Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 19 - Evidence, December 13, 2006
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 13, 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 4:05 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to order.
This is our first meeting on Bill C-19, an act 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 and creates five new street racing offences. 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 and it introduces mandatory driving prohibition orders for a minimum period of time, with the length of the prohibition increasing gradually for repeated offences.
To begin our consideration of this bill, honourable senators, we are pleased to have before us today the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Mr. Toews is from the province of Manitoba and he represents the riding of Provencher. He was first elected to the House of Commons in the year 2000 and was re-elected in 2004 and 2006.
Prior to his election to the House of Commons, Mr. Toews was active in Manitoba provincial politics. In 1995, he was elected to the Legislative Assembly and shortly thereafter was appointed Minister of Labour. From 1997 until September 1999, he served as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for the Province of Manitoba.
Mr. Toews practised law with the Manitoba provincial department of justice from 1976 to 1991. In 1987, he was appointed Director of Constitutional Law for the Province of Manitoba, and he acted as legal counsel to the Premier of Manitoba at the Meech Lake Accord discussions in 1990. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1991.
Honourable senators, Mr. Toews is joined today by Catherine Kane, Acting Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, and Mr. Hal Pruden, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, both from the Department of the Justice.
Welcome to the committee.
You have the floor, minister. Please proceed.
Hon. Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Thank you. It is my pleasure to be here again after the enjoyable afternoon I spent here yesterday. I appreciated the questions asked of me yesterday. I am sure that the members here are no less astute and insightful with regard to the issues this bill might bring forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind introduction.
I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code to include street racing. Bill C-19 is an important piece of legislation and is an example of our government's ongoing commitment to improve the safety of our streets and communities by tackling crime.
I will walk the committee through this bill and I will be happy to respond to any questions.
I was pleased that Bill C-19 was met with unanimous support to expedite its passage through the other place. I believe that demonstrates the importance we attach to these legislative reforms. The measures proposed in Bill C-19 cut across partisan lines and will ultimately result in greater protection for Canadians everywhere from this dangerous and senseless behaviour. I am confident that the collaborative spirit that enabled us to move this bill expeditiously to this stage will continue and enable us to usher it quickly into law.
Bill C-19 proposes the creation of targeted new offences to specifically deter and denounce street racing, an extremely dangerous and troubling activity which is occurring on the streets and roadways in communities across Canada. Bill C-19 enhances the penalties currently available for these offences and provides law enforcement with additional tools to combat this disturbing crime. The creation of a specific offence will also enable us to better track the incidence of this activity Canada. At the moment it is one of the shortcomings of the law that, even though individuals are being convicted for crimes arising out of street racing, we have no mechanism to track street racing as a specific crime. It is difficult to know, except through anecdotal evidence, the extent of street racing on our streets, especially in urban areas. Most of the concern being raised by police and victims occurs in large urban areas.
To understand how the new street racing offences would work, allow me to point out that Bill C-19 would define ``street racing'' for the purpose of new offences as follows:
``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.
The definition refers to the notion of ``race,'' but ``race'' is not defined by Bill C-19. This interpretive exercise will be a matter left to the courts.
That is not uncommon even in provincial legislation. Certain provincial highway traffic statutes have a racing provision that is not defined in the statute. It is left up to the common law, and as Ms. Kane mentioned, the common sense of the courts in determining what a race is. This is an appropriate role for the courts to perform. They perform this role on a daily basis for many reasons, and they have done so in the context of interpreting the term ``race.''
It can be concluded from the available jurisprudence that a race amounts to a contest of speed, pitting vehicles against one another. How that plays out in any given instance will, of course, vary. In some cases, it may be an organized race in which racers meet at a given time, at a given place, and race side by side over a prescribed distance. That activity would be caught by the new offences.
There is a caveat, and I want to talk at some point about legally sanctioned or other appropriate races.
The Chairman: We have received a lot of correspondence from rally sports on that very point, so I am looking forward to what you have to say.
Mr. Toews: I intend to address that.
In other cases, it may be that the race commences spontaneously; that is, two cars waiting at a red right and the drivers decide to engage in a race of speed. This scenario would also be caught and, importantly, should also be caught by the new offences. Similarly, a contest where two cars race to a single point and engage in a time trial would also be considered a street race.
Regardless of whether a race is scheduled or just happens, the risks and consequences to innocent Canadians are the same and both events merit severe penalties. The bottom line is that proving that a street racing offence has occurred will ultimately be a matter for the prosecution to demonstrate and the courts to determine. The proposed definition of ``street racing'' in the new offences is drafted with sufficient precision and clarity to provide the courts with the necessary guidance to identify those fears of conduct that amount to criminal behaviour.
Let me also say that Bill C-19 will not catch what would otherwise be legitimate motor sport activities. It will not criminalize races that occur on closed tracks, circuits, streets closed to the public, or to rallies sanctioned by recognized motor sport authorities and conducted in accordance with the law. Activities such as the Targa motor sport race in Newfoundland, for instance, will not be caught by this legislation. Bill C-19 ensures that dangerous street racing behaviour is recognized appropriately in the Criminal Code. We are not dealing with sanctioned races conducted in closed streets.
How would Bill C-19 criminalize street racing? The five new street racing offences build upon our existing criminal laws to provide a targeted response to street racing activity. Specifically, Bill C-19 would create the following offences: Dangerous driving while street racing, dangerous driving causing bodily harm while street racing, dangerous driving causing death while street racing, criminal negligence causing bodily harm while street racing, and criminal negligence causing death while street racing.
These five new offences build upon existing dangerous driving and criminal negligence laws but require the additional element of street racing. To obtain a conviction for street racing, the Crown will have to prove that the accused committed one of the included offences plus the element of street racing.
There is no suggestion that street racing is easier to prove than criminal negligence or dangerous driving, but there is an added factor. That goes to the issue not only of denunciation and deterrence of street racing, but our ability to track those offences. Prior to this bill becoming law, criminal negligence causing bodily harm could be tracked, but it could not be determined whether street racing was involved.
