Len Webber

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, absolutely we need proper testing equipment, scientifically proven and tested, that will accurately detect whether or not a driver is impaired by drugs. Right now, we do not have that in place. Therefore, why are we moving ahead with legalizing this drug when we do not even have the proper testing equipment in place for police officers around the country to determine whether individuals are impaired?

One important thing we need to do right now is to educate the public and individuals who tend to like to drive while impaired. You stated that the levels of impaired driving have increased since the Conservative government put in place harsher punishment for those individuals, and that may be the case, but I believe that we need to educate society and these individuals even more than we are now. We need to tell them that dire consequences will occur if they are caught driving impaired.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, all of the presentations at committee on this subject have been made, but I encourage the member to read the Hansard of the committee to see what was said. It clearly indicates that there is deep concern among police associations throughout Canada and many others, including the Canadian Medical Association, about impaired driving. I could list more than 100 presentations made at committee that clearly identified that impaired driving was a serious concern and that we needed to take our time in looking at this legislation. It is being rushed. The Liberals are rushing it. We need to look at it. We are not dragging our feet on this side, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier. We are concerned about Canadians and the increased death rates that may result from this legislation's becoming law, apparently, on cannabis day. It is a shame.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-46, which proposes a number of changes to impaired driving legislation in Canada. More specifically, this legislation is proposing a number of changes in anticipation of the passing of Bill C-45, which seeks to legalize marijuana in Canada.

I, among others in the House, along with my colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, sit on the health committee. We returned a week early in September from the summer recess to hold a series of marathon meetings on Bill C-45. At the committee, witnesses from across Canada and around the world presented their concerns on a number of issues related to the legalization of marijuana. Specifically, there were a number of experts who provided commentary on the aspects surrounding impaired driving. I want to share some of their testimony with members today.

Before I do, I want to say that we all know all too well that impaired driving is a deadly activity that often claims the lives of people who are entirely innocent. Canada is now on the verge of normalizing marijuana use, which could likely see impaired driving and death rates rise. I am not suggesting for a second that drug-impaired driving does not happen now and has not claimed lives already; however, I and many others are concerned that the normalization of marijuana use will make matters much worse on our roads and highways.

On September 12 of this year, during health committee testimony, Deputy Chief Thomas Carrique from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated:

What we do know is that impaired driving by way of alcohol is the number one criminal cause of death in this country. If we are to expect that the use of cannabis may go up, that causes us great concern. It puts our communities at peril....

He went on to say:

It is unknown what the combination is when you combine drugs and alcohol. We have heard all sorts of statistics from our neighbours south of the border that indicate that it has a great impact. There is...a 28% increase in the amount of intoxication. That creates a...danger behind the wheel.

Deputy Chief Mark Chatterbok, of the Saskatoon Police Service, who also represented the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, stated:

We anticipate that as a result of new legislation the number of impaired drivers will only increase. This increase will be realized in a city and a province where impaired statistics are already far too high.

...the Saskatoon Police Service has concerns about an increase in impaired driving due to drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs....what happens when a driver already found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.07 also has the presence of THC in his or her blood. Technically, this driver may be under the legal limit for both individual substances, but what effect does the presence of both of these drugs have on impairment?

That is a very good point, and to my knowledge the issue has not been addressed. The Liberal government has set an artificial deadline to legalize marijuana use in Canada. As a result, it is left rushing through other legislation, such as Bill C-46, to try to head off a huge problem. The huge problem of the Liberals, once again, is their failure to keep their promises. Therefore, we are being asked to rush through legislation for no other reason than to enable the government to meet its deadline of Canada Day 2018. It has been my experience, whether making dinner or in making legislation, that rushing only ends in mistakes and poor results. There are aspects of this bill, Bill C-46, and also Bill C-45 for that matter, that will likely end up before the courts because a charge or conviction will be challenged.

What happens if we pass these changes and legalize marijuana and then parts of this law are struck down? We will not be able to turn back the clock at that point because marijuana use will already be rampant.

Being ready for the legalization of marijuana is a huge issue, in particular for law enforcement. There are thousands of police officers who will require specialized training on all of the anticipated legal changes. However, they do not have the time to complete this before Canada Day.

Also before the health committee this year, Deputy Chief Mike Serr, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said:

In order to support the successful implementation of this comprehensive legislation, the CACP urges the Government of Canada to first consider extending the July 2018 commencement date to allow police services to obtain sufficient resources and proper training, both of which are critical to the successful implementation of the proposed cannabis act.

