JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 27, 1999

• 0925

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.)): It looks like we have a quorum. The chair is on his way, but maybe we should get this rolling. We have a lot of witnesses this morning.

We're considering Bill C-440, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to flight. We're hearing witnesses this morning. I'd like to welcome and thank all the witnesses here this morning for coming.

Have you decided on an order of presentation? If so, we would like to start the presentations. You have 10 minutes each, please.

Mr. Bruce Brown (Legal Adviser, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Thank you. I am here with Inspector Michael Shard of the Ontario Provincial Police. I am the director of the professional standards branch for the London Police Service. Inspector Shard and I are here on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police law amendments committee. We are both legal advisers to that committee, sir.

We would like to say first that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports Bill C-440. This proposed legislation is very timely, as the issue of police pursuits and the potential danger they pose both to the officers involved and to the general public is now being hotly debated in many public forums.

In 1996, at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, resolution nine was passed. It urged the federal government to enact legislation creating a separate offence when the driver of a stolen motor vehicle becomes the subject of a police pursuit and, upon conviction, in addition to whatever penalty is imposed for any other offences, the driver would be subject to a mandatory minimum jail sentence.

The response from then Minister of Justice Allan Rock was to reject resolution nine because it called for a mandatory minimum penalty. The more substantive issue of whether or not being involved in a police pursuit in a stolen motor vehicle ought to be a separate offence was not addressed at that time. We are therefore pleased to see the initiative in Bill C-440 as it addresses the chief concern that was raised by the CACP in 1996, resolution nine, that chief concern being the danger that is posed by an individual who fails to stop when requested to do so, thereby causing the officer to initiate a pursuit. Police officers and innocent civilians have been maimed or killed as the result of the actions of drivers who fail or refuse to stop for the police.

In February of this year, for instance, the Thunder Bay police were in pursuit of a stolen sport utility vehicle. The driver of that vehicle ran head on into an oncoming vehicle that was being operated by a young mother. That lady died instantly. The driver of the stolen vehicle entered a plea of guilty to criminal negligence causing death and several other charges arising out of that tragic incident.

In the city of London, which is my own personal experience, during the calendar year 1998 we had 48 police pursuits. During the course of those pursuits 23 civilian vehicles were damaged. The amount of damage was estimated at approximately $99,150. There were five police cars damaged, total damages being around $5,400. There were two civilians injured.

In the previous calendar year, 1997, five civilians and one police officer were injured as the result of pursuits.

In 1999, during the first quarter, January 1 to March 31, we had 16 pursuits. There were eight civilian vehicles damaged. The estimated total damages amounted to $39,700; one police car was damaged during that period and the estimated damage was $10,000. As a result of a pursuit during this period, one civilian was injured.

We therefore believe this legislation is very important for the message it conveys, as well as the content. Bill C-440 would make it clear to the public that the federal government recognizes the grievous dangers that are posed when a driver fails to obey the direction of a police officer to stop his or her vehicle when commanded to do so. We recognize that this would not automatically end police pursuits; however, we do see it as a valuable tool for use by the police and the courts when acting to deter this very real menace on our highways.

I think Inspector Shard has some comments to make as well.

Mr. Michael Shard (Legal Adviser, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Yes, thank you.

I believe it is impossible for me to overstate the significance of this problem. I know there are statistics included in both the materials that we have presented—though I hear now that they may not have actually made it to you—and in the materials presented by the Canadian Police Association that I've had an opportunity to review. From my own personal experience I can tell you that those statistics don't do the problem justice.

• 0930

I am a member of the OPP professional standards bureau, and part of my daily routine is to review the files that deal with these pursuits. That's my current role. In my past role as a front-line officer, I've been involved in more than a few police pursuits and I can say from firsthand experience that lives are being devastated and/or ended by police pursuits. The problem is not with the police, the problem is with the individual who decides to flee from the police.

Police forces across Canada have for some time been struggling with this problem. We have implemented policies that require that pursuits be monitored by supervisors. We have created guidelines that weigh the safety issues versus the law enforcement issues. We have implemented spike belts and other such devices, and now, quite recently, the Toronto police are considering the use of helicopters. They're all good initiatives, they're all important steps, but they haven't and can't solve the problem. Again, the problem is that the offenders, on occasion, do decide to run.

We are asking for your assistance. I do believe that Bill C-440 is an important and necessary step in combatting the problem. The problem has continued. Some of the recent events that I think are important are the increases in the penalties for drinking and driving, which have increased the incentive or motivation for individual offenders to flee, and also the tightening police policies and recent provincial legislation that restricts the front-line officers' ability to pursue a fleeing suspect.

I do think this is an important tool for the police and the courts. I do think that Bill C-440 makes an important statement to the offender, the officer and the public, and I'd like to speak briefly to all three.

The statement that's made to the offender who sees the police lights behind him and is considering fleeing, I think, is important. The statement that's made to the police officers who daily face risks, unnecessary risks, associated with police pursuits is important. And certainly, there are some morale issues when police officers are told that they have to discontinue a pursuit when they see people, as the statistics indicate, 30% of whom do end up getting away.

I think most important, clearly, is the statement to the public, the public at large and the innocent public, those individuals who have been injured and/or killed and family members of those people. Again, I simply ask that you do approve Bill C-440.

Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney, Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Shard.

Mr. Prud'homme.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Prud'homme (President, Fédération des policiers et policières du Québec): Mr. Chairman, my name is Yves Prud'homme and I am the President of the Fédération des policiers et policières du Québec. With me is Ms. Christine Beaulieu, Corporate Communications Coordinator for the Fédération des policiers et policières du Québec.

The Fédération represents all municipal police forces in Quebec. It has some 130 member associations, including the Fraternité des policiers et policières of the Montreal urban community. The Fédération thus represents nearly all municipal police officers in the province, for a total of 8,800, of which 4,100 are in the Montreal urban community.

On behalf of all these associations, I would like to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to give our presentation and express our comments on this Bill C-440 that is so strongly wanted by the police forces, as well as by the chiefs of police, if I understand correctly.

The federation joins with the various police associations across Canada in calling for the failure of drivers to stop their vehicles when pursued by a peace officer to be considered a criminal offence.

The federation is always hearing from its members about how lax the law is regarding drivers who've refused to stop at the request of a peace officer.

Evading police with a vehicle is a serious criminal act that endangers the safety of other people; however, this behaviour will not lead to charges except in dramatic cases, where the person can be charged with dangerous driving, which is quite a different offence that is subject to its own particular rules of law.

• 0935

People who evade the police in a vehicle do not run the risk of having charges laid if they do not cause an accident, and even then, it is not always clear that a charge of dangerous driving will lead to a conviction.

I will not read paragraph 149(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, because you know it as well as I do. The paragraph indicates clearly that the conditions under which it can be applied are very restrictive and that there are numerous loopholes; it does not at all meet the crying need to punish the reprehensible behaviour of drivers who refuse to stop when ordered to do so by a peace officer.

The Criminal Code must provide for a specific offence and separate punishment for those who do not stop when intercepted by peace officers. We feel that the addition of such an offence to the Criminal Code and the ensuing convictions will have a definite deterrent effect and will help curtail the burgeoning problem posed by this behaviour.

What risk is there to the driver of a stolen vehicle who evades police trying to intercept him? If he stops, he will be charged with theft. If he flees and is caught, he will still be charged with theft and nothing more. If he causes an accident, a charge of dangerous driving will have to be proven in accordance with the rules set out in paragraph 149(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The penalties attached to the granting of drivers' licences are not at all a deterrent and cannot effectively resolve the problem. It is the Criminal Code that needs to be changed because we are talking about criminal behaviour.

Police chases cannot be completely prohibited without compromising the effectiveness of police intervention. Chases are inevitable, but they are so tightly controlled by the rigorous policies in each police force that, more often than not, the driver is allowed to escape without too much effort. The laxness of the law enables criminals to get away with their actions and feel all right about them.

More and more, police officers are limited in what they can do to intervene, but nothing is done to limit the behaviour of criminals, who can do what they like. The law has to deal with these cases with a degree of severity in keeping with the seriousness of the situation.

The internal rules for police chases will not change, though. They will stay the same and will be just as rigorous, but police officers will be able to count on an effective law to deter drivers or punish them, as the case may be.