These new offences send a clear signal. Building upon our existing laws will allow a more focused and effective response. The new street racing offences further the most basic, normative objectives of criminal law; that is, to specifically denounce and deter. There is no doubt that the obvious disregard for the safety of our citizens that street racers demonstrate must be met with appropriate criminal sanctions.
In this respect, Bill C-19 strengthens the penalties currently available in our criminal laws for street racing activity. It sends a message that street racing will not be tolerated. It accomplishes this through maximum incarcerations for the most serious street racing offences, and by imposing mandatory minimum driving prohibitions for those convicted of street racing. This is a just penalty for those who would wantonly abuse the privilege of driving and place the lives of innocent Canadians, not to mention their own lives, at risk. Under current law, a court may impose a driving prohibition on those convicted of dangerous driving or criminal negligence.
Bill C-19 would impose minimum prohibitions of one year on a first offence, two years on a second offence, and three years on a third or subsequent offence. In the most serious cases involving repeat street races, Bill C-19 provides for a minimum lifetime driving prohibition. That will occur when an offender has at least two street racing convictions that result in bodily harm or death, where at least one of those convictions involves street racing causing death.
This sends the right message: Repeat street racers who have caused unimaginable suffering to innocent Canadians through their reckless criminal acts should not be allowed to drive again, period. Taken together, the increased maximum penalties of incarceration and mandatory driving prohibitions will make a difference in curbing this activity in Canada.
Before concluding my remarks, I would also like to speak to something I alluded to at the outset of my remarks. Bill C-19 will enable us to specifically track street racing offences in Canada, something that we are currently unable to do. Through the creation of specific criminal offences, unique statistics on these offences can be collected through, for example, the Canadian Police Information Centre. This will result in prior convictions for street racing being consistently identified and will result in higher penalties for repeat offenders.
As I have said in the past, there can be no greater or more important task for any government than to ensure the protection of its citizens. I take this responsibility very seriously, and I believe that Bill C-19 will result in greater protection for Canadians everywhere. Canadians are eager to see this legislation passed, and I look forward to working collaboratively to ensure its speedy passage into law.
I am now willing to take questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister, for that excellent exposition and explanation of the bill. I was interested in the fact that the expression ``street racing'' is defined in the bill, but while the definition refers to the notion of ``race,'' the word ``race'' itself is not defined, and you have told us that that is an interpretive matter best left to the courts.
Since the word ``race'' has gone to courts before, they have said in their cases that a race is this or a race is not that. You have that jurisprudence. Why would you not synthesize that and put that definition in?
Mr. Toews: 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, and 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'' simply by the 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 that 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.
The Chairman: I understand that. You mentioned provincial legislation. Most provinces have motor vehicle legislation. Have you looked at other jurisdictions and have any of them actually defined the word ``race?''
Mr. Toews: I have not done that. I know that in Manitoba it was not defined.
Senator Baker: It is very clearly defined in some legislation provincially, especially in British Columbia.
The year after the judgment the minister referred to in which he was not successful in getting a decision, a prosecutor in Manitoba by the name of R. C. George got a conviction for racing. That definition of ``race'' is still used today. I noticed it was still used in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice two years ago in the Menendez case, which Mr. Pruden would be familiar with.
Mr. Toews: Did they refer to the case that I lost?
Senator Baker: No. Here is the amazing part of that. It is not amazing that they would refer to you, because you have about 50 reported cases in the courts. Listen to this sentence in the head note. This is 1982, Carswell, Manitoba, R. v. Flannery. The note in the head note says that ``both vehicles accelerated while abreast, hitting 50 kilometres per hour.'' Now, the speed limit was 50, but the judge ruled, as you were saying a few moments ago —
Mr. Toews: Who was the judge?
Senator Baker: The judge was a gentleman by the name of Ferg.
Mr. Toews: Yes. It was probably Lorne Ferg. There were two Ferg brothers: Pat and Lorne.
Senator Baker: I see. The interesting part of it is that he ruled that you did not have to be speeding at all and that it was, as you said, the observation of what is a race and what is not a race. He ruled that speed does not necessarily have anything to do with a race. That case has been used now in several jurisdictions since that time.
Returning to the original question on the definition of ``race'' that the chairman brought up, in British Columbia their Motor Vehicle Act clearly outlines the meaning of ``race.'' It has a preliminary description of ``. . . circumstances of the road, traffic, visibility,'' and so on, ``. . . reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.'' It then says:
. . . by doing any of the following:
(a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles.
(b) preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing.
(c) driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at, or attempt to arrive at, a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles.
I have a problem with that. If that were the definition, then on your first conviction, just racing simpliciter, the penalty you would receive would be the loss of your licence for a year, but with the way this reads it could describe two taxis going to the airport, just by the description used in the B.C. legislation. What do you have to say about that?
Mr. Toews: That is why street racing is done in conjunction with dangerous driving. You must prove dangerous driving, or dangerous driving causing bodily harm, or criminal negligence causing bodily harm, plus street racing. If you just had street racing simpliciter, you would probably be proceeding under the provincial legislation.
Therefore, the two cabs going to the airport may be trying to get there ahead of each other, but that does not necessarily mean that they are involved in dangerous driving.
Senator Baker: You mentioned, Minister Toews, an interesting point the chairman brought up a few moments ago concerning provincial legislation versus federal legislation. You said a moment ago that that would be caught by provincial legislation. Are you concerned that, perhaps in jurisdictions like British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba, who have penal consequences in their provincial laws and substantial fines, your legislation or their legislation will be judged to be in null force and effect?
Mr. Toews: I am not concerned about that at all. It is an area on which I spent much time in my legal career. For example, what is the difference between careless driving and dangerous driving, other than degree? Obviously, in the Criminal Code the intent is emphasized much more than in the provincial legislation, and I suggest that we have a similar distinction here.
However, even if there were a requirement for more specific intent with street racing, similar to what is in the Criminal Code, that in itself does not make one or the other unconstitutional as disregarding the division of powers, so long as the legislation is not inconsistent with the other. There is nothing inconsistent between the provincial legislation and the federal legislation in this case.
