Ron Cannan

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are not proud of our history in our dealings with the first nations community. It is something we in the House have indicated that we do not condone. I hope we have learned from our history so that these things never happen in the future.

There is a first nation community within my constituency. I meet with band members when I have the opportunity. I was on the regional treaty advisory committee for several years. Chief Robert Louie and some of the other band members are very progressive in the Okanagan. They are some of the most progressive bands in Canada. I applaud their initiatives for providing safe drinking water, clean and affordable shelter, education and economic opportunities and, something we all hope to foster, development within the first nations as they continue to be a big part of our future, as they have been in our history.

I listened to the member opposite this morning and there was indeed an apology issued. I would like to read for the House the aboriginal first nations National Chief Phil Fontaine's acceptance of the 1998 statement of reconciliation:

It took [the government] some courage to take this historic step, to break with the past and to apologize for the historic wrongs and injustices committed against our people. It is therefore a great honour for me, on behalf of the First Nations, to accept the apology of the government and the people of Canada.

Last week in my office in Ottawa I had a meeting with Richard Jock and some of the other members of the AFN. We continue to work on fostering relationships with our first nations community.

I would also like to point out to the House that since then, many churches, the institutions that actually ran the schools, have made formal apologies and have gone to the brink of bankruptcy to pay compensation.

In December 2006 Phil Fontaine commented on the residential schools settlement agreement. That agreement was concluded by this government under the excellent leadership of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Phil Fontaine said:

We have in this agreement recognition that harm was done to our people and that those who harmed our people are prepared to accept their responsibility.

These comments allude to the fact that our government is very sensitive to this issue and is getting the job done. The Liberals did not get the job done on the residential schools settlement. They also seem to be denying something they did. In 1998 Jane Stewart, then minister of Indian affairs, issued a statement of reconciliation titled “Learning from the Past”, in which she declared:

To those of you who suffered this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry.

That sounds a lot like an apology to me. I ask the member opposite, does that not sound like an apology to him?

[Democratic Reform, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2006 our government introduced two important pieces of legislation. One was the bill limiting the terms of senators to eight years, which by the way has been stuck in the Senate now for 330 days. Another was the bill to establish a fixed date for elections, which passed in the House with the support of all the parties.

However, after sitting on the bill for half a year, the unelected, unaccountable, Liberal dominated Senate amended it at the last minute to allow the cancellation of a Canadian general election for events as minor as a municipal referendum on building an arena. Could the Minister for Democratic Reform inform the House of the status of this unacceptable amendment?

[Forestry, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians finally have a federal government that is acting on our priorities.

While the previous government watched and did little, the mountain pine beetle infestation grew from a few city blocks to an area almost three times the size of Vancouver Island. The truth is the previous government did not contain this beetle. The infestation now threatens Canada's vast pine forests and the well-being of some 180 communities.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell this House what our government is doing to combat this disaster?

[Curling, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Kelowna Curling Club team who yesterday became the Women's World Curling Champions.

Skip Kelly Scott, Gina Schraeder, Sasha Carter, Renee Simons, Michelle Allan and coach Gerry Richard beat Denmark in the championship game 8-4, a resounding win that capped off a near perfect tournament.

With their win last night, Kelly Scott and Sasha Carter became the only Canadian women to ever achieve both World Junior Women's and World Women's titles.

This latest Kelowna connection cements Kelowna's reputation as the curling capital of Canada. Kelowna has produced world champions in men's, women's, junior men's and junior women's divisions, the Canadian National Blind Championship and has won gold in the Paralympics.

Team Kelowna has curled together for five years, has won the last two Canadian championships and will go on to try to win its third in 2008 as Team Canada.

On behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country and Canadians across this country, we salute Kelly Scott and her team for bringing the Women's World Curling Championship back home to Canada.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, through a concerted multilateral, multifaceted effort, Canada is helping to build a secure, democratic and economically viable Afghan state. This morning, the Prime Minister announced up to $200 million in additional aid funding for Afghanistan's reconstruction and development.

Could the Minister of International Cooperation share with the House how this funding will be used?

[Foreign Affairs, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations General Assembly recently adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is the result of negotiations that concluded on December 13, 2006.

Given Canada's continued engagement in this important issue, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada's plans are with respect to the signing and ratification of this convention?

[National Blind Curling Championship, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to recognize Dean Martell, Sandy Neddow, Frank Costello, Bob and Barbara Comba and Janet Dyck who are in Ottawa for the National Blind Championship bonspiel.

These individuals have represented Kelowna, British Columbia and Canada with distinction and class.

They have won the national bonspiel the past two years and are returning to defend their title once again. I am proud to call them my constituents and to celebrate their accomplishments.

This bonspiel, organized by the Canadian Council of the Blind, is one of the premier events of White Cane Week, a week dedicated to celebrating the equal talents and abilities of the blind and visually impaired community.

