Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 29, Bill S-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) is in front of us today.

As you know, this passed in the House unanimously.

We have three people here to talk to us about it, and then we have clause-by-clause consideration. There's only one clause plus the title. They're not here yet, but there will be staff from the Department of Justice here if we need them on this.

Today as witnesses we have the sponsor from the Senate, the Honourable Bob Runciman, and from the House the member of Parliament for Pickering—Scarborough East, Mr. Chisu, from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Michael Roschlau, the president and chief executive officer. By video conference from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, we have Neil Dubord, the chief.

I'm going to turn the floor over to you, Senator. Technically you have 10 minutes each, but the more succinct you are, the sooner we'll get to clause-by-clause study.

[Bob Runciman, Senator, CPC, Senate]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe in being succinct. I want to thank you and the committee members for making this opportunity available to deal with this. I know this is a very busy committee.

Bill S-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators), amends the Criminal Code to require a court to consider it an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing if the victim of an assault is a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty. In doing so it adds a new section immediately after section 269 of the Criminal Code. The offences to which this new section would apply are the assault-related provisions from sections 264 through 269 of the Criminal Code.

The new proposed section also defines a public transit operator as an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public and includes an individual who operates a school bus.

A vehicle, for the purposes of this section, includes a bus, paratransit vehicle, licensed taxi cab, train, subway, tram, and ferry.

I started looking at this issue about a year ago after reading about a particularly violent assault here in Ottawa that resulted in what I consider to be a very inappropriate sentence: no jail time. It was only after I met with the Amalgamated Transit Union that I started to understand the scope of this problem. I want to thank the ATU for working hard for many years to highlight this problem and to push for legislative change.

There are roughly 2,000 reported assaults on public transit employees every year in Canada, and more than 80% of those are committed in-vehicle. I think all of us would find those numbers shocking, but even more alarming is the degree of violence.

There was a prolonged beating of a Winnipeg bus driver by a passenger upset over a bus transfer, when the driver was beaten with hammers, stabbed, and knocked unconscious. A driver in Ottawa had a cup of urine thrown on him. These attacks sometimes cause the victim to miss months of work, but all too often the perpetrator spends not a single day in jail.

I'd like to deal briefly with some of the questions that have been raised about this bill. Certainly Chief Dubord can elaborate on this extensively.

Why single out public transit operators, considering that members of other occupations also face risk? Although there is of course the need to protect the public transit operator, what distinguishes them from other occupations is the risk to the broader public. Many of these assaults occur when the vehicle is in motion. Consider the risk to the public, to passengers, other motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, when the driver is assaulted while driving a 10-tonne vehicle carrying dozens of passengers on a busy city street.

I know similar bills that have been introduced, and they include all public transit workers. This bill does not. The assault of a subway token seller threatens his or her safety but does not put at risk the broader public.

This bill was written to be very specific to public transit operators engaged in the performance of their duty. That's the same reason this bill does not amend the general sentencing provisions of section 718 of the Criminal Code, because Bill S-221 is focused tightly on safety of the broader public. It is written to focus on those crimes that typically occur against an operator when the vehicle is in motion, specifically assault.

There is another difference between S-221 and similar bills introduced in recent years. This bill is the only one that includes taxi drivers in the definition of a public transit operator. Driving a cab is one of the most dangerous occupations in Canada. Drivers work late at night; they are alone with people they've never met before, and they're carrying cash.

Since I've introduced this bill, I've been approached by many people thanking me, some quite emotionally, often on behalf of a parent or a loved one who drove a cab. It is often the first job for new Canadians. They know the risk they are taking, but they see it as a necessary step toward building a future for their families.

We need people who drive buses or taxis to feel safe when they come to work, and we need passengers to feel safe when they use public transit.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that this bill balances Parliament's right to provide direction to the court with judicial discretion at sentencing. It's an approach that can have a meaningful impact on sentences and help protect drivers and passengers alike.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Are you okay, Mr. Chisu?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I'm okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

From the Canadian Urban Transit Association, we have Michael Roschlau. The floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[Michael Roschlau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members of the committee, my remarks will be equally brief.

First of all, I would like to thank you for this invitation to appear before you. We are grateful for the opportunity to express our opinion on Bill S-221, the aim of which is to have assaults against public transit operators considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

CUTA, as some of you may know, is the collective voice of public transportation across Canada, dedicated to being at the centre of urban mobility issues with all orders of government. We represent public transit systems, suppliers, government agencies, individuals, and related organizations across the country.

I'd like to make it clear that the Canadian Urban Transit Association and its members unequivocally support Bill S-221. We've previously addressed the Senate's constitutional and legal affairs committee on this bill, and my comments today will be a direct reflection of those made at the Senate committee.