Senator Baker: The British Columbia provincial legislation provides for automatic seizure of the vehicle. The vehicle is impounded. There is also provision for certain measures to be taken automatically within the provincial legislation. Are you not concerned that, upon an attempt to prosecute under this bill, someone will argue that this is double jeopardy? You must admit that the Kienapple principle is there.
Mr. Toews: The Keinapple principle does not apply in this situation. Keinapple essentially says that you cannot convict someone of two offences that are essentially the same arising out of the same incident.
For example, I worked for a long time in Manitoba on the development of their administrative licence suspension and seizure of motor vehicles legislation. In Manitoba today, if you get stopped by a police officer and you blow over .08, your licence is automatically suspended for a period of time commencing in seven days. There is no trial.
Senator Baker: That is at the station?
Mr. Toews: Roadside and then at the station.
Senator Baker: You cannot use the roadside reading.
Mr. Toews: If you blow over .08, that is it.
Senator Baker: That is a regulatory offence.
Mr. Toews: Yes, it is. At the same time, these individuals are charged with .08 under the Criminal Code and convicted.
Senator Baker: In the same example, what does the Crown prosecutor do? Does he prosecute under the provincial act whereby someone can go to jail for six months and be fined $2,000, or does he prosecute under the federal Criminal Code? Could one not argue that, since the province has entered into the federal jurisdiction so far as penal consequences are concerned, they are faced with double jeopardy?
Mr. Toews: No. In fact, what happens is that when someone is charged with dangerous driving, they are usually charged with careless driving under the provincial statute, and the trial proceeds on both charges. The evidence is applied mutatis mutandis to both. If there is a conviction on the more serious charge, the crown stays the careless driving charge. I am not sure whether there is a requirement for them to do so. I am not that up to date on the law, but that is the general practice.
Furthermore, when you blow over .08, you are usually also charged with impaired driving. Those are two separate offences. In fact, they even have different elements defined. With a blood alcohol level of .08 there could be no evidence of impairment that would result in a conviction, so that is a separate offence. However, there could be evidence of impairment that would allow a judge to convict. A judge could convict on both the .08 and the impaired, but the practice is that, if the accused pleads to one, they drop the other.
Senator Baker: Are you or your department concerned that there is such nonconformity to a common standard across Canada on provincial highway traffic acts or motor vehicle acts and the powers of the police to exercise their authority that it leads to a difference in the execution of the law across the country? If so, what could you do about it?
Mr. Toews: I actually am not. Under provincial legislation, especially highway traffic legislation, the Supreme Court has been clear that the police have the right to randomly stop motor vehicles and ask for drivers' licences and registration. That is done as a matter of course. One assumes that these random stops are not done for inappropriate motivation, such as, for example, racial profiling, which is a significant issue that many of the police departments have addressed in internal regulations. There are mechanisms by which to ensure that police have the broad power to check for insurance, licensing and other regulatory compliances while safeguarding against abuse of that process by individual officers.
I would not suggest limiting the power of policing the privilege — not the right, but the privilege — to drive a motor vehicle. I would encourage the strengthening of internal regulations to ensure that that broad power is not abused.
Senator Milne: I want to ask you more about the definition of street racing. You spoke of the definition in some of the provinces. In the state of Ohio, street racing can also mean the ``operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, wherein timing is made of the participating vehicles involving competitive acceleration or speeds.'' In other words, it is a race against the clock.
The California Vehicle Code says that ``a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device.''
It is my understanding that the Quebec Highway Safety Code also provides for the possibility of a race against the clock.
Was the phrase ``racing against the clock'' purposely left out of this legislation? Are you prepared to support an alteration of the definition of street racing to include racing against the clock, if the evidence supports that?
Mr. Toews: It already includes it. It is included in the concept of a race, but is not necessarily limited to that. I do not want the legislation to be so limited as to permit the kind of situation I was faced with in the Ross George case, where the judge said there had to be someone with a flag waving the cars forward. A race can be as simple as one driver nodding to the other, motors being gunned, tires squealing and the cars taking off.
Senator Milne: That is still two vehicles.
Mr. Toews: It has to be two vehicles.
Senator Milne: What happens if it is one person racing against the clock?
Mr. Toews: That might be careless driving or dangerous driving, or a bet or a contest.
Hal Pruden, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: If it is simply one vehicle racing to win a prize or to win a bet, then it is not racing with any other vehicle involved. However, if there are two vehicles, either side by side or each racing as in the bicycle time trials in the Tour de France, where they take off and pursue each other, or if they are racing from different parts of the city to see who can get to a location first, then they are racing against each other. That is why the ``two vehicles'' concept in case law is already part of a ``race.''
Senator Milne: Racing against a clock is already in case law. Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Mr. Pruden: If you are dealing with only one car and that person is racing to win a prize or to win a bet, that conduct may amount to dangerous driving. They would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code for dangerous driving, if that conduct was dangerous driving, but not ``dangerous driving with street racing,'' which is a new proposed offence for people who are racing in some way with another vehicle.
Senator Milne: You are not including racing against a clock in this legislation.
Mr. Pruden: If it is a single vehicle against a clock, no.
Senator Milne: If we receive evidence that this can be just as dangerous to bystanders along side the road, would you support a redefinition of ``street racing?''
Mr. Toews: Essentially, you are proving dangerous driving. It is covered. I do not know if I would want to go there at this time in terms of the complexities that that might cause. I am satisfied that the evil that we are trying to address in 99 per cent of the cases, if not more, are two individuals in two different cars, travelling down a roadway and then the danger caused by them of either hitting each other or spinning out of control. The fact that one individual might do it on a street against a clock is a dangerous activity, but by and large I think the evidence of police officers would demonstrate that the evil that is being done out there is by two or more vehicles racing down a public street and causing a danger to the public.
Senator Milne: Thank you for that answer, because that leads into my second question.
If I read the law correctly, which is sometimes problematic, in order to prove dangerous driving, there are two hurdles to cross. First, there is dangerous driving and then, second, there is criminal negligence. Those are the two hurdles that you must cross.