We do not have detailed statistics on the number of police chases in Quebec for 1998. Not all police officers keep track, for the very reason that refusal to cooperate on the part of drivers is not a criminal offence that is taken into account in the usual statistics.

We do know, however that there were about 81 police chases in the MUC in 1998, which gives us a good idea of the scope of the problem across Canada. To that number must be added all the cases that did not result in a chase because of the danger to other people or because the driver had been identified in any case.

By the way, a municipal police officer in Joliette was killed in July 1998 when he was pulling up a studded mat that a fleeing driver had just gone over. Ironically, he was hit by the vehicle of a colleague who was chasing the driver. Although the fleeing driver was responsible for what happened, he had no criminal liability for the death of police officer Dominique Courchesne.

The federation fully supports the amendment to the Criminal Code laid out in bill C-440, which makes the simple failure to stop punishable by a maximum sentence of two years in prison, with more serious penalties when the driver causes injury or death. These amendments are necessary for justice to be done and to ensure the safety of the general public and, in particular, police officers carrying out their duties.

The federation therefore urges the federal government to amend the Criminal Code in the way suggested in Bill C-440 so that this criminal behaviour which currently goes unpunished will be treated as a criminal act.

In Quebec, a number of municipalities and cities support the representations of the Fédération des policiers et policières du Québec. To name but a few, Trois-Rivières-Ouest and the City of Trois-Rivières passed resolutions, which we will hand out a little later, supporting the association's efforts to prevent a repetition of what happened recently in Trois-Rivières-Ouest, where a fleeing driver caused the death of two innocent victims.

• 0940

Thank you for your attention. I will be glad to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Prud'homme.

[English]

Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

I will be reading a brief statement, and then our president, Grant Obst, will be discussing a number of the issues that are before the committee. We've provided copies of our brief in both official languages for the members of the committee.

[Translation]

The Canadian Police Association represents police officers across Canada. In addition to having member associations in all 10 Canadian provinces, the CPA includes representatives from the RCMP and police services for the CN and CP railways. Our motto, Public Service First, ensures Canadians that CPA members aspire to be the best police professionals in the world. The CPA is committed to serving and protecting every Canadian citizen.

The Canadian Police Association is pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee to express its support for Bill C-440. As professionals who dedicate their lives to ensuring the safety of their community and reducing crime, our members are keenly aware of the risks to the public and the police when a driver of a vehicle tries to avoid arrest by refusing to stop on the orders of a police officer.

For a number of years already, our association has adopted a resolution at each annual general meeting to the effect that the failure to stop on the orders of a police officer should be made a criminal offence. Last March, this issue was part of the program of our National Lobbying Day and was favourably received by members of Parliament representing all the parties.

In the eyes of police officers, high-speed chases are extremely dangerous situations. Tragedies that have recently occurred throughout Canada remind us of the cost of such reckless and irreversible behaviour in terms of human lives. These tragedies also highlight the need for imposing more serious consequences on drivers who choose to risk their lives and those of others by trying to escape from the police.

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst (President, Canadian Police Association): Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, once again it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to be able to come before you today and discuss an issue that is very near and focused on exactly what police officers' duties across this country entail. As you all know, I am employed by the Saskatoon Police Service as a uniformed patrol constable. The issue that brings us here today is very specific to the uniformed or patrol sections of police services, municipal and provincial, across the country.

I'd like to start by telling you that the Canadian Police Association and police officers across the country don't believe the passage of Bill C-440 will be the answer or the be-all and end-all to our problems with regard to criminal evasion or criminal pursuit situations. I have a feeling that this type of situation will be here as long as motor vehicles are accessible to the criminal element and, obviously, to the police. However, we firmly believe wholeheartedly that it is a step in the right direction and that we have to employ each and every tool we can to stifle this type of activity, which so often results in human tragedy and the irreplaceable loss of life.

• 0945

Police officers across this country are held to a very, very high degree of accountability when it comes to police pursuit. There are policies in virtually every police service across this country that lay out for the officer who is faced with this situation what the considerations are before engaging, so to speak: weather conditions; road conditions; what is the offender fleeing; what is the reason for the flight—most often you have no idea what the reason for the flight is, but occasionally there's a hint—and pedestrian traffic. There's a whole host of things that the officer has to assess in a split second and continue to assess as the pursuit continues. This high degree of accountability is necessary and adds to the professionalism that the police employ out there.

But what we, as the police, are asking for is for this particular bill to be passed so that the Criminal Code and the laws of the land will hold the criminal element to that same high level of accountability. My colleagues have alluded to the message that would be sent by Parliament if this bill should pass and this law should be created, and I believe that message is paramount.

The types of situations we're talking about here today are very common. The ones you're reading about in the back of the brief we supplied you are the ones that have resulted in injury or death. They're only a small portion of what really happens out there. Fortunately, most of the criminal pursuit situations the police find themselves in end without injury or death and with the successful apprehension of the individual. Those are the ones you don't hear about. But let me tell you, it's not like the movies; it's not like television. When you're in that police car and you find yourself in that type of situation, a lot of things go through your mind and at every given second you know there could be tragic consequences. That's part of that whole assessment process the officer has to make.

We believe if this bill is passed and the law is created, there will be a deterrence factor. Perhaps some individuals who are considering putting the pedal to the metal may think twice. Of course, the penalty section has to outweigh whatever the penalty section is for the offence that the individual is fleeing, so that we get them to stop.

We were here not long ago to discuss impaired driving issues and penalties associated with impaired driving. Obviously, if we strengthen the penalties for impaired driving, the sanctions that go along with this bill have to outweigh the sanctions for impaired driving; otherwise we'll find ourselves in more pursuit situations.

The question we're quite commonly asked is why don't we just quit chasing? Why don't we just quit pursuing? Quite frankly, from a police perspective, it would be quite easy for us, as police officers across the country, and probably a whole lot safer for ourselves, just to say we're not going to chase. But the only message we would be sending to the criminal element then is, if you want to break the law and avoid apprehension, steal the nearest car, jump in it and drive as fast as you can and as erratically as you can, and you won't be apprehended. There are jurisdictions across the country that have tried to invoke no-chase policies, and all it resulted in was the criminal element in the stolen vehicle driving by the police, taunting them, throwing beer bottles, and so on. So I don't believe it's an alternative.

My colleagues have talked about alternatives to the pursuit: the helicopters. Obviously it would be nice to have a helicopter. Unfortunately, most jurisdictions can't afford one. They're cost-prohibitive. But I can tell you that there have been efforts across the country in other areas, whether it be through training, or whether it be through the employing of what we commonly call a spike belt or a deflation instrument. Many police services across the country have invested in those kinds of issues and initiatives in order to curtail some of this activity.

So there's an attack on other fronts against this sort of thing, and we've come to you and to Parliament to attack from another front, that being the Criminal Code sanction or clause.

Engaging in a pursuit is not something a police officer takes lightly. It's a very serious point in the assessment process when you make that decision to go ahead with the pursuit, and the police officer doesn't always pursue, contrary to how we're sometimes illustrated in the media. As a matter of fact, in a number of cases, for various reasons, the police officer will choose not to pursue.

• 0950

I find this particular section applicable in those cases, and I'll relate a personal experience that happened to me this past January.

In the Saskatoon Police Service we operate a number of different vehicles. The vehicle that I happened to be operating on an evening in February was what we call a “paddy wagon”. It's a large van-type vehicle, and it's not conducive to chasing. It doesn't corner very well. It has a very high centre of gravity.

I received a call regarding a reported impaired driver leaving a local hotel on the edge of the city. I went to the area and was fortunate enough to encounter the individual and the vehicle that was described in the complaint. I pulled the police vehicle in behind this individual—it was a half-tonne truck—and he headed out of town on the highway.

We engaged the emergency equipment on the police vehicle, which is lights—and this particular vehicle is very well lit up; it has lights all over the place—and the siren. The truck just took off down the highway. So if you can picture this, you have this paddy wagon going down the highway, and I can tell you that this paddy wagon doesn't really go that fast. I think I got it up to about 120 kilometres per hour and I was still being left in the snow.

That was okay. We were able to follow on the highway. But keep in mind that the dangerous driving provisions of the Criminal Code probably wouldn't apply at this point. We were on a highway and we were doing about 120 or 130 kilometres per hour. However, he was leaving us.

