Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2009

[Joseph Di Luca]

You can already charge. Right now, if you can prove that a person was drinking alcohol following a motor vehicle accident in order to frustrate the taking of the test later, if you can establish that, you can already charge them with obstructing justice or obstructing a police officer. There are sections in there. If you can prove that, you can charge them. As for a proof of that, if you were able to get a conviction on that basis, that's a serious offence. There is already a legislative tool there for catching people in that.

But I agree with the officer here that a lot of times you will not hear that until it comes time for trial. I have had cases where you will see a client who was followed and was observed chugging alcohol after an accident. I think an inference would be open to a tryer of fact, to a judge or a jury, that the person was doing that to frustrate the process. There is an appropriate charge that sits in the Criminal Code for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit, five minutes. You'll be the last one.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm mainly going to speak to the officials from the Canada Safety Council and perhaps those from the Canadian Police Association as well.

You know as well as I do—and Mr. Rosenthal clearly explained it to you—that the random system can be dangerous. A slightly different system is used in Quebec. Authorities use section 624 of the Highway Safety Code. The police officer comes up, tells the driver that a light on his vehicle is out or that he didn't mark a stop at a given place, always under the Highway Safety Code. So these are not the same rules. The individual is stopped, opens his window, and the small of alcohol emerges. The police officer then asks him to follow him. The random system is already in existence. We agree that it isn't perfect; however, it has never been challenged in Quebec. The Highway Safety Code allows it and it's used there regularly.

My second question concerns the fact that we often agree that there will be excess costs, more cases, and so on. We witnessed a fairly singular event in Quebec. For a brief period of time, the cases prosecuted in the Criminal Division of the Court of Quebec, which at the time was called the Court of the Sessions of the Peace, became the responsibility of the municipal courts, and thus of the municipalities. And do you know who complained about that? It was the people from the Criminal Division of the Court of Quebec. They said that nearly 80% of their caseload had been taken away from them. It's a serious thing to say, but it's a fact.

Police officers come and testify before the Criminal Division of the Court of Quebec, but also in municipal court. The costs are not the same because there aren't the same conventions, the same judges and so on. I'd like you to tell me whether that's a problem or whether someone wants us to believe that it is.

[Raynald Marchand]

In the case of the municipal courts, we view the matter somewhat as a form of decriminalization, since the Criminal Code does not apply. We acknowledge in a way that this is a better way to handle impaired driving cases, particularly when there are no deaths or injuries. For that reason, we think, particularly with regard to the 0.05 BAC, that Quebec's Highway Safety Code or Ontario's highway safety code, for example, are really a response to the current situation. The code is an additional tool for police officers. They can use it or not, rely on the 0.05 BAC or on the Criminal Code, depending on the situation. They have a number of tools at their disposal.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

In Quebec, to avoid appearing in the Court of Appeal too often, we usually proceed by filing applications under the summary procedure. You know what that means? It means that we are required to file a specific application for the Court of Appeal to hear us again if we are not satisfied. Previously, this was always considered an indictable offence, which made it possible to file an appeal de plano with the Court of Appeal. They did that because approximately 50% or 60% of accused were people on legal aid. As you know, a summary proceeding costs less than a proceeding by way of indictment. So these people all found a system that made it so it would cost less. For that reason, I wonder whether costs are really an issue in the context of the debate we'll be having later, in light of what you've just said, among other things. Mr. Rosenthal could also answer that question.

[Raynald Marchand]

We don't believe it's just a matter of cost, but also a matter of the number of cases that can wind up in criminal court, which has an effect on the time required.

According to the review by the attorneys general, it's much longer today; it takes way too much time. Coming up with a simpler and quicker system would not only help reduce costs; it would also ensure greater justice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're out of time. Thank you.

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before us today. Your testimony has been very helpful, and we'll certainly take it into consideration as we prepare a draft report.

Again, thank you for coming.

[Emile Therien]

Thank you very much. You were very fair-handed. You did a great job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll take a break for two minutes as we clear out the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll ask you to take your seats.

We have some committee business to do, which we'll do in public, unless someone wants to take it in camera. I don't think there's any reason to do it.

We have a number of motions before us. We also have the second report of the subcommittee, which met on Tuesday.