Mr. Toews: Not to prove dangerous driving.
Senator Milne: If you are to charge someone with causing death during any kind of a race right now, what do you charge them with?
Mr. Toews: If someone killed someone else right now while they were street racing, you could charge them either with dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death or with criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death.
Senator Milne: There are those two hurdles to cross, then.
Mr. Toews: You would have to prove criminal negligence and death or dangerous driving and death.
Senator Milne: You have two hurdles that you must cross.
Mr. Toews: No, the death is fairly severe.
Senator Milne: Yes. If you are to prove street racing, then you are adding a third hurdle. What crown attorney, if he has a sure conviction on two, will go for the third?
Mr. Toews: For example, if someone has killed someone as a result of the activity that they have been involved in, they would charge the individual with dangerous driving. Let us say that they do not have enough evidence for criminal negligence, which is close to what Americans call motor manslaughter, but we do not have that concept in our law; let us say that the evidence is clear that it is dangerous driving. They would lay a charge of dangerous driving causing death while street racing. The judge looking at the evidence would say, ``There was only one car involved here. There was no street racing; but there is sufficient evidence to say that it was dangerous driving causing death,'' and he could convict the accused of the included offence. You do not have to separately charge. That is an included offence in the same way that first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter are included offences.
Senator Milne: Thank you for that. We will be hearing from some groups tomorrow. As Senator Oliver told you, we have been bombarded by the concerns of these particular, quite legal, groups. All of them abide by and comply with municipal and provincial regulations to ensure the greatest degree of safety possible for the participants and the spectators in their events. Was it your intention to have these organizations specifically excluded under this bill? I am thinking of organizations such as the Grand Prix Association of Toronto. When they run the Indy races on the streets of downtown Toronto, would they be breaching the Criminal Code just by holding an event that is a racing event that is held on a public street? What about the ASN Canada, and the Targa events in Newfoundland that you mentioned?
Mr. Toews: If it was a criminal offence already, this would only be a continuation of the criminal offence. Right now, individuals are driving in these tracks that are closed to the public. Even if it is under other circumstances, it is a public roadway. However, they are closed off.
Senator Milne: I do not think they are for the Targa races in Newfoundland, are they?
Mr. Toews: That is a rally.
Senator Milne: For cross-country rallies, they do not close off roads.
Mr. Toews: They are exempt from prosecution today under either criminal negligence or dangerous driving, I assume.
Mr. Pruden: If the conduct in any event amounts to criminal negligence causing death, whether it is driving behaviour or any other behaviour, the person could be charged with criminal negligence causing death. The idea of having these road rallies, which are quite legal, is that they are obeying provincial and federal law. They are not driving dangerously and they are not doing criminal negligence with bodily harm or death. Assuming they continue that good behaviour, the proposals will not affect those road rallies or the closed track events either.
Senator Milne: For the closed track events, Minister Toews mentioned that, if it is blocked off, it is fine. For the Indy races in the downtown cities, for example in Montreal or in Toronto, it is fine.
Mr. Pruden: For dangerous driving, yes. However, for criminal negligence, if someone does criminal negligence causing death, whether it is driving or some other behaviour, they could be charged with criminal negligence causing death.
Mr. Toews: For example, you can hit someone in a hockey game and it is not an assault. However, in any other circumstance, if you hit someone like that —
Senator Milne: Sometimes it is.
Mr. Toews: That is precisely the point: Sometimes it is. You can prosecute in those circumstances. This does not in any way change the substantive law in that respect. It specifically denounces that kind of activity when it does breach the law. When it is criminal negligence, we are now entitled to say that, not only is it criminal negligence, but it is criminal negligence in the course of a street race and, therefore, it attracts the stronger penalties. It does not change the substantive law with respect to the evil that we are trying to address. We are recognizing that there is an additional element. If the Crown cannot prove that additional element, you can still convict on the criminal negligence causing death, for example, if that is what the included offence is.
The Chairman: Thank you for that explanation, minister.
Senator Milne: There have been reported incidents of the police arriving at events in Nova Scotia and threatening to charge participants on a closed track with reckless driving. Will the passage of this bill not exacerbate this activity by the police?
Mr. Toews: It does not change the substantive offence in any way; it simply identifies an additional element the Crown will have to prove. If it is criminal negligence today, the only thing that would change is that it would now be criminal negligence in the context of street racing. You would have to prove an additional thing. This does not create a new crime. It simply specifies that this is criminal negligence causing death in the context of street racing.
Senator Bryden: I guess a concern that I have, and what we are trying to do, is to find a way where people who are engaged in legitimate sporting activities, using vehicles in rallies and so on, can feel confident that this new law will not jeopardize their activities.
It has been my experience that with a piece of new legislation, criminal legislation in particular, the first place the courts or the judges will look to determine the elements of an offence is the section of the law, and you have said that nothing in the definition that we have of street racing here will affect any of the activities of the rally people and so on. However, here is something I have written down:
The Performance Rally format consists of two parts: Special Stages and Transit Sections. The Special Stages are the competitive sections of the route and are closed to public traffic during the event. These are flat-out runs against the clock, at speeds that the average motorist would never imagine possible.
I would assume that in that situation there is more than one vehicle involved in the race. They are all trying to get to the place first. If there is an accident, the charge that would be laid, depending on what has happened, could be dangerous driving, but it also fits under this definition. You do not intend it to fit under there, but in my reading of this, it can fit under there.
Mr. Toews: Could you read that definition of the rally again?
Senator Bryden: ``The Special Stages are the competitive sections of the route and are closed to public traffic during the event.''
Mr. Toews: There it is.
Senator Bryden: ``These are flat-out runs against the clock, at speeds that the average motorist would never imagine possible.''
Mr. Toews: In response, they are closed to the public. That is key. The definition is ``Operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.'' ``Public place'' colours all of those: street, road and highway. If you go on to any other legislation, that is the way this ``public'' would colour ``street,'' ``road'' and ``highway.'' Where it is closed off, for example, it is no longer a public street during that time and for those purposes.