He eventually turned off the highway onto a gravel road. I turned the paddy wagon onto the gravel road and at that point in time decided that there was no way the pursuit could continue. I probably would say that maybe there hadn't been a pursuit yet. We were just more or less in a follow mode. We continued in this follow mode and watched this truck disappear down the gravel road. I slowed the paddy wagon down to the 80 kilometre per hour speed limit on that gravel road and continued driving. I drove 19 kilometres. I had lost sight of the truck. We hadn't seen it for probably 15 or 20 minutes. But I continued down the road and found the truck, up to the doors in a snowbank against a barbed wire fence.

I didn't have enough to charge this individual with dangerous driving, but I probably could have made a case under this particular bill. I would suggest that I'm only one of many police officers across the country, so there are probably many situations like that where this particular section may come into play.

It turned out that this particular individual was impaired, so we were able to lay a Criminal Code charge of impaired driving and got subsequent breath samples and a .08 reading. But had he not been impaired, I suppose maybe a Highway Traffic Act charge for failing to stop for the police might have been applicable, which is all we would have had at this point in time.

I've brought an audio tape with me. All communication within the Saskatoon police is recorded. When a police officer talks on his police radio, it's recorded, and when the dispatcher talks, it's recorded. On Valentine's Day, February 14 of this year, the Saskatoon police were involved in a pursuit situation, and I brought this tape because I think it illustrates for you exactly what we're talking about and what the consequences can be and how quickly these types of things can start and finish. This particular pursuit is about 96 seconds long.

I'll set the stage for you. We're talking about a Sunday night, I believe. Many of us were put out that we couldn't go out for dinner with our loved ones. It was Valentine's Day and we had to work. It was a routine evening. We were expecting a quiet night. Early in the evening we had a report of a stolen K-car, an Aries K-car type of vehicle. It was stolen after being left running at a confectionery on the west side of the city.

I think that pretty much sets the stage for you. So with that, maybe I'll play the tape. Because it's a police recording it's somewhat staticky, so we've provided for you a transcript of what the officers are saying, so you're able to follow along with the tape. There was one en français for Monsieur Bellehumeur; I don't know if he has it.

The Chair: The interpreters have it, Mr. Bellehumeur. They will recite it.

[Editor's Note: Audio presentation]

• 0955

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, we're on seven-minute rounds.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today. I think what we just heard says a lot.

I have a couple of questions. This bill essentially talks about police operating a motor vehicle in pursuit. I know in my community of Surrey we have a very active bicycle patrol in the summertime, and I think most major cities do, and they certainly get involved in things through traffic and back alleys where there might not necessarily be a PC involved and it could be a bicycle. I would like your views on that. Should this apply? I believe the bill actually specifies that the police must be in a motor vehicle in pursuit.

Mr. David Griffin: We've discussed it, and I know the question was raised when this matter was before the committee on May 12 in regard to bicycles, vessels and potentially even aircraft.

From our point of view, for the Canadian Police Association, that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is the use of motor vehicles in the pursuit of people who are using motor vehicles for flight. I don't think from our perspective that apprehending people on bicycle—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'm talking about the actual police using the bicycle in pursuit of a motor vehicle.

Mr. David Griffin: It wouldn't be a very long pursuit.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: We've had a few, in my neck of the woods, through back alleys and traffic that have certainly endangered the public.

Mr. Grant Obst: In situations like that, Mr. Cadman, the bicycle officer normally calls for police backup in a motor vehicle. The situation could arise, but as David said, we're more focused on the speed issue, the speed people employ when they're being pursued by the motor vehicle, which causes the carnage we heard on the tape and which happened that night and happens all too often. That's what we're more focused on. I don't think you would find the speeds getting too high with the officer on the bike, at least not our bike guys, anyway.

• 1000

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just threw it out there because I know it certainly has happened through heavy traffic and down back laneways in the cities, where there certainly hasn't been a car involved or a PC involved for a number of minutes. A lot of things can happen.

Does anybody else have any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: I would like to add that it is clear in our minds that that provision would not apply to bicycles, because they are not motor vehicles. Bill C-440 focusses exclusively on motor vehicles. If a police officer on bicycle is called upon to cooperate, that would not apply in our opinion.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have one other question. What about actually failing to stop where there's not necessarily a pursuit, if we have an officer flagging somebody over and they take off and there's no pursuit right away, and then this person apparently piles into somebody else?

I mentioned the last time we were here a particular case I came across not two blocks from my own home, where the police had actually called off the pursuit and were sitting by the side of the road. The guy blew by, as Mr. Obst said, waving and yelling and screaming, and entered an intersection and killed a women. So there was no pursuit actually there, but there was a failure to stop. Do you have any comments?

Mr. Grant Obst: There is provincial legislation that governs failing to stop for a peace officer when signalled to do so. Obviously the penalties are...I think in Saskatchewan it's a $60 fine.

In a situation where the individual were to go by the police officer, you would have such little evidence to make your case. I don't know if we would be able to make a case under this particular section, and normally I wouldn't call that a police pursuit. This individual was already driving.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: There had been a pursuit, but the pursuit had been called off. Could we assume that if the pursuit had been called off and this resulted as—

Mr. Grant Obst: I would suggest that you would still be able to prosecute under this bill, yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That's all I have.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Since 1993, since the Hundal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, there has been some clarification with respect to the application of clause 249, which we are currently examining. If I remember correctly, the Hundal decision stated that objective criteria with respect to mens rea and actus reus—I see that we have legal counsel here—were to be used to determine if a person had been driving dangerously. From that decision flowed decisions by lower courts which stated among other things, to answer Mr. Prud'homme, that there did not necessarily need to be a collision or death to accuse someone of dangerous driving under clause 249. There were even decisions along those lines brought down by the Cour municipale de Montréal. People who had not hit anyone nor caused any damage were accused of dangerous driving on the basis of the Hundal decision. Using objective criteria, it was determined that there was mens rea for dangerous driving and that actus rea, or the act, had been committed.

Having said that, I am in favour of equipping you with the necessary tools, that do not exist now, but I do not want there to be any overlap. Perhaps something like that already exists in the Criminal Code.

My question is mainly for Mr. Prud'homme, because I like his style when he answers; you know what he thinks. You talked about the Trois-Rivières case; it was raised earlier on. I even noticed with pleasure that someone included one of your comments, that I remember very well, in the Association's brief.

You say that the Criminal Code must be amended so that failing to stop is a true offence and you add that that amendment would make it possible to avoid, if not control events like the one that occurred in Pointe-du-Lac.

• 1005

I want you to explain how you can control that with an amendment to the Criminal Code, knowing that it already exists, I believe. There are some things that can be done.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: I will try to clarify that point, which may seem not contradictory, but at the very least, a bit ambiguous. I fully agree with the member when he states that there have been decisions with respect to subclause 249(1). I did not say that it was impossible, but that it was extremely difficult in the circumstances and far from clear that we were achieving the desired objective with the current subclause 249(1).

What you must understand, and you already said it, is that police officers are responsible for enforcing legislation that the legislators adopt. Acts and regulations are our means and tools.

When we issued this release at the federation, I was not referring to controlling the suspect Sylvain Boies as such, who took a police car and drove the wrong way down Highway 40. I simply wanted people to understand that if we had had a section in the Criminal Code stating that whoever refused to obey the order of a peace officer was liable to—

That is what we are saying here. You can be found guilty of dangerous driving, but nowhere in your record or in the description of the nature of your charge will you find reference to the fact that you refused to obey the order of a peace officer, as a member said earlier on.

Driving dangerously is an offence. We are asking the government to make refusing to obey the order of a peace officer a criminal act for which the perpetrator would be liable to a maximum penalty, depending on whether there was damage, injury or death, in addition to the other penalties.

Perhaps that will not prevent all of these incidents, but we will at least be able to control them, because the message will serve as a deterrent to those who live on the fringe. That is the argument raised by the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs. It is an additional tool. If Mr. Boies had been aware of the possibility of an additional charge, would he have committed the offence? Perhaps, and I am clearly saying perhaps, he would not have committed it, but Lord only knows. We will never know that.

