Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 19 - Evidence, December 14, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, met this day at 10:45 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is our second meeting in relation to Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Essentially, the bill addresses the street-racing problem by making four amendments to the Criminal Code. It defines street racing. It creates five new street-racing offences, and for three of the new offences it provides maximum prison terms longer than those currently provided for dangerous operation or criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. It introduces mandatory driving prohibition orders for a minimum period of time, with the length of the prohibition increasing gradually for repeat offences.
Yesterday, we heard from the Honourable Vic Toews, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, who provided us with an excellent overview of this legislation. I hope you have all had an opportunity to read what he had to say.
Today, we will hear from four groups, who have certain concerns with respect to the bill.
We have before us Scott Ellsworth, the president of the Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs-Ontario Region, which is Ontario's governing body of automobile sport. It is comprised of over 30 automobile and sport enthusiast clubs within Ontario. The organization defines and administers the province's regional championships in several disciplines, with club-organized events in road racing, road rallying, ice race, Solo 1 time trials, Solo II auto slalom and drifting.
Joining him is Alasdair Robertson, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport, CARS. The association is the official sanctioning body for the sport of rally as recognized by the National Sporting Authority, ASN, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, FIA, and Canada FIA.
We also welcome Charlie Johnstone, the president and chief executive officer of the Grand Prix Association of Toronto, responsible for running the annual Grand Prix of Toronto. Joining him is Robert Giannou, the president of Targa Newfoundland. Mr. Giannou has been the president and major shareholder of Newfoundland International Motorsports, the company that owns and operates Targa Newfoundland, since 2001. He developed and ran the first Targa Newfoundland in 2002, after training in Tasmania under the auspices of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Octagon Worldwide Inc., owners of Targa Tasmania, and the Australian government.
I say to all of you, welcome. Honourable senators, before the witnesses begin to present, I would like to call to your attention that we have received a legal opinion from the Department of Justice Canada, which we will now circulate to everyone so you will have an opportunity to read it as the witnesses begin. This deals with the issue that arose yesterday with respect to whether or not there is a need for a minor amendment. This two-page letter, in English and in French, clearly says that absolutely no amendment is required.
Gentlemen, you now have the floor.
Alasdair A. Robertson, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Rally Sport: Thank you. When I got involved in motorsport, I did not realize I would have the opportunity to address all of you on a subject of the Criminal Code of Canada, but I welcome the opportunity to join you here today.
You have already heard a little about what the Canadian Association of Rally Sport is and what its connections are in terms of its role as a sanctioning body. We are a federation of regions, much like Canada. We have a structure that is, in many ways, similar to Confederation. We are divided into near provincial regions, and we have a central board, which is made up of volunteer members from across the country.
Our member clubs organize rally events at the club, regional and national levels. These events are organized within the provincial highway traffic acts in each region. They are closely monitored for compliance with both our rules and regulations and provincial laws.
Performance rally road closures are made in cooperation with provincial and municipal levels of government and are subject to various regulations across the country. We heard the minister speak yesterday about the notion of a closed road being a closed road. In our experience, across the country, that is not necessarily the case. Many of our road-closure agreements allow us to control roads for the passage of the rally, but they do not allow us to close the road. Under our agreements with different provincial governments, the road is still an open public road and it is still, in their minds, a public place. That is a condition that is important in terms of what we do.
I want to set out for you very briefly what a rally is, because there were some questions yesterday that illustrated that there is some doubt about what we are trying to do. I will take you through that briefly now, if I may.
Rally, as it relates to Bill C-19, takes two forms. Navigational rally, at its most basic, includes treasure hunts and novelty events of the sort arranged by charities, businesses, church groups, debating societies and riding associations. At the most sophisticated level, it could be a coast-to-coast event involving historic cars or it could be a very demanding club, regional or national event with precision map reading and such.
A navigational rally is won by following the route more precisely than the other competitors and arriving at all the checkpoints within the time window allowed. All navigational rallies sanctioned by CARS must be conducted within the bounds of provincial highway traffic acts, and they have some characteristic features. First, there is precision route finding on open public roads. Second, speeds — if they are included in the instructions at all — are typically set 10 per cent below posted speed limits, with time pauses for traffic signals, complicated turns on busy roads, et cetera. Through a busy, built-up area where we have concerns about disturbing the locals, we might allow 10 minutes to pass through a little village, so that there is absolutely no excuse for anyone either to cause a disturbance or to break the Highway Traffic Act.
We have marshals at undisclosed locations down the route to ensure compliance and safety. We have penalties for arriving too soon, including exclusion for any traffic violations. If a participant in one of our events violates the Highway Traffic Act and gets a ticket, they are disqualified from the event. We have no interest in encouraging anyone to break the Highway Traffic Act.
We start cars at one minute intervals to minimize disturbances for locals and so they do not get in each others' way. You can see how that will have some bearing on some of the discussion that you heard here yesterday.
Performance rally, which is probably the form that you are most familiar with, is a combination of open road transits, which work in the same way as a navigational rally; and high speed stages, which are conducted on roads open only to competing cars.
Transits are conducted the same as a navigational rally, and they are monitored for compliance both by us and, in most cases, by the local authorities. We have cooperative arrangements in place to ensure that during those transits — mostly on smooth, paved public roads, which link the kinds of roads we like to use for stages — there is no room to wiggle on what is or is not legal.
Stages or public roads or other public areas are controlled by the organizers for the duration of the rally. That could mean that the road is open to the public an hour before the event, and the road is open to the public again 10 minutes after the event has finished with that particular stage.
The road control agreements are established with various provincial ministries and/or with local municipalities; the legal language of these agreements varies from province to province. All competing cars must be road legal and must comply with the Canadian Association of Rally Sports safety regulations for those vehicles. All vehicles are inspected in the scrutineering process before they are allowed to begin the rally. If at any point they do not comply, they are not allowed to continue the rally.
A performance rally is won by setting the fastest overall times in the stages without accumulating any road penalties during the transit. That means participants must be precise, accurate and within the law getting to those stages, but once they are in those stages, they will go as quickly as they can.
Our concerns with Bill C-19 as presented come down to proposed section 249.1, and clause 1, the definition of ``street racing,'' which says:
``street racing'' means operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.
This definition concerns us, because it is highly specific in some areas, such as the location to which it applies and the participants, but it does not provide criteria to distinguish the exact nature of a race. Nor does it provide a means of distinguishing between the kind of irresponsible street racers we would like to see dealt with as firmly as possible and legitimate law-abiding participants in navigational or performance rallies.
As all rallies in Canada involve operating a motor vehicle with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place, we are disturbed by the lack of clarity concerning what is or is not a race within the meaning of the act. It has some significant concerns for us in terms of how we operate our events.