We need to remember that training takes both time and money, and law enforcement has clearly indicated that they do not have enough of either.

Sure, that government has announced that it has committed funding for training, but it is not enough and we only have 249 days to get it all done. In fact, departments cannot even put together training manuals for the police yet, as the laws to legalize marijuana have not even been made clear. Moreover, the bill still has to go the other side, to the red chamber, and how long could that take?

Just to give the House an idea of the monumental task of training thousands of police officers, deputy Chief Mark Chatterbok also said:

The International Association of Chiefs of Police website lists the process for certification for DRE training.

That is drug recognition expert training. The deputy chief continued:

Everyone who's involved in the program first has to first take the standardized field sobriety training before they attend the DRE program. Then the program itself consists of three phases. The first phase is a two-day preschool. The second phase is a seven-day classroom program with a comprehensive exam following that. Then between 60 and 90 days following phase two, the candidates attend a program in the U.S. where they have to evaluate subjects who are suspected of being impaired by drugs. My understanding is that they must participate in at least 12 evaluations successfully in order to then get the certification.

This training is going to take a long time to complete, and there is no way it will be done on time by Canada Day.

This brings me to my next point, one that was raised by almost every single witness at committee. In fact, there was a strong consensus on this issue amongst all parties as well, and that is public education. It has not gone unnoticed that we are spending a great deal of time and money to legalize marijuana, but we have not embarked on a public education campaign to educate Canadians, especially our youth.

We know that marijuana use by youth is higher in Canada than anywhere else in the world, and we know there is the strong likelihood of increased drug-impaired driving after legalization. We also know that early use, before the age of 25, has negative impacts on human brain development. In fact, the Canadian Medical Association, CMA, which represents 83,000 physicians, said that the age of legalization should ideally be 25 years of age. It says:

Existing evidence on marijuana points to the importance of protecting the brain during its development. Since that development is only finalized by about 25 years of age, this would be an ideal minimum age based on currently accepted scientific evidence....

We know that marijuana use by youth can facilitate the onset of schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions in certain people. Complications include cognitive impairment, social isolation, and even suicide. Just this month at the World Psychiatric Association's World Congress in Berlin, we were presented with further evidence of that.

Knowing all of this, and knowing the rush this Liberal government is in to legalize marijuana, why are we putting off a public education plan? We know that for a message to sink in, it must be repeated over the long term, yet we are looking at a last-minute public education plans. A last-minute public education plan will not get the message across in time. I do applaud MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have taken an early and proactive lead in public education about drug-impaired driving. However, more needs to be done in this area.

To close I would like to reiterate and summarize my main points of concern. While I support a strong stand against impaired driving, I also believe that we need to look at the bigger picture. We need to recognize that we are not ready for marijuana legalization in Canada. We have not educated Canadians adequately on marijuana and its effects. We have not educated Canadians, especially our young, on drug-impaired driving. Neither have we provided our police with adequate time to prepare for all of these changes. We do not have accurate drug detection equipment. We do not have enough trained, front-line officers to handle drug impairment.

In short, we are not—

[Ethics, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister failed to declare his offshore corporation to the Ethics Commissioner. He was required to disclose it two years ago, but he claims that he did not because of early administrative errors. No one is buying that. He hid this from Canadians until he got caught.

How can we trust anything the minister says now that we know he has been deceiving Canadians for so long?

[Joe Carbury, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to mark the passing of a friend and Calgary legend, Joe Carbury.

Joe was the familiar voice at the Calgary Stampede for 45 years. His play-by-play commentary brought an unimaginable level of excitement to the stampede chuckwagon rangeland derby. His deep, gravely voice was so recognizable that his calling of the chucks is etched in the memories of anyone who attended the greatest outdoor show on earth.

He was a large part of our community and a huge promoter of local sports. He was a class act, refreshingly humble, and was always ready to help and and to serve his community in any way he could. He left his mark on chuckwagon racing and was loved by the fans. He worked to make the sport safer and accessible to all.

Joe will now join his beloved Rose once again. Our deepest sympathies go to his daughters Colleen and Kathleen, and the entire Carbury family.

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a constituent in Calgary, Dr. Shannon Rabuka. She wrote:

If I was angry before, now I am furious.

When meeting recently to discuss possible tax scenarios if [the Liberal] tax changes are implemented, it was suggested that my family consider an individual pension plan.

I was absolutely dumfounded when one of the candidate products was offered by Morneau Shepell.

When I looked into it further, it seemed at though Morneau Shepell is one of the largest vendors of these plans. It appears as though [the finance minister] stands to directly benefit from the proposed changes to our country's tax law...

