Carole Freeman

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

I thank my colleague for his question. In the United States, the breathalyzer offers many options.

However, with regard to studies on drugs, we will need to check with expert witnesses. That is what the Standing Committee on Justice and Human RIghts was preparing to do.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we were debating Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving).

As the deputy justice critic and like my party, I consider the bill very important because it aims to provide the instruments required to enable police to fight impaired driving effectively. I do think, however, that we must look more closely at certain elements of this bill, as the proposed additions warrant analysis to ensure their real effectiveness.

Among the concerns I would like to share with the House is my hope of meeting experts and groups in the course of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice who can shed light on the following points. First, as this committee's report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving" rightly pointed out, the nature and the legislation pertaining to the concept of “reasonable grounds” used by the police to have people tested must be defined. This definition would be vital should a driver suspected of driving while impaired refuse, because it would become a criminal offence. This is in fact what the current bill is proposing, but it remains fuzzy as to the “reasonable grounds” used by the police.

In addition, it would seem basic to find a proven screening test that is both quick and non invasive. Do we have the technology? Which drugs are we screening for? I think this warrants our attention, since, with the variety of drugs currently available and their various effects on the human body, it becomes increasingly relevant to look at the methods and scientific processes used in screening.

But again, how are we going to distinguish between illicit drugs and legal drugs, prescription medications, that is? A person can be in legal possession of those medications, but the person's faculties may be impaired by their effects, effects that are clearly stated in the warnings given about the medications.

And then, in logistical terms, do we actually have the equipment that would enable us to do a simple roadside test for all drugs, as we do for alcohol with the breathalyzer? Let us recall that the bill would authorize the police to do a drug test during a roadside spot check. It is therefore important to have very effective, tested tools, to keep potential legal challenges to a minimum. As well, this must be done with utmost respect for the spirit of the Charter, and they must be as constitutional as possible. We often think of taking a blood sample as an intrusive action. In addition, there is the fact that it sometimes takes a long time to get the results of a blood analysis, so the offender has to wait to know whether charges will be laid against him or her.

As well, in legal terms, all of these complications have to be avoided so the bill does not end up in interminable court challenges. As members probably know, impaired driving, particularly driving with a blood alcohol level over 80, is one of the offences in the Criminal Code that is most difficult to prove. As I noted earlier, the “two beer” defence is a perfect example.

Let us also not forget the prohibition set out in clause 8(3) and 8(5) on using oral testimony alone to defend against an incorrect charge. We should give this our full attention in order to determine whether it is valid.

Last, in social terms, impaired driving awareness campaigns have in fact had some success in reducing this kind of offence. Will there be financial and human resources allocated, however, for an education campaign about driving while impaired by drugs?

We must also not forget that the higher fines proposed by Bill C-32 will certainly have a greater effect on lower income brackets in the population than on the more well-off members of society.

These are a few points that show, beyond any doubt, how important it is to work on this bill and make it into something even better.

I repeat that the Bloc Québécois takes this matter very seriously and will participate in developing standards and measures that are intelligent and effective for achieving the desired results. As well, we support initiatives to provide law enforcement agencies with concrete and effective methods for enforcing laws that are designed to deal with driving while impaired by alcohol and other drugs.

That is why we are prepared to support Bill C-32, so that it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee would then be able to study the bill in depth and call witnesses who could offer their expertise. As well, it could propose the amendments that it thought necessary in order to make Bill 32 even more effective.

I will add that we still have reservations about some aspects of this bill, which I described earlier. I therefore hope that the government will work constructively with all opposition parties so that those reservations are taken into consideration and the result is useful and effective legislation.

To conclude, therefore, I hope that all of the points I have raised will be addressed by witnesses and experts who will respond to them when they appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the near future.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving), which is now before the House. This bill offers us an opportunity to look into a serious problem in society, one that is often in the headlines. We all know that drunk driving is an irresponsible act. A lot of preventive work is being done, in fact, to reduce the occurrence of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, there are still incidents in which an individual who is driving while impaired takes the lives of people on our roads, including, very sadly, young children.

Bill C-32 is therefore meant to respond to this situation by providing the police with tools to make their job easier when it comes to gathering evidence for laying a charge against an impaired driver. More specifically, it is aimed at people driving under the influence of drugs, such as marijuana.

The impaired driving problem goes back years, if not decades. A number of studies have considered the question and suggested ways in which the problem can be addressed. I would note that in 1999, the Standing Committee on Justice submitted the report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”, in which it was recognized that drugs could be a cause of accidents and that we had to find better methods of detecting them. It also stated that we had to improve the process of gathering evidence to allow for people driving under the influence of drugs to be prosecuted.

At that time, the committee identified two major obstacles: first, the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes “reasonable grounds”, the basis on which a police officer administers a test to a driver to detect drugs; and second, the apparent lack of a single non-invasive test for detecting drugs. Given the relative difficulty of the tests that have to be done, the committee suggested that the Charter implications of testing be taken into account. One of the recommendations made in the report was that blood samples be taken if the police officer had “reasonable grounds” for doing so.

The obstacles identified by the committee were also recognized by the Senate committee, which proposed at the time that more studies be done of the driving habits of drivers under the influence of drugs, a reliable and rapid testing tool be developed, and the blood alcohol level be lowered.

Four years later, the Minister of Justice issued a study report that came out of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice. The study, entitled “Drug-Impaired Driving: Consultation Document”, suggested finding a legislative way of compelling drivers to take screening tests administered by police officers.