Senator Bryden: Why is it not possible, working with your people, to put a provision in this definition, or in an appropriate place in this bill, to make it clear that you do not have to be an experienced traffic lawyer, as you obviously are?
Mr. Toews: Even though I have lost more than my share of cases?
Senator Bryden: We all have. Therefore, ordinary citizens, in looking at what they are doing, can say, ``It is not intended to apply to us.'' You do not have to go to a lawyer and get a legal opinion before you go to the track. These activities are often organized under the umbrella of people like this, but they are largely rural-based and very popular with ordinary country folk like me to go to.
For them to have to get an opinion to satisfy themselves that what they are doing will not be caught under these heavy penalties, if they happen to be found road racing, is it not possible for us to put in here an exemption clause or something that says, ``. . . and for greater clarity, this is not meant to include the following?'' I do not see the down side of doing that.
Mr. Toews: Right now, those groups have to get the same legal opinions and go through the same due diligence to ensure that they are in compliance with their highway traffic act or motor vehicle act to ensure that it is an appropriate, closed and non-public area where they are conducting it. They get that approval now under their appropriate provincial legislation.
This legislation does not change that at all. The approval that they get today, before the legislation, is exactly the same approval they would get after the legislation. Nothing changes.
This legislation specifically denounces dangerous driving where there is an element of street racing. If it is dangerous driving and not sanctioned by the highway traffic act today, it remains dangerous driving tomorrow, with the additional element that has to be proven in respect of street racing. In that sense, the onus on the individuals to ensure that it is a closed raceway does not change one iota.
Senator Bryden: There is an additional thing here. If you violate, if you have an accident, there is nothing in here that says you are not doing street racing in these types of situations. It is not clearly stated there. The penalty is that you can lose three years, five years and so on in addition to the other factors.
I am looking at it from the perspective of people that I know. I do not do this, but I know people who enjoy doing it and have done it for years and years. It means something if our law appears to be for people, not to make their lives that much tougher, but to protect people.
I would like you to consider, as we are going to have to consider after we hear our evidence, whether an amendment will be helpful. If the decision is that it would be helpful, I have found that it is often better to be able to do one that you and your department can live with, and it also takes care of the public policy issue that we will have to deal with.
Mr. Toews: All I can say at this point is that, if today your friends are racing in an area that is a public place, they are breaking the law probably in respect to criminal negligence or dangerous driving or careless driving. If they are racing in a context sanctioned by their local, municipal or provincial regulations, they are not breaking the law because they are not on a public highway. As soon as you are no longer in a public place, street, road or highway, there is no offence being committed here.
Senator Milne: The Indy is on the streets of downtown Toronto. It is blocked off, but it occurs on the streets.
Mr. Toews: However, it is not a public place under the purposes of the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act. That is the point. That is the key issue. One could not drive on those streets while the Indy is happening — unless I do not know something about your abilities.
Senator Andreychuk: Following up on that, as I understand it now, a legitimate association can apply to provincial or municipal authorities to have a race; does this act change that?
Mr. Toews: No, not at all.
Senator Andreychuk: If the racing is informal — put a few barriers up and start racing — it is probably not legal today, in any event.
Mr. Toews: That is correct. It would be a violation under the provincial Highway Traffic Act today in that situation where it does not comply with the exemptions they might have for racing.
Senator Andreychuk: Could they still be charged even if they are in the sanctioned, defined, area?
Mr. Toews: They could still be charged today, yes.
Senator Andreychuk: It is like in professional sports such as hockey; they are not exempt even if they are on the ice, professionally or otherwise. They could still be subject to the Criminal Code. Therefore, the associations do not have blanket exemptions now.
Mr. Toews: They do not. That is correct, with regard to criminal negligence.
Senator Andreychuk: Therefore, we want them to exercise reasonable care in what they are doing, despite speed, despite the race, despite the challenge or competition.
Mr. Toews: You are absolutely right. You have summarized it much better than I have.
Essentially, we are saying that one does not receive an exemption by activities where they transcend that protected activity. The hockey game I think is an example that Canadians would understand best. There is obviously a certain amount of hitting involved; however, if one starts hitting in certain ways, it becomes a dangerous activity that lead to a charge of assault causing bodily harm, manslaughter or murder.
Senator Andreychuk: Therefore, the rules have not changed.
I see this act more as a statement of denunciation of certain activity that has been going on where citizens are feeling vulnerable. More and more often, young people are taking cars and thinking it is the ``in'' thing to race them. As a result, there have been disastrous consequences, including death. It is a bit like in the old days, when drinking and driving was not seen to be an activity that was wrong. We had to go through a whole education base, not only a legal consequence base, but an education base.
Here it seems to me we are targeting more young people who are using vehicles to race on streets and make neighbourhoods vulnerable. What kind of educational or cultural shift will you make? I think the law alone will not accomplish that.
Mr. Toews: You are correct. Criminal conduct today will be criminal conduct under this legislation. You are not suddenly becoming a criminal where you were not a criminal yesterday. If your activity is criminal negligence, this does not in any way increase your ability to become a criminal. It does not enhance the scope of criminal negligence in any way. I want to re-emphasize that point.
This is not creating a new offence in that respect. The criminality remains the same, with the additional element of street racing which the Crown must prove. Therefore, this is a higher burden for the Crown to prove. The basic criminal element is still exactly the same, and it can be excused by the appropriate meeting of highway traffic conditions.
The education element is a very important aspect. That is something this bill does not address. The act in itself, by specifically denouncing that activity, is acting in an educational manner in saying this is no longer acceptable, but whether various provinces might want to embark upon the educational aspects as part of their training of drivers and the like is, I think, something that can be looked at. However, it is not something we are looking at in the context of this bill.
This is an activity that is going on now. We want to specifically denounce it with legislation. We are providing provincial law enforcement officers and municipal law enforcement officers with a tool to accomplish that.
Senator Joyal: I wonder if the other witnesses can stay with us. I do not want to delay the minister.
The Chairman: Perhaps Ms. Kane and Mr. Pruden could stay for a few minutes.
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for appearing, Minister Toews. You have provided not only a good presentation but also the answers to some very difficult questions.
