Steven Blaney

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comment is down to earth, and shows how almost improvised the Liberal approach is in providing the device to our police officers so they can effectively enforce the proposed law.

I want to thank the member. We are privileged to have people who have served the country as police officers and who are involved in the debate, which is so critical to keeping Canadians safe. I want to recognize my colleague's great experience.

Not only will police officers not have the device, but there is no prevention in the bill. That is a big hole. Again, this shows the government is rushing through a disaster, and that is unfortunate because Canadian lives are at stake.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for the question.

The member is a former well-respected chief of police. I had the chance to get to know him when I was Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when we honoured police and peace officers who have fallen in the line of duty during a ceremony held right here in front of the Parliament buildings.

Far be it from me to question the member's dedication to public safety. I thank him for the support he has given my private member's bill, that the Liberals unfortunately killed. He recognizes that major components of my bill are included in this bill, but in an incomplete fashion.

I also want to mention that not only is there no consecutive sentencing, but there is also the issue of testing. That is why I would have liked my bill to have been amended instead of being so casually shot down. There is another flaw in the bill. We have routine screening for alcohol-impaired driving, but what about drug-impaired driving? Again, we have reasonable doubts. People will be more at risk of being hit by repeat drug-impaired driving offenders.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Victoriaville on his excellent speech and his commitment to public safety. We have been debating two complementary bills for two days now.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-46 on drug-impaired driving. We know that drunk driving is a major problem in Canada. It is the leading criminal cause of death. Now, because of the Liberals' improvised approach, drugs are going to be added to the mix. The government is improvising.

Unfortunately, my speech may serve to fuel Canadians' cynicism. I would like to talk this evening about Bill C-46, about what is contained in this bill, what is missing from it, and what is needed. I would also like to talk about a bill that was introduced in the House and even went to committee but that was unfortunately gutted by the Liberals, who came up with a watered-down version of a law that is supposed to protect innocent victims from repeat drunk drivers and people who cause fatal accidents while under the influence of alcohol.

We had a robust bill that we introduced in the House, one that could have already made it to the Senate by now and could have received royal assent in order to save lives now. Instead, we are stuck debating this bill that unfortunately has some serious flaws, which I want to point out.

First of all, what is in the bill? In the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, where I am from, an excellent MP, Claude Lachance, had a remarkable career. He said that, in opposition, it is our job to try to find what is positive in what the government brings forward.

One measure proposed by the government is called routine screening. This measure gives police officers the ability to ask an individual behind the wheel to submit to a blood alcohol test to screen for alcohol. This measure will save lives. This has been said many times in the House over the past few hours, and for the past few days, but particularly during the debate on Bill C-226. I have had the opportunity to say it myself. Routine screening is a measure that apparently has proven itself in many countries, for decades now, and it does save lives.

The government has been asked if this measure is constitutional. Unfortunately, the answers I have heard today have been evasive. Even so, it is one of the three pillars of an effective policy to reduce the number of accidents caused by impaired driving.

The second pillar has to do with the increasingly burdensome legal proceedings we have been seeing in recent years. Legal proceedings are interfering with the application of justice. I am not talking about the Jordan decision. I am talking about the last drink and intervening drink defences. The bill covers these issues to protect against abuse of process by drunk drivers. These are useful parts of the bill that would speed up proceedings and bring people caught driving while impaired to justice.

Now that I have mentioned two useful parts of the bill, I want to make an important point about how, if we want to tackle impaired driving successfully, the key is to make sure drivers know the police can stop them. Roadblocks are not working very well, which is why impaired driving still causes so many deaths.

An important provision not found in this bill, is one that would impose minimum sentences, or deterrent sentences. There is a consensus in the House that impaired driving is unacceptable in Canada, especially in the case of repeat offenders, who are a danger to society. We have to protect these people from themselves because quite often they have addictions and put the lives of innocent people at risk.

Members will recall the organization Families For Justice founded by Markita Kaulius, who lost her daughter. I want to recognize her, and I think of her in the context of safety and impaired driving. These victims and their families are asking elected members to send a clear message: it is unacceptable to drive while impaired, and repeat offenders must be kept behind bars. All too often, these accidents that cause irreparable harm are the fault of individuals who have been impaired before. This bill does not include any measures providing for a minimum sentence, a tool that the previous Liberal government did not hesitate to use.

Even the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister, approved of the use of minimum sentencing for bills on impaired driving. However, once again, the Liberals make promises and then, when it comes time to act, they give us half-measures. That is the case with the bill before us today. It contains measures regarding routine screening and speeding up the court process, but it has one major flaw. It does not contain any minimum sentences.

