Justice Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

So I think it would be wrong to rule that Mr. Moore's point of order is correct. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I have to say that it was made very clear at the beginning, when Corporal Graham stood forward and presented, that he would be treated like any of the other officials, so the line of questioning is acceptable, although it is repetitious, Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Those questions weren't asked, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Well, I seem to recall them, but go ahead.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The only question that was asked was how many officers we currently have. That's on the record in the blues, but how many we needed is not. In fact, when the minister was here, he couldn't tell us what this was going to cost in terms of the number of officers, so we don't have that information on it.

We certainly got no information in terms of my last question as to how many stations we would have in the country where the DRE second stage would be done. That's my question. If Corporal Graham can answer it, I'd appreciate an answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Corporal.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

Currently every police detachment for the RCMP and, as far as I'm aware, for the OPP, the SQ, and other agencies has an evidentiary breath test, so you'd be looking at every facility having a DRE. When you look at the prairie provinces with small detachments, there have to be hundreds of them. I don't have the exact number, but there would be literally hundreds of places across the country where eventually there will be a DRE. For the time being we're training them for the larger, more populated centres because it's just more cost-effective to do that, and we'll get more bang for our buck, basically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Corporal Graham.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I have another question. Of those stations that you're going to start with, how many of them already have--if you know--audio video equipment for the purposes of interrogation, especially in more serious crimes?

[Cpl Evan Graham]

I'm not able to answer that. I can speak of places where I was stationed, and the larger centres do have that capability; the smaller ones do not. For the most part, it's too expensive for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a substitute on the committee today, but I've had a lot to do with police forces in terms of working on human trafficking, and our own son is with the RCMP.

I was listening to this amendment and I have to tell you that in a lot of these places, from what I'm hearing from a lot of the police officers across the country--for instance, up north--they don't even have cell phone reception, let alone money for a video camera. The situations there are detachments with only one or two men. So who do you get there to run a video camera, if you have the money to have a video camera and if there are enough of them on duty up there to manipulate the camera and take care of the criminal they've apprehended? The capacity to do the video recording, to me, just from my knowledge as a lay person, is just nil in these small places.

Ms. Jennings talked about blood pressure, and I wasn't aware that inebriated people's blood pressures were taken. From what I can tell, it just seems to be the smell of alcohol and the way the person walks and talks and receives the police when they try to apprehend them.

So regarding this amendment, apart from the fact that it's going to be a big cost factor and we have to make choices about where we put the money, do we put that into video cameras or boots on the ground trying to fill these detachments?

Could you take some time, please, to elaborate on it in more depth in terms of how you see it as a police officer on the ground?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Corporal Graham.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

With the drug evaluation, blood pressure is a key component because of the seven drug categories. They do cause the blood pressure to react. The clinical indicators are different. For alcohol, because there's a presumptive level, of course, there's a breath sample taken, and that suffices.

The capability to do the videotaping in small centres and, again, in large centres is not there. The cameras that are used for videotaping interrogations are fixed. The person sits in a position where they can be viewed. We capture more than trying to write it down. We've gone from a tape recorder to videos. But because the person is not going anywhere, it's an effective and efficient way to do things.

With the evaluation, I was asked by a colleague when they read the blues on this...the analogy I gave was an instant replay in sports. Professional sports have spent millions of dollars. Look at hockey. They've put cameras in a position to cover a goal net to see if the puck went across, and they're still not getting it right. They're looking for one thing, with cameras focused right on that little area.

We're dealing with an evaluation where we cover 15 feet with the walk and turn test. We are in a dark room, as was pointed out by Mr. Yost, so you would have to have an infrared camera that is portable so that you could capture the eyes. In order to take the blood pressure, it depends on what you're looking for. If you want to watch how the blood pressure is actually taken or if you want to watch the gauge to see what the readings are, the camera would have to be right up close in order to read that.

We are in the process of redoing the videos. We're having some significant issues with the amount of time it's going to take, simply because of the different angles that we have to have to capture everything, and then to put it together. I think if you were going to videotape for court purposes, you would have to have the same multiple cameras that even with the large centres are not practical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're suggesting there would have to be more than one camera to do justice, that would be movable.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

One other thing is that police officers go through an awful lot of training. The professionalism of a police officer seems to be higher than—it should be—the ordinary citizen probably in knowing what to look for. Could you talk a bit about the professionalism of the police officers, because we need to have a need there? If there's a need for video cameras and the police officers can't do it, the need has to be there.

Are not the police officers trained very highly to look for and see all the characteristics that they need to see and record it in such a way...? Their professionalism would be more reliable than a video camera like this, in a sense, would it not?

[Cpl Evan Graham]

When we're testifying in court, basically we have to paint a picture for the court by explaining in detail what we've done, how we've done it, where we've done it, so the court can conjure a mental image. In some instances it would be nice to have pictures, but again, based on experience with the in-car cameras, they've proven to be of limited value in dealing with individuals. They're fine for pursuits, because you can catch everything that's ahead of you that they need to capture, but when you're dealing with individuals, there are far too many things happening and you're either getting the back of the person, the front, or the side, and you're missing what is going on with what's hidden from the camera, basically.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Videotaping is a common practice. It's used for all sorts of evidence. You only need one camera to get some additional evidence. You've admitted it will add some additional evidence, and that's all you need, some more evidence, in something so serious. The expert witnesses suggested that we need this, even for taking blood pressure. It shows how many times, if they had trouble getting blood, etc.

But that's not my question. My question is this.

I didn't totally understand all the 12 steps in the DRE. Are some of those steps the same as the ones at the roadside? Are there physical tests in the DRE, or replications of the roadside physical test, such as standing on one foot or walking a line? Therefore, if you videotaped the DRE, would you be videotaping some physical steps? I don't understand what all the DRE steps are.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

The three standardized field sobriety tests are done roadside. For the person undergoing the evaluation, those same three tests are done again in a controlled environment and two other tests are added. So divided attention tests are done, and that is how we prove impairment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So if we had a video of the guy trying to stand on one foot and staggering, or trying to walk the line and back and staggering, it would make a lot stronger case for the police and the prosecution. It would get it out of the courts. It would save us tens of thousands of dollars in court time. A lot more people would plead guilty if they were seen right on tape obviously failing these physical tests.

[Cpl Evan Graham]

The walk and turn test in particular has eight validated clues. They include raising the arms for balance, stepping off the line, and having their heel touch their toe. So in order to capture the heel touching the toe, you'd have to have a camera dedicated to watching that, because you're looking at something where a miss would be three-quarters of an inch. If you're watching the feet, you won't be able to see the hands. You might catch the person stepping off the line, but again you have an angle that will catch one thing but not everything.