Sergeant Rick McDonald
Memorial Act (Suspect Apprehension Pursuits), 1999, Bill
22, Mr Tsubouchi /Loi de 1999
commémorant le sergent Rick McDonald (poursuites en vue
d'appréhender des suspects), projet de loi 22,
M. Tsubouchi
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Président
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Douglas Beecroft, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1542 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Joseph N.
Tascona): The meeting is in session. I think everyone
has a copy of the subcommittee report. Mr Kormos, would you read
it for us.
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): I move that as a result of the
subcommittee on committee business meeting of Tuesday, December
7, 1999, with respect to Bill 22, An Act in memory of Sergeant
Rick McDonald to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of
suspect apprehension pursuits:
"(1) That amendments be
tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon, Monday,
December 13, 1999;
"(2) That the committee meet
on December 13, 1999, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm for clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill."
The Chair:
Any discussion on that? All those in favour? The motion on the
subcommittee report is carried.
SERGEANT RICK MCDONALD MEMORIAL ACT (SUSPECT
APPREHENSION PURSUITS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 COMMÉMORANT LE
SERGENT RICK MCDONALD (POURSUITES EN VUE D'APPRÉHENDER DES
SUSPECTS)
Consideration of Bill 22, An
Act in memory of Sergeant Rick McDonald to amend the Highway
Traffic Act in respect of suspect apprehension pursuits /
Loi commémorant le sergent Rick McDonald et modifiant le
Code de la route en ce qui concerne les poursuites en vue
d'appréhender des suspects.
The Chair:
Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr Kormos:
This has been tabled with the clerk as NDP motion, alternative 1.
I should indicate that three amendments were tabled with the
clerk. I will not be introducing the first amendment in the
package. I would ask that people please note that on page 2 of
the tabled copy of the amendment-there are two and one-half
pages-there's a subsection (1.4), "Service on driver is deemed
service on owner and operator." I will not be reading that in, in
my motion to the amendment. In effect I will be deleting it from
my amendment. So notwithstanding the tabled hard copy of the
amendment, I will be deleting that in the amendment I move, and I
will be adding subsection 1.5(i) following the section 1.5, a
very brief line that I trust will be self-explanatory when I read
the amendment.
The Chair:
That's on page 5?
Mr Kormos:
Page 2. In the upper right corner it's identified as page 2. It's
page 2 of the second amendment that's been tabled.
The Chair: I
understand.
Mr Kormos:
Perhaps the fax copy notation is page 5.
I move that subsection 1(1)
of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections to
section 216 of the Highway Traffic Act:
"Contravention of subsection
(1), impoundment
"(1.1) Where a police officer
or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this act
is satisfied that the driver of a motor vehicle has contravened
subsection (1), the officer shall impound the vehicle.
"Intent of impoundment
"(1.2) The impoundment of a
vehicle under subsection (1.1) is intended to promote compliance
with this act and to thereby safeguard the public and does not
constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising
from the same circumstances or around the same time.
"Notification
(1.3) The officer who
impounds a motor vehicle under subsection (1.1) shall,
"(a) cause the registrar to
send notice of the impoundment to,
"(i) the owner of the motor
vehicle at the most recent address for the owner appearing in the
records of the ministry; and
"(ii) every person who has a
security interest in the motor vehicle that is perfected by
registration under the Personal Property Security Act; and
"(b) cause notice of the
impoundment to be served on the driver.
"Application of subsections
55.1(9) to (29)
"(1.5) If an officer impounds
a vehicle under subsection (1.1), subsections 55.1(9) to (29),
except clause 55.1(14)(b), subsections 55.1(16) and (17) and
clauses 55.1(28)(a), (e) and (g), apply, with necessary
modifications, as if an order to impound the vehicle had been
made under subsection
55.1(3), and, for that purpose, a reference in section 55.1 to
`the order to impound or notice of it' shall be deemed to be a
reference to the notice served under clause (1.3)(b).
"(1.5)(i) There will be no
impoundment of a vehicle under this section if the vehicle was
stolen from its lawful owner at the time of the offence.
The Chair:
This is (1.5)(i)?
Mr Kormos:
"(1.5)(i) There will be no impoundment of a vehicle under this
section if the vehicle was stolen from its lawful owner at the
time of the offence."
The Chair:
Has everybody understood that and written it down? Proceed.
Mr Kormos:
"Forfeiture
"(1.6) If a motor vehicle is
impounded under subsection (1.1), the vehicle is forfeited to the
crown on the 31st day after it is impounded.