Bear in mind that police officers in Canada, in Quebec and in the provinces, enforce the regulations and the acts that you give them. For us, these are ways and means. When the time comes to release someone who, on two occasions, has refused to obey the order of a peace officer, as in the Boies case, if that were to constitute a distinct criminal act, there would perhaps be some decisions that would be a little bit different. Bear in mind that two innocent victims who had nothing to do with these events died.

Mr. Chairman, I was involved in a police chase when I was with the Montreal Urban Community Police Service in the 1980s. There were five total write-offs; there was the risk of injury to citizens for 30 to 40 minutes; two police officers were seriously injured, including one who was declared handicapped for the rest of his life. I experienced that as a police officer, just as Grant Obst experienced what he explained to you.

• 1010

That is what we are asking from you. Do not think that we are going to get involved in high-speed chases for nothing. Police services are structured extremely well. For example, at the Montreal Urban Community Police Service, it is forbidden to engage in pursuit when a civilian is in the police car or when we are in an unmarked car, without flashing lights, which is used by investigators. I simply wanted to point that out to you. We hope you understand.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Prud'homme, proposed clause 249.1 does not provide for any discretion. If a police officer tells someone to stop or turns on his flashing lights, whether it be under subclause (2), (3) or (4), the person will be charged with a criminal offence. There is no discretion. It is not a summary offence but a criminal act.

In answering one of my questions, you asked us to allow you to pursue someone for the simple fact of refusing to obey the order of a police officer. I know that in the majority of the...

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: There was a misunderstanding.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: There was a misunderstanding?

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: I will start over.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is precisely what you said. I know that in most cases, police officers do good work, but there are always some who are overzealous, as there are in politics and in other areas.

I find that clause 249.1 as drafted may lead to abuse on the part of police officers, whereas in other cases, when dangerous driving has occurred, a person can be charged with a criminal offence. I did not study the Sylvain Boies case, but I am going to go and get the court document to see how he was charged. I am convinced that because he drove the wrong way down Highway 40, he was charged with a criminal offence, and I am sure that he will not get off with a light sentence. For my part, I think it would be dangerous to include such a provision in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: First of all, you have to look at what the additional charge would be.

Secondly, all committee members must know that when a police officer gets involved in a chase it is because a driver has refused to obey the order of a peace officer. There is no chase when an honest citizen stops. How can any abuse occur?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I must correct you. You get involved in a chase because an individual has committed an offence.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: No.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You do not start a chase because the driver has refused to stop.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: That is not correct. There can be several reasons for a police officer to start a chase. In the vast majority of cases, they occur when a driver is in a stolen car. Secondly, we can be following a vehicle where the driver meets the description of a suspect who has just committed a robbery or another criminal offence. When we turn on our roof lights and try to intercept the driver, the honest citizen stops. How can we abuse our powers? When the driver flees, it is because somewhere something is not right. He is in a stolen car. We know that because we go to the computer and get the information immediately. Secondly, he might be a suspect in a robbery. Thirdly, if you are an honest citizen, you are going to stop and there will no chase. When the police officer starts a chase, he radios the dispatcher to state that he is following a suspicious vehicle and that the driver has refused to obey the order of a peace officer. How can we abuse our powers? How?

• 1015

You are going to stop. If you are an impaired driver, you might try to flee, but the legislation will apply at that point. There will be an additional charge. When we look at Mr. X's record, we will know that he has perhaps been found guilty, like Mr. Boies, of dangerous driving, impaired driving, theft of a motor vehicle, but also of refusing to obey the order of a peace officer, which is different. We do not have that now. At present, when we look at the records, we see charges for dangerous driving and impaired driving, but if the person has refused to obey the order of a peace officer and provoked a chase because the police officer, to protect citizens, could not afford to let a person driving under the influence of alcohol or one who had committed a crime go, there's no charge for that. We have to enforce the Act and the individual refused to stop. That is how you have to view the situation.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It is not a lesser offence, and included?

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: Perhaps the time will come... We address that in the CPA document. It might be considered that way when the charges are laid, but not in every case. That is what must be analyzed in this famous bill. Mr. Obst or Mr. Griffin could perhaps elaborate. I just addressed the deterrent for those living on the fringe of society.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Prud'homme.

John Mckay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd first like to thank Mr. McTeague for his energy in getting this bill up here. As a private member, I know it takes a great deal of commitment to get a bill to this stage and I'd like to congratulate him on it.

I'd also like to thank you for your presentation. As part of the police presentation, you make reference to an incident in my own riding. In fact, it's two blocks from my constituency office. And as the Toronto Sun is prone to do, they get it wrong. The heading of the article, “Cop chase claims life of a priest”, was in fact quite wrong.

The radar trap was set up literally in front of my office. A stolen vehicle passed through the radar trap. The police officer flagged the individual. He did not stop. He proceeded through a set of lights and struck the priest and killed him. The police officer had hardly even packed up his gear and gotten into his car when he arrived at the scene.

This leads me to question the constituent elements of proposed section 249.1 and go to your presentation, because you divide it into five constituent elements. The first element is that you're operating a motor vehicle; the second constituent element is “while being pursued”; the third is “fails without reasonable cause”; and the fourth is “in order to evade”; and the fifth is “within a reasonable period of time”.

My question to all of you, but to start with the police association first—Mr. Obst and Mr. Griffin, you can take this question—is why do we need “while being pursued by a police officer” as a constituent element of the proposed section? What gets added to it, bearing in mind the example I've given you?

I ask this because I could argue quite easily that the police officer was not pursuing that individual, and he wouldn't be caught under this proposed section. So I would be interested in your comments as to whether you think that constituent element needs to be in this bill in order to achieve the desirable goal that you've all spoken to.

• 1020

Mr. David Griffin: We discussed that at great length, and I believe the chiefs of police will also want to respond to this issue.

When we looked at the language that's proposed, we were concerned that it does set a very high threshold, that the officer will have to prove a very high standard of evidence that in fact the person knew the police officer was attempting to stop him or her, that they deliberately did not stop and that they were attempting to evade the police officer.

We're also conscious, however, that members of the committee are concerned—and Mr. Bellehumeur has addressed this concern—about the police officer's justification and whether or not the police officer had grounds to stop and everything else. I think we're prepared to see this as somewhat of a compromise position. No, it won't address the situation where the person simply flies through a checkpoint and at the next intersection kills somebody. There are other sections in the Criminal Code that do address that, such as criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, that type of thing. But we see it as very important to make this a distinct separate offence.

Would we like wording that's less onerous? By all means. But we also recognize there are Canadians that would be concerned about giving the police too heavy a hand.

I'd like to say that our members.... The press clippings here are simply a sample. Every time this incident hits in the community, the first focus is on whether or not the police officer should have been pursuing these individuals. The attention is put on the police officers and questioning the action of the police officers who have been involved in this. What we want Parliament to do is say, what about the people who were driving these vehicles? What about the people who were taking off from the police officer? As President Obst said before, what about their accountability? Every time that situation hits, it's my belief that the criminal element sees that as an indication that next time the police will be less inclined to pursue because they're going to bear the focus of that investigation.

The police officers in Ontario in fact are being charged with dangerous driving for being involved in pursuits. You have to send a message, and we implore you to send a message, to the criminal element that there is not a licence in this country to take off from police officers, that there will be severe sanctions for those people who are prepared to risk their lives and to risk the lives of other people in pursuits. That is the most important message that can come through the passage of this legislation. It's to those people who feel that the police may—because the police officer is concerned about safety, because the police officer knows the weather conditions are not proper—be inclined to disengage and not pursue that vehicle, there has to be a message sent that they are going to be held accountable for their conduct.

Mr. John McKay: If the committee were so inclined and simply deleted the phrase “while being pursued by a police officer”, I take it none of you would object to that. That would be consistent with the view as expressed by the police. Is that fair?

Mr. Bruce Brown: Yes, Mr. McKay. Speaking for the CACP, I can tell you that we would have no difficulty with that as a concept. Your point is certainly well taken. I think Mr. Griffin spoke very clearly, both on behalf of the CPA and also expressing the position of the CACP, incidentally, that what we are supporting here is the concept behind—

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I understand the politics and the messaging that you're trying to get across. Certainly in your preliminary material it just jumps out at you: more than one-quarter of pursuits result in damage, injury and fatality; half of pursuits, approximately 43%, where the vehicle is finally stopped, result in one or more of damage, injury or fatality; almost 9% of pursuits result in injury to the occupants. I must admit that, as a member of the public, I never realized this was such a....

