Justice Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Daniel Therrien]

On the whole, as I said in my statement, we think that the government's answer is adequate in answering the privacy questions. When I say that we might have certain differences of opinion with the government.... For instance, in the charter assessment the assessment says that the tests would not reveal any personal or sensitive information about individuals. I disagree with that. However, the assessment concludes that the privacy interest in a breath sample in this context is low. I generally agree with that.

On the whole, we agree, although we may disagree on some details, particularly the statement that the system would not reveal any personal or sensitive information.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have some concerns around that as well, because it talks about that data being used later for statistical purposes, so obviously it's being held somewhere.

What should be done with that data? If you have concerns about it, should it be that if someone is not convicted it should be eliminated?

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

And if they are convicted then...?

[Daniel Therrien]

We're saying, yes, this data is sensitive and it is personal. In our view, when used for criminal law purposes to bring people to court, it is reasonable. But if it is to be used for other purposes, consider two things. First is the other purposes for which it is proposed. That's my comment about provincial or federal laws being extended. Second, if the test that is passed or that the person is submitted to indicates that the person does not have a sufficient proportion of alcohol or drugs in their body—in other words, passes the test—it should be discarded. There is no reason for it to be kept.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Is that an amendment that should be made to the bill?

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

Are there other committee members with any short questions?

Mr. Stetski, do you have a question?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes. I have a quick one.

Your slides suggested 51.8% of court cases are currently related to impaired driving. It takes twice as long to deal with a drug case than it does for an alcohol case, so I guess we have to anticipate increased demand on the court system after Bill C-45 comes into effect. Would that be reasonable from a statistical perspective?

[Yvan Clermont]

That's a very good question.

I would caution about making a conclusion about this, because there are also a number of cases that will no longer appear in front of courts. Cannabis-related cases will no longer go in the courts, so we don't know what the net effect is going to be. That is going to be very interesting to watch.

For example, impaired driving cases represent roughly 10% of cases in provincial courts, but drug-related cases, overall, are about 7%. Of those, a little more than half would be related to a cannabis offence that will be repealed or changed in the legislation. With the introduction of the legislation, in terms of new articles in the Criminal Code, we don't know how this is going to translate in front of the tribunal.

It's a bit early to say, but it's certainly an interesting question to be followed in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any other questions?

If not, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have a question, Mr. Privacy Commissioner.

Would you kindly advise us in terms of the proposed amendment that you are suggesting should be made? What section do you propose would be amended, and what would the terms of the amendment be?

[Daniel Therrien]

As to the location, we can perhaps suggest something to you after.

In terms of the substance of the amendment, it would say something along the lines that where a breath test or a blood test is administered and leads to the conclusion that an offence has not been committed, the record of that test should be destroyed as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Would that be the only one you would offer?

[Daniel Therrien]

I referred to the results of the test. The sample, as well, should be destroyed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

He did raise the matter, though, of the statutes to which this applies, and that's something I think we should have a look at.

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes.

I referred to a particular provision on the question of disclosure for the administration of provincial or federal laws. That is proposed subsection 320.36(2). That provision as it currently reads in the bill says that information can be disclosed for the purpose of the administration of federal or provincial laws without qualification.

My suggestion would be that disclosure would be authorized for federal or provincial laws related to road safety, unless government officials convince you that this information should be disclosed for other purposes. At this point, though, I have not seen an explanation as to why the information should be disclosed for purposes other than road safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I understand.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask the same question of Statistics Canada? I know you are here to present facts as opposed to conclusions arising from the facts, but are there any amendments that you think are important to be made?

[Yvan Clermont]

Is that in terms of statistics or in terms of legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

In terms of the legislation.

[Yvan Clermont]

We don't pronounce ourselves on those matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. It was a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming before us today.

It was a great pleasure to have you here. You have helped us a great deal.

We'll go to the next panel. Thank you, again, so much.

We'll recess until the next panel is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

All right, we will be resuming this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with our second panel of witnesses today on Bill C-46.

It is a pleasure to welcome Ms. Sheri Arsenault, director, Alberta, Families for Justice.

Welcome back, Ms. Arsenault.

[Sheri Arsenault, Director, Alberta, Families For Justice]

Thank you.