Skip to main content Start of content

JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 78
 
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
 

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 9:18 a.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, Art Hanger, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Hon. Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Rick Dykstra, Art Hanger, Hon. Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Brian Murphy and Daniel Petit.

 

Acting Members present: Paule Brunelle for Carole Freeman, Marc Lemay for Carole Freeman and Joy Smith for Myron Thompson.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst; Laura Barnett, Analyst. House of Commons: Mike MacPherson, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: Department of Justice: Hal Pruden, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Greg Yost, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Evan Graham, National Coordinator, Drug Evaluation and Classification Program.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, February 6, 2007, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
 

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

 

The Chair called Clause 1.

 

The witnesses from the Department of Justice answered questions.

 

Clause 1 carried.

 

On Clause 2,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 1 with the following:

“substance included in Schedule I, II or III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to.

 

After debate, Clause 2, as amended, was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

On Clause 3,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 2 with the following:

“to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to.

 
Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 4 the following:

“(3.11) For greater certainty, a peace officer shall make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1).”

 

At 10:35 a.m., it was agreed, —That Evan Graham be invited to provide testimony.

Evan Graham answered questions.

 

On motion of Brian Murphy, it was agreed, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “shall” with the word “may”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings, as amended, and it was agreed to.

 
On motion of Rob Moore, it was agreed, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 4 with the following:

“approved instrument.”

 

Clause 3, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 2.

 

Clause 4 carried.

 

On Clause 5,

Réal Ménard moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 35 on page 5.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Réal Ménard and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 7.

 

Clause 5 carried on division.

 

Clause 6 carried on division.

 

Clause 7 carried on division.

 

On Clause 8,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 8, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 20 to 27 on page 8 with the following:

“preuve tendant à démontrer à la fois que les résultats des analyses montrant une alcoolémie supérieure à quatre-vingt milligrammes d’alcool par cent millilitres de sang découlent du mauvais fonctionnement ou de l’utilisation incorrecte de l’alcootest approuvé et que l’alcoolémie de l’accusé au moment où l’infraction aurait été commise ne dépassait pas quatre-vingts milligrammes d’alcool par cent millilitres de sang, de l’alcoolémie de l’accusé tant au moment des analyses qu’à celui où l’infraction aurait été commise, ce”

(b) replacing lines 2 to 16 on page 9 with the following:

“made is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the analyses were made and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was, if the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the approved instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, that the malfunction or improper operation resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;”

(c) replacing lines 3 to 19 on page 10 with the following:

“evidence of the result of the analysis is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the samples were taken and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was the concentration determined by the analysis or, if more than one sample was analyzed and the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the analysis was performed improperly, that the improper performance resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to.

 
On motion of Rob Moore, it was agreed, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 40 on page 8.

 
Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 13 the following:

“(5.1) No evidence pertaining to samples of an accused's breath shall be received in evidence in the absence of a certificate of an analyst stating that the approved instrument was calibrated correctly, is checked for accuracy on a regular basis and has been maintained according to the manufacturer's guidelines.”

Debate arose thereon.

 

Larry Bagnell moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “guidelines” the following:

“or any more stringent guidelines subsequently established.”

Debate arose thereon.

 

The question was put on the subamendment of Larry Bagnell and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

 

At 12:08 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Diane Diotte
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2007/06/21 3:58 p.m.