Again, the only thing the federal government gets to deal with is really the Criminal Code. If, again, the committee were inclined to view this legislation favourably and the House were so inclined, what are the other elements that need to be in place in order to reduce the statistics? The mere passage of proposed section 249.1 may have almost no impact on your preliminary materials, so what else do you see as absolutely necessary from the other jurisdictions?

• 1025

Mr. Grant Obst: Do you mean other than the creation of the Criminal Code—

Mr. John McKay: Yes, because we only deal with the Criminal Code. That's it. After that, pretty well everything else falls to the provinces. What are the other elements that you see as absolutely necessary?

Mr. Grant Obst: Subsequent to the pursuit that you heard on the tape, there's been much discussion, at least in my jurisdiction, and as a result of similar tragedies the board of directors at the CPA level and the delegates that attend our conferences have talked about this issue. Actually, this issue has been talked about for years.

One area that personally, and I think from a CPA perspective, we'd like to see police services concentrate on is the training aspect for police officers, the thought process that the police officer engages in prior to initiating or being involved in a pursuit. The assessment process needs more attention. In Saskatchewan we, as patrol officers, take driver training every year. We requalify. Actually, we did a little poll across the country, and some jurisdictions are good in that respect and others aren't that good. Other than recruit training, you don't ever get any driver training.

Obviously that's a budgetary issue. But when you consider the consequences in this type of situation, I think it's a good investment to ensure that the police officers are armed not only with the tools of the Criminal Code, but also with the thought process and the driving capabilities and all that goes with the whole philosophy of the pursuit situation.

Mr. John McKay: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

This is a bit off the wall again, but I look at these other elements, the puncture devices and the helicopter and the huge amounts of money they would involve, etc., and they all strike me, frankly, as quite crude, rather unsophisticated technology. Can you point the committee in any direction with respect to other things? The first thing that comes to my mind is a splatter gun. You know, if you get close enough you splatter the car with a fluorescent paint and then everybody in the world knows that this particular vehicle is under pursuit. You call off the pursuit and then you pick them up a little later.

Mr. Grant Obst: Unfortunately, in many of the cases the vehicle is stolen, Mr. McKay, and we've got that identifying licence plate on the back already. You know, we've talked and we've talked about this, and I know you're grasping for answers—

Mr. John McKay: I am.

Mr. Grant Obst: —as we are as well. There are things on the market now where the police vehicle comes up behind the subject vehicle and shoots a little harpoon underneath the subject vehicle that can disable the electronic system within the vehicle and shut it down. Again, we're into a cost situation. The pursuit has to be going and you have to be able to get up behind the person in order to get that little harpoon under him.

There are no easy answers. I mean, we have been banging our heads against the wall, and that's why we're trying to attack this thing in a number of different areas, this being one of them.

Perhaps I can follow up on your previous question, and I think it relates to Mr. Bellehumeur's question on whether or not we already have a tool in the Criminal Code to fight this. From a police perspective, the pursuit situation is distinct and apart and, I would say, escalated to a different height from your average dangerous driving—I shouldn't say average—situation. Mr. Bellehumeur is perfectly correct, we lay dangerous driving charges on many occasions when there hasn't been an injury or a death, or even an accident. Simply somebody driving really recklessly on the road might constitute dangerous driving, and we may be able to make a case.

But when the individual is specifically attempting to evade the police, I believe, and the Canadian Police Association believes, that takes it to a different level. If I can relate dangerous driving to an assault, then let me relate evading the police to assault with a weapon, so to speak.

The other thing is—this might be a lesser issue, but I think it's important—when you're compiling a record on someone with a criminal background, if they have a conviction for dangerous driving, in my jurisdiction I end up pursuing this individual and charging him with dangerous driving. They then go to my colleague in Ontario's jurisdiction and they do the same thing. The sentencing judge only sees the conviction for dangerous driving and very rarely ever finds out what the circumstances were. If that conviction said “attempted to evade police” or something to that effect, I think it would demonstrate to the presiding judge that this individual had a habit of doing these kinds of things and how serious it was, versus if he just saw the dangerous driving.

• 1030

The Chair: Thank you, President Obst.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm fine.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First of all, I would like to tell our panelists that some of them could become honorary members of this committee if there were such a category, because they come here so regularly. I am very happy to see you again.

I have three questions, one for Mr. Prud'homme and two others for the people on the other side.

I am not very familiar with the field and perhaps you can help me. If we were to adopt legislative provisions like those being proposed by my colleague Mr. McTeague, whom I congratulate for his initiative, could that limit the number of chases in concrete terms?

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: We think that if Parliament were to declare it a criminal act, a separate offence, it would be a deterrent. In our opinion, when a young person borrows a car to go for a ride, and if a police officer tries to intercept him, he will be more likely to stop, knowing that in addition to auto theft, he will have to face an additional offence. There are a lot of young people who do that. They are called summer joy rides. Young people steal motor vehicles.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Quite honestly, I am having some trouble interpreting what is being said. I will tell you why. Actually, it is related to the question I wanted to ask Mr. Obst and Mr. Griffin.

[English]

You also referred to the deterrent effect of such a disposition. Would it be reasonable to assume that offenders generally do not really think of the consequences of their acts, as in other criminal instances? Do you think people who are fleeing the scene or not stopping when they are ordered to do so establish in their minds a list of pros and cons, what the law says, whether they are safe to do it, and whether they are better off doing it or not? Do you really think people think that way? Why do you always bring in the deterrent effect?

Mr. Grant Obst: I think I would put the offenders we deal with into two different classes, at least in this situation. There's the individual who steals a motor vehicle—and this is quite common—to engage in something more serious, such as a break-and-enter, an armed robbery or even a murder, to avoid detection. They probably wouldn't give a second thought to whether or not they got two years in jail for attempting to evade the police. I don't think there would be a deterrent factor there.

The other class is also very common in our jurisdiction, and I'm sure it's common in most of your constituencies. Although I hate to classify them as such, this class generally includes the young offender who steals a motor vehicle to simply engage in a joy-riding situation and engage the police in that pursuit. I don't believe they are held to a very high level of accountability at this time, and the message you would send to them would be that we're not going to put up with that any more and there will be some consequences to their actions. So I think there may be two classes there.

The other function this proposed section would serve is that if we could convict somebody of evading the police, we might take them off the street for a period of time, and that would enhance public safety. You're right that we always bring in the deterrent factor, but I don't think it's the sole determining factor here. The message you would send, that we wouldn't tolerate this type of action any more, would be a very important point.

Compiling a record on the individual is also an important point. There's the message to not only the police and the public but to the many victims that this kind of.... There were so many victims in the situation you just heard about. There were two who died, but there are 18 police officers back home who are still going through critical incident debriefing over that. Many of them will live with that forever. That goes on across the country daily.

• 1035

I was here in March to talk to many MPs about this bill. I went back to work, and in each of two consecutive night shifts I was involved in a chase, and I'm only one officer. So it's widespread. It's time we sent the message from the Parliament of Canada that we're not going to put up with this any more.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Obst, we have heard the tape of the pursuits and you said that subsequently the individual's car was found in a snow bank near a fence, but that this person was not charged under section 249. Why was that?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I may have confused some members of the committee. The situation I described where we found the vehicle in the snowbank happened in January. The situation on the tape is a pursuit that occurred on February 14 and resulted in a fatal car accident. The suspects were jammed into their vehicle and had to be extricated by the fire department. The two incidents were not related.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So you did not charge this guy under Section 249 even though you found the vehicle in a snow bank near a fence. Why not? There had been a pursuit.

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: In my opinion, there wasn't a chase there. If I can take you back to the situation, I was following him on the highway. I turned on the emergency equipment, and he was speeding. I could have charged him with speeding. He turned off the highway onto a gravel road. I followed him on the gravel road, still doing the speed limit and trying to keep him in sight. He left me and was gone. Again, he was speeding. That was the only evidence I would have had. I would have had nothing for dangerous driving there, other than speed. We're talking about 2 a.m. on the highway. I don't think the crown would have gone ahead with that, Mr. Bellehumeur. Because I couldn't chase him due to the type the vehicle I was driving, I continued down that gravel road, and 19 kilometres down the road found him in the snowbank.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very well.