Every day transit operators across the country drive thousands of people to work, to school, to recreation, to health care, and to community services. Among their many tasks and responsibilities operators must drive large heavy-duty vehicles, often in stressful weather and traffic conditions, respect the schedule, collect fares, provide customer service, and most important, ensure the safety of their passengers.

On this last point, it's critical to understand that operators are solely responsible for the safety of all passengers boarding the vehicles. While they deliver what we call essential mobility services to our communities, making our cities vibrant and prosperous, they don't necessarily benefit from a safe work environment, as our annual data demonstrates. Every year, as the senator mentioned, there are some 2,000 assaults against transit operators and many more go unreported. That's an average of five assaults every day.

Transit employees have responsibility for the safety of their passengers, which makes these types of assaults dangerous for the greater public. There's a recent case that comes to mind that illustrates the gravity of such assaults.

In March of this year, in Vancouver, a passenger punched a bus driver in the face. At the time of the attack the bus was travelling at about 30 kilometres per hour and carrying 30 passengers. The driver suffered a broken nose, broken bones in his face, continuing vision impairment in one eye, and loosened teeth. Despite all of this, the driver, whose first concern was the safety and well-being of his passengers, managed to safely bring the bus to a complete stop and open the door so the attacker could leave and the other passengers would remain safe. Thanks to the conscientious actions of the driver, no passengers were injured in this case, but you can only imagine how the safety of the passengers, pedestrians, and other road users could have been put at serious risk.

As the senator mentioned, our statistics show that, in 2012, almost 80% of the crimes committed on public transit system property were committed on our vehicles, such as buses. We just have to multiply the number of incidents by an average of 30 passengers on board to see the level of danger and potential danger for the general public that an assault on an operator represents.

It's worth noting that CUTA and its members are already working diligently to put in place other preventive security measures such as closed-circuit television, protective shields, additional employee training in dealing with difficult and dangerous situations, and the hiring of dedicated security personnel. These initiatives are certainly improving the safety and security of transit operators, but they must be supported by legal measures such as the proposed legislative change in Bill S-221.

CUTA urges the committee to approve this bill for House of Commons consideration, as it will provide transit systems with an additional tool to ensure they're appropriately equipped to prosecute offenders. CUTA and the Metro Vancouver Transit Police are currently working on gathering data in the sentencing of subjects charged and convicted of assaulting bus operators across Canada. Preliminary findings reveal a lack of consistency in sentencing across the country for similar types of assaults.

To sum up, we believe this legislative change is necessary for three reasons. One, it will provide one more level of protection for transit vehicle operators, who face nearly 2,000 assaults a year. Two, it will improve public safety by enhancing the safety of passengers and other road users. Three, it will contribute to increasing consistency and predictability in sentencing across the country for similar types of assaults.

As you know, Bill S-221 has received approval from the Senate and unanimous consent at second reading in the House of Commons. I speak for all members of CUTA when I ask this committee to approve this bill for final consideration in the House, the final push required to ensure this piece of legislation becomes an effective, informed, and necessary law.

Thank you very much. Encore, merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that presentation from CUTA.

Our final presenter on this is from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police.

Chief, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[Chief Neil Dubord, Chief, Metro Vancouver Transit Police]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and Senator Runciman, thank you for the privilege of being able to be a witness today in what promises to be an important debate in providing safety, security, and confidence to transit operators, their passengers, and all with whom they share the road.

I've been a police officer for 28 years, and I was the deputy chief of the Edmonton Police Service prior to becoming the chief of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police.

My objective today is just to answer three questions for you in your study of Bill S-221, which is of course an act to amend the Criminal Code that requires courts to consider it an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing if a victim of an assault is a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his duty.

The first question I will answer is: why is Bill S-221 necessary? Let's walk through four very compelling reasons.

The first reason is for the protection of our public transit operators. No one deserves to come to work to be assaulted. Public transit operators face this reality. There is an assault to a public transit operator every day in the metropolitan Toronto area. This is unacceptable. In all my years of policing, I've never had to worry about being assaulted as a police officer.

The second reason is for public safety. Public safety is two-pronged: the public safety of the passengers who are on the bus, and the public safety of the people outside of the bus who are using the road. Be they pedestrians, cyclists, or individuals in other motor vehicles, they are at greater risk when an operator who's driving a large vehicle is being assaulted.

The third reason is the trust and confidence of the passenger who's using public transportation. When an operator is assaulted, the other passengers who witness the assault feel uncomfortable, anxious, and lose confidence in that system. Municipalities across Canada are encouraging the use of public transportation for economic and environmental benefits. Without the confidence and trust of the passengers, public transportation will not continue to grow.

