Bill C-46 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 13, 2017
- Debated in principleMay 31, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 31, 2017
- Passed the second chamberJune 14, 2018
- Became lawJune 20, 2018
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime 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.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 13 April 2017, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 amends the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to drug-impaired driving. Among other things, the amendments (a) enact new criminal offences for driving with a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration; (b) authorize the Governor in Council to establish blood drug concentrations; and (c) authorize peace officers who suspect a driver has a drug in their body to demand that the driver provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada. Part 2 repeals the …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (27,511 words introduced, 15,078 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core structure on drug-impaired driving offences but added Charter language, a precautionary approach, and new penalties for harm or death linked to blood concentration limits. It also inserted privacy protections for bodily substance samples and test results that were absent at introduction.
- Preamble gained explicit Charter consistency requirement and new precautionary approach statement.
Before: “Whereas it is important that law enforcement officers be better equipped to detect instances of alcohol- impaired or drug-impaired driving;”
After: “Whereas it is important that law enforcement officers be better equipped to detect instances of alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired driving and exercise investigative powers in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ;”
- New subsections created specific indictable offences and maximum penalties for bodily harm or death caused while over the blood drug limit.
After: “Blood concentration equal to or over legal limit — bodily harm (2.1) Everyone who, while committing an offence under paragraph 253(1)(b) or (3)(a) or (c), causes an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”
- New section 258.1 restricted use and disclosure of bodily substances and test results obtained during investigations.
After: “Unauthorized use of bodily substance 258.1 (1) Subject to subsection (3) and subsections 258(4) and (5), no person shall use a bodily substance taken under paragraph 254(2)(b) or (c), subsection 254(3), (3.1), (3.3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the consent of the person from whom it was taken after a request by a peace officer or medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, except for the purpose of an analysis that is referred to in that provision or for which the consent is given.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes exact numerical limits and defined terms with repeated subjective phrases that turn on officer opinion or reasonable grounds. This creates clear thresholds in places but leaves wide room for argument over when demands or evaluations are triggered.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body”
Subjective standard that depends on the officer's assessment rather than an objective checklist.“in the peace officer’s opinion, is necessary to enable a proper analysis”
Delegates the key decision on what sample is required to the individual officer's judgment.“as soon as practicable”
Undefined timing phrase that invites disputes over whether the demand was made quickly enough.“having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public”
Broad, open-ended test that requires case-by-case weighing instead of fixed criteria.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not more than $1,000”
Fixed maximum penalty stated in dollars with no discretion.“within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance”
Exact time window that can be measured by clock rather than opinion.“approved drug screening equipment means equipment that is designed to ascertain the presence of a drug in a person's body and that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada under paragraph 320.39(b)”
Term is defined by reference to a specific approval mechanism and function.
Discretion. Extensive power is given to the Attorney General of Canada to approve devices and instruments by order and to prescribe drug concentrations and evaluating-officer qualifications by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Phrases such as 'reasonable grounds' and 'in the opinion of' could support vagueness or overbreadth arguments under Charter sections 7, 8 and 9.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether the officer actually held the required suspicion or belief or whether the timing and sample choices met the 'as soon as practicable' and 'opinion' tests.
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?
partly effective
The mandatory three-year review by the Minister of Justice found early positive impacts including reduced impaired driving fatalities in 2019 and evidence that mandatory alcohol screening is efficient for alcohol-impaired driving, while noting increased police reports, complexities and lower charge rates for drug-impaired cases, and the need for longer-term data. A Public Safety Canada horizontal evaluation of supporting funding confirmed successful training and awareness efforts but highlighted limited device uptake and data challenges for drug-impaired driving.
- Report by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on the Implementation and Operation of former Bill C-46reviewAvailable data show impaired driving fatalities decreased in 2019 post-implementation, MAS appears efficient and effective for alcohol-impaired driving, but drug-impaired driving cases take longer, are less likely to result in charges, and new BDC provisions have seen limited use.
- Horizontal Evaluation of the Initiative to Address Drug-Impaired Driving (Public Safety Canada)evaluationThe supporting initiative delivered training and awareness successfully and provided screening devices, but uptake of devices was limited and comprehensive national data on drug-impaired driving impact remains challenging.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.