Senator Joyal: I apologize to the witnesses for being late. I was caught in the chamber.
My first question deals with the provincial Attorneys General or the Ministers of Justice. Was the issue of street racing raised in the federal-provincial annual conference you have with the provincial Attorneys General or Ministers of Justice? If so, did they see this as a problem and request an amendment to the Criminal Code to address it?
Catherine Kane, Acting Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: As you know, there were two predecessor bills in the public domain. One was a private members bill and one was a government bill in the last Parliament. Both of those bills were discussed with our provincial colleagues.
At the last FTP meeting of ministers, there was, as is customary, an overview of all the legislation currently in the House, and this bill had been tabled at that time. It was described. There was absolutely no concern raised about the bill, and we have talked about it with our officials. Mr. Pruden may want to speak to it more than I in terms of people we liaise with regularly.
We are not aware of any objections to the bill. In fact, many provinces view this legislation as important — to be able to identify street racing behaviour as distinct from, as noted previously, a simple charge of dangerous driving or of criminal negligence causing death, where we would not be able to track the behaviour if that particular person in the past had been associated with street racing.
Mr. Pruden: The police are certainly supportive of this bill. They have conducted public education in the area of street racing.
It could be noted also that for the provinces this is not a new concept. Parliament did amend the Criminal Code in, I believe, 2001 — although I stand to be corrected; my memory may not be good on that. They amended it to create a new offence of dangerous driving during a police chase. One had to prove the element of dangerous driving and the element of a police chase. If the prosecution could do that, then the higher penalty range for dangerous driving causing bodily harm during a police chase or dangerous driving causing death during a police chase would obtain, and the judge would have to consider that higher range of penalty.
The same thing is being done here. This is a similar model to what provinces are already familiar with, having seen that earlier legislation pass through Parliament.
Senator Joyal: In other words, it is an initiative of the federal Minister of Justice and not a request from the provincial Ministers of Justice or Attorneys General, considering that those social problems were expanding and addressing the federal government to amend the Criminal Code?
Mr. Pruden: That is correct. As Ms. Kane said, it originated as a private member's bill and then there was a government bill in the Thirty-eighth Parliament.
Senator Joyal: My second question is about the definition. Section 1 of the bill states:
``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.
What is encompassed by the words ``other public place?'' The minister says ``street, road, highway'' colours the meaning of ``other public place.'' I submit it is much broader than ``street, road, highway.'' A public place could be anywhere the public has free access.
Mr. Pruden: Yes. The case law says it is a place where the public has access. If the public has access to a shopping mall parking lot, this would be another public place.
Senator Joyal: That is what I wrote in the margin of the text I have. To me, a public place is one where people are not prohibited from entering. A mall parking lot is not closed during non-working hours. I have seen that in TV reports. I will not say it is kids, because you have to have a driving permit, but people race in open spaces in the evening because they are open.
In the context of this definition, that is a public place. It does not need to be a road, highway or similar infrastructure. For instance, a vacant lot with no sign prohibiting trespass could be a public place.
The judge would have to interpret this section. The judge would look in other sections of the Criminal Code to determine the meaning of a public place. Did you look at the Criminal Code to determine what a public place is? The catch is the phrase ``public place.''
Mr. Pruden: Yes. If we look at the dangerous driving provision in the Criminal Code, the case law contemplates a public place. That case law exists for dangerous driving. An element of this offence is dangerous driving with street racing.
Senator Joyal: What is a public place?
Mr. Pruden: A place where the public has access.
Senator Joyal: Any place the public has access?
Mr. Pruden: Yes. It could be a community centre parking lot. If it is privately owned, like a shopping centre mall —
Senator Joyal: Or a vacant lot.
Mr. Pruden: A vacant lot may be different than a shopping centre mall where the public has an open invitation. I would not want to say every vacant lot can be driven on.
Senator Joyal: Any place where the public has access. There are many scenarios. Any place where two vehicles could race might be considered a public place when trespassing is not prohibited.
Mr. Pruden: The minister said earlier that 99 per cent of the cases will be on the street or road where we see people racing. We do not contemplate a lot of prosecutions arising from situations where it was another public place that was not a street, road or highway.
Most of the cases will arise on streets and roads.
Senator Joyal: I am not trying to be ill-inspired, because I am sitting beside Senator Bryden, but let us consider a schoolyard on the weekend. Most of the time the gates are not closed and there is no sign preventing people from entering the schoolyard. A schoolyard could be used by two drivers, because there is no one there.
They feel the risk of being caught is limited, because it is not a street, road or highway. Would it be seen as a public place for the purpose of this bill?
Mr. Pruden: Yes.
Senator Joyal: As Senator Nolin has stated, anywhere the public is not prohibited could be deemed a public place under the proposed sections of the Criminal Code?
Mr. Pruden: Yes, they could be.
Senator Joyal: If it happens on the road, and then they move to an area where the police are not watching, that is the gist of the report. Maybe Senator Nolin and I saw the same CBC report.
Senator Nolin: It is a very dangerous situation. More young drivers are using parking lots to try the 0-to-60 in seconds.
Senator Joyal: They do not want to be on the road. The chance of being caught on the road is greater than in a parking lot where there is nobody during the night.
``Public'' does not mean it belongs to a public entity such as a municipality or school board. It could be a site that is privately owned where people have access?
Mr. Pruden: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: I do not want to prolong this. My next question is about the removal or suspension of the driving permit.
Why do you feel street racing is more dangerous than driving a motor vehicle under the influence and killing or harming somebody?
Mr. Pruden: I understand the question. The issue has been identified with federal, provincial, and territorial officials. One needs to look at other dangerous street racing provisions to find harmonization. This bill takes the approach that a wider look at harmonization is being undertaken by federal, provincial, and territorial officials.
Senator Joyal: When I read the bill, I thought about the highway traffic code. Maybe some other senators have raised this. We are dealing with an area of the highway traffic code that is regulated by the provincial governments.
Mr. Pruden: That is not quite right. The provincial governments deal with the provincial driving licence suspension. They will often do that as a result of a person's receiving a conviction for impaired driving under the federal Criminal Code.