The fourth reason is for recruitment and retention of competent operators. We know the job of the public transit operator is difficult and requires individuals who have excellent customer service and communication skills, as they are the face of the community. If we do not create a safe environment for these operators to work in, we will not be able recruit and retain competent and talented individuals.

The second question I intend to answer is: what makes a public transit operator different from any other workers, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers, that they need Bill S-221?

As previously mentioned, in Toronto a public transit operator is assaulted each day. In metropolitan Vancouver, until the end of November, we have investigated 233 reports of assault or threats towards an operator. What other kind of workplace experiences an assault of one of their employees each day? I suggest if any other type of occupation, such as a doctor, a nurse, or a teacher faced these types of numbers, it would be considered a crisis.

Public transit is differentiated from other occupations by the very reason that they serve a broad spectrum of customers, including the working poor, homeless, addicted, and those suffering from mental illness. As with other occupations, the opportunities for operators to disengage or extricate themselves from a potentially violent situation doesn't exist. They cannot walk away or withdraw from the incident when they are locked in the driver's seat with the windshield in front of them, a steel panel behind them, the side window of their bus on their left, a mobile data terminal on their right, and a seatbelt across their waist. All this is in addition to driving a six to ten tonne vehicle on some of the busiest roads in North America.

A pilot would never allow a passenger to freely walk into the cockpit of his plane. A ferry captain would not allow anyone onto the bridge of his ship. Public transit operators do not have the luxury of restricting access. Their occupation is unique, and the hazards they face are not experienced by other occupations. This is why they require the protection of Bill S-221.

The third and final question I will answer is: why do we need Bill S-221 when judges already have the tools necessary to sentence offenders depending on the circumstances of the case?

The description of the working environment and potential risks faced when a public transit operator is assaulted is often not articulated to the judge for consideration of sentencing. The vulnerable and defenceless nature of a public transit operator and the significant impact of any mistakes they make while driving are not regularly communicated to prosecutors. This results in sentencing that is inconsistent. For example, every public transit operator I've ever spoken to has indicated they would rather be a victim of a minor physical assault than be spit upon. The psychological impact, the disrespect, the embarrassment, and the contempt of a spit is seldom considered in sentencing. Often, cases of expectorate receive relatively minor sentences, yet they have significant impact on the public transit operator.

In conclusion, of the 223 cases of operator assaults or threats investigated by Metro Vancouver Transit Police in 2014, over 100 met the threshold of criminal assault. Metro Vancouver experienced a 9% increase in assault in 2013 over 2012. Of the 134 assaults, 68 were physical assaults, 56 involved expectorant, and 19 of those were spits in the face.

I have provided for your consideration the answer to three very compelling questions in support of what is the most important piece missing in reducing public transit operator assaults, that being a strong public deterrent. Despite years of increased efforts by the transit industry to reduce the number of assaults through training, real-time supports, and the installation of cameras, the attacks continue.

Today I have given you four reasons why Bill S-221 is critical to the safety of the public transit operators and the travelling public. In addition, I have answered two common questions that have been known to be barriers in prior failed attempts at legislative change. You possess the power and authority to take action. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has a reputation for being able to get things done. As Victor Hugo said, “Every good idea has its time” and the time is now for Bill S-221.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for that presentation, Chief.

We'll go to rounds of questions now.

I am going to leave the last five minutes for clause-by-clause, if we can. If you don't use up your full five minutes, feel free to share them with your colleague.

Madam Boivin, the time is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you all for being here.

We all read what transpired in the Senate. I think you have brought support around this table also.

First of all, I would like to recognize the work that operators do. Senator Runciman, I am pleased to see that your definition is quite broad. It covers a wide range of operators of all kinds of public transit vehicles, and that is excellent.

I also recognize the people from the Société de transport de l'Outaouais, who do extraordinary work, as do those working everywhere. We know that the work is by no means easy.

One question often comes up, and you addressed it. Why create this clause rather than add an aggravating factor to section 718 of the Criminal Code, the part dealing with sentencing? I am not sure I fully understood the distinction you are making between adding the new subsection 269.01(1) and those that follow in Bill S-221 and adding an aggravating factor.

If I understood correctly, the point is about the impact that this will have on the public, but could that not have been done by means of section 718? That is my only question about the bill. Are all four of you reasonably confident that this will solve the problem? Should there not be something else in order to ensure the safety of public transit operators and passengers? Should the bill include an awareness campaign indicating zero tolerance for actions of this kind? I do not know. I am not sure that this will necessarily solve all the problems, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who would you like to have answer that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I'll start with Mr. Runciman, and maybe Chief Dubord and the others, if they have things to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll work our way around.