First, for participants and organizers, it is difficult given that definition to know where they stand in relation to the law. We have organizers who are very nervous of organizing next year's events if this law comes into place, because the definition seems to describe them fairly completely; unless this issue of what a race is or is not is clarified.
Second, we insure all our events. Our insurers have an issue whether or not they can insure an event where it is not clear if an event is legal. That is a concern for us, because we cannot continue to run our events without that insurance coverage. It is not a viable course for us. Also, because we have municipal and provincial governments with which we make road-use agreements, they have concerns about what those definitions mean as well.
Finally, event and series sponsors should have legitimate concerns whether they want to have their name and their money associated with what could wind up being described in the press as a street race.
The Chairman: Did you say they should or they do?
Mr. Robertson: They should have those concerns. Certainly, the sponsors for individual competitors I have spoken with do have those concerns.
We are also mindful of the extent to which the legislation is challenging from the point of view of the police officer at the side of the road and also for prosecutors in trying to create a successful prosecution. Most street racing, as we understand it, is pretty informal and, in most instances, is unplanned.
We are struck by the extent to which our legitimate events are really well documented: Very clear sets of instructions, clear safety plans, clear insurance packages and promotion of our events. We realize we are much easier to document a case against than the people who, we feel, the minister wishes to address with this legislation. Our concern is how to make sure that the bill actually deals with those who are its intended target.
CARS is eager to avoid any perception by the public, law enforcement or the courts that our activities are a form of street racing as defined by the bill. Legitimate motorsports play an important role in providing an alternative to the kind of illegal activities that we wish to see ended through this legislation.
We feel that organized, sanctioned motorsport should be encouraged and protected, and we, therefore, seek a clear exemption within the definition, so that it is clear what is intended. The minister yesterday was very clear about not wanting to constrain courts or attorneys in terms of identifying a street race. He made the argument that they know one when they see one and that the symptoms of a street race are diagnosable. We feel a clarification that sets out very specifically the one event that is not definable as a street race really strengthens rather than takes away from that goal.
The Chairman: Senator Bryden made that argument to the minister yesterday, quite clearly, and the minister responded. Have you had a chance to either hear the minister or read his transcript?
Mr. Robertson: I had the opportunity to hear the minister yesterday and Senator Bryden's question.
We would like to propose an exemption such as: The term ``street racing'' shall not apply to navigational rallies conducted subject to provincial highway traffic acts or to motorsports organized by a recognized sanctioning body. This addresses the concerns we heard yesterday and also provides further clarification to those aspects the minister wishes to see made possible within this act.
We would like to propose that this committee consider some sort of clarification to the bill as a way of both strengthening it and protecting the interests of sanctioned motorsport.
The Chairman: Thank you for that.
Charlie Johnstone, President and Chief Executive Officer, Grand Prix Association of Toronto: On behalf of the Champ Car World Series and the Champ Car races in Toronto, Edmonton, and Mont Tremblant, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the opportunity to speak as it pertains to Bill C-19.
We applaud the government in its efforts to curtail illegal street racing and are willing to lend our name and expertise to assist in this initiative. However, we are in the business of delivering a world-class motorsport event.
We are part of the Champ Car World Series, which boasts 17 races in seven countries across five continents. For the past 21 years, the Molson Indy Toronto, now renamed the Grand Prix of Toronto, has thrilled fans from around the world. Many of the world's most recognized names in racing, including Andretti, Fittipaldi, Unser, Villeneuve, Rahal, Tracy and Tagliani, have all raced the street course at Exhibition Place in Toronto.
The Grand Prix of Toronto race is one of the crown jewels in the Champ Car World Series and is an integral part of the cultural and sporting mosaic of the festivals and attractions held annually in the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario.
Since its inception in 1986, this race has attracted over 3.5 million people; this summer alone more than 120,000 visitors attended the Grand Prix of Toronto. The successful execution of a world-class motorsport event requires extraordinary measures be taken to ensure the safety of our drivers, teams, course workers and the general public. Strict policies and procedures are required in order for us to retain our official sanctioning from FIA and ASN Canada.
In cooperation with the City of Toronto and Emergency Medical Services, EMS, we have full police, ambulance and fire command centres on our site. This race consistently generates an annual economic impact of $45 million to $60 million, and has donated more than $5.5 million to local children's charities.
However, the event does take place on the streets of Toronto. As such, we are concerned that the language currently contained in Bill C-19 does not clearly distinguish between world-class professional and officially sanctioned motorsports events and illegal street racing.
In recognition of the distinct differences between our event and illegal street racing, we request the recognition in the legislation to exempt events officially sanctioned by a recognized motorsport governing body, for example the FIA or ASN Canada.
I thank you for your time and welcome the opportunity to work with you to stop illegal street racing.
The Chairman: Did you either hear the minister yesterday and Senator Bryden's question, or have you had a chance to read that question and answer?
Mr. Johnstone: I have not.
Scott Ellsworth, President, Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs—Ontario Region: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I am a resident of Brampton, Ontario, and the president of Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs—Ontario Region, CASCOR. Senator Oliver described our organization probably better than I could, so I will not belabour that. We have 39 clubs and about 4,000 members, to give you an idea of the size of the organization.
I understand you have a copy of the submission I made; I will not read it to you. I want to talk about where we fit in the scheme of things as far as sanctioning motorsport events. Motoring, the world over, is controlled by the FIA, Federation Internationale de l'Autombile, based in Europe. It governs both the sporting side, motorsports events, and the touring side, everyday motoring. It delegates authority, within each country in the world, to one or more bodies for those two aspects.
In Canada, the CAA, with whom I am sure you are all familiar, are responsible for the touring side of motoring; ASN Canada FIA is responsible for the sporting side. ASN Canada FIA delegates the authority to sanction motorsport events in each province or group of provinces to a number of different bodies, and CASCOR is the body for the Province of Ontario. That is our authority to sanction motorsport. The important point is that we are part of a world-governing structure for motorsport; we are not a local entity that exists solely on its own.
There are some operating practices we have in place — and have had for a long time; this is not a recent occurrence for us — which apply to all of our sanctioned motorsport activities, whether they are in a public setting or at a purpose-built facility. All of our competitions are covered by public liability and participant accident insurance. That covers the people who are actually part of the event. In the event there are spectators present, there is additional coverage for the spectators as well, and that is a requirement of our rules: We cannot organize or sanction an event without that coverage in place.
We do not allow competition vehicles to be driven outside the defined competition facility unless they are properly licensed and legal road vehicles. Some of our members use road vehicles in our competitions, which I will describe to you in a moment.