To that end, the document suggested setting a legal limit for drugs and legislating to allow police to administer a screening test. An expert on site could, with “reasonable grounds”, administer a test on the offending driver and then, if the test was positive, investigate further by taking a bodily fluid sample. The results would have been given by another expert to the closest police station. The tests and police testimony would be used as evidence to charge the driver.

However, the document stresses the importance of considering the Charter in legislating to amend the Criminal Code with regard to requests for bodily fluid samples and the offending driver's rights to consult a lawyer. Bill C-32, which the Liberals introduced on April 26, 2004, addressed these concerns, but died on the order paper in May 2004 when the election was called.

Reintroduced as C-16 in November 2004, the bill again died on the order paper a year later. The new Bill C-32, which happens to have the same number as the original and was introduced by the Conservative government, contains essentially the same provisions but, for ideological reasons, increases penalties for drivers found guilty of impaired driving.

I know that all the members of this House recognize that impaired driving remains one of the criminal offences most likely to cause death or injury to others. As I explained earlier, this is the third time this bill has been introduced in order to deal with the problem of impaired driving.

The Conservative bill is similar to the old Bill C-16 tabled in the previous Parliament. In short, it suggests the following three things. First, it would require people suspected of driving under the influence to take an alcohol or drug test ordered by police officers at the arrest site, that is to say, at the side of the road. Second, it authorizes experts to take samples of bodily fluids, something that is not in the current Criminal Code. Refusal to comply would constitute a criminal offence, just like refusal to take a breathalyser test. Third, the bill would limit the evidence that can be introduced in court to cast doubt on the way the breathalyser was used or the results of the blood alcohol tests.

This is often called the “two beer” defence, where the accused states that he or she had consumed only one or a particular number of drinks over a certain period of time and therefore could not possibly have had a blood alcohol reading as high as what the test said.

The government also wants to stiffen the sentences and introduce life imprisonment instead of five years for infractions causing the death of another person. To that are added the fines that are adjusted to reflect the number of repeat offences by the driver in question: $1,000 for a first offence instead of $600; 30 days in custody for a second offence instead of 14 days, and 120 days in custody for a third offence instead of 90 days.

I am deputy justice critic and, like our party, I think that this is a very important bill because it is intended to provide the tools that the police need to fight the impaired driving problem effectively. However, it is essential for us to review certain points in the bill because the proposed additions should be studied in order to determine whether they really will be effective.

In the course of the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would like to meet with experts and groups to shed light on the following concerns about which I want to inform the House—

[Restorative Justice, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, restorative justice is a concept of justice in which shared values and community participation are crucial. Many peoples practise restorative justice or have practised it sometime over the course of history.

The primary objective of restorative justice is to build a safer, healthier society by promoting the reintegration of an offender through a process of reintegration into a community group. Restorative justice always takes a humanistic approach, providing support for victims, allowing offenders to take responsibility for their misconduct and, above all, tackling the underlying causes of crime.

I would like to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois supports this principle of justice, especially in the current political context, since the government believes that imposing harsher prison sentences and sending more people to prison is the best way to reduce crime and delinquency.

[Le Reflet, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, the newspaper that represents the eastern part of my riding celebrated its 40th anniversary. Le Reflet, a veritable regional journalistic institution, marked four decades of relaying the events that have shaped the history of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and the surrounding area. It remains a key player in circulating the news and opinions of the people I represent.

After 40 years, the team at this Montérégie newspaper is still doing an excellent job, putting the vitality of the people from my area front and centre and reporting accurately and with objectivity the news in the 38,000 copies that go out every week in Montérégie. This excellence has also garnered a number of awards, many nominations and much recognition for the work done by the members of Le Reflet.

I want to acknowledge the remarkable efforts of the journalistic team at Le Reflet, and I want to take this opportunity to wish many more years to this newspaper, which is a true reflection of my community.

[Status of Women, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day of remembrance for the École Polytechnique tragedy and a day of action on violence against women.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women promise not to take the senseless step of cutting Status of Women's research branch and its independent research fund?

[Judicial Appointments, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has decided that a police officer should sit on every selection committee, in addition to the three members already named at his discretion. In this way, the minister is ensuring that he controls the committee.

Why is the minister trying to take over the judicial selection process? Is he hoping to appoint friends who share his vision of justice?

[Judicial Appointments, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on November 10, the Minister of Justice announced that he had decided arbitrarily to alter the make-up of the judicial selection committee and the candidate rating scales.

Instead of making reforms in secret, why does the Minister of Justice not re-establish the subcommittee on the process for appointment to the federal judiciary, created at the request of the Bloc Québécois during the 38th Parliament, which could make impartial recommendations to depoliticize the judicial appointment process?

[Elimination of Violence Against Women, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, November 25 is the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This event reminds us that violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon that exists in all societies.

It does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic or social origin or status. Violence against women is the greatest human rights scandal of our time. From birth to death, in war and in peace, states, societies and families subject women to discrimination and violence.

Closer to home, as the representative of the riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, I want to highlight the remarkable work done by organizations in my riding that work to protect women and put an end to their victimization, including Châteauguay's Éclaircie women's centre, the Re-Source and the sexual assault help centre.

[Criminal Code, November 22nd, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in this Chamber today a bill to amend the Criminal Code by making it an offence to commit an act of mischief against an educational institution or premises serving specific groups of persons.

It is essential that hate crimes motivated by religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation be punished in order to prevent such abuses.

The parliamentarians of this House will agree that the society in which we live must respect differences. I am introducing this bill for these reasons.

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