driving, whether or not one has used them while driving, could involve up to another five years' punishment.

In this case, the substance may not be a controlled substance because it could be an illegal substance but not prescribed to that person. That person could be bringing it for someone else.

There are many details that we have to seriously look at in this bill. I believe the justice committee will do a good job. I am encouraging it to do so. I will support this bill at this reading so that the justice committee can hear from the experts and look at how to improve this bill to make it operable and help improve the lives and safety of Canadians.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this subject.

I am generally supportive of the bill. What the bill seeks to do for Canadians is very important. We have great concerns in that on a daily basis we see the terrible and tragic accidents throughout our country that are related to the abuse or use of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle.

The use of drugs, controlled substances, while operating a motor vehicle, whether they be prescribed drugs or illegal drugs, is very dangerous. Sometimes, prescribed drugs used improperly or misused or underused, or used to gain recreational effects in some instances, can cause a person to be not fully capable of controlling a motor vehicle, putting themselves and many other people at risk.

We have to applaud any reasonable attempt to make Canadians safer. I think this bill goes a long way toward that, but I do have some concerns. I have some concerns about the general tenor of flooding the House with many so-called crime bills knowing that it is impossible for the committee to do a proper study of all these bills and make the improvements that are needed, because many improvements are needed in these bills, and then being able to say that the House or the committee is stalling.

If we look at what the bill does, we all agree with it, but there are serious problems. I am sure the justice committee will do a serious job to improve the bill and ensure that we meet the intent of the bill and that we have a law that is operational, can work in the Canadian context and assists in protecting Canadians.

Not everything we have been doing to date is bad, but I think the previous speaker has spoken very well about the two beer defence. There are serious attempts in the bill to reduce the types of defences that can be put at court on drinking and driving. That is a positive approach, but we have to make sure they are going to work, and we have to look at other elements within the bill and make sure they meet their commitments and are operable.

I remember a friend of mine telling me that in his days at law school they had a former justice speaking. They asked the justice if he was in favour of capital punishment. He said that no, generally he was not, but he might be in certain instances, probably not for murder, because the majority of the murder cases that he had seen in his courtroom were related to crimes of passion, one time offences that most likely would not be repeated. However, he did say that in the case of drinking and driving and the sale of drugs to minors he might consider it in that aspect, because the people who do these activities know when they enter into them that they are putting people at risk. They are risking lives.

In the case of drinking and driving, when people have that second or third drink before getting into the vehicle, they know they are putting people at risk. They know that it is an illegal activity, that they are reducing their faculties and that they will be putting themselves in a position where they can seriously harm people and kill and maim. We have to take it seriously.

However, this bill goes a little further. I do have some concerns. One is about creating a new offence of operating a motor vehicle while in possession of “a controlled substance as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”. We might not disagree with that, but then when we think about it, for example, what are the punishments? Five years' imprisonment is possible. If a 17 year old kid has one cigarette of pot and a gun, he would get a lesser charge for the gun than he would get for that one cigarette of pot, whether or not he smoked it. I do not think that is reasonable. I do not think that has been considered seriously.

If somebody is bringing in a whole bunch of heroin, then there are already crimes for transporting or for possession of controlled substances. Why would it become a different offence for having it in our possession when we are driving as opposed to when we are not driving? Does the possession of that controlled substance, if we have not ingested it, smoked it, injected it or whatever, if we have not depleted our faculties, make us more risky drivers? Are we endangering people? I think that is a serious consideration.

The other element we have to consider is what the risk benefits are. If a person is driving down the road with a controlled substance in his or her possession, the charges that person could face for being in possession of that controlled substance can lead to five years in prison, while the controlled substance charges that person might face for simple possession might lead to six months' probation. Will that person be more apt to attempt a dangerous run from the police? I am looking forward to hearing witnesses on those questions and on whether that is a reasonable approach to be taking in this regard.

The other question I would ask is why there would be a different charge or a different test if a person is driving while in possession of a controlled substance or while in possession of alcohol. If a person has consumed the alcohol, that individual would be facing drinking and driving charges, criminal charges. What if the person has not consumed alcohol but simply has an open bottle in the vehicle, or not open? If the person is 19 years of age, in Nova Scotia the person would face no charges if the bottle is not open, but if it is open, that person could face charges. I believe the fine is $300 or something like that.

But in the bill it becomes different if it is a controlled substance. It becomes criminal. It becomes serious, with up to five years' imprisonment if it is a controlled substance, although it might be one of the less dangerous controlled substances. It could be prescription drugs for someone other than the driver, who might be transporting them for someone else. That would be a controlled substance in that case. I do not think this has been considered very well. There should be some discussion.