At the same time, the federal Criminal Code will set a federal driving prohibition. What is being proposed in this bill is a federal Criminal Code driving prohibition that applies everywhere in Canada. Even if the person can find a province that can give them a licence, this federal driving prohibition still applies everywhere in Canada. They can say they have a valid licence, but the court will turn around and say that it does not matter; they are still prohibited under the Criminal Code from driving.
Senator Joyal: For instance, if someone had his or her driving permit suspended under this legislation in Quebec and then moved to New Brunswick or Saskatchewan, could he or she apply for a driving permit and continue to drive a motor vehicle?
Mr. Pruden: The provinces share information. If someone did slip through the cracks and was found by the police to be driving, he or she would be charged to be breaching the federal Criminal Code driving prohibition. It would be a Criminal Code offence to be driving while prohibited. Even if they managed to slip through the cracks by moving to another province and they convinced that province to give them a provincial driving licence, it would not help. They would still be breaching their Criminal Code driving prohibition.
Ms. Kane: This occurs now under the impaired driving context. Under the Criminal Code conviction, if it is a second or subsequent conviction, you will be prohibited from driving any type of vehicle anywhere in Canada. You would likely also have your licence suspended for a period of time under the provincial highway traffic act. Therefore, if you live in Ontario, your licence will be suspended. You could try to go to Manitoba to get a licence there, but you are still prohibited from driving. Even though you possess the licence, under the Criminal Code you cannot drive anywhere in Canada. That is the federal prohibition. If you breach that, you are subject to Criminal Code penalties with a new offence.
Similarly, if you breach the driving prohibition while your licence is suspended, because the licence is the privilege, you will face penalties under your provincial highway traffic act.
Senator Joyal: Let me rephrase the question so that I understand the implications.
In the context of the present Criminal Code, one who drives and causes death through criminal negligence is guilty of an offence. Within the Criminal Code at present that person is not susceptible to losing their permit by the application of the Criminal Code but is by the application of the provincial highway code.
Mr. Pruden: What exists currently for criminal negligence causing death is the ability of the court to have a discretionary driving licence prohibition federally. It is not mandatory. Given all the elements of the sentence, the court will ask the question: Do I need to impose a driving licence prohibition in addition to any other criminal penalties that I am giving? It might be that a person is given a very long sentence of imprisonment. Right now the court may say, ``I will not include a driving prohibition.'' That could happen right now. This legislation is proposing mandatory periods of driving licence prohibitions, in the way we have mandatory periods of driving licence prohibitions for impaired driving.
Senator Joyal: Presently, the court can, for instance, take into account the fact that someone would earn a living by driving. The court can put that into balance in evaluating the length of the suspension because that person is a truck driver, for instance, or earns a living driving a vehicle like a taxi cab, for example.
For a person caught street racing in the context of what you propose, however, the judge would have no other choice than to impose a suspension based on the gravity of the offence that you propose we adopt on the basis that this is a criminal offence with a strict penalty.
Mr. Pruden: It would be moving towards the model that now exists for impaired driving, where there is a mandatory minimum driving prohibition of one year for the first offence; for a second offence, the minimum is two years; and for a third offence, it is three years. The exact model is adopted for the first, second and third dangerous driving offences with street racing. One, two and three years on first, second and third offence, minimum driving prohibition.
Senator Joyal: What is the definition of a second and third offence?
Mr. Pruden: A prior conviction for the offence. That prior conviction is something for which the Crown or the prosecution has the obligation to give notice that they will seek the higher minimum penalty.
Senator Joyal: If a person had had his or her criminal file deleted, would he or she be considered to have committed a first offence?
Mr. Pruden: They will have the conviction and it will be noted that they had applied for pardon.
Ms. Kane: Are you referring to someone who has had the conviction pardoned in the meantime?
Senator Joyal: Yes. Suppose I am 18 years old — I would like that, but I am not — and I am found guilty of an offence. When I get older, I obtain a pardon. Later, I street race and I am found guilty. Would that first offence be considered a first offence, considering I had received a pardon?
Mr. Pruden: The prosecution would not provide the notice seeking penalty and it would not show. If it has been pardoned, it will not show on their criminal record.
Senator Joyal: As we all saw on that TV report I am referring to, that happens most of the time with the younger generation. That person could then obtain a pardon, in the context of the Criminal Code, in relation to offences of either drunk driving or street racing.
Mr. Pruden: That is right. If a person has gone through the process of getting a pardon, they are usually taking it seriously. One would think they would not want to street race again.
Senator Joyal: I ask this because, with all the additional security we are implementing, a criminal record is a very serious element to bar someone from moving abroad and even from crossing the border. We are creating a serious situation here for someone who is of a younger generation and finds himself or herself caught in the ambit of this proposed legislation.
Mr. Pruden: Those people are already caught today by the offence of dangerous driving or the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. This is not putting these people at a new risk in terms of the criminality of the included offence of dangerous driving or the included offence of criminal negligence. Those already exist.
What other countries choose to do with somebody who has a prior criminal conviction, whether they have been pardoned or not, is their business; Canada has no ability to put handcuffs on other countries in terms of whom they choose to visit.
Senator Lorna Milne (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman: My name was put down for a second round by the chair before he had to leave.
Mr. Pruden, you referred to harmonization of the law as between federal and provincial authorities.
Mr. Pruden: I was not speaking of harmonization between the federal laws and the provincial laws; I was speaking of harmonization between, for example, the minimum driving prohibition for impaired driving or the proposed dangerous driving with street racing and other federal offences that exist where there is a discretionary driving prohibition rather than a mandatory driving prohibition.
The Deputy Chairman: Section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code involves dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. It seems to me that under Bill C-19 a peace officer will not be able to charge drivers with street racing unless they hit something or hurt someone.
Mr. Pruden: They will be able to lay the charge of dangerous driving with street racing even if no one is injured or killed. This bill does propose dangerous driving with street racing as one of the five new offences.