There is one thing that will certainly raise some eyebrows among those who are listening to us this evening. Our colleagues opposite had the chance to vote on the measures set out in the bill. Just a few weeks ago, the member for Montarville said that there was a flaw in Bill C-226. He said:

...the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

He ended by saying that the government was going to come back with its own bill. Well, today, we have before us a bill that does not contain any coherent measures regarding an education and awareness campaign. We are talking about impaired driving, but everyone here knows that this issue is related to the legalization of marijuana. The government is introducing two major bills, but it is allocating very little funding to one of the biggest societal changes that Canada is facing and that will have unbelievable social costs. It is also not adopting any awareness measures. This government’s botched bill is leading us to disaster.

Lastly, I will add that another flaw of this bill is the lack of consecutive sentencing provisions. If a repeat drunk driving offender kills three people, the government does not want to impose consecutive sentences for that crime.

These are all flaws in the bill. It falls short on so many fronts that I fear it will not be possible to amend it in committee. It is so full of holes, it looks like Swiss cheese. The government could have done much better.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague from Victoriaville, who prepared a very thorough presentation on the devastating effects of the Liberal bill on both public health and safety. We saw this in particular with the safety of youth.

I know that my colleague is interested in safety, and I would like to ask him a question. He showed us that the Liberals' motivation is money. That is clearly what he told us. I would like to remind him of a statement by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which indicates that drug impaired driving will be one of the main threats to public safety if recreational marijuana is legalized. He spoke about his private member's bill that he wants to sponsor. Could he tell us more? How can we avoid this? The rate of impaired driving is already high. How can we reduce the number of accidents on the road caused by drunk driving?

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Canada already has a myriad of problems and that the government has a science-based approach. Nevertheless, in Colorado, there have been not one, not two, not three, but seven devastating effects on the negative social costs related to the legalization of marijuana, including increased consumption by youth, consumption at an early age, and increased numbers of arrests, people in emergency care, hospitalizations, and fatal accidents.

I am wondering if lessons have been learned. The bill follows the Colorado model. Science shows that, contrary to what they say, it is truly devastating. Why go down a path that will create more problems? There is scientific evidence to that effect.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for her question, which has to do with prevention and raising awareness.

She is absolutely right. It is important to make young people aware of the devastating effects of drugs, particularly cannabis. Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning of my speech this evening, the government's approach is improvised and trivializes the use of marijuana. Even though the bill has not yet been passed, the government's lazy approach trivializes young people's use of drugs, which is already having devastating effects. We want to achieve exactly the opposite effect. That is why this bill, in its current form, is already having harmful effects on our young people.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the proposed approach by the government is that it will actually increase organized crime activities, as has been the case in the states of Washington and Colorado. However, more than that, not only would it increase organized crime but, when Colorado legalized marijuana, it became the number one state in the United States for teen marijuana use, with teen rates jumping over 12%. In both Washington state and Colorado, the illegal black market for drugs has exploded with organized crime.

The bill tabled by the government is a way to increase organized crime in this country. Is that what the member wants? I do not think so. I do not think this is what his constituents want. That is why he should not support the bill as it is tabled.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

What I would say to him is that the Liberal government's proposed measure is worse than the status quo because, in Colorado, there has been a rise in drug consumption among youth, fatal accidents, and an increase in the activities of organized crime. The solution is ticketing, which will help us reduce drug use among young people.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, you are right, and I want to apologize to the member. Indeed, I should have said he was a member from Toronto and mention him by his riding.

The fact remains that he is a Liberal member and he said that he supported the legalization of all drugs. Are we on a slippery slope that begins with the legalization of marijuana? What bill will the Liberals come up with next? Which drug will they want to legalize next? That is the question.

The member said that we should decriminalize the use and possession of all drugs. Understandably, this will do nothing to reassure any parents who are watching us this evening and who want to keep drugs away from young adults. They have something else to offer Canada's youth besides an artificial paradise.

This policy will be harmful for future generations. Allowing people to grow marijuana plants at home makes it easy for kids to access a mind-altering substance that could have serious, harmful effects on their development. There are much better things we could be doing besides giving access to drugs.

In closing, let me just say that this experiment has failed in Colorado. Why go down this dangerous path that will have a devastating effect and serious repercussions on young people, whom we want to protect, when ticketing is an inexpensive solution that could solve the problem?

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for sharing his time with me. I had the opportunity to prepare a bill on impaired driving with that member. As we can see this evening in the bill the Liberals have brought forward, this problem is only compounded by the Liberal approach, which could be qualified as improvisation and the trivialization of cannabis use.