Senator, the floor is yours.

[Bob Runciman]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think this is going to solve all the problems. I think it's going to be helpful, and all the witnesses that we heard in the Senate and from the public and other stakeholders have indicated that they're very optimistic that this is going to help in terms of consistency in sentencing.

We've had cases or instances.... One was in Ottawa earlier this year, where the judge turned down the recommendation of even the defence counsel, who was asking for a year in that particular assault, and handed out a sentence of six months. The crown was asking for 18 months, the defence for a year, and the judge went for six months, specifically saying that this is not an aggravating factor under the code.

With respect to the general sentencing provisions of section 718, this issue was not something that was on my radar until there was an assault in Ottawa. I gave a member's statement in the Senate based on my concern over the very modest sentence indeed of an individual who had a very long criminal record involving serious assaults and did not serve one day in jail.

I gave a statement and then was contacted by the transit community and asked if I would consider introducing legislation in the Senate. I didn't immediately accept. I did consult with a wide range of people, including a former crown attorney, a former chief of police, and a number of active police officers and some defence counsel as well. That's where this recommendation came from; in their minds this was the way to proceed.

I talked about focusing tightly on the safety of the broader public and dealing specifically with crimes that occur when the bus is typically in motion. I was advised that that was the preferable way to deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Chief, would you like to answer that question?

[Chief Neil Dubord]

Thanks so much. I would like to make some points, absolutely.

I think when we talk about this particular bill we have to be thinking about prevention, intervention, and suppression through enforcement. I think that on prevention, you're absolutely correct that there has to be a large public safety campaign that also comes out with it.

In Vancouver we run the “Don't Touch the Operator” campaign which is very specific around our bus operators. It's fairly successful in raising awareness on this particular issue. What this does as well is it allows us not only to be able to interdict, but then be able to enforce the law to the utmost capacity to ensure that there's a high level of deterrent when people are considering doing these types of assaults.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Michel, do you want to add anything?

[Michael Roschlau]

I would just add that there have been other bills about this previously, of course. However, this one is the most balanced in terms of the situations and the dangers people face each day. Clearly, each assault is one too many.

You rightly pointed out the importance of conducting an advertising and awareness campaign, after the bill is passed, to clearly communicate what it contains across Canada, aimed also at authorities in all jurisdictions.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Our next questioner is Mr. Calkins from the Conservative Party.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm going to ask all of my questions and hope that there's time for everybody to answer.

My first question is for the chief and Mr. Roschlau. Have all practical measures been taken to provide for operator safety before this bill is actually required? I mean safety measures such as plexiglass, whatever those kinds of things might be, to prevent people from having access to the driver.

My second question is specifically for you, Mr. Roschlau. What will the CUTA do to communicate to Canadians and passengers regarding the changes to this bill when it does become law? I have every reason to believe it will.

My third question is: is it reasonable to have this legislation well in place when an employee is not in active operation of the vehicle? The legislation says it's in the execution of their duties. Somebody mentioned that 80% of the assaults happen while they're driving, which means that 20% happen while they're at work, but not necessarily in care and control of a vehicle. I'm wondering if the definition is going to cause some future problems of unintended consequences that we might not be aware of.

My fourth question is: are there any vehicles or any public transportation mechanisms that aren't included in the definition that might cause some exclusion by accident?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have the four questions.

Chief, would you like to take a shot at it first?

[Chief Neil Dubord]

Sure. I can start with a response with regard to the barrier question.

With regard to bus operator barriers, we have had some experience here in Vancouver where we were ready to install barriers in all of our buses to prevent people from actually getting to the operator to assault them. Unfortunately, or fortunately I guess, it went to a vote of the bus operator union and they actually voted against the installation of the barriers.

The common comment from the bus operators was that they actually enjoyed the customer contact they have each and every day and they find that to be the best part of their job. When the barriers are installed it eliminates that actual customer contact. As a result, it reduces their impact in the community. They wanted to be able to continue with that and were actually willing to take the risk of being assaulted in order to continue with the best part of their job. That is why the bus operator shields have not been installed in the metro Vancouver area.

[Bob Runciman]

The people who are defined as transit workers, I suppose is the question you raised, rather than those who are operating when the vehicle is in motion.

I think it goes to the comment that the chief made with respect to comparing this to other occupations. For example, a nurse has been used as a comparison on a number of occasions, and I think it's a valid comparison. That's why this legislation was specifically focused on a transit vehicle in motion, because we're focusing on the broader public, the danger not only to the driver, the operator himself or herself, but also to the passengers, the people in the vehicles on the roadway, and the occasion that pedestrians could be in danger as well. That's why this focus is as broad as it is.