The other point is on the drug recognition expert. I had a chance to bring this forward a few minutes ago regarding the question of the applicability. The previous speaker from the NDP, who has a lot of experience in the law, raised some concerns about the test, its validity in court and how it would stand up. I will speak more from an application point of view, not having expertise in the justice system.

We live in a huge country. In rural Canada, the RCMP is our primary policing agency.

I should say before I get too far that I will be sharing my time with the member for Welland.

The RCMP does the policing. Let us imagine that at one o'clock in the morning RCMP officers intercept a motor vehicle and believe that the person may have been using a controlled substance. If it is about drinking and driving, it is quite simple and clear as to how the officers would continue. The structures are in place for it. However, they may believe the person has smoked marijuana. The officers have had training or they have not. If they have not, they have to bring that person into contact with somebody who has had the training, a drug recognition expert, in the language of this bill.

A lot of detachments have three or four RCMP officers. Some have fewer. They can be 500 or 600 miles apart or 200 or 300 miles apart from one another. Typically, RCMP detachments are not open or staffed 24 hours a day, so the nearest drug recognition expert in an area like western Nova Scotia with a population of 130,000 could be three or four hours' drive away, if there is one is on duty during those hours. One has to first find a drug recognition expert and then get the driver in the expert's presence in a reasonable time so he or she can assess the effect or presence of drugs.

In that instance, if the drug recognition expert administers the test and believes reasonably that the person has used marijuana, that person then has to be brought to another expert who will extract bodily fluid, saliva, blood or whatever is required. Again, that person requires training. That person may or may not be available.

In certain parts of the country, the health system may or may not be able to take care of those things, but the distances may be long. We could be talking about a person who is completely innocent but who, because of misjudgments, is held for two, four or eight hours, is not able to do whatever activity he or she was going to, whether it was work or another activity, and is in very difficult circumstances. That is from the citizen's point of view.

If we look at it from the RCMP's point of view, the administrative burden would be huge. It would mean the RCMP would need to have a multitude of these experts in all detachments, or reasonably close by, on an operational basis for 24 hours a day. When we talk about another 1,000 RCMP officers for Canada, that will not do it. That is not enough. We will need a lot more. As well, if we look at the cost to the provinces of doing this, we can see that it is very high.

However, I do want to repeat that I support the principle of this bill. I think we have to find a way of doing it. We have to find the technology and do the research in a way that allows us, as we do with the breathalyzer, to assess these individuals in a way that would stand up in a court of law.

I see that I have run out of time. I went through two of ten items, but I know that my colleagues will discuss the others.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share concerns about the harmful effect of driving while under the influence, whether it be alcohol or a controlled substance. They both diminish our faculties.

I look forward to seeing the results of the committee's work. I think everyone agrees with the principle of Bill C-32 but I know there are some concerns with the administration or defining of it. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary shares these concerns and, if so, if he sees any solutions.

One concern is the question of creating an offence of up to five years imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance while driving. The driver might not have used the substance but it may be in his presence. I have fears about that. I will be speaking later this afternoon and I will discuss that more.

The other concern I would like the member talk about is the question of the drug recognition expert and the question of taking body fluids or blood in the case of an investigation or charges. In rural Canada that work will undoubtedly have to be administered by the RCMP.

The distances from station to station for the RCMP are far apart. They generally do not have staffing in the off hours. The administrative burden that will be put on the RCMP and the costs associated, the costs that will be transferred in this manner to the provinces and the municipalities because they do bear a portion of the policing costs in provinces such as Nova Scotia and I believe in all provinces, will be very high if each detachment needs to have someone trained as a drug recognition expert and be available 24 hours a day. That means that there would need to be multiple officers with that training. Some of these detachments have only three or four officers.

We would then need to have someone with the training to take the blood and body fluid samples in a safe manner. That would require a lot of nursing training or health type training and the person would need to be available on a 24 hour a day period. If not, then we are looking at the transportation of potential abusers, but people who may very well be innocent, of distances of three or four hours or more. This would be very difficult in the administration of this particular program.

I would ask the member if the government has considered these questions. Has the government looked at what it would cost, how it would do it and how it would ensure that the municipalities, cities, rural municipalities and the provinces are not overly burdened with these costs?

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a great exposé of the bill before the House. He spent a lot of time on the process of getting a bill here and how the work gets done by others to make sure that we have the information needed so that we can finally take a decision in Parliament.

One point in this bill discussed earlier is the question of the reserves necessary at institutions like Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Some people would point to the increase in the reserve over the last few years without taking into consideration the changes that have happened in the domestic market situation and domestic mortgages.