Mr. Prud'homme, under paragraph 249.1 as proposed, an individual would be subject to a sentence of life imprisonment in the case of flight causing death. Do you not find this a little strong?

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: Well, it is not up to me to decide whether it is too strong or not. We have to look at the consequences of these actions. We also have to think about those who have lost their lives. If the chairman allows, I would add that you can always ask me this question, as Mr. Saada has done, but in all honesty, I cannot answer. Will it have the desired deterrent effect? No one around the table, neither on your side nor on ours, can answer this question. Opinions on this subject will be divergent.

I think it is a question of the message and the choice made by society. Does society want to put up with this any longer? Would society tolerate an individual assaulting his wife or someone else? No. Would it allow someone to break into a home, an industry or a business? No, and these are considered offences, or criminal acts. Will this raise or lower the crime rate? I do not think we should look at things from that point of view. You have to look at the consequences of actions taken by people who refuse to obey orders from peace officers who are responsible for protecting the average citizen. This is the point we have come to make before you. We are deeply convinced that these things will continue to occur. We feel it is important to get this message out and that it may make people show more respect for life. This sort of action compromises the life and safety of Canadian citizens as a whole.

• 1040

There was quite a dramatic occurrence at Trois-Rivières-Ouest. It is very sad when an innocent victim dies, whether it is a member of the police force or a member of the public. The municipal authorities decided to adopt resolutions supporting such measures. The town of Trois-Rivières and even the Union of Quebec municipalities are discussing this possibility and there is a reason for this. It is because they want to ensure a peaceful environment for their citizens.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Prud'homme, do you feel there is a difference between first degree murder, which is punishable by a life sentence, and flight causing death?

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: As I said to you earlier, the CPA deals with this offence along with that of criminal negligence causing death in its document.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I will read it.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: It also dealt with manslaughter. The Association discusses these questions in its brief because it has gone into the matter in greater depth. We were called in at the very end and did not have time to analyze the paragraph in question in such technical detail. We therefore dealt with the offence included in the document.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: [Editorial Note: Inaudible]... but it isn't serious.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Griffin, you have a comment.

Mr. David Griffin: The maximum is the same as first-degree murder, but not the minimum. There's no minimum penalty under proposed section 249.1 for somebody who commits this offence and causes death. So it's not put on the same level as first-degree murder or some other offences that carry a minimum penalty.

The Chair: Okay. I think we will have to go to Mr. Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly agree that we need a a provision like this to fill a gap that was never filled in the common law, probably because they didn't have motor vehicles a hundred years ago; they had horses and wagons. But I have some problems with this section. In my view, it wouldn't fly for very long in its current state. It needs a couple of changes.

The good news, although no one has articulated it here today—forgive me if it was mentioned before I came—is that it allows the police to break off a chase and still have something to hang their hat on later. That's something very positive to be said for this. In what the police would regard as a pursuit, it allows them to view an offence happening, break off the chase and charge later. So that's a good thing.

But one of the bad things is it basically says, “Hi, I'm a policeman in my car and you're a citizen in your car. You have to stop, and if you don't—Criminal Code”. From the point of view of a citizen, that's not how it should be. Just because someone is a policeman in a car, and there's another citizen in a car, doesn't mean the citizen who is....

I'll just take the point of view of the citizen who has done absolutely nothing wrong and is totally unaware they have done something wrong. So essentially, in reading this section, if I'm a citizen in my car and I look in my rearview mirror and see a policeman, I'd better stop, because the way this section is worded, my very failure to stop may be construed as evading.

So I look in my rearview mirror, and even if there isn't a signal to stop, I figure I have to stop. In a sense, the police may have a buildup of all these cars in front of them that shouldn't have to stop but may want to stop because of the fear that maybe they're being pursued, that their failure to stop may be construed as evading, and that they will be liable to an offence.

So I think the following things have to be done. Here I'm dealing with the case of a citizen who is unaware, a citizen who has done nothing wrong. That's what I'm trying to deal with. I want to help the policeman who is doing his job, and I don't want to help the bad guy who is trying to get away. But I do want to help the citizen.

• 1045

There's no requirement in this now that there be any kind of signal. It just has to be in the policeman's mind that there's a pursuit. I think the police officer should have reasonable grounds to apprehend the operator or the motor vehicle before this proposed section kicks in. I think that should be a condition.

The second thing is that some kind of signal to stop must be given, and I don't care what it is. It can be the policeman at the radar trap or the emergency equipment on the vehicle. But I think it's unfair to the average citizen to put him or her in a situation where there's no conspicuous requirement to stop. I think that ought to be in there, some phrase that says that where a signal to stop or to pull over has been given.... Even the provincial offence you've made reference to contains a provision that there has to be a signal to stop. So I think that should be in here too.

I think the phrase “without reasonable cause and in order to evade the peace officer” ought to make reference to “with intent to evade the peace officer”. The phrase “in order to evade” may mean the same thing. Maybe the drafter of the bill would want to comment on whether or not the distinction is important.

So I offer those two suggestions, and I look for comments.

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: At the risk of appearing facetious, police officers aren't sent out to play hide-and-seek or tag. I think in most jurisdictions, if not all, there are obligations under the provincial driving laws that require motorists to stop when signalled by a police officer.

But the fact that if in the mind of the driver they don't think they've done anything wrong and so they can keep driving isn't allowed now. That's not what we're trying to solve here. We don't have situations where citizens who are otherwise law-abiding aren't stopping for the police because they don't think they've done anything wrong. They're the first people to stop for police. In fact, they're the ones who are pulling over when you're trying to stop somebody else. They're not the problem. The problem is the person who knows they've done something wrong and tries to evade the police and the consequences of those actions.

It's within the responsibility of this committee to suggest amendments back to the House, and we would certainly support that. But I don't think we would support a concept that whether or not the person stops is going to be based on whether or not the officer had justification. There are means of addressing the officer's justification, and we've dealt with that on page 10 of our brief. If the citizen doesn't feel the officer acted properly, they can make a complaint about that officer's conduct.

Mr. Derek Lee: After they're in court.

Mr. David Griffin: After they've stopped their car. Why would you not stop?

Mr. Derek Lee: What if it's after they didn't stop their car? Then they've committed an offence.

Mr. David Griffin: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: But there was no justification to stop them. I'm talking about the honest citizen who for whatever reason didn't stop. The lady sees the red cherry flashing, gets scared, wants to phone home on the cellphone, can't, says what do I do, turns the corner, turns right, and turns left. I'm thinking of someone who hasn't done anything wrong. I want to make sure that before this proposed section kicks in, the police officer had justification to stop, apprehend, pull them over, or something.

Mr. David Griffin: I think—

The Chair: Mr. Prud'homme wants to comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: I would agree with Mr. Griffin when he says that the committee could perhaps analyze the wording as such. Our recommendation has to do with the refusal to obey an order from a peace officer. This means that a citizen is trying to avoid his legal obligation to obey an order from a peace officer. That is how it should be understood. It implies an order from a peace officer. I share your concerns. When we turn on our lights, it is because we have a reason to intercept this vehicle. If it is a stolen vehicle, we are in the right because we are executing an arrest warrant or intercepting a thief.

• 1050

Perhaps the wording of this measure is not sufficiently clear. I think that everyone feels this. It is a question of refusing to obey an order from a peace officer. By order, I mean that we expressly ask the driver to stop by making a sign or turning on our flashing lights. That is what we mean by an order in our work as police officers.

Perhaps the wording could be changed from “while being pursued by a peace officer” to “refusal or attempt to avoid one's legal obligation to obey an order from an officer” or “refusal to obey an order from a police officer”. I am not a lawyer or a legal expert, but the committee has its own experts and could redraft this measure to reflect our objective.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Do you have a final comment, Mr. Shard?

Mr. Michael Shard: Yes, just briefly, thank you.

