Bill C-32 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle while in possession of a controlled substance as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;
(b) to authorize specially trained peace officers to conduct tests to determine whether a person is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug;
(c) to authorize the taking of bodily fluids to test for the presence of alcohol or a drug;
(d) to create an offence of operating a motor vehicle with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood and causing bodily harm or death to another person;
(e) to clarify what evidence a person accused of driving with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood can introduce to raise a doubt that they were not committing the offence;
(f) to create an offence of refusing to provide a breath sample when the accused knows or ought to know that the accused’s operation of a motor vehicle caused an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person or death; and
(g) to increase the penalties for impaired driving.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Justice

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to wait any longer for mandatory sentences for gun crimes or for an increase in the age of protection for young people. They waited long enough while the opposition stalled and delayed at committee.

In fact, just this morning the member for Yukon filibustered a discussion on Bill C-32 which would increase minimum penalties for alcohol and drug impaired drivers.

Bill C-22, increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 years, was held up at committee.

Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill, was held up at committee.

Bill C-10, the bill for mandatory sentences for gun crimes, was also held up at committee by opposition members who are so out of touch with Canadians and still prefer to coddle criminals.

The good news is these three bills have finally passed the House. The bad news is that they are down the hall at the Senate.

Will the Liberal interim leader tell his unelected senators who are preoccupied with protecting their terms to protect Canadians and pass these bills?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

Given that one of the witnesses here, Mr. Yost, has said that LIB-8--which would amend clause 8 by adding on after line 6 on page 13, the text that one finds on page 18 of the amendments that have been distributed--if I understood him correctly, is not really a problem. There's a minor contradiction. He said there might be a minor contradiction, but that in fact the substance of it is not a problem with Bill C-32, does not change the objective substantially of Bill C-32.

I believe this is in fact an amendment that should be supported by the members of this committee. I think it brings a little more clarity to clause 8, and as he said--I'm not putting words in his mouth, he said it himself--it does not change clause 8. It brings a little bit more clarity. It repeats information that's there, and there's one little technical thing. Now, the government may wish to propose a subamendment for the one little technical thing that Mr. Yost mentioned, but I'm amazed that the government is automatically discounting out of hand this particular amendment that's being proposed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You're probably aware that I have a motion to amend, LIB-8, which is still there, which also deals with clause 8 of Bill C-32.

My question on LIB-8 is whether LIB-8 would come into contradiction should the government amendment G-4 carry. Would that create a contradiction?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So Bill C-32 simply increases the existing minimum mandatories?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Liberal amendment 1 would also amend clause 3, which we just amended with government amendment 2.

This would amend in order to ensure that when the drug recognition expert is carrying out the second phase of evaluation of someone's sobriety, determining whether or not the individual is impaired, in particular by drugs, a video recording of said evaluation would take place. The government in Bill C-32 already states, under subclause 3(3), proposed subsection 254(2.1), that on the road where the standardized roadside sobriety test takes place:

a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a).

My amendment would require, at the police station when they're undergoing the second phase of the evaluation, that the evaluation be recorded by video. And given that all or most police stations are already equipped with video equipment for interrogations, etc., it would certainly not be a hardship.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The only reason I raise this is that in the whole discussion about the government's amendment in Bill C-32 and now the amendment 2 they're proposing, people were talking about section 256 as being the remedy and an argument for not supporting the government's amendment to clause 3. I'm pointing out that section 256 is not an argument for not supporting the government's amendment of clause 3.

That's all. Thank you.

[Hal Pruden]

As it's currently drafted in Bill C-32, the belief is that at the time they were driving they had alcohol in the body, whereas in the amendment, the officer suspects that they now have alcohol in the body and also must have the suspicion that they were driving within the previous three hours. It's different.

[Hal Pruden]

Under both versions, the original Bill C-32 and the amendment, the officer must suspect alcohol in the body. The officer, at this screening level, does not have to have reasonable belief that there was impairment. It's strictly on a suspicion of presence of alcohol. It's an extremely low threshold already.

