Evidence of meeting #61 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
That's very good. I think it will be very important to work with provinces and territories and to have a continuous dialogue to understand how this is actually affecting people on the roads.
With regard to training and tools and working with the provinces, what do you think about additional resources being made available for training and tools, which the provinces are asking for, to ensure that this law has the intended effect on the ground and that it can be properly implemented?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I think it's an incredibly important question. Having looked at submissions by members of all parties around this bill, I know this is something that all parties on every side of the House of Commons deem to be important.
As well as ensuring that law enforcement officers have the appropriate training, we are also going to continue to ensure that we have and maintain our public communication and education around the dangers of impaired driving, whether it be by drugs or by alcohol.
I was pleased to have the $9.6 million in the budget to go towards this education and communication, but I have also worked with my colleague the Minister of Public Safety, and we have had substantive discussions around the realities and the necessity of providing tools to law enforcement officers, the provinces, and the territories. We have to ensure that we're able to provide them those tools, including providing them with the necessary training and the necessary resources in order to do their job to achieve the ultimate objective of this bill, which is to keep our roads and highways safe.
Liberal
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Very briefly, I would encourage you to speak to witnesses as they come forward.
The current law is imposing a series of resource constraints right now on police, crown attorneys, and the judiciary. As Mr. Nicholson noted in his comments earlier, some of that's related to defences that are being brought forward, archival history, scientifically irrelevant evidence that is being demanded. The effort in this bill to streamline the procedures associated with what is either the highest or second highest volume case occupying provincial court time generally across the country right now, to the extent that streamlining those prosecutions to get to fair justice more quickly, more efficiently, and eliminating defences based on dangerous behaviour or other things that we think are scientifically irrelevant, has to be a saving to the system as well. I just note that. I think that's worth exploring as it goes forward.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome back, Minister, and it's good to see your officials again.
I want to concentrate my line of questioning specifically on proposed section 320.27 because you have made some comments about the mandatory versus random nature of this law. When police exercise their considerable powers under the Criminal Code, they usually have to show a reasonable suspicion that an offence has occurred in order to administer those powers, either to detain someone or bring him or her in for further questioning. The way this proposed section is written, yes, a police officer has to lawfully stop someone on the road, either through speeding or a broken tail light, but then the decision on whether to administer a breath sample is entirely up to the officer.
The real danger here is what whims will affect the police officer's decision to administer that breath sample. How is the Department of Justice going to implement that training to ensure that we are not disproportionately affecting certain groups of society more than others?
The way the law is written, there's no real follow-up allowed with the officer to ask, “What made you administer the test?” It seems to be entirely discretionary on the part of the officer, whereas before they had to prove a reasonable suspicion. I'm just wondering, how is the Department of Justice going to make sure that this training is instituted in a proper way and that officers are acting with the best intention for all their actions?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you for the question. It's similar to questions that have been asked, and I think it's really important.
We've had this conversation around racial profiling and whether this mandatory breath screening will impact racial minorities more than others. I will say that, again, mandatory roadside screening acts as a deterrent. Officers, as you quite rightly point out, and others can continue to lawfully pull individuals over. I have to go back to the confidence I have in law enforcement officers and the necessity for law enforcement officers in various jurisdictions to continue to get the necessary training that's required, and that includes how we deal with marginalized communities, how we deal with implicit bias.
What's the Department of Justice going to do in this regard, in terms of the application, ensuring that law enforcement officers apply this screening device in a fair way? I've continued to have discussions with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, the attorneys general. We've had discussions about this particular piece of legislation and the impact, whether that be around training...and that includes resources. As well, my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, has indeed had conversations with his counterparts. In fact, we have federal, provincial, and territorial meetings together on many occasions.
I am committed to ensuring that we continue to have these discussions with our counterparts, continue to ensure that we provide the necessary support so that law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions have the ability to access this training, have the ability to ensure that they can continue to improve on their training. We need to understand and recognize that separate and apart from the training around what's required in terms of the ministry, the screening, racial profiling is also a serious issue that law enforcement officials, all people, actors in the criminal justice system need to be very aware of. That's inherently part of my commitment in terms of my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, to be mindful of the realities that marginalized individuals face in our country.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
My next question is with regard to the per se limits of THC. I know this will be set by regulation, but your department has already identified some numbers. Bill C-46 can't be seen in isolation. Of course, you introduced it on the same day that Bill C-45 was introduced, and I know you want to have this law in place before Bill C-45 becomes law, but the changes to Canada's marijuana laws will be quite a revolutionary thing. I agree with the approach, the overall goal that Bill C-45 has, but if cannabis is legal in Canadian society, it needs to be accompanied by that public awareness campaign, because I don't think a lot of people see the strong correlation between how much you can ingest or inhale and what constitutes impairment.
What studies or evidence does your department have correlating these specific numbers to impairment? Whether you eat something or smoke something, whether you're a habitual user or first-time user can have a different effect on how much of the drug is in your body, and it also could be very different to what constitutes impairment. How has your department examined that particular issue?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
From the outset, in terms of drug-impaired driving, as I said in my comments, we're taking a precautionary approach, the premise being that no level of drug impairment or no level of ingestion of drugs is appropriate if you're planning on getting behind the wheel of your car. As you quite rightly point out, the science with respect to impairment by drugs is not as clear as it is with respect to impairment by alcohol, which is why, with respect to Bill C-46 and the per se limits we have been taking and continue to take expert advice from the best scientific evidence that the drugs and driving committee present to us. They are part of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. We're going to continue to empower and embrace recommendations that come from them as the science continues to evolve in terms of the levels that have been set. We have taken advice from them, as well as from levels that have been set in other jurisdictions.