My understanding of the legislation is that it would not apply to the innocent citizen. The key wording, I think, is “fails...to stop the vehicle”. There are a number of qualifiers on that, including “without reasonable cause”. I think an innocent citizen with good reason not to stop or who doesn't stop for some period of time due to confusion would fall under with reasonable cause or the “as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances” qualifier. The other key qualifier is “in order to evade the peace officer”. Certainly, the courts would require that intent to be proven. I think those three qualifiers of “without reasonable cause”, “in order to evade the peace officer”, and “as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances” eliminate the innocent citizen.

I think this bill in total does a good job of balancing between the need we are expressing and the concerns we've heard around the table in terms of innocent citizens and the potential for police abusing it.

Certainly it won't apply to all situations. It won't apply if the peace officer is not in a motor vehicle, and it won't apply if the peace office is not in pursuit. It won't apply to, or perhaps it may duplicate, some situations where dangerous driving also applies. I think our main point is that it will apply to some, and if it deters any, I think it's an important piece of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shard.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be very brief.

I've had a chance to look through your briefing booklet, and I've heard some of the remarks. I'm very familiar with and very supportive of the bill. So at the outset I want to thank you for your appearance here.

I think there are two important points about it. First, just to follow up on the point Mr. Shard was making, I think there is obviously a need for recognizing a specific offence here. When you have the unlawful fleeing that takes place on certain occasions, there are already code sections in place that deal with perhaps broader instances of resisting arrest in a different context, but this becomes a very narrow recognition of what takes place when a person decides to flee. I think in most instances it's very clear when a person does that.

With regard to Mr. Lee's example, which I raised myself to Mr. McTeague when he last appeared before the committee, of when a person panics or for whatever reason doesn't immediately comply with what is an obvious attempt by the police officer to get them to pull over, one way that might be addressed in the context of this particular legislation would be to make this a hybrid offence. I would ask you to contemplate your reaction to that. You could proceed summarily in some instances where there weren't, for lack of a better word, aggravating circumstances in flight. They didn't go over the neighbour's lawn and there was not a degree of speed and recklessness, but there was obviously some intent to evade.

• 1055

Some of this I do believe just has to do with the wording, and this is with no disrespect to Mr. McTeague, but I think there is a need to perhaps tighten up some of the language, particularly when it comes to this issue of evading the police officer. I think if you struck the words “peace officer” and simply inserted “in order to evade lawful apprehension”, it would be implicit in the police powers that they have to exercise reasonable and probable grounds to effect an arrest in any event.

So I think there's a way to tighten up the language in the legislation. Generally I think this concept, which was alluded to by Mr. Prud'homme as well, that there is an evolving view of this issue of police pursuit that perhaps comes about as a result of our movies and television—you know, Smoky and the Bandit and The Dukes of Hazzard, this culture that says it's okay to try to evade the police. Well, much like impaired driving legislation and the criminal law, there's been a shift in public opinion and our feeling about evading police.

So generally I'm very supportive of this legislation, but I would like to get your comments with respect to the suggestion that it be made a hybrid offence, and that the issue of reasonable grounds be encompassed in the bill, particularly in reference to lawful apprehension.

Mr. David Griffin: I think we have tried to address both of those. Very quickly, if we look at the statistics under tab 7, page 7, these are statistics compiled by the Province of Ontario concerning police pursuits in Ontario. You'll see that the vast majority are for significant Criminal Code or serious offences. There are very few for the type of minor incident that is being talked about. We don't see people taking off from a police officer because they've run a red light or because they're late to pick up their child from school. Those aren't the types of situations being reported as police pursuits.

We believe there's a very serious criminal type of activity and people involved in the majority of pursuits, and that's what this should be trying to address. Therefore, we support the idea that there should be a high threshold for the police, in order to balance this concern, to have to prove that this was somebody that did more than just not stop for one signal, but was trying to deliberately evade a police officer. We do not believe it should be a hybrid offence. Our experience with dual-procedure offences is that summary conviction becomes the norm. The vast majority of offences that are dual procedure will be prosecuted as summary-conviction offences.

We believe it has to be a strong message. If the concern is the cost or the process...we've tried to answer both of your questions, sir, on pages 9 and 10 of our brief. We believe it should be an indictable offence. However, it is possible to look at absolute jurisdiction before the provincial courts for the initial offence of failing to stop, and that would at least address the concern that this is going to have to go before a superior court to be heard.

As far as police justification is concerned, we think the language, as Mr. Shard has indicated, addresses those concerns.

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. David Griffin: But we certainly don't oppose some tinkering to address the committee's discomfort.

The Chair: Mr. Brown.

Mr. Bruce Brown: Thank you, sir. If the committee does look at creating it as a hybrid offence, you ought not to go any further than simply a case where there has been no injury or death involved. Clearly, if there's injury or death, it ought to be a straight indictable offence. In terms of the indictable offence being an absolute jurisdiction offence, that may well address your concerns with the process and costs associated with it.

So I think the CACP would also endorse what Mr. Griffin has said, in essence.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McTeague, you indicated.... If it's something very germane, okay; if not, I'd prefer to—

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question, but I would ask, through you, if it might be possible to charge—pardon the expression—some of our witnesses here with compiling documentation on a national scale. I find that while the information through the provincial ministry in Ontario makes a very compelling argument, we are dealing with a national picture here. I wonder if it's possible, Mr. Chairman, that the witnesses provide this committee, for the purposes of advancing this bill, with a national picture of the statistics they've compiled and if they could do so in a timely fashion.

The Chair: Would they have that information?

• 1100

Mr. David Griffin: I think it would be very difficult. The reason the Ontario information is there is that because of this focus on police conduct and pursuits, it's a requirement in Ontario that every time their officers engage in a pursuit, they have to file a written report. Those statistics have been compiled from those reports. I do not believe that same standard exists in other provinces or that the same reporting requirements are there.

So for anything beyond that, we can certainly ask, but I think you'll find it's strictly anecdotal. There's not anything done on a statistical basis in other jurisdictions to this level.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Prud'homme.

Mr. Yves Prud'homme: I tried to get this information for Quebec from the Sûreté du Québec, but it has not been compiled. They do not have this information because it is not an offence, so they do not keep statistics. The MUC has at least some of this information and reports it to the public safety commission. That is how we were able to get these data, except for the most recent. We looked at them briefly, but again, we did not have all the information. It would be very hard for me to give an answer, Mr. Chairman, without two or three weeks to prepare.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we appreciate any efforts to provide additional statistical analysis. But it's just our committee....

I'd like to conclude this panel. I very much appreciate the give and take here this morning, and the questions and answers. It has been very productive for us. Thank you very much.

I will adjourn the meeting while we convene the next panel.

[Editor's Note: Due to legal considerations, publication of the testimony of the following group of witnesses has been prohibited]

• 1101

• 1159

The Chair: I will now reconvene the meeting and ask that the members please take their seats at the table.

I welcome from, the Canadian Automobile Association, Mr. Hunt, who is president of the association, and Ms. Ciufo, who is the manager of public and government affairs.

Thank you very much for joining us. I'm sorry for the delay in making your presentation.

• 1200

We have your brief. Are there some oral comments that you would like to make?

Mr. Brian Hunt (President, Canadian Automobile Association): I have a few comments. I feel a little bit inadequate in my presentation after the last one. I think that probably says everything that we could say, and more.

As a parent, listening to Mr. Bowman and being in a situation where, as I think most of you are aware, there was a school bus accident yesterday or the day before, and the child who was killed was in my daughter's class, it really hit home to me in terms of how precious our children are. I know I probably gave my kids a bigger hug last night than I did the night before. I have great sympathy for Mr. Bowman, and I can't even imagine the pain and suffering he's going through at this point. But I thank you for allowing us to come before you and to express our support for Bill C-440.

We have delivered to the committee a full brief that provides in greater detail the rationale behind our position. My remarks today will highlight the main reasons for our endorsement of this bill and then outline a number of recommendations that we would ask you to consider.

CAA members today have witnessed with alarm more and more dramatic crashes resulting from high-speed chases. These chases extract a terrific toll: the health and lives of innocent bystanders and police officers. In Ontario alone, between 1991 and 1997 over 10,000 high-speed chases occurred, which resulted in 2,415 people injured and 33 deaths. This is in just one province. About a third of those pursuits ran through residential areas and playgrounds at speeds of over 110 kilometres per hour. This situation is untenable. We need to send a strong message. Measures are needed to deter suspects from fleeing police at excessive speeds. Measures are also needed to reduce the risk to police officers and public safety when a high-speed pursuit does occur.

