Analysis of the Problem Construction of Cannabis-Impaired Driving in the Parliamentary Debates of Bill C-46.

Abstract

This thesis examined Bill C-46 as a case study of the constructed nature of public policy as inspired by Foucault’s (1982) argument that this construction, over time, can become “truth.” Our main research question was if the Canadian governments' construction of the problem of cannabis-impaired driving, which was used to justify the necessity and the content of new offences in Bill C-46, was contested in whole or in part during the parliamentary debates that resulted in the adoption of this law or, was the construction of cannabis-impaired driving accepted without contest by most of the parliamentarians and witnesses? This thesis used Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016) What’s the Problem Represented to be (WPR) framework to answer this question. Our two main findings of this thesis were first, that the construction of the problem was not substantially contested by parliamentarians or witnesses during the debate and second, that inequality is embedded in the content of Bill C-46. Our analysis presented the constructed division between “good citizens” who are not punishable by criminal sanctions for impaired driving or problematic driving behaviours such as driving while fatigued, or distracted driving. On the other hand, the “bad citizens”, including drivers who had consumed cannabis, were perceived as deserving of criminal punishment despite not necessarily being impaired. The Liberal Party was concerned more with political viability of cannabis legalization resulting in a problem construction that generates ineffective solutions to the objective of promoting road safety.