...I am not averse to a comprehensive overhaul of tax law to make the system more fair—even if that means that my husband and I pay more tax. However, it is really starting to look as though “fairness” does not apply to [the finance minister] himself.

The finance minister's company will benefit from these changes, while small businesses will suffer. It does not look fair, because it is not.

[Taxation, September 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time my colleague took to respond to my comments, but none of what she says provides any comfort or assurances to me or to my community. The government's reckless spending has created a fiscal hole that will hurt Canadians today and in the future. The previous Conservative government was able to balance the budget under the current rules. The current Liberal government, addicted to spending, is desperately grabbing more tax dollars from every Canadian.

These changes threaten the very services our communities need. We are risking losing people in some of the professions we need most: the doctors, the farmers, and others.

If changes to our tax system are warranted, then let us make sure we make them after fully considering the problem, our options, and the effects any proposed solutions would have. The consequences of rushing into these changes are too high. Canada cannot afford to destroy those who build our communities, create jobs, and take risks where others will not.

[Taxation, September 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government's tax change proposals will hurt the very people it says it wants to help. I have received hundreds and hundreds of letters from constituents who are opposed to this, and just a single letter in support of the changes.

Those writing have made it very clear that they are not the wealthy 1%, but mostly middle-class Canadians who have taken risks to start their own businesses and create their own jobs in the community. Many have laid bare the dire consequences these changes will have for their business and their families. These small business owners warn that they will have to reduce staff, which will raise unemployment at a time when we cannot afford to lose more jobs in Alberta. Others have spoken of their need to consider cutting back on their community support and charitable donations just to keep their business profitable.

It has not been lost on Canadians that the Liberal government chose the middle of the summer to conduct their consultations in an effort to pull a fast one on Canadians. It is clear that the Liberal government did not really want to hear from Canadians and remains determined to proceed with the changes no matter what. The Liberals' indignant attitude is both reckless and offensive to taxpayers.

A constituent, Joseph Klassen, wrote, “I am a small business owner. I employ 12 people and the annual payroll for this staff runs about $1.25 million. This may appear small to others, but I feel we employ these people giving them a reasonable living while making a positive contribution to the Canadian economy. Once you remove the incentive of being able to earn a reasonable financial return on my total business investment, I will have to consider the possibility of closing this business.”

Dr. Peter Samuels wrote to me and said, “The government's proposed tax changes for private corporations will make it more difficult for physicians to provide the quality of care that their patients deserve. These proposed changes will harm patients, physicians and their families. Small business owners and their many employees will be harmed. Communities and the Canadian economy will suffer. I encourage the Finance Minister in the strongest terms not to implement the proposed tax changes for private corporations.”

Brian, a constituent of mine, said, “I am a small business owner in Alberta, and have been since 2010. Last year my personal income was less than $50,000. I have had to lay off 23 people due to the downturn in the economy, and the relentless increase in taxes directly affecting my company. Over the past 6 months, we have finally seen a bottom to the Alberta economy, yet with the backdrop of all the tax increases, I have little interest in increasing our staffing at this time.”

Finally, a constituent, Linda Goode, wrote, “I voted Liberal in the last election. At a conceptual level, I support much of the liberal platform. However, I struggle with some of the tactics for achieving that platform. More specifically I am appalled by the proposed tax changes that will directly impact my partner and I as small business owners and as members of the middle class. My partner and I are both 63 years old. We have 'lived like students' for decades. We have sacrificed a great deal so that we could be financially independent in retirement and not be a burden on society. 'Changing the rules' on retained earnings, directly and dramatically impacts our financial security. At our age we have run out of time in terms of our earning capacity to offset the impacts of the proposed tax changes. The government's attempt to create greater fairness certainly has missed the mark for us.”

I could go on. I have hundreds of letters like these, but like those who wrote to me, I do not think the Liberal government is listening anyway.

[Taxation, September 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my constituent Lana wrote:

As a young woman with a professional corporation...I know first hand how hard I have to work to earn every penny that I make.... No maternity leave, no sick days, no overtime, no bonuses, no paid vacation time, no pension, variable income between pay checks, and so on.... these...changes will make it even more difficult for us.

Why do the Liberals want Lana to pay significantly more in taxes, while the family fortunes of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will not be touched? How is that fair to Lana?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-338. This private member's bill has been brought forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville. The member has an obvious genuine concern for his own community and those across Canada. He recognizes the harmful effects that drugs have had in his own city and he has stepped up to do something about it by bringing forward this legislation, so I thank the hon. member for the work that he has done on this bill.