Not too long ago it was impossible for a first time buyer to buy a house if the buyer did not have a 10% deposit. Then the regulations were changed to allow for substantially lower deposits. In some cases no deposits were necessary. But that is guaranteed and backstopped with the financial institutions and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation plays a great role there. There has been a greatly increased risk.

The member pointed out the question of risk and that the risk had to be covered. When there is less of a deposit in the initial purchase with the mortgage at the bank, the risk grows exponentially. Look at what is happening in the housing market in our principal cities where young couples are working. Alberta is having a huge growth and many people from across the country are going to work there. The housing market there is inflating incredibly fast. If we want young couples to be able to buy homes, then they need that type of assistance from CMHC and the type of reserves needed to backstop it. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

The Fisheries Act.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is too intelligent to believe half of his own argument.

Number one, I agree with him completely on the rights of people to disagree. There is more than one view on this matter. The point I make is that it has gone through the courts. It has been decided in eight provinces. It was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On the question of the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, as a minister he did the honourable thing. He did not agree with a key piece of legislation proposed by his government. He wanted to vote against it and he did, as the former minister of intergovernmental affairs in the Conservative government did last week, but that was not a piece of legislation; it was just a motion that the government was putting forward. He did not agree and was forced to resign. He could not vote his conscience. He had to stay behind the curtains; he could not come in. He said that on TV. He had to stay away because everybody was forced.

On the question of what I believe and what the member believes about the original legislation, we believe the same things. We both voted the same way. I believe in the rights of individuals, members of Parliament and the public to disagree with my vision. That is freedom of speech.

If the government wants to change that legislation and wants some real debate in order to change the act, it is the government's responsibility to bring forward a bill, have a debate and then let Parliament make a decision in the traditional manner. Bringing it forward as a motion is a divisive political tool being used by the Prime Minister to create problems in the House of Commons and with the public of Canada.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that the motions they are putting forward in this House will not promote openness or unity, either in the country or in the House. This motion is very divisive.

The motion that is put before the House today reads:

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

What is this? The government does not agree with Bill C-38 which became the Civil Marriage Act. The Conservative Party did not agree with it when it was put before the House. There were a few very courageous people on the Conservative side who voted with the Liberal government at that time to pass the bill. The Conservatives did not agree with it. They know, as I do, that it is very difficult to change. Rather than have the courage to do what the government should do and propose a bill, the Conservatives have proposed a motion.

I will make the government and the Prime Minister very happy because I will vote against this motion, which is exactly how the Conservatives want us to vote. They do not want this motion to go through. The Conservatives know that if this motion went through, they would have to go to the next step. They would have to put a bill before the House and they have already said that they will not.

The primary responsibility of a government is to put before the House a bill that is constitutionally valid. The Conservatives know that they could never get the Department of Justice to recommend that a bill which reinstates the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause is constitutionally valid. They would have to fire everyone and hire again. They are not above that, but I do not think they will. They will not do that.

I do not believe that reopening the debate would change the outcome. The process would be harmful to many. The House has spoken. This issue has been debated at length and Canadians have made up their minds on this matter.

The Conservative motion is disrespectful of the democratic process and undermines the charter, the very principles upon which our political system operates.

Legislation to amend civil marriage has been before Parliament since 2003. It has been considered by parliamentarians since 2002. Draft legislation was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe in 2003. The matter was debated at length in the House of Commons and was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we heard countless hours of testimony from expert witnesses on all sides of the issue.

Parliamentarians had the opportunity to speak at length on this issue. We have had a full, open and honest debate.

In June 2005 I voted in favour of the current law at third reading. My decision to support Bill C-38 was not made lightly. This has been a very difficult issue for many Canadians, involving deeply held personal and religious beliefs and convictions.

I made my decision after hearing from many of my constituents on both sides of this issue and participating in hours of debate here in the House of Commons.

One of my earliest concerns, echoed by many of my constituents, was that the same sex marriage bill would compel religious officials to perform marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their beliefs. Our current legislation affirms the charter guarantee of religious freedom and has been guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court has declared unanimously that the guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

Religious leaders who preside over civil and religious marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by their own beliefs. If they do not wish to perform marriages for same sex couples, it is their right to refuse to do so, plain and simple.

The charter is one of rights, but it is also one of freedoms. Ours is a secular society and the separation of church and state is the strongest protection of our freedom of religion. The government does not dictate the terms of our beliefs, nor does it attempt to control religion.

The current same sex legislation is about civil rights, not religious marriage. The same sex civil marriage law is accepted as law in eight jurisdictions across Canada.