As Bill C-32 was first drafted, it says the officer had to have the suspicion...while the person was operating the motor vehicle. The amendment will give them more time. They will be able to look back in time if the person has been taken off to hospital. That's what this is meant to accomplish.

Under the existing Criminal Code, if they've gone off to a hospital and the officer doesn't have the reasonable and probable grounds to believe they've committed the offence, they can't use that lower threshold to get a screening-level demand. That is what this is attempting to accomplish.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a bit of a problem with this amendment. It seems to me that you can already do what you want and that this would only add options for abuse.

My understanding of the way you have drafted Bill C-32--and I'm not sure why you'd bring an amendment later--is that if the police suspect a person has been impaired driving, they can run them through the tests. The amendment says they just have to suspect that they have had alcohol and that they drove a car. There's a good likelihood in modern society that anyone has driven a car within the last three hours. He doesn't have to suspect he was driving the car while impaired, which was your original draft; he just has to suspect he was driving, which could force almost anyone into these tests once they've had alcohol. That doesn't seem to make sense. It seems to me that could be open for abuse. The way you have it written in the first bill, the police officer can subject a person to the test if they think they were impaired driving.

As well, I'm not sure why you added this after you drafted the bill.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, because the only thing I want to assure myself of is that the “reasonable grounds”--the very first line in Bill C-32, clause 3, line 19--remains, and that you're changing as of line 20, so that it would still read “reasonable grounds to suspect”.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Under Bill C-32, as it is now presented, it reads:

If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours had alcohol or a drug in their body

With the amendment you're bringing, would it still be that “a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. The committee, of course, will be proceeding through a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The committee has before it, from the Department of Justice, Mr. Hal Pruden, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Mr. Greg Yost, counsel, criminal law policy section.

We may as well get right into the clause-by-clause review. I know that some amendments arrived late. I trust that everyone has a copy.

Mr. Bagnell has a point of order or a comment to make.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to address that in the affirmative in a moment but there is more that we should know about in terms of the business we are doing.

We will continue today with Bill C-42, the quarantine act, Bill C-58, the railway transportation bill and Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted).

Tonight we have the emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 that the Speaker has determined should proceed.

On Friday we will call Bill C-33, the income tax bill and Bill C-6, the aeronautics bill.

Next week is got the job done week when the House has completed the nation's business for this spring's session. During the got the job done week we will continue and hopefully complete the business from this week, as well as some new legislation and legislation that will be out of committee or the Senate.

The list of bills that are currently on the order paper, in addition to those I have identified for this week that I would like to see completed by the House before the summer recess are: Senate amendments to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

There are also the following bills: Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Bill C-53, An Act to implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

Another bill includes Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

By the end of next week, Canadians expect that the Senate will have completed its consideration of budget Bill C-52 without any amendments so that they can relax for the summer with the knowledge that $4.3 billion in the 2006-07 year end measures will be in play.

If there are amendments, we will have to be here in the House to respond and protect measures that might otherwise be lost, such as a $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for the Canada infoway; $100 million for the CANARIE project to maintain the research broadband network linking Canadian universities and research hospitals; $200 million for protection of endangered spaces; and much more.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the motion. I would like to understand it more. Is our colleague questioning the role of the government's priorities committee, the legislation committee, the Privy Council or, like all of us no doubt, the composition of Cabinet? I would like to know which decision-making centre he's attacking more.

Second, I believe I understood that, on our return in September, we will still have to discuss Bill C-27. We still have to debate five bills, if my count is correct. I'm not opposed to this motion, if we can do the work in two or three meetings. I'm never very much in favour of the idea of adding meetings because, obviously, there's a limit to what we can productively do in committee. Perhaps we'll have completed the consideration of Bill C-32. At least that will be done. I wouldn't be surprised if the government continued its strategy of striking other legislative committees.

Perhaps the mover could tell us what decision-making centre he's attacking. If, in his mind, that can be done in one or two meetings, I'm not opposed to the motion.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Would Bill C-32 give you the tools you need to be able to take that side of this issue to the next level, in terms of being able to feel more comfortable and also to feel you have the tools within a piece of legislation that allow you to proceed on a more regular basis with individuals you believe are impaired based on their intake of a drug?