Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses. Thank you, Senator Runciman, for bringing this bill forward.

All the reasons for bringing this bill forward have been made. They're all compelling reasons, but I'm wondering about how one protects oneself from assault. Certainly adding an aggravating factor at a sentencing is helpful, and of course, perfection shouldn't be the enemy of good, but how do you protect somebody? It's far different operating a ferry from operating a bus, from operating a taxi.

Chief Dubord, you talked about a public safety campaign. What's the most effective way? Can you comment on what type of a public campaign you guys have used in the past and its effectiveness? There's no perfect solution, and I recognize that, but I'm just wondering about your thoughts on it.

[Chief Neil Dubord]

Great. Thank you for the question.

You're absolutely correct. It's a combination of different factors that come together. As we talk a little about community policing, we understand that it requires the education of the public, the intervention, our being able to step in at critical times when a crisis is building. It also requires us to ensure there's a strong deterrent. When I talk about our particular campaign against bus operator assaults or public transit assaults, I talk about a 10-step plan that we have to be able to go after and make sure that we try to hit this from all different angles, because each one impacts a different crowd as well.

One of them might be the “Don't Touch the Operator” campaign. A second public awareness campaign might be “see something, say something”. We have a campaign where we try to engage the bystanders, the people who are riding the bus, to protect their driver as well. So we try to engage people at different levels.

When we talk about intervention, the cameras are a great tool for us to be able to provide that level of intervention. In addition, we train our operators to show them how to de-escalate situations, because throughout my 28 years of policing experience, my tongue has always been my best tool in being able to de-escalate situations. We train them in that. On the other side, we train our officers now to be able to get proactive. When we have someone threatening a bus operator, those are some indicators that may lead to an assault. As a result we need to be able to take those threats very seriously, and we'll follow up with those individuals and ensure they understand what they're doing is inappropriate in the environment they're acting out in, and ensure they don't take that next step of physically confronting a bus operator.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Thank you for joining us, Chief.

We're going to suspend for two seconds while we get Mr. Taylor from the Department of Justice to join us at the table. We're going to go to clause-by-clause study in moments.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Taylor.

Are there any questions for officials?

Would you like to try to answer Mr. Wilks' question? Maybe he can restate it for you so we have on the record what the question was.

[Matthew Taylor, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I think I understand the question. I think it is a good question and I think the explanation by Madam Boivin is a good one.

The proposed provision says “vehicle includes” and then it lists a number of specific types of vehicles. From an administrative perspective, I think police officers and the courts are going to understand that the definition is going to be read consistently with the definition of motor vehicle in section 2.

I think the proposal is a good one, but I think it provides enough clarity in the law as it presently exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further?

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If I may, I think our objective here should be not to clutter this book any more than it needs to be cluttered. There is a clear opportunity to modify. Under section 2, remove the word “motor” which would include the word “vehicle”. A bus, paratransit vehicle, and a taxi cab are already defined as a motor vehicle.

After the words “muscular power” all you would do is remove the words “but does not include rail equipment” and add the words “and includes train, subway, tram, and ferry”. Otherwise, a police officer would have to look up two different definitions of what a vehicle or a motor vehicle might be. We're trying to make it more simple, not more complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Seeback, do you have a question?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Not on this topic. I have a different question. Are we done with that topic?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further on that issue?

Seeing none, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

When I look at clause 1, when you get down to “public transit operator” it reads, “engaged in the performance of his or her duty”.

Would you see that as including a transit operator on a break standing outside the bus—and I don't know if that takes place—having a coffee or having a cigarette? Would this section be triggered if an assault took place under those circumstances, based on how this is drafted?

[Matthew Taylor]

It's another good question.

We have another provision in the code in that similar type of language, “engaged in the performance of their duties” and it has been interpreted fairly restrictively in those contexts as relating to a specific duty that the professional has and that they are engaged in performing that duty, just as the words would say.

I think it's an open question as to whether the courts would interpret this provision as encompassing the bus driver who is perhaps inspecting the vehicle before they start driving it and is assaulted at that moment, for example. The wording doesn't preclude it, but it wouldn't surprise me that it is something that would be subject to litigation to determine what the boundaries would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm glad we have lawyers to argue that stuff out.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Well, we just want to get it right. That's the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Taylor, I have a couple of examples. Could you give me your opinion on this?

Right now the dynamics of providing transportation are changing with the advent of technologies and so on. We have examples like Uber, which by some people's definition is a public transportation system where private individuals offer their cars for taxi services. Would those people be covered under this legislation?

[Matthew Taylor]

I think they would be, provided that they are “an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public”.

I think it's a non-exhaustive scheme because “vehicle” provides a number of examples—bus, paratransit vehicle—so you could read in other types of vehicles. Provided that the driver is providing services to the public, they'd be captured as well.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The list of vehicle and public transit operators includes what I think most Canadians would call common sense and functional transportation. In my opinion it seems to miss what would be considered recreational or other types of transportation, such as somebody who operates a horse and carriage to take people on guided tours. It seems to be missing people who might be operating a rickshaw or some other tourist type of public transportation service. Would the legislation as it is here capture that?

[Matthew Taylor]

It's interesting. I think it's hard to say whether the rickshaw driver would be captured, because of the point Mr. Wilks has made with respect to the definition of motor vehicle. If the courts read “vehicle” in a more expansive way than “motor vehicle”, to include vehicles that are propelled by muscular power, then yes, I think it would be. If the courts try to read this in a way that is more limited and consistent with the definition of motor vehicle, then they might well exclude it. I think the other point to make is that the courts will always have the ability to consider any factor as aggravating or mitigating.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I was reading the English definition, which seems pretty broad in a sense, when you talk about who operates a vehicle “used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public”, and then it describes a bunch of things.

I do agree with you that it could perhaps be more specific, but I think the idea right now is to send the message. Perhaps we'll be reviewing this in two or three years, but I think the message is pretty clear right now, and the message we want to send about those types of infractions is clear.

How it's going to apply, from the discussion we're having between ex-policemen, lawyers, and so on, we can bet that a lot of discussions will happen in court, although I haven't heard of many rickshaw people being attacked as much as those on the bus. I think initially that is mostly what was targeted, and it got widened. I'm happy with Bill S-221 because it got widened, but perhaps not wide enough. We'll see down the road if we covered enough with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I want to clarify the point that Mr. Taylor made in response to Mr. Calkins' question.

Your point was that the definition of “vehicle” in proposed subsection 269.01(2) in this bill is inclusive so that it's not limited to those things that are itemized there. So an Uber driver could be included because he is operating a vehicle that provides transportation services to the public, even though it's not a licensed taxi cab.

[Matthew Taylor]

Yes. I think as long as they're providing transportation services to the public and they're using a vehicle when they do it, this provision would capture it.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.