Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak at third reading to Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (drug-impaired driving).

Bill S-230 is a very important piece of legislation intended to fill a significant gap in the area of road safety, that is, the absence of an approved screening device to detect the presence of drugs in the body of a person suspected of drug-impaired driving.

Bill S-230 essentially aims to achieve three things. I would like to explain them to you now based on what we heard in the committee evidence.

First, Bill S-230 grants the Attorney General of Canada the power to authorize, by way of an order in council, the use of an approved roadside screening device to detect the presence of drugs in the body. The device would be approved by the Attorney General of Canada based on consultations with forensic science experts. The same process is already used to approve alcohol detection devices.

The use of screening devices to combat drug-impaired driving is long overdue. In fact, Canada is lagging far behind many other jurisdictions that already use these screening devices, particularly the United States, Australia, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom, Authorities in Australia have been using these devices for at least a decade.

This type of device detects the presence of drugs in the subject, but not the amount. I would like to quote Dr. Miles, a scientist who has testified at more than 300 trials:

A roadside oral fluid instrument has shown more robust articulation of drug impairment and offered further support for law enforcement officers to pursue and arrest for driving under the influence of drugs.

These devices would be programmed to detect categories of drugs. We know that the authorities in the United Kingdom have chosen to detect the presence of two drugs that are causing carnage on the roads, namely marijuana and cocaine.

Dr. Miles has added that these devices "are designed and established to indicate a recent use . . . ." Dr. Miles continued: "Therefore, these devices will detect the drug if it's there, but will also be programmed to detect only recent use of drugs."

Second, the bill states that a peace officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver is drug-impaired may request that the driver take a drug test. The device would not be used without reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving.

Honourable senators, this clause is modelled on the existing ALERT-type alcohol test. Under the Criminal Code, peace officers who have reasonable grounds to suspect drunk driving may require the driver to take a sobriety test. If the driver fails the test, that is not a crime, but it does give peace officers important evidence about whether the driver is actually intoxicated.

Because there is currently no drug testing device available, peace officers have to send the driver to a police station for a 12- step, 45- to 60-minute test administered by an evaluating officer. This bill would enable a peace officer to ensure that he or she is not making a mistake by confirming the presence of drugs in the driver's body before taking the driver to the police station and having his or her car towed.

If the test result is negative — perhaps the person was just tired, for example — the driver is exonerated and need undergo no further testing. In other words, the device can corroborate reasonable grounds to believe that drugs are present. An innocent person will be able to drive away sooner with his or her car. Failing the test is not a crime, but it gives peace officers one more piece of evidence and makes it easier for them to determine whether they have enough objective proof to establish reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is on drugs that are impairing his or her abilities.

Mr. Gerald Chippeur, a constitutional expert, wrote a legal opinion on this bill, and I quote:

This particular bill makes these sections of the Criminal Code, section 253 and 254, more compatible with the Charter because it creates a situation that is less intrusive for the individual motorist. In fact, for the person who is not impaired in any way by drugs, this test will immediately end an inquiry that could take longer if this test was not available. . . . it's my opinion that this bill is both consistent with the Charter and in fact will improve the compliance of the Criminal Code with the Charter.

Bill S-230 would also allow a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver is showing clear signs of drug- impaired driving, to demand that the driver go to the police station for further testing with an evaluating officer, as was the case under the Criminal Code. The bill does not make changes to the work of the evaluating officers. They remain the only individuals with the authority to conduct the 12 screening tests of 45 minutes that I was talking about earlier. I had the opportunity to talk to an evaluating officer. She told me that her work was quite laborious and that she was overwhelmed. She confided that there are not enough evaluating officers, that the screening device would be a supplementary tool for police officers and that it would buy them precious time.

In obvious cases of drug-impaired driving, when there are clear signs of consumption such as a red face, odour of alcohol or drugs, red eyes, confusion or lack of coordination, then a peace officer could ask for a sample of bodily substances at the police station without having to go through the evaluating officer's 12 stages.

Honourable colleagues, Bill S-230 has the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and victims' advocates associations. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime supports the public protection goals in this bill. The Canadian Association of Police Governance also supports this bill. The Katherine Beaulieu Foundation, which conducts prevention campaigns, is urging us to pass the bill. What is more, a pharmacist, Magali Cyr, whose mother was killed by a driver who was impaired by cocaine, is asking you to support this bill so that Canada can modernize its approach to drug-impaired driving. Canada is lagging behind.

The most vulnerable drivers on the road, adolescents, tend to believe that driving after consuming drugs is not dangerous. In fact, young people tell each other that if they are intoxicated by alcohol then they can get caught. They know that if they use drugs, there is very little chance they will get arrested.

This bill could save lives. The latest data show that drivers between the ages of 16 and 24 are responsible for 26.9 per cent of fatal accidents involving drugs in Canada. In committee, many witnesses explained why police officers do not currently have the tools they need to get drug-impaired drivers off the road. The number of drug-impaired drivers is underestimated because of a lack of screening tools. Statistics show that only five of the millions of motorists on the road each day are charged with drug- impaired driving. It is simply unrealistic to think that the existing system is working.

All scientific evidence shows the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs. Drug-impaired drivers may have a slower reaction time, be sleepy or disoriented, and have difficulty concentrating, judging distances, staying in their own lane and maintaining a constant speed. These factors increase the number of accidents, injuries and deaths. However, we can help prevent such tragedies by passing this bill, which provides for additional screening tools. One witness from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation who appeared before the committee had this to say, and I quote:

— the Traffic Injury Research Foundation stated that in 2012, 40 per cent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for drugs — 40 per cent — and in 2013 it will be 45 per cent. The police cannot screen these drivers before they die or kill somebody.

According to the Canadian government, in 2013, 97 per cent of prosecutions caused by impaired driving in Canada were alcohol- related, while only three per cent were drug-related. That three per cent represents approximately five cases a day of drug- impaired driving across the country. These statistics clearly do not represent the reality in Canada.

According to MADD Canada, in 2012, there were 614 road fatalities where drivers had drugs present in their system, compared to 475 fatalities where drivers had alcohol in their system. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse confirmed that finding.

I would remind senators that many organizations are urging that this legislation be passed. Consider that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police adopted Resolution 2014-01 at its 109th annual conference in 2014 calling on the government to urgently approve tools that, by the way, are not invasive because they use oral fluid used to screen drivers for drugs.

Establishing mandatory drug testing is within the purview of Parliament. In R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, the Supreme Court stated the following in paragraph 49 of its ruling:

The roadside screening test is a convenient tool for confirming or rejecting a suspicion regarding the commission of an alcohol-related driving offence under s. 253 of the Code.

The victims are counting on your support.

Honourable senators, I hope that you will join me in supporting Bill S-230 so that it can be sent to the House of Commons to be passed as quickly as possible on behalf of all victims of impaired driving.