My job as a parliamentarian and legislator is to protect the rights of each and every Canadian and defend the charter in its entirety. The charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities, regardless of their numbers, were never subjected to the will of the majority. We must not shirk that responsibility.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has demonstrated that equality rights are not a top priority for his government. When the Conservatives eliminated the court challenges program, they stripped minority groups of the ability to challenge legislation that infringed on their rights.

The court challenges program provided financial assistance to individuals and groups who were pursuing legal action to advance language and equality rights under the Constitution. The right to same sex marriage is one of the issues that have been brought before the Supreme Court thanks to this valuable program. People objecting or seeking their rights under religious beliefs had the same access to that program when it was funded.

The Conservatives have sent a message that financial resources are a factor in determining the extension of charter rights. This is unacceptable.

In December 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples have the same right to civil marriage as do opposite sex couples. The current government wishes to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, but it would serve no purpose to legislate a definition of marriage that is not consistent with the charter, because it would be overturned by the courts.

The Prime Minister has stated that he would not use the notwithstanding clause to bar gay marriage, but constitutional experts tell us that new law can only be passed if the clause is invoked.

As I see it, this is a disingenuous motion aimed at keeping an election promise to Conservative supporters. I have said to my constituents, and I will repeat it here, that the only time I would support in such a matter the use of the notwithstanding clause would be to defend the rights of the independence of the church, should they ever be attacked. The Prime Minister is again pandering to his base. We saw it this fall with the $2 billion cuts to our valued social programs. Even worse, he is using a deeply sensitive and divisive issue to do so.

The bottom line is that the definition of marriage has already been changed. It is now a matter of overriding a right that is guaranteed by the charter, a right that is already in place. The issue is not whether rights are to be granted; it is whether they should be taken away. Our rights cannot be subject to political whim.

More than 12,000 gay couples have wed in Canada since same sex marriage was legalized last year. Furthermore, Bill C-38 made universal across Canada a law that is already accepted as law in eight jurisdictions, including my home province of Nova Scotia. In September 2004 the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled that same sex civil marriage was legal in our province.

The charter is a living document and must evolve and reflect the changing nature of society. As we are well aware, it was not until 1929 that women were finally declared persons under the law in Canada. This historic decision established a principle of understanding that justice requires judges to consider an evolving social context when interpreting the law. Lord Sankey of the Privy Council said it best:

The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, but it must be remembered that the necessity of the times often forced on man customs which in later years were not necessary.

Canada is a progressive and inclusive country that values the rights of individuals. Our laws must reflect equality as we understand it today and not as we understood it decades or centuries ago. Canadians have spoken on this issue and democracy has prevailed. The Conservative government must stop playing politics with our rights and move forward, not backward, on an issue that has been thoroughly examined, debated and passed through this House and the Senate.

In summary, what we are debating here today is not changing the current definition. That is done by a bill, an act of Parliament, that is presented either by the government or by a member of Parliament as a private member's bill. It is debated in this House of Commons. It goes to committee. Experts can come and testify. Individuals with concerns can come and testify. It gets more debate at third reading. It gets three readings in the Senate. We have gone through that process.

This is a motion intended to divide Canadians, to divide members of the House and not change the status of laws in Canada.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the minister is mistaken. A number of votes have been free on this side of the House, on the opposition side. Tomorrow evening's vote will also be free. The vote on Bill C-38 was a free vote. Members could vote as they saw fit. The ministers should vote in solidarity and such has been the case for all the bills proposed by the government during this session, including the highly important motion recognizing Quebeckers as a nation within Canada. Some said this had important ramifications, but did not say what they were. But they did say that it was very important.

Was this a free vote? No. A minister even had to step down over this issue. It is completely in line with parliamentary tradition for the former government to have called for cabinet solidarity when it introduced Bill C-38. That is what this government has been doing since the beginning of the parliamentary session.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister in his comments made a lot of the free vote and chastised other parties for not having very many free votes.

However, I remember when this was before the House in bill form--which is what a responsible government does, bring forward bills--and not too many on his side voted their conscience. I know that the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's did and I do not see him on the cabinet benches. Another member did and was chased out of the party. Since I have been in the House and since that party has been in government, I have not seen too many free votes.

I think we remember that last week one member of cabinet could not vote with the government on a motion, not even a bill but a motion, and had to resign from cabinet. It seems that for every bill that has come to the House, all the Conservatives have voted the same way.

Perhaps the minister can explain it to us. Are they whipped bills or is it that everybody thinks exactly the same way on that side of the House? If they do, I would go back to Senator Benson, who said that when two people think exactly the same way, only one is doing the thinking.