Evidence of meeting #78 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not a Criminal Code summary conviction, obviously.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Exactly.
So there are no provisions creating a criminal offence in the Criminal Code for the possession of alcohol in any part of a vehicle, knowingly, if I use the expression? There's nothing that says that “Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, while knowingly and without lawful excuse having in his or her possession, or in any part of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment” alcohol? There's nothing like that in the Criminal Code, according to what you've said, for drugs. You've already got the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Why then does clause 2 amend section 253 by adding proposed subsection 253.1(1)?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As Mr. Yost was mentioning, in the previous Parliament when this committee examined the then Bill C-16, this committee chose to add the driving while in possession offence to Bill C-16, the predecessor of this legislation. It was an opposition motion that was passed by this committee.
I would note that alcohol is a legal substance in Canada. While the provinces have chosen to create a provincial offence of having open alcohol in a vehicle, alcohol is not included within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is what this bill is focused upon. So alcohol not being in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, it wasn't included, and it was already covered by provincial legislation. Alcohol is a legal substance. It is a drug, but it is a legal substance in Canada.
Conservative
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a criminal lawyer, I have read this clause. It is redundant, and above all, it will do harm, because a driver could lose his driver's licence and get a criminal record if he doesn't know that a passenger or a hitchhiker he has given a ride to is in possession of drugs. Furthermore, pursuant to the American provisions, he would be totally banned from travelling to the United States.
This is worse than what was provided for originally. Despite the amendment to section 253, a driver or a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle who is found guilty of an offence may be banned from the United States, even if he had nothing in his possession. He would be found guilty.
Do you agree with me?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The section that we are dealing with naturally stipulates that he must be in possession of drugs knowingly and without any lawful excuse. If the driver does not know that the hitchhiker he has picked up has drugs on him, he cannot be found guilty under section 253.1 as proposed. If the driver is knowingly in possession of illegal drugs while driving, he could be convicted, under the amendment, pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It would be very difficult for him to get into the United States. Americans do not welcome persons who have been convicted under any section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He will have this problem if he is knowingly in possession of drugs.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I want to follow up on the question of alcohol being in the vehicle. If I understand correctly, although that does fall under provincial jurisdiction, if you have open alcohol in your vehicle that is an offence.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Certainly it was an offence when I was in Manitoba, and I'm assuming it's an offence here in Ontario. I've never taken the chance of running around with open alcohol, but I'm sure it's that way in all provinces.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Fair enough, the point being that it did sound like you could have alcohol in the car and not have to be concerned about being charged. But there's a difference between having a sealed bottle in the back in a bag versus having an open bottle sitting next to you in either the passenger seat or the driver's seat.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
(Clause 2 as amended negatived)
(On clause 3)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
On to clause 3, government motion number 2, page 2 on your list.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes, I'll move government amendment number 2.
Chair, as it's currently written in this section, an officer has to suspect that a person has been driving while having alcohol in the body in the previous three hours before the officer can make a demand for a roadside screening test.
As amended by G-2, it would allow for a demand where there's suspicion of alcohol in the body and suspicion that the person drove in the previous three hours.
I have moved government amendment number 2, and I'd be glad to see everyone support it.
Liberal
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”?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, the effect of what we are proposing is aimed primarily at situations of accidents where the police are running their investigations. Currently you could have the situation, if there has been some lapse of time, where the police officer--
Liberal
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”.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
I believe my colleague Mr. Bagnell has a question.
