Prime example.
Evidence of meeting #68 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #68 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
What I do want to say for Ms. May's benefit is that she should have been here at our last meeting when we were going through a report and Ms. Khalid had grammatical fixes on every single page.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion on LIB-7?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we go to PV-2.
Ms. May.
5:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
To be brief about this as the bells ring, we're looking, at the bottom of page 23, to proposed new subsection (2) of 320.27. This section as drafted is about opening up the possibility for completely randomized breath testing, as opposed to selective breath testing. There is no need for having any probable cause for stopping a driver.
What I'm proposing here is to ensure that there is a stationary roadside checkpoint before this can be applied. This is based, again, on evidence from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that there isn't any real improvement in efficacy between randomized breath testing and selective breath testing, and that overall the deterrent factor is just as strong when it is selective than if it's randomized. There is a very strong likelihood, as we've seen, for instance, with examples like the Toronto carding program and many others, that there tends to be racial profiling in the way that people are stopped.
I would prefer that this clause not pass at all, but it would certainly be preferable to have it be constrained to fixed roadside checkpoints.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I certainly agree about the efficacy of fixed roadside checkstops. We heard a lot of testimony to the effect that they are an excellent deterrent, particularly when you incorporate mandatory testing in those circumstances. However, there are many areas of Canada where those circumstances don't apply. There are rural areas, there's....
I believe there still needs to be the ability for a peace officer to lawfully stop a car and make these tests.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Sorry, you'll get the floor, I promise.
Mr. Fraser's hand was up as well, and then I'll come back to you, and then I'll get to Mr. Julian.
Everybody will get a chance. We don't ever cut off debate here.
Mr. Fraser.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
There are a couple of things. First of all, I accept the intention behind this. I have thought about the difficulty with this myself. However, on the whole, we've heard a preponderance of evidence suggesting that the way to deal with this significant problem of impaired driving in Canada.... We have the highest rate of impaired driving in the major countries, and we have to take significant steps to deal with it. In the countries that have had mandatory alcohol screening, it has led to people feeling like there is a good chance, or a more significant chance, that they will be caught, and that fear of getting caught is what actually deters the activity that we are trying to stop. While I understand the issues at play here, I believe that limiting this only to the roadside checks would not go far enough in order to satisfy the objective of the bill.
I do agree that we have to ensure that it is done in a proper fashion. The law addresses, of course, that any unlawful check, including pulling somebody over for irrelevant considerations, would not be acceptable.
In addition, I will be making an amendment to the preamble later, which will hopefully speak to this point in a more substantive way.
To achieve the objectives of this bill, I believe it is important that mandatory alcohol screening be permitted for stops outside of just the roadside checks.
5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just want to raise again the concerns that were expressed by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that this section may be unhelpful to the bill and it is likely to result in litigation, as the question of whether it violates section 8 of the charter in terms of unreasonable search and seizure would come into play.
Again, with caution, the use of roadside checkpoints would work. I have lived mostly in rural areas over my life—I haven't lived in big cities—and I have seen lots of roadside checkpoints in rural areas. They are also very effective.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I certainly think this is a laudable attempt by Ms. May to raise concerns that we have as well. I think she is right to say that the legislation could well be challenged. This brings me back to the point I made earlier, that we have to do this effectively and we have to do it well. We can't put through legislation that is going to be essentially thrown out. It is unhelpful, given the importance of the issue.
I completely agree with the principle that she has included in bringing this forward. I won't be supporting this particular amendment, because I think our amendment does more. It's not because I disagree with the amendment offered by Ms. May; it's more because I think we need to go a step further to ensure compliance with the charter.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further debate?
Not hearing any, I will ask for a vote on amendment PV-2.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned at the outset, I'll probably take a little longer to deal with this.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We are 19 minutes and 39 seconds away from the vote.
If colleagues prefer, we will recess and reconvene right after the vote.
The meeting is suspended.
7 p.m.
Liberal
October 4th, 2017 / 7 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to take a few moments on NDP-3, because it's a critical amendment for us. I'll explain why in a moment.
