Justice Committee on June 13th, 2017

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Have you heard support for these provisions from your provincial and territorial colleagues on these points?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I've had the opportunity to continue to engage in discussions with my counterparts, but certainly, discussions have been ongoing at the officials level, and what we've put in here is reflective of those discussions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Perhaps it is a bit unfair to put you on the spot, Minister, and maybe your departmental staff have this statistic, but I'm just curious. What is the percentage of impaired driving cases that go to trial versus other charges? Do you have that statistic available to you?

[William F. Pentney]

We can certainly get you that. What we do know is that the mandatory nature of the associated penalties means that more cases with MMPs go to trial, but we can certainly get you the percentage, as well as the percentage of cases having gone to trial resulting in a conviction.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

Very quickly, you talked about mandatory minimums. As a government, we have often discussed the constitutional issues with mandatory minimums, except for certain particular types of offences. Can you explain the importance of mandatory minimums and keeping mandatory minimums with impaired driving offences?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you for the question. I know that the discussion around mandatory minimum penalties is going to be an ongoing one that we're having. In terms of mandatory minimum penalties and maintaining them with respect to impaired driving, there isn't a significant factual difference that one can be charged with in terms of impaired driving. Mandatory minimums have acted as a deterrent with respect to impaired driving. Unlike other mandatory minimum penalties that the Supreme Court of Canada has weighed in on, where there is a significant difference in terms of the factual circumstances that can lead to a conviction, mandatory minimums are in line constitutionally.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bittle.

We have two more questioners. We next go to Mr. Falk and then Mr. MacGregor.

Are you pressed for time, Minister?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

We were supposed to go until 4:30, but I'm happy to take one more question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thanks.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank our chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

The question will be from you, Mr. Falk.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm sure the minister was eagerly awaiting my question.

I want to change direction just a little, Minister.

Alcohol impairment is often fairly easy to detect on people. Drug impairment is less visible and less easily detectable. I'm thinking specifically of the transportation industry and the construction industry, where individuals may decide that once cannabis is legal, they will experiment recreationally with it or even become recreational users. At the moment, I know there are employers, whether they be in public transit or a commercial goods carrier or the construction industry, who have methods of determining whether their employees are impaired from alcohol.

Have you considered, at all, how employers will be able to work with individuals who may be drug impaired?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I guess I would say as a general comment, impairment in the workplace is something that, from all accounts, I think is seen as unacceptable. The regulation or the implications of an individual who is impaired in a workplace would be determined by the employer and the jurisdiction that activity would fall within.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I understand that. However, there are some employers who buy very affordable breathalyzers and require their employees to submit a breath sample when they are suspicious that there could be impairment. In a situation where they are suspicious of impairment due to the use of cannabis, I'm wondering whether there's an affordable means available to them to make those determinations.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm not sure I have an answer to your question, or that I can provide an answer to your question. I mean, if we're talking about cannabis impairment, we are working to develop approved devices to enable us to ensure we can provide accurate roadside fluid screening.

These devices would be made available if it is the desire of employers or other jurisdictions to be able to, within the confines of the law, administer and screen their employees. That's their prerogative. I wouldn't speak on behalf of an employer about engaging with their employees.

[William F. Pentney]

This is certainly under active discussion.

For example, in respect to transportation, there are industries now where drug testing is already the norm. There are other countries that have that experience. Other ministers, other departments, and other processes are certainly looking within federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction at ways in which employers who have a legitimate safety concern can decide whether they want to undertake testing, and what would be the legal framework around that.

That would be a combination of presumably federal regulation in respect to, for example, airline pilots or railway engineers, and provincial regulation in respect to certain construction or transportation trades, as you have talked about.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think it's an important issue that also needs to be addressed.

There needs to be mechanisms that employers can use to help identify risks. I mean, that's the whole objective of this piece of legislation, to make sure we can reduce traffic fatalities, reduce the levels of impaired driving, and that should also apply to public transportation. There should be ways we can address that, because typically the police officers aren't involved in enforcing those unless there's an incident.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I guess I could end by saying that this is a point on which we agree.

Doing everything we can to reduce the risk and increase safety on our roads, to ensure we do everything we can so that negative impacts of drug impairment or alcohol impairment do not impact the public, is something that the federal government is committed to.

I'm sure that our counterparts in the provinces and territories, as well as employers, want to ensure they have safe workplaces, safe roads, and safe spaces for individuals to be protected.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Minister, I think you're maybe misinterpreting what I'm saying a little.

Many of these things are in the environment of public transportation, and heavy equipment is rolling down our roads. Trucks weighing in excess of 100,000 pounds are much different from a vehicle weighing 3,000 pounds. I think we need to consider all these different aspects of reducing ways—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Minister, I understand you need to go. I appreciate your staying a little longer.

Mr. MacGregor hasn't finished his round. Would the officials be able to stay?

[A voice]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you. I very much appreciate that.

We really appreciate your testimony today.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. MacGregor, I'll turn the floor over to you, and I'm sure Mr. Pentney and his colleagues will very ably answer the questions.