Justice committee  The only thing I could add is that the one witness who did speak about the technical difficulties that could arise happens to be Corporal Graham, who's observing today, who is the national coordinator of the drug recognition evaluation program for the RCMP. He works with police f

Justice committee  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

Justice committee  That's only if the officer has a suspicion that they had that alcohol while they were driving. If the person is at the hospital, the officer may come to that through their later investigation, but they want to be able to do the screening-device test, for example, based on the fac

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

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  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  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.