We have a policy on conduct which is, I would say, all-encompassing. We expect the highest standard of behaviour for all the people who participate in our motor sport events. We provide for, some would say, draconian penalties for people who do not adhere to that standard of conduct. Clearly, anyone who engages in dangerous and irresponsible driving or street racing is engaging in something that is prejudicial to our reputation in the sport.
At the present time, we would suspend someone, who was convicted of a street-racing offence, indefinitely; until such time as they had completed whatever sentencing they received, and at that point, we would merely consider whether to reinstate them. As I say, that is a practice we have had in place for a long time.
The Chairman: Do you have that in a bylaw?
Mr. Ellsworth: Yes.
We have been engaged with the Ministry of Transport, MTO, in the Province of Ontario for almost two years now in regard to their work against street racing. We worked hand in hand with the Road Safety Marketing Office in developing their education program, and we are trying to promote our activities as a true and legal — presently — alternative to street racing. We have an educational video, which we have developed in conjunction with the MTO, which talks about what we do and why it is a proper alternative. We have worked with a number of local agencies to promote road safety.
Most recently, in September of this year, we did the Milton High-Performance Shootout, which involved a number of different local representatives, including the Minister of Transportation for Ontario. We ran an auto slalom event and had the minister and a number of other people from various levels of government participating to show them what we do and why it is not street racing. We continue to participate with them. We are part of their round table on street racing, and we are there to offer suggestions and alternative ways people can participate.
There are two specific motorsport activities, which we organize, that we believe could fall under the proposed legislation. I believe it is unintended, but that is the case. Mr. Robertson eloquently made many of my points, so I will not repeat them other than to agree with what he said.
Our auto slalom competition is our grassroots entry level of competition. Basically, we create a course in a large parking lot or paved area with cones. Competitors compete typically one at a time against a clock. They are measured, and then the person who has the best time in their type of car is the winner for the day.
These courses take place in closed public places. Scotiabank Place, here in Ottawa, is a favourite location for competitors, because it is a huge parking lot and gives them ample opportunity to have a longer course. We use the Bronte GO Train station in Oakville and community arenas, such as the community centre in Peterborough, Ontario. These events take place all across Ontario. Some 70 to 80 events take place over the course of a summer.
The events are organized by one of the 39 member clubs of CASCOR. In order to put on an event, they must apply for sanction, and they must meet three sets of rules. There is what we call our general competition rules; there are the series regulations and competitor regulations. There are a number of points that these regulations make in one place or another, and these are consistent for all of these events. The clubs may not organize unsanctioned events. Competitors may not compete in unsanctioned events. That is another one of those matters that would be prejudicial to the sport and could result in suspension of privileges.
The facilities where these competitions take place are used with the express, written permission of the facility owners. None of these events are impulsive. They are planned months in advance. We advertise them because we are trying to encourage participation.
We provide the local police and other law enforcement authorities with advance notice of the event and a detailed description of what will take place. We describe the emergency plan that we have in place for all of these events.
Our rule set states: ``Protection of life and property is the prime factor governing all decisions relating to course design and safety.'' The course design rules require that the cars do not exceed a certain speed. Access to the facilities must be controlled so that the general public cannot wander into the facility. They are kept a safe and specific distance from the course at all times around the course.
This entry-level motorsport is one that attracts people driving their road cars. All vehicles are inspected prior to competition. They meet safety standards that are equal to or exceeding those specified in the Highway Traffic Act and, if they do not, they are not permitted to compete.
Competitors must present a current and valid driver's licence in order to compete in these events. We look at it every time before they go out, so clearly anyone who was convicted of such an offence as street racing would not be eligible to participate in events, and we licence all of our competitors.
That is auto slalom. That is the activity that we believe could potentially be impacted the most by the legislation as it is worded right now.
The other activity is ice racing, and it is exactly how it sounds. It takes place in Minden, Ontario. The season is some seven weeks and runs from the middle of January until the middle of March. A track is made basically the same way as a backyard rink. First, it is ploughed, and then they build up a snow bank and flood it until there is a foot of ice on the track. This is where we race the cars. The venue for these events is the Minden fair grounds. We partner with the Kinsmen Club in Minden on the organization of the events. They are actually the people who build the track and operate the concession stand. They get a contribution from each competitor at each event. We have made a significant contribution to the community in Minden. I would not want to suggest your decision making should necessarily be based on the fact that we are putting money into the community, but it is a contribution we make there.
These events follow much the same guidelines as do the auto slalom events. There are no unsanctioned events. Competitors may not participate in unsanctioned events. The owners of the facility are well aware of what we are doing beforehand. We have an emergency plan in place, the access is controlled and we have the same requirement that competitors must present a valid driver's licence before they compete.
Those are the two areas of the sport that we believe could be impacted by the proposed legislation as it is currently worded, with the definition that street racing means operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other vehicle on a street, road, highway or — and the significant one to us — other public place. We do not believe there would be any likelihood that someone could interpret the places where we organize these as being anything other than public places, even though they are strictly controlled.
We submit that it would be appropriate to alter the wording of the bill, so that it could not be interpreted to apply to activities that are sanctioned and take place with the prior knowledge of the property owners and law enforcement agencies ahead of time.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that.
Robert Giannou, President, Targa Newfoundland: I certainly will not take the senators through the details of my entire presentation, but I feel we would be remiss in not saying Merry Christmas. I understand this may be the last day of the Senate sitting.
I am from Newfoundland. Our province has struggled over the last number of years. It has recently hit some economic good news, and that economic good news has been largely centred on the large towns in the northeast part of the Avalon Peninsula in the area of St. John's. A number of years ago, when an event was created in Tasmania, they had serious economic problems. We went to see this event, we studied the event and, with the approval of the then government of the province, we brought the event back to Newfoundland. I want to share some details of that with you.
Targa Newfoundland is probably one of the most intriguing, legitimate motorsport events that has ever come to Canada. It is an event that is composed of normal streets and roads, and competitors competing on those roads. It will absolutely amaze you. It happens in the central and eastern parts of the province; it is the only event of its kind in North America and one of three in the world. Targa Newfoundland plays host to a field of international competitors and is held annually at the end of the tourist season to extend it.
It is governed by the ASN Canada FIA, who recently granted that authority. That extends, as you have heard, from the FIA in Paris. Targa Newfoundland has become one of the most recognized motorized sport events in the world. It showcases Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Canada to the world. It instills pride in Newfoundland communities and makes a major contribution to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Canada.