The Deputy Chairman: It says: ``Everyone who by criminal negligence causes death to another person . . . is guilty . . . .''; ``Everyone who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person . . . is guilty . . . .''; and ``Everyone commits an offence who, while street racing, operates a motor vehicle in a manner . . . .''
It seems that if they are just racing, they cannot be charged under this proposed legislation.
Mr. Pruden: I should explain that it is true that there is not an offence of criminal negligence without bodily harm or death. That is because the Criminal Code currently does not have an offence of criminal negligence without bodily harm or death. The offences currently in the Criminal Code are criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. There is, however, currently an offence of dangerous driving, simpliciter — no bodily harm or death — plus the dangerous driving with death and dangerous driving with bodily harm. This bill follows that model and creates an offence of dangerous driving, simpliciter, no bodily harm or death, with street racing.
The Deputy Chairman: If it does that, when you consider the public's concern with this subject, why did they not make it a stand-alone offence?
Mr. Pruden: It is a stand-alone offence. For example, impaired driving is included in impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. It is an element that the prosecution has to prove. It is an element of the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm or impaired driving causing death. The same model is followed here. Similarly, there is the model of dangerous driving causing bodily harm during a police chase or dangerous driving causing death during a police chase. This is the same type of model.
The Deputy Chairman: Can a police chase be classified as street racing under this bill?
Mr. Pruden: The key is that it is dangerous driving, not just a police chase. A person could be committing dangerous driving starting with a street race, after which the police come along and they are into a police chase situation. The police might find that they need to charge a person with more than one offence.
The Deputy Chairman: If it is a simple police chase where they speed out of control and the police car hits someone or something, would that be caught under this as street racing?
Mr. Pruden: We have an existing offence of dangerous driving during a police chase. That was instituted in 2001, I believe.
The Deputy Chairman: The penalty for street racing would not be applied in that case?
Mr. Pruden: If the conviction was entered for dangerous driving during a police chase, and not for dangerous driving with street racing, of course they would only receive the penalty for dangerous driving during a police chase.
The Deputy Chairman: And the police are highly unlikely to charge themselves with street racing.
Mr. Pruden: Are you asking if the police can be charged?
Mr. Pruden: No. The existing offence is for the person who is escaping from the police. I believe the code uses the words ``failing to stop.''
Ms. Kane: The police are not immune from being charged with dangerous driving or with criminal negligence causing death, if their conduct breaches the standard expected of the police. There have been cases where police have engaged in chase activities that were not considered necessary at the time, and they have been charged.
With regard to whether the police would be charged with street racing as a result of their conduct in a police chase, it is likely that, if their conduct deviated from the norm, they would be charged with dangerous driving or whatever the circumstances warranted. When those circumstances arise, another police agency is usually brought in to investigate and determine whether charges should be laid rather than the police service in the community deciding that on their own.
The Deputy Chairman: It would be unlikely that they would lay a charge of street racing or causing street racing.
Ms. Kane: The context would not likely be street racing. It would likely be something else that precipitated that conduct.
Senator Bryden: If a person is convicted of dangerous driving causing death and is later convicted of dangerous driving causing death while street racing, is the second conviction considered a second offence or a first offence for the purpose of taking his licence away?
Mr. Pruden: For the purpose of the driving prohibitions, it would be a first offence, but the complete record is always entered by the prosecution with the judge who is determining what a fit and proper sentence is. At a sentencing hearing it is the obligation of the court to impose a fit and proper sentence having regard to all the circumstances of the offence committed and of the offender before the court. A previous criminal record in a dangerous driving offence will affect the sentence the court chooses to impose.
Senator Bryden: I am talking specifically about the driving prohibition.
Mr. Pruden: The minimum of one year would apply, but with a prior conviction I cannot imagine a prosecutor not arguing that a fit and proper sentence would involve far more than a one-year driving prohibition, even though the previous conviction was not for dangerous driving with street racing but just for dangerous driving. The argument would be made, but the court would not be bound to the minimum of two years. However, the prosecutor would argue for far more than a one-year driving prohibition.
Senator Bryden: Is there an upper limit on what the court can impose?
Mr. Pruden: Yes.
Senator Bryden: Are you saying that the minimum penalty for street racing is not the maximum on the first one?
Mr. Pruden: That is right. As with impaired driving, the range is one to three on the first offence, two to five on the second offence, and on a subsequent offence it goes up to three years to a lifetime driving ban.
Senator Baker: Here is something that we may have to amend: at the top of page 4 of the bill, proposed section (3.4) says, and it makes no sense to me:
When an offender is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence committed under section 249.2 or 249.3 or subsection 249.4(3) or (4), the offender has previously been convicted or discharged . . . .
Should there be an ``and'' or an ``or'' or an ``and if'' or an ``or if'' right after the comma? What should be there in your opinion, Mr. Pruden? You wrote it.
Mr. Pruden: I did leave drafting instructions, but the legislative drafters wrote it.
Senator Baker: Is it an ``or,'' because there is quite a difference between an ``or'' and an ``and?'' They have left it out in French as well.
Mr. Pruden: The French uses ``or.''
Senator Baker: Then we have to insert an ``or'' after the (4), Madam Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
Senator Baker: ``Or if'' would perhaps be more apt.
The Deputy Chairman: Could this be a parchment error?
Ms. Kane: Yes. If I might suggest an answer, we think that this is something that could simply be corrected in the reprinting of the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: In that case it has to be classified as a parchment error to do that.
Ms. Kane: We would propose to look at how the French and English compare and then get back to you with the advice on what word or words may be missing. We have to look at it in context.
The Deputy Chairman: How quickly can you do that, because we were hoping to have witnesses and perhaps move on to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow morning.
Ms. Kane: We should be able to provide you with some information the first thing in the morning.
Senator Baker: I would suggest that what should be there is either ``and if'' or ``if.'' If the French is ``or'' then it should be ``or if.'' But if Mr. Pruden and Ms. Kane think so, then just the ``or'' will do.
Mr. Pruden: We will look at that closely overnight and get back to the committee tomorrow morning.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Good for you, Senator Baker, for catching the error.
The committee adjourned.