"Relief from forfeiture
"(1.7) Subsection (1.6) does
not apply if the owner of the motor vehicle or any other person
mentioned in clause (1.3(a) or (b) applies to the Superior Court
of Justice, not later than the 30th day after the vehicle is
impounded, for release of the vehicle.
1550
"Parties
"(1.8) The owner, the
applicant (if the applicant is not the owner), the Attorney
General of Ontario and any person added by the court are parties
to an application under subsection (1.7).
"Grounds for release
"(1.9) The only grounds on
which a person may apply under subsection (1.7) and the only
grounds on which the court may order that the motor vehicle be
released are,
"(a) that the motor vehicle
was stolen at the time in respect of which it was impounded;
"(b) that the driver of the
motor vehicle at the time in respect of which the vehicle was
impounded did not contravene subsection (1);
"(c) that the owner of the
motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to prevent
any contravention of subsection (1) by the driver of the motor
vehicle at the time in respect of which the vehicle was
impounded; or
"(d) that the forfeiture of
the motor vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.
"Exception
"(1.10) Clause (1.9)(d) does
not apply if any other vehicle owned by the same owner has been
forfeited to the crown under this section.
"Payment of removal, impound
costs
"(1.11) Despite an order to
release the motor vehicle being made by the court, the person who
operates the impound facility is not required to release the
motor vehicle until the owner or another person pays the removal
and impound costs related to the impoundment of the vehicle.
"Forfeiture
"(1.12) If an application is
made under subsection (1.7) and the court does not order the
release of the motor vehicle, the vehicle is forfeited to the
crown.
"Definitions
"(1.13) In subsections (1.1)
to (1.12),
"`operator' has the same
meaning as in section 55.1;
"`owner' means the person
whose name appears on the certificate of registration for the
vehicle, and, where the certificate of registration for the
vehicle consists of a vehicle portion and plate portion, means
the person whose name appears on the vehicle portion."
The Chair:
Seeing that the amendment has been slightly altered since the
deadline, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent for us to
consider this amendment. Do we have it?
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): No, you do not. I've expressed to Mr
Kormos that we certainly would not be supporting this
amendment.
The Chair:
That's not my question.
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr Chair, if I may: I don't
believe that's something you can require of the committee. I
think that if an amendment has been duly placed, and Mr Kormos is
the mover of the amendment, it's subject to a friendly amendment
which he has made. I'm not sure there's anything in the rules of
procedure which requires unanimous consent for an amendment to be
considered.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Mazzilli:
Mr Chair, I'll withdraw and give unanimous consent.
The Chair:
For the record, there's unanimous consent for the amendment to be
somewhat amended by Mr Kormos.
Mrs McLeod:
Mr Chair, if I may-
The Chair:
If I may, I just want to finish what I was going to say here. The
amendment is in order. Ms McLeod.
Mrs McLeod:
I don't particularly want to make an issue of this. I'm not keen
on the committee having had to meet to consider a bill that we
were ready to give first, second and third reading to when it was
presented. But I am concerned about the statement you've just
read into the record in terms of future proceedings of the
committee. I would like some clarification as to whether or not
there is any rule of procedure that allows the Chair to determine
that it requires unanimous consent to introduce an amendment when
an amendment has been duly tabled.
The Chair:
We're talking about an amendment to the amendment.
Mrs McLeod:
Similarly, I want some clear record that that is not a proper
rule of procedure and we will not encounter this in future in
this committee.
Mr Kormos: I
appreciate the Chair's observation about the amendment. However,
I would submit, very briefly, that (1) the modest changes did not
detract from the broad substance of the amendment as tabled, (2)
it's clear that typographical errors can be corrected with
respect to amendment, and (3) during the course of debate it
would have been possible to amend the amendment in any event even
by myself.
I agree with the proposition
submitted to you. With respect, it's moot at this point in this
instance. I trust that if it were to arise again in a similar
fashion, it would be the
subject matter of perhaps a little more consideration before
there's a call for mere unanimous consent.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Mr Chair, I would like a clarification from
leg counsel and I'll tell you why. I could move a non-frivolous
amendment under the subcommittee's agreement and then totally
amend it, and that would be a substantive amendment to an
amendment. Who makes the call about the substantive nature
becomes the issue. Do you understand what I'm saying?
If it says that we agreed
they would be filed by noon and I'm changing a comma, a spelling
or whatever, I have no problem. But if I'm substantively changing
the initial amendment based on the premise that it's technically
legal to amend it during the debate, then I have a serious
problem with that. I don't want to tie things up. Do you
understand my point?