The event is composed of two areas: Transits, which are journeys between stages; and stages, which are where the competition takes place. We involve 70 towns and 35 major stages in this event. It is conducted with the legal permission and financial support of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and with the legal support and assistance of the communities through which the event is run. It is supported by the Government of Canada's Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, project. We just finished a five-year term with them, during which they helped us market the event.
Bill C-19, as currently worded, will make racing on streets a criminal offence. We agree with that and applaud the Senate's efforts on this. However, it would bring our Targa competition stages, which are 25 per cent of the event, and, in fact, the event itself, in conflict with the Criminal Code. Targa status in the future would then become subject to question. In any kind of event we run in Canada, there are those in favour and those who pick it apart. About 90 per cent or 95 per cent of Newfoundlanders are for this event. It is the fodder that could be given to the 5 per cent that we are concerned about. If this happens, Newfoundland would stand to lose a very serious economic impact. Over the last few years, since the event began, it has contributed about $4 million to the provincial economy each year, rising last year to $9.4 million — just in newly created capital wealth. An average income, as you can see from the chart, of which you have copies, will show you that flow.
In the past five years, this totals $31 million that has come into Newfoundland in generated capital. That comes to Labrador as well as Canada. This $31 million is incremental and requires no capital spending. It is really wonderful; we use existing infrastructure. The money represents cash flows from local, national and international sources. This economic benefit would not exist without the province.
In addition to the economic impact — the cash generated by the event — if the province had to purchase it, the television value has been estimated at $7 million. We have viewers in over nine countries, from Australia to New Zealand, to the Low Countries, to England, Scotland, United States and Canada.
The circulation of magazine articles has readership of over $9 million per year. We are featured in Canadian Geographic, CAA's Leisureways, En Route, and Canadian Business Magazine. We moved to newspaper coverage, where our readership in the last four years has been in excess of $4 million, including articles in the New York Times, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun, the National Post and your own Ottawa Citizen. If our province had to buy it, this media coverage and print coverage is worth about $300,000 and television coverage, about $7 million.
In 2006, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador saw direct economic benefit from Targa in excess of $9 million. Added to that is the $7 million in television and print coverage, which brings a benefit to a small province, from the work of 2,500 volunteers in this event, of over $16 million — a not insignificant sum.
In addition, automobile manufacturers from all over North America are coming here; for example, Subaru, Mini and Infinity. Importantly, they use their own public relations firms to advertise how their cars do in our event. That gives us national and international print media, as I talked about, and public spectators. We feature in all of the major auto shows in North America now, from Las Vegas to Los Angeles to Detroit to Toronto to Montreal.
We have over 13 million hits on our website a year; it is the biggest site in Newfoundland, which reflects the interest shown in this event. We have raised and donated over $100,000 in charitable donations to organizations such as Easter Seals, drug abuse resistance education, MS and the Children's Wish Foundation.
We have some additional benefits: It showcases Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador and provides an annual economic benefit in fiscal and media terms. This fiscal and media value is incremental and would not exist without Targa. We are nervous of this proposed act and wording — not the concept or the principle; we agree totally with that, but we are nervous of what it could do. I suggest that honourable senators have a major opportunity before them right now.
We would ask you to consider this opportunity from two angles. First, amend the wording, as my colleagues have said, for motorsport when its held under the approval of an appropriate government authority — we have three levels that approve our event; every town is participating — and under the auspices of an official sanctioning body, such as FIA, CASC or ASN Canada.
I believe, senators, it is one thing to make street racing illegal — and we all understand the rational of that — but by putting these amendments in, we help direct people, who would take part in these illegal street races and events, which result in such terrible injuries and damage, into direct and controlled motorsport. A funnel is created, which says: ``You cannot do this, but if you do that you are okay.'' That opportunity is the second angle.
I wish to share a short story with you. Last year, I met a young chap from Watkins Glen, in New York. He is 22 years old and is now leading the Porsche Cup championship. About two years ago, his father caught him street racing, twice, in New Jersey. Instead of separating the kid from his life, the father put him in motor racing schools and directed his talent into a formal sport under formal jurisdiction. That kid will be a star racer in the future. He will be off the streets and will set an example for his friends, because peer pressure, as senators know, is immense. There is an opportunity here. Do not merely adjust the wording for us; adjust it to give a venue and an avenue.
The Chairman: Thank you all very much for those presentations.
When the minister was here yesterday, he said that nothing in Bill C-19 will affect any of the motorsports described here today. The minister said that there is, in the Criminal Code already, an offence that if death is caused by criminal negligence during any activities, then that person is liable and subject to the law. If anyone, by criminal negligence, causes bodily harm, he or she is caught by the act now even before Bill C-19. I believe that was well understood. The only part that is changed is that there is a new offence called street racing. If, by criminal negligence causing death from street racing; or criminal negligence causing bodily harm by street racing, then anyone involved in your activities will be caught by the law. The minister said, yesterday, that there is nothing new in Bill C-19 that was not there before other than street racing.
I asked the minister: ``How is it you have not defined the word ``race?'' He explained in detail that the word has been interpreted by the courts on many occasions. Rather than trying to distill down what the various court cases have said to come up with one definition, it was his opinion that it was better to leave it undefined and leave it subject to the courts. That is my summary of what I believe the minister said yesterday.
Did any of you want to comment on that before I turn the floor over to Senator Milne for the first question?
Mr. Robertson: I believe it is an excellent summary; that is what I took from what the minister said yesterday. Certainly, we are all mindful of our responsibility to do the very best we can to take every step to ensure our events, particularly our closed events, are safe and that we have provided due diligence in what we do. All of us are very mindful that motorsport can be dangerous and that we must do everything possible to mitigate that.
The concern I had about what the minister said yesterday was that this definition does not just leave it to the courts to define street race. It is so broad and says a street race is any race that takes place under these conditions; therefore, I feel that says very clearly to the courts — while they may be left to decide the details of what that race is on individual cases — that any competition on a public road, highway or in a public place is, by definition, a street race and is subject to this act.
The concern we have, first, is the direct wording of this act, but also how that definition gets used elsewhere in courts in trying to decide what street racing is and how that might apply to us.
The Chairman: It has to be criminal negligence, as I have said.
Mr. Robertson: Well, there is dangerous driving, for instance. Any of us driving home from this meeting could be involved in an incident which, in Ontario, the police officer on the ground might decide was dangerous driving. If you or I made a faulty U-turn in front of this building and hit someone in doing that, that could be decided as dangerous driving. That is not a very high test in terms of defining what is or is not dangerous driving.
Add to that this concern about the little old lady who goes on the church social treasure hunt with her grandson, who has an accident. If there is a set of rally instructions in the car, suddenly it becomes dangerous driving, with street racing as an aggravation in that. I do not believe that little old lady is the person whom the minister had in mind with which this legislation would deal. That concerns us.