Events, such as this national bonspiel, demonstrate the self-sufficiency and determination of the blind and visually impaired and their commitment to maintaining an active lifestyle.

I would like to congratulate the Kelowna team on its past victories and on its 8-0 record at this year's championship bonspiel. We wish them the best of luck as they defend their title and go for a “three-pete”.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support as well. I will take that information under advisement. It has some implications from a provincial perspective. We are working with our provincial and territorial colleagues to try to address those concerns.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite for his support for this bill and his understanding of some of the challenges that have been faced by my supporters and my colleagues, who brought this bill forward in the past.

Ironically, to date, I have not had a lot of opposition from the breweries and other beverage industries. One of the local microbreweries in my riding, Tree Brewing, came forward and supported the bill on behalf of some of the microbreweries. It understands there could be some industry concerns.

I think from a society perspective, people have understood the impacts of responsible drinking and driving. We have rights on one hand and we have responsibility on the other of bringing those together. From 27 years ago, when the legislation was first introduced, we have come a long way, and there is unanimous support from the community today. I have not had that opposition. In fact, I have had support from various organizations.

I have a letter from the president of Brain Trust Canada, who has offered his support for my private member's bill. He says: “I believe that this legislation will save lives and reduce the incidents of brain injury in Canada. In B.C. alcohol has been found to factor in over 60% of all motor vehicle crashes, resulting in harm to occupants. Reducing the legal limit will aid in the fight against the terrible human cost resulting from drinking and driving. We are pleased to offer our support and thank you on behalf of our membership for your efforts to reduce the human suffering caused by drinking and driving”.

To date I have not had any. I might have some discussion after this. I look forward to meeting and working with industries such as the hospitality industry. I come from the Okanagan Valley. We have the 10 top Canadian wineries in B.C., so we definitely support the consumption of some good Okanagan beverages. However, it is the rights and responsibilities. I look forward to working once again with everybody in the House to move the bill forward.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

moved that Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to address the House of Commons to debate Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This is the first private member's bill I have tabled since I was elected in 2006 to represent the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country. The bill pertains to a problem that has concerned me since my days as a city councillor for the city of Kelowna in British Columbia, now as a member of Parliament, and not least as a father of three daughters, two who are still teenagers, and thus part of the demographic that is particularly vulnerable to the tragic results of drinking and driving.

I will begin my remarks by laying out the particulars of the bill and will follow with the rationale. Bill C-376 will create a new .05 blood alcohol concentration, BAC, offence. This is in addition to the current .08% blood alcohol content which already exists in the Criminal Code.

The new .05 legislation will be an exclusively summary conviction offence with relatively moderate fines and driving prohibitions. It will give peace officers the right to issue a ticket to the accused who can choose to plead guilty without having to appear in court. It will make changes to the Criminal Records Act so that if a person convicted of the new .05% offence has no additional drinking and driving related convictions for two years, the record of the conviction will be destroyed.

These are the particulars, but what is the rationale, the impetus for the bill? In other words, why introduce .05% into the Criminal Code? The short answer is that it will save lives. What many people do not know is impaired driving remains the number one cause of criminal death in Canada, more than all other causes of homicide combined. This is a problem we cannot ignore.

I believe in part this problem exists because the current .08 blood alcohol content is not an accurate reflection of the true risks associated with drinking and driving. When parliamentarians set the .08% blood alcohol content in 1970, they did so based on findings that we now know considerably underestimated the risks of fatal crashes associated with impaired driving. Driving related skills are significantly impaired at levels well below .08%. Not only does research show that a majority of the driving population is impaired in some important measures at blood alcohol contents as low as .02%, it has also established that occasional drinkers have a higher risk of fatal crash than regular drinkers at the same blood alcohol content.

The fact is no amount of drinking and driving is completely safe. Although logically the only solution is to never to drink and drive, as legislators, we must balance such laws against the issues of practicality, of the burden it places on the resources of all levels of government and the police, and the right of the individual to determine his or her own choice to act responsibly.

In this respect it is up to us to determine based on sound scientific evidence what a safe blood alcohol content level is. In other words, how much is too much? The evidence shows that a blood alcohol content level below .05% is a responsible limit. Given the evidence, there is a clear trend within the international community for lower blood alcohol content limits which I feel Canada too should adopt.

Most of the developed countries of the world now have administrative or criminal blood alcohol content limits of .05% or lower for the general driving population. Virtually all of the leading medical, accident prevention and traffic safety organizations around the world support a blood alcohol content driving limit at or below .05%.

The British Medical Association has maintained for decades that .05% blood alcohol content is the highest level that can be accepted as entirely consistent with the safety of other road users. Our Canadian medical associations concur. Both the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association have made public statements in support of a .05% blood alcohol content in the past.