Mr. Chair, we haven't used the translation service since the beginning of the committee. I think it's important for us to take a moment and read our motion.
It talks about a legitimate exercise of powers in a roadside testing program under federal legislation.
Effectively, what this does is move to more carefully define that section of the bill. I believe each member of the committee would have received an email from Alistair MacGregor, our justice critic. Hopefully you've had a chance to look over it. The key point, the key paragraph that I'll read from his correspondence, is the following, “Statistics from both the Ottawa and Toronto police services show that a disproportionate number of racialized Canadians have had frequent interactions with authorities. Giving the police the power to demand an immediate breath sample during the course of the lawful exercise of their powers is going to lead to more of these statistics.”
Over the course of committee hearings around the bill, you did hear a number of statistics. Committee members heard the fact that the process of carding—police street checks known as carding—resulted in a disproportionate impact on the black community. Some 8.3% of Toronto's population is of African origin, but it accounted for 25% of the cards police wrote from 2008 to 2011.
As far as testimony before the committee is concerned, I did want to cite Michael Spratt, who spoke on the bill saying the following:
Now, in the last two and a half minutes, I want to deal with what I think is the most important problem of this bill, and that is the random breath testing. Let's just cut to the chase here. There's nothing random and there will be nothing random with this breath testing. What we know now, from right here in Ottawa and the 2016 Ottawa police traffic data race collection program—arising out of a human rights complaint for racial profiling—in which the police collected race data about everyone they stopped for every traffic violation, is that if you're a visible minority or part of a marginalized group or living in an overpoliced area, you are stopped disproportionately compared to the rest of the population. In simple terms, if you're black, if you're Arab, if you're a visible minority, you get pulled over more often than a white person does. That study went on to find that those people actually were not committing offences at any higher rate than anyone else was; in fact, the rate was lower.
He went on to say:
The charter analysis isn't going to look at you and me; it's going to look at the young black man who is stopped five, 10, 20 times. Go and read Desmond Cole's piece in Toronto Life about carding and the effect that has on someone. That's the analysis that will take place, so it's a big problem.
The Criminal Lawyers' Association has also stated that it supports the amendment brought forward by the NDP to the mandatory alcohol screening provisions of Bill C-46. The association stated that the amendment will limit the influence of overt, unconscious, or institutional racism in the application of mandatory alcohol screening. The amendment will also bring the provision more in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is our hope that this reasonable and modest amendment will be supported by all members of the justice committee. It is also in the testimony provided to this committee by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
There are two reasons why I'm bringing this forward. Of course, all of us support the provisions of this bill. There's no doubt. But all of us, I also believe, are acutely conscious of some of the abuses that have taken place in the past. What we've heard in testimony before this committee is that the current structure of the bill could lead to more abuses, so it is incumbent on us to fix that problem with the bill, and that would be by adopting NDP-3.
The final point I want to make is with regard to whether this bill is constitutional. This is the big weakness in the bill itself; it's most likely to be challenged, to be thrown out, and then brought back. That would be an embarrassment for the government of course, and I think it would cast a shadow on all of us as justice committee members going through this bill in good faith. If we don't fix this provision it is likely—possible—that the bill will be rejected and that will mean we have not done our due diligence. That is why I'm putting forward this amendment on behalf of Alistair MacGregor and hoping that members of the committee will support the amendment.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I completely take into consideration what you're saying. The problem we have—especially in my riding, in my city, and the region of Peel—is that carding is an issue. We understand that racial profiling occurs, but I don't think that we can legislate that kind of problem away. I think there needs to be a more fulsome, a more wholesome, approach to it and this amendment won't really help in curing the problem you're trying to cure, but it will take away some of the deterrent pieces of...or the intent of the legislation, so I don't think I can support this amendment.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Julian, do you have any stats on indigenous populations?
I know Elizabeth Comack from the University of Manitoba had been looking into policing and indigenous populations, and I know from anecdotal evidence there's an issue in Winnipeg, and in Manitoba. I've been carded walking down the street in downtown Winnipeg. If you don't wear a suit, sometimes you can get stopped. I was wondering if you had any information on that.