Senator Milne: As I understand it, Mr. Johnstone — and from what the minister was saying yesterday — you are not going to have any problems, because what was formerly the Indy always occurs on roads that are blocked off. His definition of a public place did not include an area that was closed to the public, even if just temporarily. Therefore, according to the minister yesterday, you are okay.
Mr. Ellsworth, do any of your events occur on public roads where there is other traffic?
Mr. Ellsworth: No.
Senator Milne: They are always in parking lots or large areas where it is blocked to the public at the time they occur, is that correct?
Mr. Ellsworth: That is correct.
Senator Milne: You are okay then; so that leaves us with Mr. Robertson and Mr. Giannou. You are involved with races that involve stages and transits.
Mr. Giannou: Yes.
Senator Milne: Your concern really is with the transits.
Mr. Giannou: No, the stages, where we shut down the road.
Senator Milne: Thus, it is shut down at that time.
Mr. Giannou: It is shut down. In our case, it is closed by the RCMP and reopened by the RCMP after the stage runs; each stage takes about an hour and a half or two hours to run. We would run as many as five simultaneously.
Senator Milne: If the roads are shut down then, according to the minister yesterday, that is no longer defined as a public road for this particular legislation and you are okay. Therefore, it seems to me your concern really would be with the transits.
Mr. Robertson: The transits are an issue. However, while I believe the minister to be sincere in what he said, what I question is how a police constable at the pointy end — or a Crown attorney who does not have the minister available to him to explain his intent — would decide that from the bill as written. That really is the concern that I would have with what the minister said yesterday.
From the very beginning, we have had the very clear impression that we were an unintended consequence in the attempt to get this bill passed. I do believe without some clarity about that issue, it really is very difficult to see how someone, who had the misfortune to be caught up in that at the time, would know the difference.
Senator Milne: You do not want to be, in effect, roadkill from this bill.
Mr. Robertson: I would rather not.
Senator Milne: Do all four of you agree with this proposed amendment that Mr. Robertson has brought to us, which is that ``the term street racing shall not apply to navigational rallies conducted subject to provincial highway traffic acts, nor to motorsports events organized by a recognized sanctioning body?'' You all agree with that.
Mr. Giannou: Yes.
Senator Milne: Any comments, Mr. Ellsworth?
Mr. Ellsworth: We, as the sanctioning body, do not organize the events; our member clubs do. Therefore, with a slight change in wording to cover that, we would agree.
Senator Milne: What would be that slight change in wording?
Mr. Ellsworth: That it is sanctioned by a recognized sanctioning body. In other words, we give them permission to run the event under our auspices. We validate that they have adhered to the standards that have been set.
Senator Milne: It would be organized or sanctioned by a recognized sanctioning body.
Mr. Ellsworth: That would be good.
Mr. Johnstone: The concern from our end is that if, for example, we go ahead and put on the race in downtown Toronto, as written, we may have someone, who is against the event for any number of reasons — it is noisy, there are too many people in his or her backyard — who could read the legislation and have, at least superficially, the grounds to say: ``I will put forth a complaint to the city or to the province, and at least have some sort of hearing or something because it is the definition of a closed street.'' If it was an approved sanctioned event — because we are — then there is no opportunity for misunderstanding. That is the nervousness. I understand the closed street; it is the interpretation of it, trying to alleviate that.
Mr. Giannou: I agree with that absolutely. It is that small group of people that, no matter what we do, may be against the event. They will look for any lever to cause trouble. That lever, given — with due respect — an appropriate lawyer attached to it, can make life miserable for us.
Senator Milne: That might apply to Targa in Newfoundland. It is unlikely to apply to the Grand Prix event in downtown Toronto; the only way it could apply then would be a citizen's arrest or charge, and that is not likely to happen as they are going past the Canadian National Exhibition grounds in Toronto.
Mr. Johnstone: We have had opposition to the event in the past.
Senator Milne: There is a lot of opposition, because of the noise.
Mr. Johnstone: Yes, or perceived noise, as I would say. We obviously must work with our community groups. We do everything possible to ensure that any traffic issues, as we are building the track, are mitigated as much as possible — balancing that off against what the event brings to the city.
I am just nervous about the opportunity for someone to say, as defined here in the new legislation, we now qualify as a street race. Even though we are saying it is closed, our roads actually have to open up in the evenings. We do not close the street until Friday evening at 10 p.m. and then we are closed from there.
That is the nervousness. It could affect even our build, because we are taking over a public street and having some sort of impact on the community.
Senator Milne: Your concern, Mr. Robertson, is the chilling effect this will have on both your insurers and your sponsors for Mr. Ellsworth in the Targa races.
Mr. Robertson: Yes. That is a serious concern for us, for our organizers and for our volunteers. Most of my marshals are ham radio operators, people who are committed to public service. The last thing they want do is take part in something that may be illegal.
The Chairman: I believe Mr. Robertson is the only one of the four witnesses who heard the minister, and I would like to read one paragraph from the minister's evidence yesterday, where I had asked him why not define the word ``race'' in the definition. Minister Toews said:
The difficulty is trying to crystallize the essential actus in order to capture all of the possible variations of racing. It can get into such a long, complicated definition, for example, whether it should be spontaneous, whether there should be a person outside flagging the cars on, that kind of thing. It becomes very complicated.
In fact, in the first street racing offence that I prosecuted under provincial legislation, the judge said that it was not a race because there was no one outside the cars telling the individuals to go at any particular time. I thought that was an unduly restrictive view of what a race should be, and I think we would have appealed had the judge not convicted the individual on other matters.
In this kind of situation, we need judges to have the flexibility to determine, on the facts, whether this constitutes a race or not. Do you define ``race'' by simple evidence being that the tires of the car were spinning faster than the car was moving? It gets into those kinds of things. A judge can look at those circumstances and say that a reasonable individual here can infer a race was going on. In those cases where it is not appropriate, they will say that the evidence might have been of careless driving, but there is no evidence here of racing.
That is the essence of what the minister said yesterday.
Senator Joyal: I have three points. The first is about the definition per se. As I read the bill, the bill does not prohibit street racing. The bill defines street racing in a way, but it does not prohibit street racing. It makes street racing a crime when someone, by criminal negligence, causes death or bodily harm. That is the way I understand it. I do not feel we can affirm or state clearly that street racing is prohibited by this legislation.
If street racing does not cause bodily harm, it might be regulated by other statutes, i.e., of provincial origin, or even under other sections of the Criminal Code, but not per se under this bill, unless I am mistaken.
