Justice Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

When you say “shall” make a video recording, another difference between this and an interrogation, as I see it, is the timeliness.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Do you want to do a friendly amendment?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

It has to be done within a certain amount of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Order, Madam Jennings.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I can contemplate--we all can, because we live in the real world with technology and BlackBerrys and videos--getting on location and the video not working. Does that mean we can't conduct what has been proven internationally--that the test can serve a valuable purpose--because the tape is full or the VCR is not working, and all of a sudden that test can't take place?

I think it should say “may”, at best. I don't support it. But “shall” means that this test can't take place unless that video recorder is working. If you have to take the time to go somewhere else where there is a working video recorder, it kind of becomes moot once the person has had six hours to sober up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We'll have Mr. Yost.

[Greg Yost]

I certainly can't speak for all detachments in the country, but I do know that there are some very busy stations that do have video recording of breathalyzers, which can be very useful in court. They may have videos elsewhere. Parts of these tests take place in a darkened room. I just believe it would cause very serious practical difficulties in stations that have a video set up in one place for one purpose to have to use that particular place for that purpose, for the DRE. I imagine this would cause difficulty on the ground.

Certainly with regard to the issue of seeing how blood pressure is taken--I'm not sure how much that adds to the evidentiary value--or measuring the size of a person's pupils, which are rather important in all of this, I would have difficulty seeing how the video recording would get it all done. I'm certain there will be many places that do not have videos set up in a way that would be compatible with the battery of tests the DRE includes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Pruden.

[Hal Pruden]

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 forces across Canada and is familiar himself, having been an investigator in British Columbia, with many drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired driving cases.

So my only comment or observation would be that he is a highly qualified witness who has spoken to the difficulties that would arise if, at the DRE level, the officers had to have a tape recording. I'm simply trying to point out that he is certainly the most qualified, in my submission to this committee, of all the witnesses who have appeared on this particular subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Pruden, are you suggesting that the corporal testify right now?

[Hal Pruden]

If that's the committee's wish. He is here again and he could speak more to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is it the wish of the committee? Sure. Okay.

Corporal, would you step up to the table, please?

Mr. Comartin.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's the frustration that I'm feeling. I listened very carefully to Corporal Graham when he testified the first time on this issue. Part of my frustration is that we're, in my opinion, rushing this bill through. I would have wanted to hear from other witnesses.

I fully respect Corporal Graham. He testified extensively when we had Bill C-16 before us in the last Parliament. He's a very impressive witness. But he does come, I would say, with some ownership in the program. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I believe there are counter opinions we could be hearing.

So if we hear him today, are we going to call other witnesses to come back? For instance, I don't know if they've tried to do this anyplace else. As Ms. Jennings was suggesting before you ruled her out of order, Mr. Chair, there may be some amendments to this so that, for instance, when the testing is going on in the darkened room, the videotaping wouldn't have to take place then, or maybe there's a way of doing it using other types of light.

In any event, I'm concerned that we simply hear from Corporal Graham at this point and then not hear from other individuals who also testified that in their belief the videotaping was practical in the station.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Your comments are considered, Mr. Comartin. You weren't the only one offering an opinion on the point; there are others who seem to want to hear from the corporal.

What's the consensus of the committee? I'm open.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have the same point of order. I understand Mr. Comartin. If we want to vote on this amendment within the next few minutes, we need to know whether, yes or no—and I support the same goal as Ms. Jennings—police stations have this technology. To me, the argument that the technology might be defective doesn't hold water because it is true for all detection technologies. If we think that it is fallible, or that we don't have the right batteries, let's not pass this bill.

To me, we need to ask whether police stations are equipped to use this kind of recording. I think that the only person who can answer this question is the corporal and I believe that he should limit his remarks to that. Do police stations have this technology, yes or no? As for the rest, we have our own opinion, as parliamentarians. But we need to know this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore, can you shed any light on that, or Mr. Yost, or Mr. Pruden?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

No, I just wanted to say let's have Corporal Graham. He's probably in the best position also to answer that question. We have already heard testimony that there could be a cost consideration, so I assume that means there are going to be some areas that would need to purchase this equipment by our putting this onus on them.

So I think there seems to be some consensus that we do hear a bit more testimony on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I have a point of order. Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On a point of order, I would be prepared to bring a subamendment to my amendment to change the word “shall” to the word “may”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Madam Jennings, someone else will have to bring that forward.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Getting back to the corporal and the consensus here in the committee, the corporal could be considered a government official as far as his presentation is concerned, if need be.

Madam Jennings' subamendment to her amendment would have to be presented by someone else, maybe within the Liberal ranks here.

What's the feeling of the committee now?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Can we know whether, yes or no—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Would you like Corporal Graham to stand forward and present?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, only on this.