Liberal
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming in today.
Minister, I think the committee has really expressed today the importance of equality when it comes to administering this type of justice. In Toronto we have the issue of carding, where between 2008 and 2013, 2.1 million cards containing information on law-abiding citizens were filled out by Toronto police. This involved one million people, and the majority were African Canadians. Racial profiling is definitely an issue that I hope you will consider in this legislation going forward.
Could you please talk about the distinction between medical versus recreational marijuana in the regulations and whether there will be a distinction with respect to impaired driving?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Just in terms of your comments around racial profiling, I take the point incredibly seriously, again, ensuring that law enforcement officers have the appropriate training and implicit bias training, recognizing that if a lawful stop happens and there's a perception of an overt bias of a law enforcement officer to an individual, that individual can challenge that reality.
In terms of medical marijuana and what would be a legal source of marijuana, we have not made a distinction in this bill with respect to being impaired by medical marijuana or by a legal source of cannabis as in Bill C-46. Any impairment, whether that be from a medical source or a licensed distributor in a province or a territory of legal marijuana to an adult over the age of 18...it's not appropriate to use cannabis and get behind the wheel of a car. We haven't made any distinction between the two. The public purpose is to ensure that anybody who's impaired by drugs or alcohol does not drive their car.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
If I could add one point, it's equally illegal now to be behind the wheel driving impaired by alcohol, as it is to be behind the wheel impaired by a prescription drug you're taking for medically necessary purposes completely legally and lawfully. We know many over-the-counter drugs say that they could impair you. Lawful or illegal, if the substance causes impairment, you shouldn't be driving.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you.
Minister, paragraph 8 of the preamble of Bill C-46 notes the importance that “federal and provincial laws work together to promote the safe operation of motor vehicles”. To what extent do provincial and federal laws complement each other to promote the safe operation of motor vehicles, and will provincial laws need to be changed once Bill C-46 comes into effect?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
In terms of Bill C-46, we have worked and will continue to work with the provinces and territories in ensuring that the Criminal Code is applied in their jurisdictions. Certainly the provinces have highway traffic acts and have instituted various measures to do their part within their jurisdiction to ensure their highways are safe. A majority of the provinces have instituted a lower level of alcohol concentration to 50, as opposed to what is federally within the Criminal Code at 80. We're gong to continue to ensure that we work with the provinces and territories to provide them with the ability to adapt their current approaches. Provinces and territories have been quite innovative in impaired driving, instituting administrative penalties like in the province of British Columbia, for example, that have significantly reduced delays. They take a car away from a driver who's impaired and have various other means to prevent or deter people from driving.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you.
Will there be a financial assistance component for the provinces and territories in helping provide training and equipment, etc.?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Again, it's an important question. We're putting in place a very strong regime around impaired driving and introducing new tools. In my conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, in addition to the money that's already been provided to provinces and territories, we need to ensure that we provide the necessary resources for law enforcement officers to have access to tools, and have the necessary training around the administration of those tools, to ensure we achieve the objectives laid out in Bill C-46.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Ms. Khalid.
We'll now move to the second round of questions, and we're going to start with Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.
I was going to talk about per se limits, but Mr. MacGregor did a fine job with that, and I appreciate your answers to him, so I'm going to do a bit of a change of pace here.
It appears that a lot of the work done in this bill is to substantially rewrite a major section of the Criminal Code to clarify and streamline things, as it were. It seems that in that process a number of offences have been eliminated, such as street racing, failure to keep watch on a person being towed, and so forth. I wonder if you could speak to those matters, and whether they're going to be reintroduced in some other fashion or whether they're no longer relevant.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I think any reasonable examination of the history of impaired driving laws would show that they have been around for a long time. They have been adjusted quite often, and at the end of that, like many carpenters working on renovations to a house, it may not be that the golden thread is as evident throughout. Partly the effort here is to make sure that where there are duplicate offences, where needlessly specific offences are covered by more general provisions, we should streamline and simplify that.
I think the Law Reform Commission at one point described parts of this law as virtually unintelligible even to senior lawyers and crowns. That's not good for anyone, for ordinary Canadians, for those who want to help address this, or for those who are involved in the administration, the ordinary police officer or the judge or the lawyer. The effort here is to ensure that the harms to be addressed are covered by appropriately descriptive provisions, but also to streamline and reduce where there's overlap, or in some cases frankly, needlessly specific offences, where the more general would be sufficient.
I think that's a fair summary of the effort to try to streamline and simplify this and to make the law more effective and more easily applied. This is one of the most heavily litigated areas of criminal law, and we think we can streamline and make the law equally effective without leaving a public harm that ought to be addressed outside the law.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
To add to the deputy's comments, and I understand there's a robust group of witnesses coming in, we would benefit from your thoughts around whether we've hit the mark, and from the contribution to the discussion of experts who are fundamentally involved in prosecuting and defending impaired driving.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I guess what I'm understanding from this is that offences such as street racing might be encompassed now in something more general like dangerous driving.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
That's the broader offence, so dangerous driving would encompass that.