Drugs have been around for as long as anyone can remember, so why the urgency now? The reality is that the drug scene today is nothing like it was in the past. The Internet has made drugs far more accessible. International shipping has made drug distribution both more efficient and more difficult to stop. The growth in the highly addictive and extremely deadly drugs like fentanyl and carfentanil has made drugs more deadly than ever. As I have said in this House before, the best way to combat our drug and opioid crisis is to stop the illicit supply from coming into this country and trading on our streets.

Before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, the RCMP testified that 98% of the illegal opioids in this country are coming from China. This is not a new problem. Work was started under the Stephen Harper government to stem this tide of drugs flowing onto our streets. It culminated recently in an agreement with China that should have some effect—at least, we hope it will have some effect. The Public Health Agency of Canada reported that almost 2,500 Canadians died from opioid overdoses in 2016. This year, that number is expected to exceed 3,000 deaths. That is eight people a day dying from drugs, eight families a day dealing with an unexpected death.

Bill C-338 would target those who are working to bring drugs onto our streets and into our neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, even if we do catch those responsible for shipping these deadly drugs, the punishment that awaits them is insufficient and hardly a deterrent for protection of our communities.

As proposed section 1 states in the bill, if the amount of drugs involved is less than one kilogram, the offender would be subject to a maximum of life in prison with a minimum of a two-year sentence. This would increase the minimum sentence from one to two years. Proposed section 2 in the bill states that if the amount of drugs involved is more than one kilogram, the offender would be subject to a maximum of life in prison with a minimum of a three-year sentence. This would be an increase from two to three years in this minimum sentence.

One of the most dangerous drugs on the street today is carfentanil. It can kill in the smallest amounts. The equivalent of less than a grain of salt can kill. Simply touching the drug can potentially kill. First responders are at a high risk of death. I am not trying to be an alarmist here; I am just reporting the reality. Young children are dying after coming into contact with this drug. Even just the residue on clothing can be deadly to a small child.

In June 2016, Canadian border services intercepted one kilogram of carfentanil en route to my city of Calgary. RCMP Inspector Allan Lai said, “One kilogram of carfentanil can produce approximately 50 million fatal doses.” That is enough to kill every man, every woman, and every child in Canada one and a half times over. If we are going to turn this tide, we need to equip our courts with the tools that they need to remove these dealers of death from our streets.

Alberta Health Services, in my province, has found that 343 people died from fentanyl overdoses in 2016. This is a whopping 33% increase over 2015, and a horrifying 110% rise from just two years ago. A doubling of the death rate in just two years is incredible. It is disgusting. Calgary experienced the worst of it. Half of the province's deaths were in Calgary.

Of those 343 deaths in Alberta in 2016, 22 were linked to carfentanil. In the first five months of this year, more Albertans died from carfentanil than in all of last year, and the body count continues to grow. Albertans are dying at a rate of more than one a day from opioid overdoses alone.

We need to give our courts the tools and the willpower to keep the drug pushers and traffickers off our streets where they cannot do harm. We need to show our law enforcement that their tireless efforts and risky work was worth it. We need to show our first responders that we recognize the dangers they face, and we are looking to reduce potential harm. We need to show our overworked medical staff, those who see the damage daily, that we are trying to save lives as much as they are.

We need to show our communities that their safety and security is under threat, and we are taking action. Most of all, we need to show Canadian families we are doing what we can to better protect their children, their brothers, their sisters, and in some cases, sadly, their parents.

The reality is that the Liberals will not support our efforts to make these changes set out in Bill C-338. The Liberal government is working hard to expedite legislation that would make it legal for children to carry up to five grams of marijuana, while defeating Conservative attempts to jail drug dealers. The NDP members are even worse. Some of them are suggesting we legalize all drugs. This cavalier attitude toward drugs has consequences, and eight times a day, we are reminded of what is at stake.

I am not naive. I know we cannot simply increase all penalties and think it will magically make everyone follow the law. However, we are talking about people who cruise our streets, literally handing out death pills. I know we are all safer if they are in prison, and not on our streets or in our communities.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation, and let it go to committee for further review. We need to tackle the importing and trafficking of drugs to stop this problem from getting any worse. If my colleagues across think the bill can be improved, then let us do it. Let this proposal go to committee. Let us hear from experts, and let us just do something.

Voting down this legislation is tantamount to doing nothing as Canadians increasingly die around us. Let us do something. Let us do the right thing. Let us vote in favour of the bill.