Have all of you had a chance to read the report?

If you've had a chance to review the report and there's consensus that we adopt it, we can do that right now and get it out of the way.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have consensus on that, so we'll move on.

We have a number of motions. First of all, we have Mr. Storseth's motion, and Mr. Ménard's motion as well. Both of them deal with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I get a sense there's probably less contentiousness related to Mr. Storseth's motion. He would like to deal with it separately, so I'll move ahead with that.

If you want to make that motion formal, we'll move to a discussion of it.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Absolutely. Mr. Chair, I would move that:

Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and

whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;

Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and in particular:

a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission;

b) review the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act;

c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations;

d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee's inquiry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, first I support the wish of a majority of colleagues that the two motions that we have before us deal with subjects that are ultimately different under the law and that it would no doubt be wiser for the committee to prepare different reports.

I believe we should vote on the motion of Mr. Storseth, who has a debate ahead of him on the commission and on section 13, but I want to say right away that the fact that we would like this debate to take place does not mean that we in the Bloc Québécois would subsequently support the idea of deleting section 13. I have realized—and I have had occasion to say so to colleagues on the subcommittee—that there is a major controversy surrounding this debate and that we are ultimately bringing in elements that can... I'm not at all saying that's the mover's intent, and I want him to know I am attributing no motive to him. However, some people want to limit the tools involved in the operation of human rights. I myself have received submissions from people who thought the Human Rights Tribunal should no longer be directly allowed to convene, and so on.

I'm going to support this motion, and I believe my colleague Mr. Lemay is going to do the same. We're going to support it, but we will be extremely vigilant on the need for a Canadian Human Rights Commission that is functional and effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. Is there anybody else?

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Ménard has expressed an opinion that I share.

We're going to support this motion. The Liberals are going to support this motion, but we, too, want colleagues to understand that some people.... I don't pretend to understand all of the operation of section 13. I have read and heard different versions of how that may or may not be working, and I'm prepared and interested to hear people who have experience and something concrete to add to that discussion. I wouldn't want people to think we are inclined to abolish it, or limit it, or restrict the Human Rights Commission in a way, certainly until we've heard very compelling and authoritative evidence with respect to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is there anybody else?

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

I'm very pleased with the fact that a member has brought forth this motion, precisely because of the fact that the commission's authorities have been attacked, and there has been a lot of propaganda done that section 13 should simply be scrapped, whereas most of the groups that are actually targeted by hate crimes, for instance, and by discrimination want 13 but would like to see it improved so that it becomes more effective. So I'm pleased that this committee, it appears, is going to conduct this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Very well.

Anybody else? If not, I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

The motion is carried unanimously.

We have the second motion, which is Mr. Ménard's motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I was elected in 1993 at the age of 31, and I have been re-elected five times since. I know that my baby face may confuse some of my colleagues. My intention was not to refer to my age, but merely to tell you that I took an interest in this matter starting in 1995. I have previously introduced a number of bills and I would say that, in my life, I have merely contributed to the addition of social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and that I am very proud of that. My life has obviously been much richer; everyone agrees on that.

Why social condition? Because a lot of provinces have social condition as a prohibited ground or related ground. Some provinces refer to prohibited discrimination against beneficiaries or on the ground of insufficient income. This doesn't always concern the ground of social condition. Even Quebec uses that term.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that, if litigants had this ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would be a benefit for aboriginal people, for people who are denied loans at financial institutions, for people who have grievances against the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for the disadvantaged groups of our society.

We have a lot of information. I will definitely be stirring up happy memories for some of my colleagues, and perhaps bad ones for others, but I can assume nothing, Mr. Chairman. When Anne McLellan was Minister of Justice, she established a task force to review the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Justice LaForest chaired that task force, and those people had already ruled that it was appropriate to amend the Act. So we'll have a great deal of information, and I hope that the government will ultimately support this committee's recommendations, which, I hope, will be to that effect.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Does anyone else have anything on the motion from Mr. Ménard?

I recognize Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. I'm very pleased. I've read Réal Ménard's motion and I will support it because, as soon as I see the Bloc working for the federal government, that makes me happy. So I'm going to support the motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Anything that gives you an intellectual orgasm—