Justice committee  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 d

Justice committee  But as you asked, it does apply.

Justice committee  It would be perhaps better to characterize it as additional to the CDSA rather than redundant. It's an additional penalty of driving prohibition that would attach.

Justice committee  No, I haven't.

Justice committee  I think it's been mentioned by witnesses that alcohol in one's possession is covered by the provincial highway traffic act or provincial alcohol legislation. This bill does not name as a criminal offence driving while alcohol is in the vehicle.

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just mentioning that for alcohol, provinces do have driving offences under their provincial legislation, so if someone is in possession of alcohol, they are committing the provincial offence. Yes, it's quite correct that we did not, in this bill, prop

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  I'm not aware of the fines that are given under the provincial legislation. It's not summary conviction.

Justice committee  It's not a Criminal Code summary conviction, obviously.

Justice committee  Mr. Chair.

Justice committee  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 commi

Justice committee  Mr. Chair, this proposed subsection leads to the necessity of having both suspicions fulfilled. The officer must suspect the substance in the body, and the officer must also suspect the operation of the vehicle within the preceding three hours. So a case would not arise where the

Justice committee  Clause 3, which we are looking at, is dealing with the screening level. At the screening level for alcohol, one typically has the approved screening device at the roadside. With drugs it would be three tests at the roadside for sobriety testing. What section 256 deals with is t

Justice committee  And because of the hospital testing in proposed section 256. It was felt when that amendment was made—I believe it was 1999, after the committee had reviewed all the impaired driving provisions—that the four hours was used for blood sampling. Typically there would be an accident

Justice committee  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 extre