CAA's policy statement is entirely in support of Bill C-440. Our policy urges governments to ensure that laws provide severe penalties to operators of motor vehicles who flee from police. We believe this bill, if enacted, will have beneficial effects. It will reduce the number of high-speed chases and thus the risk of death, injury, and property damage.

CAA recommends that the committee support Bill C-440, and we believe it is time to hold criminally accountable for their actions those motorists who choose to flee police and who refuse to stop.

But we would remind the committee that Bill C-440, in isolation, cannot solve the problem of high-speed pursuits by itself. Despite our best efforts, some criminals will continue to use motor vehicles to evade police. For this reason, CAA believes this bill is an important first step, but other measures must be implemented to reduce the level of danger during high-speed chases and to enhance the ability of police officers to determine when and whether to pursue vehicles.

CAA proposes two recommendations to the committee. The first is that the committee support the passage of Bill C-440 to provide provisions to the Criminal Code that make it an indictable offence to wilfully flee police in a motor vehicle, and that introduce automatic penalties for motorists who refuse to stop. Fleeing police in a speeding vehicle is an act of violation, a choice that a suspect makes. The suspect chooses to endanger the lives of police and the public. These actions merit special criminal sanctions that reflect the particular nature of the offence.

Secondly, CAA recommends that all governments and their enforcement agencies put into effect training and guidelines on when and where officers can engage in high-speed pursuits, and when they must break off. In addition, emergency call handling courses should be integrated into every peace officer's training to ensure a high degree of proficiency and safety.

• 1205

Specifically, CAA's statement of policy on high-speed pursuits recommends the following:

First, police should only pursue a fleeing vehicle if they believe a Criminal Code offence has been committed.

Second, police should not involve unmarked cars or plain-clothes officers in high-speed vehicle pursuits unless absolutely necessary.

Third, police should not use roadblocks, ramming, or bumping in high-speed pursuits except where there is imminent danger to the public that requires immediate apprehension.

Four, police should not discharge firearms from a moving vehicle except in the defence of an officer's life or the life of another person.

Five, police agencies should require periodic vehicle handling retraining for all police officers who may be involved in a pursuit.

In conclusion, passage of Bill C-440 would be a significant first step in preventing more deaths and injuries. It would underline the seriousness of high-speed chases. Chases do not just happen; they are criminal choices that put innocent lives in peril.

Again, I thank the committee for its attention and welcome any questions about our position.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hunt.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chair, before we start questioning, this is a point of order or a point of clarification, because we are being transcribed. I know, Mr. Hunt, that in your presentation you wanted to say speeding a vehicle is an act of volition and you said an act of violation, so I just want to correct the record and the transcript for our purposes here that you meant volition.

Mr. Brian Hunt: I did mean volition; I'm sorry.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I don't really have any questions, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank the witnesses for coming and appearing before us, and I'm sure everything I want to know is in the brief.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I as welll would express our appreciation for your presentation. It's important that we have your input on matters such as this. I know the Canadian Automobile Association has looked at this issue extensively, and they've made contributions to this committee in the past.

I have just one very brief question with respect to a similar assertion that's put forward by the Canadian Police Association and you, and that is the insistence that the matter itself be deemed an indictable offence as opposed to a hybrid. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this should be solely summary, but certainly it broadens the range of how a court, and in particular the police and the crown prosecutor, would proceed with an instance involving flight.

I can envision on a scale aggravating circumstances and in some cases mitigating circumstances, and I suppose, for example, to look at the lower end of the scale where a person.... Mr. Lee referred to a scenario where a person panics, engages the police in what is definitely flight, but it occurs over a very short distance. There isn't the aggravating element of it being necessarily high speed. It doesn't go through a marked schoolyard or residential area. I personally believe it would increase the element of deterrence if there was the ability to charge on the low end of the scale and also to proceed indictably when those aggravating circumstances did exist—there was a prior record, there were some of these other elements I've referred to.

I just wondered about your reaction to that, to the suggestion that it could be made a hybrid.

Mr. Brian Hunt: I guess we went to the indictable because what we wanted to express is that we see the seriousness of this matter. To go to the hybrid...to be very blunt, I think we have to send a very strong message that any flight, no matter whether it's a hundred yards or twenty miles or twenty kilometres, is not acceptable. When the lights go on, you pull over and you obey the law. That's going to put the police officer in a safe position. It's not going to put innocent bystanders at any risk at all. So I guess we feel that the seriousness is that it's an indictable offence.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. I appreciate your answer. Thank you.

That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I have a very short question, Mr. Hunt, and that is with respect to the various devices the police have available to them to avoid this whole process. Has the CAA given any thought as to other forms of getting criminals to stop while being pursued? We can amend the Criminal Code, but are there other suggestions the CAA has put forward that would be of assistance, and possibly areas of recommendation the committee could make?

• 1210

Ms. Jody Ciufo (Manager, Public and Government Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association): The CAA has recently gone out to its members in Ontario and the results are just in, in a rough format at this point, which is why we couldn't, unfortunately, incorporate them into our brief.

We have asked our members what they see as the most appropriate penalties for those who flee from police. Over 80%—in fact 82% in the initial data—shows that members support that being a criminal offence. Even higher were compulsory fines, and then in third place was a licence suspension. Those are some other areas we are considering advocating. However, those are not areas that fall under federal jurisdiction, and as such, most of the hands-on techniques that could be used would be more, we would think, at provincial levels.

Mr. John McKay: There is an order prohibiting that could be put in here, and that's in one of the sections. I take it, then, you have not canvassed your members with respect to the core of the problem, and that is engaging in the pursuit in the first place?

Mr. Brian Hunt: No, we have not really engaged our members in how you stop pursuit from starting, other than if you can reduce the number of vehicles being stolen or something to that effect. That would then hopefully reduce the number of police chases.

Mr. John McKay: That deals with a subset of the problem, about a third of the cars.

Mr. Brian Hunt: That's correct, but we have not looked at how you stop the pursuit before it gets started.

Mr. John McKay: It's pretty shocking here to see from the statistics that about 40-odd percent end up in either death, injury, or property damage.

Mr. Brian Hunt: That's correct. It's very high.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I just wanted to reassure the witness that although.... She had said the licence suspensions and fines might not be federal jurisdiction, but there is ample authority under the Criminal Code to impose a fine if Parliament felt we should do so. Secondly, as Mr. McKay points out, the prohibition from driving order is an effective alternative to licence suspension and does result in licence suspensions.

Thank you. I just wanted to make that comment, unless the witness wishes to reply.

Ms. Jody Ciufo: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Then we thank our panel again for being here. We apologize for the delay.

Mr. Brian Hunt: That's quite all right. It's very understandable. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: Committee members, I would propose that we move to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, perhaps next week after we hear from the justice officials. I'm not aware of any other witnesses from Mr. McTeague or otherwise. So we can probably do clause-by-clause discussion of this on Tuesday as well as disposing of the miscellaneous amendments to—miscellaneous amendments, law, act, whatever it's called.

Mr. Derek Lee: Can we move the miscellaneous statutes amendment now, Mr. Chairman? We have a quorum, I think. Or would you prefer to wait?

The Chair: I don't think we have a sufficient quorum for a vote. We have a quorum for hearing witnesses but insufficient for a vote.

Mr. John McKay: Can I mail in my vote?

The Chair: Vote by proxy? Okay.

That would be my anticipated agenda for Tuesday. We'll hear from the Justice officials and then I think we could probably move to clause-by-clause discussion and deal with the miscellaneous first.

Mr. John McKay: What's outstanding on the agenda after that?

The Chair: Unless we get some other legislation coming down the tube, we can deal with, I think, the Chaulk case that came forward on mental disabilities and how they relate. Currently, as we speak, the Supreme Court is hearing on conditional sentencing. We may move on to that. We probably won't get a decision on that until the fall, so we're just coming—-

Mr. John McKay: Is our subcommittee anywhere close to...?

The Chair: They conclude their hearings this week.

Mr. Derek Lee: On a point of order, are we adjourned?

The Chair: No, we're not adjourned.

An hon. member: We could adjourn and then—

The Chair: We're adjourned.