Bill C-46 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 5, 2001
- Debated in principleDec. 7, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 7, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2001
- Became lawDec. 18, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (427 words introduced, 339 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of allowing courts to let repeat offenders drive under provincial ignition interlock programs after a short minimum ban stayed the same. Two-thirds of the text was rewritten, mainly to add rules on moving provinces and on suspending the permission when the offender stops participating.
- Added royal assent date to the bill header.
After: “[Assented to 18th December, 2001]”
- Inserted new rule that the court order only takes effect after a set waiting period.
After: “(1.2) The authorization has no effect until the expiry of a period fixed by the court”
- Added rule suspending the permission if the offender drops out of the program.
After: “(1.4) The authorization has no effect during any period that the offender is not registered in a program referred to in subsection (1.1).”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text sets fixed minimum prohibition periods of 3, 6 or 12 months and ties the interlock authorization directly to registration in a provincial program. These objective triggers and clear suspension rules leave little room for argument over coverage.
Clear-cut
“of at least 3 months, for a first offence; (b) of at least 6 months, for a second offence; and (c) of at least 12 months, for each subse”
Uses exact numerical thresholds tied to offence count rather than subjective judgment.“The authorization has no effect until the expiry of a period fixed by the court”
States an objective temporal condition that ends debate over when the permission begins.“The authorization has no effect during any period that the offender is not registered in a program referred to in subsection (1.1)”
Creates a bright-line test based on registration status alone.
Discretion. The court may choose to grant the authorization but only when the statutory conditions are met; no further power is delegated to ministers or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Objective periods and registration tests give fair notice and avoid the vagueness or overbreadth doctrines under Charter s. 7.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether provincial registration records accurately show active enrollment at the relevant time.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.