The Prime Minister gives us lofty explanations to justify the legalization of cannabis, but really, it is just a smoke screen. As my colleague explained, it would be very simple to do some ticketing. This would allow us to protect young people, but the Liberals want to line the pockets of their Liberal cronies at the expense of the health of Canadians and the health of our youth.

Our government granted 30 permits for medical marijuana production. We did so without any interference, but we did not do it for recreational purposes, as this government is about to do.

The problem is that, ultimately, the government wants to line the pockets of their Liberal cronies at the expense of the health and safety of Canadians.

That is right. The only kind of capitalism the government approves of is crony capitalism. For the rest of us, it is bread and circuses.

We have tightened the rules for political fundraising, but that is not enough. There will be an industry that will sprout billionaires as a result of government largesse. That is how the Liberals will become rich. Unfortunately, that is what lies behind this bill.

It has already happened. People like Chuck Rifici, the former treasurer of the Liberal Party, co-founded Canopy Growth, a company that is now worth billions of dollars. Until last summer, he was the Liberal Party's chief financial officer. In fact, Mr. Rifici still worked for the Liberal Party when he co-founded Tweed, the company that has become the largest producer of medical marijuana in the country.

The same Mr. Rifici, a well-known Liberal, was also a member of the board of directors of Aurora Cannabis until May 8, and he is now the CEO of Cannabis Wheaton, which helps cannabis producers become publicly traded companies.

Is the connection clear? The words “cannabis”, “Liberal”, and “legalization” add up to “a lot of money”.

What about Canadians' safety and protecting our youth from a drug that scientists say has devastating effects on development?

That is not all. Adam Miron is the co-founder of Hydropothecary, the only authorized producer of medical marijuana in Quebec. He is the national director of the Liberal Party and the national director of the Young Liberals of Canada.

In addition, former Liberal minister Marin Cauchon is now a member of the board of directors of DelShen Therapeutics, a Toronto cannabis producer that recently obtained its operating licence from the government.

There is more. Herb Dhaliwal, a former Liberal minister, sits on the board of directors of National GreenBioMed, and Larry Campbell, a Liberal senator, is head of Vodis Pharmaceuticals. These two companies are waiting for a Health Canada licence to produce cannabis. Once again, there are Liberal ties.

I agree with my new Bloc colleague, the member for Longueuil, who is not pleased with this shameful Liberal cronyism.

To add insult to injury, in April 2016, many heads of big medical marijuana companies attended a Liberal fundraiser, where they even had privileged access to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who was charged with the task of implementing this cannabis legalization act. The Liberals then, since it was made public, had no choice but to reimburse the donations. However, they cannot reimburse Canadians for their misplaced trust in this supposedly transparent, open government. Clearly, the only way to hold the government accountable today is to catch it red-handed. It has proven that it cannot be trusted to come forward and walk the talk.

On the campaign trail, the Liberal leader promised millennials the moon. We all know how much he likes a selfie. Meanwhile, he was promising his Liberals friends a goldmine in the form of billions in cannabis sales. The honeymoon phase is over for Canadians, especially young Canadians, who will end up battling more serious drug addiction problems. For some, the only moon they will get is the one they sleep under at night, out on the street, having lost everything because of irresponsible Liberal measures.

Unfortunately, as my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove reminded us, we have seen the harm that comes from legalizing marijuana. Colorado played sorcerer's apprentice with marijuana legalization, and the outcome has been devastating in three ways. First, marijuana consumption among youth went up. We agree with the Liberals that cannabis use by young people is a problem. What we are saying is that the government's proposed measure will increase cannabis consumption, so this is obviously not a good way to solve the problem.

The second consequence, which is tragic, is that there has been an increase in the number of fatal road accidents. My colleague from Langley—Aldergrove and I have been trying to address this problem because impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. We already have our hands full with drinking and driving and now the government wants to add drug-impaired driving to the mix. Unfortunately, in Colorado, the increase in drug use among young people was accompanied by a dramatic increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents attributable to the use of drugs.

The solution is actually quite simple, but it will not help the Liberals' friends who want to make billions of dollars. It is good old ticketing. When police officers apprehend young people or adults who are in possession of a small amount of marijuana, they issue them a fine. It is so simple, but this measure would not make the Liberal members, and especially their friends, richer. That is the problem.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have a hidden agenda. Even MP Erskine-Smith said that he wanted all drugs to be legalized. That does not reassure us with regard to the Liberals' current approach. According to the member—