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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
In this vein, there's also an offence that seems to be being repealed, which is offences of flight causing bodily harm or death. That seems to be a very serious offence.
I'm wondering if there is really an offence that encompasses that.
June 13th, 2017 / 4:15 p.m.
Greg Yost Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In fact, the offence as written today is that a person commits the offence who, while fleeing from the police, drives dangerously and injures or kills someone. The only purpose of that specific offence was to raise the maximum penalty, in the case of bodily harm, from 10 years to 14 years and, in the case of death, from 14 years to life.
By raising the maximums for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death, there's no need for those particular offences. The actual flight from police simpliciter, if I can call it that, remains as an offence. If people fleeing from the police drive dangerously and injure someone, they would face a charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and would face a separate charge of flight from police under the new provisions.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
I want to go back now to the testing for per se limits. There is an alcohol test committee that has, for 50 years, been doing testing relating to alcohol impairment. I'm wondering if there is going to be a similar committee for drug impairment. I'm also wondering if there are objectively determined standards for impairment that we can measure these drugs against. Maybe these are questions to ask the experts later.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
There is the drug-impaired driving committee that we are continuing to hear from. They're scientific experts, so we take advice from them.
Maybe I could ask Greg to speak to the second part of your question.
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The drugs and driving committee has been examining standards used in other countries, for example, in the United Kingdom, to validate the technology and authorize drug screening devices for use. It is developing standards, looking at those to see if they're applicable to Canada. That work is ongoing. We expect the report in time for us to be able to approve certain roadside screeners for use by police in Canadian conditions, which are somewhat different from those in the United Kingdom for weather and such like. The work is ongoing.
It is also, like the alcohol test committee, a subcommittee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. It's at arm's length from government.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.
It's a big bill. There are a number of good aspects to the bill, and there are other areas I have concerns with. One of the areas I have concerns with, which I want to discuss and drill down a little more on, is random breath testing. Right now, the standard is one of reasonable suspicion, not that someone is impaired or that they are over the .08 limit, but rather a reasonable suspicion that they have alcohol in their system.
That's a pretty low standard. Wouldn't you agree, Minister?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
In terms of the alcohol testing and in terms of the mandatory breath screening that we're proposing, it would enable officers to do it as a matter of the practice within their responsibilities.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Right.
You had indicated that one—perhaps the only—reason why the choice has been made, as a matter of policy, to authorize random breath testing is the alleged success it has had in other jurisdictions. Is that the basis?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
We've inserted, not random breath screening but mandatory breath screening, and there are many reasons that we've done that. Certainly it's based on what we've learned from other jurisdictions in terms of preventing the number of accidents on the highways, significantly reducing the number of deaths. It certainly acts as a deterrent factor. What we've also learned from evidence is that a significant number of drivers, up to 50%, whether it's at a roadblock that has been erected by police officers...manage to drive through the roadblock while they have been impaired by alcohol. Mandatory screening was also proposed in private member's Bill C-226.
As you know, Mr. Cooper, the public policy reason for the mandatory roadside screening is to ensure that we prevent deaths, and that is entirely reasonable in the circumstances.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Minister, one of the concerns I have with some of the studies in other jurisdictions is that no jurisdiction is the same. In addition to that, in many jurisdictions, mandatory breath testing or random breath testing, whatever you want to call it, was instituted as one of the first measures taken to crack down on impaired driving. In Canada we have had selective breath testing and we have seen a significant reduction in the number of people who are driving impaired and deaths as a result of impaired driving, although the carnage is still too high, and everyone agrees on that point.
I'm not aware of any study that actually directly assessed the impact of mandatory breath testing with selective breath testing. Are you aware of any studies?
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Everybody is turning to me.
There have been a lot of studies in Australia when this was introduced in the mid-1980s to early 1990s. In many cases, as I understand it, they had already tried what we would call an approved screening device test, and that wasn't having the results they wanted. However, I'm not an expert on the state of Australian law in the 1980s when they brought in RBT, random breath test.
I do believe that Ireland, which had such excellent results when they brought in mandatory alcohol testing, as they call it, already had the “over 80” offence and already had the ability to check people at the roadside. I know nothing about European laws when they brought it in because my knowledge of other languages....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you. Certainly I would be very interested in any studies.
4:20 p.m.
Carole Morency Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Sorry, I would like to add that when Bill C-226 was also being studied previously by the SECU committee, the issue was asked there as well.
If you look at the successes in addressing impaired driving over the years, you see it's probably a combination of many things. Public education is huge. Training for law enforcement is also important, as is a new law, legal framework, to provide new tools to detect and to better address the issue. Also a combination.... On the mandatory alcohol screening, where random breath testing, as it's called elsewhere...it's also probably related to a function of how many police you put at different points to do the random testing, or as proposed for mandatory alcohol....