Mr. Robertson: I do not know. I wondered, yesterday, if I did not understand the minister to be saying also a charge of dangerous driving while street racing; so no bodily harm, no death, but dangerous driving while street racing was included in this bill. That might be as close as it comes to actually saying that street racing is illegal, but you would know better than I.
Senator Baker: I have a supplementary question. Proposed new section 249.4(1) in this bill says:
Everyone commits an offence who, while street racing, operates a motor vehicle in a manner described in paragraph 249(1)(a).
In the Criminal Code, that manner is dangerous driving.
In response to the questions yesterday, the minister addressed only incidents that were beyond dangerous driving, and so I imagine that would be your concern. You used the example of leaving here today and, if it is raining, spinning your tires as you go around a corner and perhaps being charged with dangerous driving, because of the definition of dangerous driving in the Criminal Code. It does not have anything to do with harm or death or injury. Is that your point? The minister's response goes beyond that to say that this only applies where there is some form of injury.
Mr. Robertson: That was my point. The example you gave is slightly different from mine, but that was my point.
Senator Baker: How is my example different from the one you gave?
Mr. Robertson: I gave a slightly different example. I gave the example of the little old lady on the church treasure hunt, but your example will serve equally well.
Senator Joyal: The question of Senator Baker raises the point I want to clarify in the bill. In other words, what does this bill cover? What kind of street-racing prohibition does it contain? As far as I read it, the bill contains a prohibition where there is criminal negligence causing death, where there is negligence causing bodily harm, and it also covers, according to proposed new section 249.4(1), dangerous driving. It covers three specific situations. That, to me, is the overall scope of the new offence that is created by this bill.
My next question is the following: Presently, before this bill is proposed, what are the legal criminal consequences for, first, street racing causing death; second, causing bodily harm; and third, dangerous driving?
You have experience in your various capacities all over Canada. In the present context of the legislation, have any of the drivers participating in your competition ever been charged with criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, or with dangerous driving, to your recollection?
Mr. Robertson: I am not aware of anyone who has been charged with any of those offences within rally sport. I am aware of people getting tickets during events and having been dealt with by the event officials and by the courts in the fullness of time, but I am not aware of anyone being charged with any of the offences you mentioned specifically.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to understand your fear, or your apprehension, to put it in more general terms. In other words, a driver participating in any of your competitions today, who would cause death or bodily harm or who would commit dangerous driving, would normally be charged under the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply generally to other forms of conduct that are reprehensible for anyone who, by negligence, causes death in any circumstances.
Mr. Robertson: I believe that is the case. Our concern centres on the desire of the minister to accelerate the penalties in the event of something like that happening. No one in motorsport wants to be involved in an incident that causes injury or death.
It is an added burden to us as organizers, as well as to competitors, to have a definition of street racing applied to us accidentally, because we did not get the language of the bill right to make it clear that what goes on in a performance racing context is an exceptional circumstance and not something that any normal driver under normal conditions would have any chance of being a part of. That is our concern.
Senator Stratton: You also raised the concern that your insurers may have problems with this. Have they expressed their concerns to you by letter? If so, can you file those letters with us?
Mr. Robertson: I cannot do that at this time, senator. We have had ongoing discussions on the issue of insurance for motorsport in Canada. We are aware that we must try very hard to establish clear practices to ensure that what we are doing meets the tests of due diligence in order that we avoid the issues around negligence. That is an ongoing process for all motorsports with respect to insurance, but I cannot, at this time, give you documentation of that.
Senator Stratton: As Senator Joyal said, none of your associations appear to have a history of criminal negligence causing death or injury, or of dangerous driving. You may get tickets for turning left at the wrong time or not stopping properly at a stop sign, but apart from that your associations have historically been clean, through your due diligence.
Senator Joyal: I will put it differently. If we were to adopt your proposed amendments to exclude your organized rallies and competitions, your pilots would still be covered by the Criminal Code for negligence causing death, negligence causing bodily harm or dangerous driving. In other words, you would be excluded from the additional level of penalty that this bill provides, but you would still be subject to the general provisions of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Robertson: I believe that is correct.
Senator Joyal: When there is an accident involving death, some of which we have seen at the international level, there is normally a coroner's investigation. The coroner concludes whether there was negligence, whether the person, who caused the death, did so through dangerous driving as it is described in your regulations, such as pushing a drive too closely in a turn. I do not want to go into details, but we all understand there should be some regulation of that type.
If there is a coroner's investigation or a police investigation, which concludes that there was dangerous driving, the pilot found responsible would face criminal charges under the present Criminal Code.
Mr. Robertson: Potentially, yes.
Senator Joyal: Have there been any instances in the history of any of your organizations of one of your pilots being investigated for dangerous driving?
Mr. Ellsworth: Not to my recollection.
Mr. Giannou: The direct answer is no. We have met with the coroner for Newfoundland, Dr. Simon Avis, and established a procedure to be followed in the event of that unhappy circumstance, and we are satisfied with that procedure. We have not had it happen, but we did meet with the coroner, the medical and the emergency people to outline a procedure. It is entertainment as well as a sport with inherent danger, and we realize that.
We are concerned about ensuring that organized motorsport does not get lumped in with street racing. Everyone here is very knowledgeable about the problem. I read in The Globe and Mail this morning about a case that happened in Winnipeg during the last couple of weeks. We do not want to be attached to that problem and are very nervous that that might be the case.
Senator Joyal: I share your general concern. However, I believe that anyone participating in street racing accepts that he or she is breaking the law. No one, who is street racing, does so naively believing that racing in the street, or anywhere, is allowed. Before one gets a driving permit, one must pass an examination on the Highway Code. One has to read the code; one cannot plead ignorance of the code.
By definition, someone, who street races, accepts that they are violating the law. When the people, who participate in your events, race they are not doing anything illegal — as you have stated in your proposed amendments — because, first, your activities are sanctioned by the authorities and, second, you took the responsibility of organizing the event.
Therefore, the person, who races in your events, is not committing an illegal offence, per se, while someone who street races generally speaking knows either consciously or unconsciously that he is doing something illegal under the Highway Traffic Act. As you know, most of the offences in the Highway Code do not require mens rea.
A person, who gets a permit and is qualified and accepted to participate in your competitions, does so totally within the framework of the law. I want to protect people involved in legitimate activities. If your events had a history of negligence confirmed by a coroner or by criminal charges, I would say that there is a risk that the bill could apply to you. Maybe you have been too fortunate.
You mentioned the slalom race. As I understand that type of race, there are pylons through which the competitor drives while being timed. However, it does not involve two vehicles. It involves only one vehicle.
