Evidence of meeting #25 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was part.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
But you do recognize that the provision imposes no restrictions on arbitrary testing.
5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would not say that, as this is not our bill and this provision was not part of Bill C-73.
The sponsor of the bill, Mr. Blaney, followed the model used in Australia, where testing is random and nearly without any restrictions. I found only one restriction in the Australian piece of legislation, and it was the requirement that the peace officer must be in uniform.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
So they could not currently carry out random testing in Montreal.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
They could not currently carry out random testing in Montreal.
5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That would have been the case if the restriction was added to our legislation. Only one Australian state requires the police officer to be in uniform to be able to administer a test in their patrol vehicle. That is the only restriction.
Another provision requires that a police officer apply the procedure that minimizes problems and delays for the public.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I know that my time is running out. So I will quickly put one last question to you.
Why are provisions from one section being removed only to be included in another section?
September 27th, 2016 / 5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's a matter of drafting. We wanted to draw attention to a new beginning by creating a new part. That was planned in the Department of Justice discussion paper, which was published in February 2010.
I was somewhat surprised when the drafters told us that we could not replace the numbers found there because it would create a part within another part. Things don't work that way. We had to find another spot for them. That's the kind of expertise those people have. They told us to create a new part, which starts with section 320.22, unless I am mistaken.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm afraid we're out of time, but we may get a further response.
This is a private member's bill, so I am concerned, because in your answer you were saying “as the government had written it”. We have to be very cautious. As a parliamentarian, I am concerned about that. It's confusing for this committee, because we've been told we can't get briefing data around a previous bill written by a previous government, while at the same time, a witness who is an official has said, “We wrote this bill. We wanted to do this; we wanted to do that.” I'll just point that out to the committee.
As the chair of the committee, I'm concerned, because a member asked for information about a bill that was in a previous Parliament, and that request was declined. That is a concern and I wanted to put that on the record.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.