Justice Committee on June 19th, 2007

[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.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, before we start, I'm wondering if I could ask two questions to the witnesses for clarification, to help me understand the bill better. I think it would be useful for the members. One of them refers to a lot of the clauses. I don't think they'd take very long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Put your question, Mr. Bagnell, and we'll get on with it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I just have two quick questions.

One of them is related to the DRE procedures. Is there anything in the act or regulations related to the certification or retesting or anything of DRE officers?

Secondly, one of the police witnesses suggested that this bill is light years ahead of that in any other jurisdiction in the world. Because it's being used in the States and everything, I thought this was to bring us up to be equal with some of the the other jurisdictions where it's working well. I just want to make sure I know where this is really breaking new ground and how it is revolutionary.

[Greg Yost, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

We have Corporal Graham here, who runs the program for the RCMP, and he was the one who said we would be light years ahead of other countries. I'm certainly not an expert on how they have done this in the 46 U.S. states that have brought this together. Their constitutional arrangements are somewhat different from ours, and they may have had to rely upon the implied consent you give when you get your driver's licence, to say that you will do these various things. We will have it entirely in the code.

With respect to regulations, these regulations do not exist now, but for a person to be certified, they will have to have completed the program, and all of those things will in fact have to be done in regulations. Mr. Pruden and I have optimistically scheduled a meeting with the drafters of regulations, in the expectation that this might fly, in order to go through all the material from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and to begin the process of putting that into Canada's constitutional framework and getting the regulations.

I do know that recertification is required of the officers, and I believe it's every two years. I'm looking at Corporal Graham, and he isn't jumping up and down, so I believe I'm giving you accurate information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Pruden, did you have something you wanted to say in response to that?

[Hal Pruden, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Some of the jurisdictions in the States, as Mr. Yost was mentioning, do have that implied consent legislation within their motor vehicle law. Canada will be different in the sense that right in the Criminal Code there will be a demand, the same way there is a breath demand. The draft legislation is modelled on the demands for breath samples. So at the screening level, the officer will be able to demand the roadside sobriety tests. At the next level--if the person fails those--the officer will be able to demand the DRE program evaluation back at the station. That is similar to the demand that is made for a breath sample on an approved instrument back at the station.

So at each step we've tried to parallel the breath-testing regime, which is used for investigations of over 80 alcohol offences, and we've done that for the purposes of investigating offences under paragraph 253(a), regarding driving while impaired by a drug.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Now we will have the clause-by-clause consideration.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We're dealing now with government amendment one.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, I will move government amendment 1.

What this does is limit to the more serious drugs in schedule I, II, or III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act when dealing with the section on possession of drugs in a vehicle. It limits that offence to possession of drugs in a vehicle if they are under schedule I, II, or III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

So it's a narrowing of that offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My understanding is that the opposition parties are against this clause entirely; we weren't in agreement with the possession.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's why this is such a wonderful compromise.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

It's in that spirit that it's been introduced.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Well, the purpose of this is already caused in the controlled substances act, and a lot of witnesses said that's where it should be dealt with, not in impaired driving.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Madam Jennings.

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

Put the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a question I want to put on the clause. And we're scheduled to be here for about three hours, so we'll get through this.

I wanted to ask the Department of Justice, whichever witness is appropriate, to answer this. If clause 2 were not to be adopted, if it were not to be found in the Criminal Code, can I assume that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would provide the same criminal prohibition for possession of any one of these drugs at any place, including if the person is in a motor vehicle, or a train, or an aircraft, or a vessel? May I assume that? That's my understanding.

[Greg Yost]

There are a couple of slight exceptions to that, the most important of which would be that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act does not provide for the summary conviction offence with respect to under 30 grams of marijuana. That is not one that would be punished in the same way. More importantly, there are no prohibitions attached to driving in any way. This is getting at prohibiting the driving. It's tied in; there are several amendments later.

So the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as it is now, would not have the same effect as proposed section 253.1.

[Hal Pruden]

But as you asked, it does apply.

[Greg Yost]

Yes. Possession of schedule I, II and III drugs is an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The level of penalties varies.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Therefore, if I'm not mistaken, this clause should be taken to be redundant to the overall application and effect of the CDSA provisions, although I do accept that this clause focuses specifically on people who possess while they have care or control of any of these vehicles.