In many countries around the world, legislators have set reasonable limits and have effectively reduced the incidents of death and injury due to drinking and driving. Yet this is not the case in Canada, despite the fact that impaired driving remains the number one cause of criminal death in Canada, as I mentioned, more than all other causes of homicide combined.

Many have tried. Parliamentarians before me and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, otherwise known as MADD, have advocated for a lower blood alcohol content for some time but it has not been accepted. The question is why. I think the answer lies in certain myths about lowering the blood alcohol content and the concerns Canadians have as a result.

In a letter to the editor in my local newspaper, the Kelowna Capital News, a constituent wrote that lowering the blood alcohol content to .05% would only succeed in stopping people from going out to dinner and enjoying a drink with a meal. Lowering the blood alcohol content would fail to curb heavy drinkers whom he believed caused the majority of accidents and could not be deterred.

These are arguments shared by a number of concerned constituents, but they are in fact not true. I will address them here today as I did in response to my constituents.

A lower blood alcohol content does not impede one from enjoying a drink with dinner. In fact, few people understand the amount one can drink and still come under the .08 limit of today. At the current level of .08, the average male can drink six bottles of beer on an empty stomach over a two hour period without reaching the legal limit and get behind the wheel of a car. This seems excessive. In contrast, lowering the blood alcohol content to .05 requires that he cut those drinks back to four, which I think we can all agree has no impact on the enjoyment of going out for dinner and enjoying a drink.

Second, the assertion that drunks causing accidents are the ones who exceed current .08 is not accurate.

As a deterrent effect, lowering the blood alcohol limit reduces impaired driving at all blood alcohol content levels. In countries like Germany and Sweden, where levels have been legislated at .05 and .02 respectively, the sharpest declines were seen among those drinkers and drivers at the highest blood alcohol content levels.

The .05 level is neither a prohibitionist measure nor is it ineffective in reaching the so-called heavy drinkers. In fact, countries that instituted a .05 or lower blood alcohol content have seen significant reductions in the number of deaths due to impaired driving and have witnessed a deterrent effect on those who drink and drive.

When Canadians are informed of these facts and understand the amount of alcohol that the current law allows drivers to consume, surveys show that support for a lower blood alcohol limit increases.

In the fall of 2006, the Toronto Star did an expose of impaired driving and asked its readership the following poll question. Should Canada follow many European countries in lowering the legal blood alcohol level for motorists? The results were that 84% said yes, and 15% said no.

In the fall of 2005, an SES national survey showed overwhelming support for reducing the amount one can drink alcohol and then legally drive. According to the recent SES findings, more than seven of ten Canadians believe that the drinking limits allowed by our impaired driving laws should be reduced. When allowable drinking levels at a proposed .05 blood alcohol concentration legal limit were explained, 84% of Canadians felt this level was about right or should be even lower.

I believe there is a willingness on the part of Canadians to follow the lead of other countries and set a .05 limit. As the surveys show, Canadians are comfortable with a .05 law and view it as a responsible measure which also reflects the right of the individual to exercise his or her own discretion.

There is one more concern and it is by no means a small one, but one I would like to address today. The concern is that by adding a .05 blood alcohol content to the Criminal Code, the measure will unduly burden the provinces, the courts and our police. I do not think anyone can argue that it certainly will change what is now the current practice.

At the moment all provinces have, with the exception of Quebec, provincial and territorial short term roadside licence suspension legislation. This legislation does not create any offence, or carry any fine or other penalty. In most cases, the roadside suspensions are not officially recorded and have no long term licensing consequences. For most drivers, the suspension will merely result in having to park the vehicle or allow a sober licensed passenger to drive. Under Bill C-376, we will add significant weight to the provincial sanctions at .05 blood alcohol content.

Those who violate the proposed Criminal Code offence would be guilty of a federal summary conviction offence and subject to a mandatory fine and federal driving prohibition and it would apply uniformly throughout Canada.

Yes, we are required to consider the concerns of the provinces, but the status quo is not working and the federal sanctions proposed have the potential to be a far greater deterrent than the existing provincial and territorial short term roadside suspensions.

We must try to achieve a .05% Criminal Code offence in Canada, as so many other countries have done, to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and save potentially hundreds of Canadian lives.

I am not the first to bring this issue to the attention of the House and I may not be the last. Others have tried to do so before me, including my hon. colleagues from Cariboo—Prince George and Langley as well as Senator Marjory LeBreton and, of course, the late Chuck Cadman.

Today, I am asking the House to consider this issue again. By supporting Bill C-376, we can have a significantly positive impact by reducing drinking and driving related deaths and injuries in Canada, for the loss of a child, a daughter, a son, a father or a mother due to a drunk driver is unimaginable.

Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success. I look forward to working together with my hon. colleagues, and all Canadians, to introduce more effective impaired driving laws that would reduce both the unnecessary deaths and the carnage on our roads.