Evidence of meeting #78 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
There seems to be a consensus for him to do that.
Corporal Graham.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I think that we need to know exactly what he is saying: either they have the technology or they don't. If they don't have it, we can make up our minds later.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Corporal, would you take a seat at the table, please?
Do you want to question him?
10:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
You can treat him as any of the other officials here.
Corporal, you've been listening, and I gather you can respond to the concerns about the technology at the various stations, etc. Perhaps you would like to make an opening statement, and then there will be some questions coming forward.
10:35 a.m.
Corporal Evan Graham National Coordinator, Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I am not aware of any jurisdiction that videotapes evaluations. There are a number of problems with trying to videotape them. First and foremost, for any of the police stations that have cameras, the cameras are fixed, so they're going to catch a specific angle. The evaluation is done in such a fashion that, unless you actually position the person to catch that camera angle, you're going to miss things. And regardless of whether you can position them properly, it's still a two-dimensional view.
We use videos for training. The videos are done using hand-held cameras by professionals who have to move with us. They have multiple angles, multiple cameras, and then they put them together so that they are of some use to us for training purposes, and even at that, there are things missed.
When I was stationed in British Columbia, we had in-car cameras and we had the same problem with them. Again, they're fixed. They don't have any depth perception. As a result, evidentially, they have little value in court. From my perspective, I certainly think that aside from the cost of installing cameras, they miss more things than they would capture. No one has that capability right now.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Corporal Graham, at the present time, how many officers do we have trained on DRE?
10:35 a.m.
Cpl Evan Graham
There are currently 300 in the program.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Do we have an estimate of how many we would require, not just for the RCMP but across the whole of the country?
10:35 a.m.
Cpl Evan Graham
We are basically looking at the drug recognition expert evaluator as being the same as an evidentiary breath technician. So if you look at the same numbers, overall about 3,000 would be required.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In terms of the posts or the police departments that they would go into, how many would we have in the country if we had all of those 3,000 officers in place?
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that there was some consensus on this point, on Ms. Jennings' amendment dealing with video recording of an evaluation, that the peace officer shall make a video recording, that there was some interest in having Corporal Graham provide testimony on that point. That's where I thought there was consensus.
But for Mr. Comartin now to go over what I remember--each and every one of those questions--already being asked, not only of many witnesses but of Corporal Graham specifically, I'm not interested as a member of this committee in hearing testimony on the bill that we've already heard. The committee is master of its own destiny, but we're in clause-by-clause right now.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
There was a point of clarification that I believe we were discussing, Mr. Comartin.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Moore asked for this witness to give testimony. He cannot script the questions that go to this witness about this bill. So there's no argument.
You agreed and asked that this person give testimony.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Just to finish my submission, you cannot now say we're in clause-by-clause, so we can't hear testimony that we don't want to hear. That's the problem.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
It seems unfair, Mr. Chair, to allow Mr. Moore, by his point of order, if you accept it, to tell Mr. Comartin what to ask.
We've opened the door by consensus to have this witness back. So as a point of order, it just seems wrong for Mr. Moore to--
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
--first of all, interrupt me, because I can speak as loud as he can.