4:25 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I'm sorry, I know we're prolonging this. I have just one other point, which is that it's mandatory if the police ask. We hope that police use a whole variety of innovative techniques to ensure that the deterrence effect that we're seeking is achieved by the application of the law. We're not saying that every police officer who stops every person for a broken tail light might ask, but we are saying that everyone who gets pulled over for whatever reason and whatever context should know they might be asked, and if asked, they have a legal obligation to comply.
We know with social media and otherwise, the capacity of Canadians and others to defeat this needs to be...and we would expect it to be taken into account by the way in which the police administer this. A variety of techniques to try to make this effective is what we hope for in the application of the law.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Certainly, I would be very interested in any study, because let's not underestimate the fact that this is a significant infringement on individual liberty when we're talking about taking a bodily sample with even the slightest hint of suspicion that someone is breaking the law.
I think Mr. Yost brought up the point about the success that Ireland has had. The system in Ireland differs from what is proposed in Bill C-46 in the sense that the mandatory breath testing can only take place at regulated check stops. I would be curious as to why that was not considered. It would seem to me that a lot of people would be a little more comfortable with that than a mandatory roadside testing system whereby a police officer can stop any vehicle, anywhere, under any circumstances, albeit a lawful stop to check registration, insurance, etc.
Before you comment on that, I would just note, Madam Minister, because you had mentioned and the point had been raised by others, that right now police can stop a vehicle to check insurance, registration, or sobriety by engaging in a conversation with an individual, and if they have a reasonable suspicion, they can take further steps. I would note that when we're talking about taking a breath sample, a bodily sample from an individual, we're talking about something that's much more significant. To that point, I would draw your attention to the Goodwin decision from the Supreme Court wherein Madam Justice Karakatsanis stated that taking breath samples remained “more intrusive than a demand for documents” and clearly amounts to what Justice La Forest said, “The use of a person's body without his consent to obtain information about him invades an area of privacy essential to the maintenance of his human dignity.” That is a fairly significant statement for the Supreme Court.
4:25 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There are huge practical differences between Ireland, a small country with a population of about four and a half or five million, and Canada, a huge country. Large parts of our country have small detachments and the resources required to run full check stop programs are enormous. They're so enormous that even in large cities like Toronto, they're reserved for a few seasons of the year. If it was required that it be at a check stop, it probably would not have much effect at all.
The other thing is in Australia, a review of the random breath testing program said you can't be in the same place all the time, using the same resources, because people will drive around you, so it's essential that you be unpredictable. That's what this would be.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your questions, and I know that you likely have read the charter statement that I was able to table with respect to this bill. It answers some of those questions. I would encourage all members of this committee to read it, as well as the backgrounder that provides more information as well as substantive background in what the drugs and driving committee has recommended in their executive summary. There's information out there.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Minister, for coming today to testify.
I know you and your officials have talked about the mandatory alcohol screening in other jurisdictions, but I was wondering if you could expand on the benefits in a bit more detailed way to explain which jurisdictions have shown the success, and the numbers that have backed that up.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Sure. We worked very closely with MADD on this. There is a lot of information. According to MADD, more than 40 countries worldwide have authorized mandatory alcohol screening, and as I said, these include Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, to name a few.
Mandatory alcohol screening came into force in Ireland in July 2006, and it was credited by the Road Safety Authority for reducing the number of people being killed on Ireland's roads by almost a quarter, 23% in the 11 months following its introduction. In 2005, the last full year in Ireland without mandatory alcohol screening, road fatalities were 398, and by 2009, fatalities on Ireland's roads had declined to 238, a reduction of 39.9% from 2005.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
I didn't practise in the area of criminal law. We've heard a lot about delays in the criminal justice system. I saw it in the civil side, and I've heard from my family law colleagues that even delays within the criminal law system have spillover to the abused spouse seeking a divorce, or a small business owner looking to get back an unpaid debt; these delays have an impact even beyond the criminal justice system. They impact middle-class Canadians who depend on the justice system in times of need.
As one of the most litigated matters before the court, could you explain how this bill would ease the delays of our justice system as a whole?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, I think it's a really good question. The deputy touched on it and you did as well. In terms of one of the most litigated areas that contribute to delays, we believe that the efficiencies and the redrafting of the transportation provisions in this bill will significantly reduce or assist in the reduction of delays in and around eliminating defences, and clarify the disclosure realities for prosecutors and the proof of the blood alcohol concentration, to name a few.
Court delays generally are something that we certainly need to combat. In terms of impaired driving, we're seeking to eliminate some of the delays by virtue of this bill.
4:30 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
If I could just add, I think that the B.C. experience, for example, shows that a more effective law and a more effective deterrent.... Ultimately, we shouldn't be having any prosecutions for drunk driving, because nobody should be driving drunk. That will be the ultimate reduction in delays. What British Columbia has shown, with immediate roadside prohibition and the deterrent effects associated with that is that you should be able to see a reduction in charges proceeding.
We would hope to see less impaired driving, more use by provinces of their tools to more immediately deal with first-time impaired drivers, and fewer cases going to court. The two elements are streamlining and also a deterrent effect. We should be looking for fewer cases going to court because fewer people are driving impaired.