Mr. Ellsworth: There are occasional events, which are referred to as Pro Solo, that consist of a mirror-image course where two vehicles start and go in opposite directions. In those cases, there are two of them competing on the same course at the same time.
Senator Joyal: Then they will be covered by this bill if there was an accident concerning negligence.
Mr. Ellsworth: Not to take away from your question and go on a tangent, but our concern is that the public places in which we run, although they may be closed, may be interpreted by someone as still being a public place, and we could, therefore, be subject to being charged. Not perhaps by the general wish of the populace, but by someone's specific interpretation and desire.
There are anecdotal stories about events similar to ours, other places in Canada where people have in fact been charged under the existing legislation, but I do not know the details. I should have stressed, when I was speaking earlier, that we are a not-for-profit organization. It is volunteer-driven, volunteer-based and organized for the participants. Even if someone brought a charge and ultimately we were found not to be guilty of any charge that would still have a huge negative effect on our organization, just to go through that exercise.
Mr. Robertson: Senator Joyal, you may recall Senator Milne's question yesterday about events against the clock: Two people street racing on the street, who started at intervals, saying, ``I will see if I can get there faster than you.'' The answer to that question was, yes, that would be a form of street racing. Clearly, auto slalom is cars being run against a clock, so it would apply under the terms the minister described to us.
Senator Andreychuk: I believe Senator Joyal has covered some of the points I wanted to make. You have exercised due diligence; you comply with the laws; you have protocols with corners; you have done everything. It is a recognized sport, if I may say. I find that reassuring because that is what it is, but it does not exempt you from the law. As you have said, you are subject to the normal law.
While you can give all the assurances you want, you cannot guarantee that someone will not do something inappropriate and criminal within the confines of your activity, any more than someone can on an ice rink playing professional hockey, et cetera.
As Senator Joyal said, your events do not have a history of criminal charges. Therefore, I find it curious that you would not support this legislation to clearly identify the inappropriate behaviour that is now increasing in Canada. I would think that having a law that identifies that street racing is prohibited would underscore that the kind of activity you do is acceptable. We want to distinguish between illegal street racing and your organized motorsport events. That distinction is not in law today.
Mr. Robertson: I would be delighted to support this bill. Believe me, nobody in organized motorsport is a friend of street racing. No one will be more pleased than us to see the jailhouse land on some of these people who have been behaving abominably. We want it to be clear that we are separate from them, that we will not get swept up in the effort to address this issue, which we all feel needs to be addressed. That is the sum total of our concern. We are in support of the broad principles of taking whatever measures we need legally to deal with illegal street racers. We want to be absolutely sure we do not get inadvertently caught up in the dragnet for that.
Mr. Ellsworth: Can I reiterate the point that CASCOR has been actively working with the Government of Ontario against street racing for some two years, which predates this bill. This is something with which we are very much concerned. We have proactively worked with the government toward finding ways to get rid of street racing. We are trying to differentiate ourselves.
Senator Andreychuk: In my previous life, there were people who would race and say it has been common to do this here. You have done all of the things that I feel a Canadian society would want you to do. There is no hint that you were at all targeted or intended to be, through case law, through justice activities, through the minister's words. It would be in your best interest to have a demarcation from this kind of activity. I believe it will give you more comfort. I would hope that if we have an observation or something it would be that the minister closely monitors to ensure that you are not accidentally targeted; an unintended consequence.
I see from all the activity in Canada that no one has drawn that equation. We want to get those kids off the streets, who are taking part in illegal street racing in inappropriate, haphazard ways after they drink and with no thought for the roads and no one to monitor. Your events are not street racing, because the minute you are not in a public place you become a venue, as I understand it, as opposed to an average street. At least the courts seem to understand the difference. I may be too defensive of my previous position. I feel there has been a conscious effort to not entrap your professional activity. You are an amateur in that sense.
Mr. Giannou: It gives me pleasure to hear you say that. To clarify, we are probably the fuzziest of the lot, where, at 3:00 in the afternoon your subdivision is turned into a racetrack for an hour and a half. That is exactly what happens. We go through all the due diligence of which you spoke.
We are excited about this bill. Make no mistake; we are not displeased with it. We just feel that it would also benefit us if those stipulations that Mr. Robertson spoke of were added to it in some way to clarify. It is not people such as honourable senators or people here hearing this conversation over the last few days and the deliberations that went on in the House, rather it is someone who will pick this up, at some point somewhere down the road, and start a process that will cost us all dearly, getting to the position that we agree on now. That is our particular concern in Targa Newfoundland, and I am sure it is yours.
Senator Baker: First, the previous senator's previous occupation was a judge. I suppose you gathered that. She was not the court assistant or anything.
When this bill passes, it will place street racing in with dangerous driving. I have not seen a race yet in which there was not what would normally be termed as dangerous driving. That is what racers do. For the first time in Canadian history, street racing is dangerous driving under the Criminal Code.
I can see your concern. I cannot see why people would not see your concern. Senator Andreychuk just mentioned case law. How could there be any case law if street racing was not lumped in with dangerous driving? People would look at a race and say, ``They are operating dangerously. If they were doing that on a street and if that was not an organized race, they would be before the courts.''
Your concern is that you will be before the courts; that is why you are here. It is good that you organized as you did and came to this committee hearing, because the first thing the minister did, prompted by the chair, was to address Targa Newfoundland right off the bat.
You are absolutely right that there is no definition of ``race'' in this bill, unlike in the provincial legislation. In B.C., Ontario and Manitoba, the definitions are there. In B.C, it is defined as 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit.
Each province has listed the definition. Here we have a bill with no definition. I can see why you are concerned. However, what you have accomplished is that the minister has come before this committee to say, ``You are not covered.'' As the judge and the former professor of law will tell you, if you are charged, and your lawyers are looking for the defence and what the intent and object of the bill is, they go back to the minister who appeared before this committee. You are not covered, because that is the intent and the object of the legislation. Is that right, professor? What is the intent of Parliament? What is the object?
Senator Andreychuk is indicating that he did not say that, but he said that right at the very beginning. He mentioned Targa Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, he did.
Senator Baker: He certainly did, in his introductory remarks to the committee. Do you have any comment to make on what I have just said?
Senator Di Nino: It is pretty clear.
Senator Baker: You have done a great duty to racing. If you did not do this, I do not believe you would have been protected. You would have ended up in court at some point and then a determination would have to be made based on provincial legislation, because this bill does not contain a definition.
Senator Milne: If it is any consolation to you, in addition to what Senator Baker said — because he is absolutely right — I do not feel there will be many charges laid under this particular piece of legislation. This is window dressing. Under this piece of legislation, as the minister himself said yesterday, prosecutors will have to meet three requirements of proof. Under dangerous driving, only two have to be met. Any Crown attorney, who is prosecuting someone, will go for two rather than three barriers to meet. Any defence attorney will plea bargain on the basis of two rather than three, so I suspect there will be very few charges ever laid under this piece of legislation.
Senator Joyal: When your pilots register for any of your competitions, is the protocol of driving behaviour generally given? In other words, is it a free-for-all, or is it a way for you to inform the person? It is more or less a question of speed — or endurance, when it is the competition in Northern Sierra.
In other words, a person who registers with you is informed by being given documentation — I do not know what kind — such as a code of behaviour on how to operate the vehicle so that if the person complies within that context, one could not conclude that the person is in a dangerous driving situation.
Mr. Ellsworth: That is absolutely the case for the events we organize.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to take it where my colleague and friend Senator Baker has opened it up.
If the Crown Attorney wants to prove that one of your pilots was driving dangerously, he would have to prove that the person went beyond what you have established as being the proper norms to follow in that race. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. Robertson: I am not sure I entirely understand the question.
Senator Joyal: You are afraid of being covered by this. The open window where your doubt might be more valid is in the last area rather than the first two, which are causing death or body harm with negligence, as there are very specific legal systems to cover those two. The last one is more a matter of judgment.
Mr. Robertson: We have another concern. It is easy to establish that what we are doing is in fact racing, with the exception of the side issue of navigational rally. We would concede that what we are doing is racing, but then all of the other pieces that Senator Milne was talking about are self-fulfilled. By virtue of the fact that we are racing, as has been said here already, that is dangerous driving — by the standards of most normal people. The concern we have is that it is easier to prosecute us than it is to prosecute the two guys at the traffic light, who do not have procedures that are really clear. In fact, we do the Crown Attorney's job for him by saying, ``Here is what we are doing here. Here are the procedures we have in place in case there is an accident. Here is the guy who will pull you out of the ditch. Here are all the pieces of this that demonstrate that this is a race.'' That part of the charge is easy to make against us, and because of that, our concern is that all of a sudden the rest of it comes along for the ride. From the point of view of the police officer, who is the first person on the scene in that situation, that is the conclusion he will jump to we fear.
Senator Zimmer: I am not a professor, a judge, a lawyer or an ambassador. However, what I have to say is somewhat in conjunction with what Senator Andreychuk raised.
I have always had a passion for your sport. In fact, many years ago I owned Corvettes and did take part in navigational and performance rallies. I will say that at that time your standards were outstanding. I know that they have improved beyond that, so clearly the standards are well beyond what is outlined in this bill.
I can understand your concerns and the comparisons. I come from Winnipeg and I know what goes on there. As Senator Andreychuk clearly pointed out, there is a distinction between the two actions. There is no question about that. You can understand that we, around this table, sympathize with your situation.
If these two amendments are made, would that satisfy your needs?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, senator, it would.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, that concludes our evidence on this matter. I want to thank all four of you for coming, some from Newfoundland. Your briefs and presentations were excellent, and I deeply appreciate the way you responded to various questions from senators from both sides of the chamber.
That now concludes our deliberations on the evidence portion of this bill. Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Releases Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Does the committee wish to discuss pending observations to the report?
Senator Milne: Yes.
The Chairman: Rule 92(2)(f) allows us to go in camera to discuss the draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss the observations publicly or in camera?
Senator Milne: I do not think we need to waste time in camera; we can do it publicly. The observations will be quite simple to respond to the concerns of these legitimate groups.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we do not go in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: I hope you were writing while the gentlemen were speaking. Their concern was that the term ``street racing'' should not be applied to navigational rallies conducted subject to provincial highway traffic acts or to motor sports events organized or sanctioned by a recognized sanctioning body. Perhaps we can very briefly quote some of the things that the minister said just to reinforce that idea.
Senator Andreychuk: Could we do it by saying that it was understood that it would not apply to that and request that the minister or the department monitor to ensure that the implementation is in line with our concern?
Senator Milne: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: I agree with that.
Senator Joyal: I think having the department monitor it is a very important element. In that way, we would be informed if a charge were laid outside of our identification of the term ``street racing.''
Senator Andreychuk: As long as we are not going to the point that anyone inside a race could be charged for the existing criminal offences, it is just that his or her activity is not per se street racing as contemplated in this act.
The Chairman: Going back to Senator Joyal's point, I think that the observations should include the word ``monitoring.''
Senator Joyal: That is the key to ensuring that the intentions are satisfied from what we heard from the minister and what we all, I think on a consensual basis, hold as being the substance of this bill, or the intention of it.
The Chairman: To help the drafters, I had a copy of the transcript of the minister produced, and I can give the drafters a copy so they will have the exact words the minister used yesterday.
Senator Baker: What do you call the notes that are attached to all bills that pass? There are explanatory notes. Whenever something is gazetted, whenever something is passed, there is a little statement of intent. Is it called an explanatory note? I do not mean the explanatory notes on the inside of the front cover of the bill. I am talking about the notes that are made when something is gazetted there is an explanation given as to the intent. Anyway, the department could include that, as you say, Mr. Chairman, in whatever explanations are given or descriptions of the intent or object of the bill.
Senator Joyal: On Senator Baker's point, Senator Andreychuk will remember that in earlier sessions of Parliament, we asked the Justice Department, when informing the Crown attorney about the new offence, to provide explanatory notes giving the nature of the offence and the particular circumstances in which those offences would apply. We asked the Justice Department that this be mentioned clearly and we made it clear that they are not intended to cover organized navigation and whatever competition we saw here this morning.
Senator Andreychuk: We said the content of our observation should be passed on. I think that is how we worded it in the past.
Senator Joyal: We asked that the department inform the Crown attorneys of the intention. In other words, the Crown attorneys are informed that this bill is not to apply to that kind of thing. We have done that before.
The Chairman: You put that request right in the observations.
Senator Joyal: I remember that, yes. I do not remember which offence it was, because we have dealt with so many in last 10 years, but I do remember that we did it in one particular circumstance to be sure that there was no misunderstanding about the substance of the legislation.
The Chairman: Are there other comments to go in the observations?
Senator Milne: I move that the chair and deputy chair be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to this report, taking into consideration today's discussion and any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes required.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the bill be reported without amendment and with observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Stratton: The intention, as I understand it, is to present this bill this afternoon for third reading and, with leave, pass this afternoon.
The Chairman: That was my understanding.
Senator Stratton: Are we comfortable with the observations?
Senator Joyal: I have no problem if I can be handed the French version.
Senator Stratton: My only concern is that the observations be done in time, because we need Royal Assent this afternoon as well.
The Chairman: There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.