Interjection.
Mrs McLeod:
Nor do I.
Mr O'Toole:
If these are not substantive amendments-
The Chair: I
want to explain my decision. The subcommittee, which was endorsed
by this committee, moved by Mr Kormos, indicated that amendments
be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon, Monday,
December 13, 1999. Mr Kormos was the only member who did that. As
we came in today, he indicated he was amending his amendment and
he in fact did that. What I sought was unanimous consent from the
committee so that he could do that, which was received. What I'm
following is basically what was followed by the committee and
subcommittee and was endorsed, and I stand by that ruling.
Mrs McLeod:
In order not to delay, at the next meeting of the committee could
we have some clarification as to the process for both tabling
amendments and the rule on the procedure for considering
amendments at committee. That's all I would seek.
The Chair:
At the next subcommittee?
Mrs McLeod:
I think we need it on record at the committee, in terms of rules
of procedure, that it does not require unanimous consent in order
to present amendments.
The Chair:
If it comes up next time-we're dealing with my ruling. Are you
challenging it?
Mrs McLeod:
I won't challenge it in this case, since it becomes a moot point.
But I would like some clarification of rules of procedure for the
future for operation of the committee.
The Chair:
Certainly you're at liberty to do that. Let's proceed. Is there
any discussion on this amendment?
Mr Kormos:
This gives effect to what we discussed in the Legislature and the
comments I made during the course of brief second reading debate
of this bill. To a large extent, it uses some of the language
that was used in this government's amendments to the Highway
Traffic Act, which dealt with penalties for driving under
suspension when the suspension flowed from a Criminal Code
conviction, drunk driving etc, to give effect to impoundment.
Impounding a vehicle, in this context, would frankly be somewhat
silly, especially when it talks about second and third
offences.
I should indicate that in the
comments I made in the House, I made reference to, or tried to
characterize, the types of drivers and vehicles that were
involved in high-speed chases. I based that only on anecdotal
evidence. I asked the ministry if they would provide data in time
for today about who gets involved in these high-speed chases.
That's not before us. That's fine.
I suggested in the
legislative debate on second reading that probably the biggest
single chunk of high-speed chases were initiated by drunk and/or
suspended drivers. I've been contradicted by a number of
commentators since then. Again, I asked the government to provide
us with the data. But it doesn't really matter. It may well be
that the largest single number of high-speed chases are initiated
by the drivers of stolen vehicles, not so much the professional
car thieves who run the rings that steal Mercedes, BMWs and other
cars like that from the members' parking lot here at Queen's
Park, but the joyriding context where obviously very foolish and
reckless people steal a car and then try to avoid
apprehension.
I don't have the data, but
even if that's the majority of operators or the majority of
circumstances in which police are taking off on high-speed
chases, so be it. This, as I say, relies heavily on the concept
that the government utilized in its impoundment philosophy with
respect to driving under suspension.
1600
This provides not only for
impoundment, because you've got to give the police a chance to
seize the vehicle, to wit, impoundment; it specifically excludes
stolen vehicles.
Doug Beecroft, legislative
counsel, did a tremendous amount of work in a very brief,
compacted period of time. He and I weren't able to spend weeks
making exchanges back and forth. Legislative counsel did a
tremendous job of putting this together in a relatively short
period of time and I provided it to the government at the
earliest opportunity, to wit, earlier today, well before the 12
noon deadline.
The reason I'm moving these
amendments is because we talked about the fines and the prospect
of imprisonment when, tragically, there's bodily harm caused. I'm
talking here about getting tough. This obviously doesn't apply to
stolen vehicles. Owners of stolen vehicles shouldn't be punished
for what the criminal does with their vehicle. It certainly
applies to people who use their own vehicles. That would be some
of those cases where drunk and/or suspended drivers-and I use the
exegetical "or" here rather than the conjunctive "or"-take the
police off on high-speed chases where it's their own vehicle.
I think that not only should
there be the heavy fine imposed but that vehicle should be
forfeited to the crown. Seize the vehicle. Don't just create a
monetary penalty. Take the vehicle. I don't care whether it's a
15-year-old vehicle that's worth $3,500 or whether it's a new
vehicle, a BMW, what
have you, that's worth $45,000. You want to send a message out
there saying, "You play around with police and generate these
kind of pursuits and you ain't just talking about fines." You
aren't just talking about the prospect at the end of the day, and
I'm not criticizing the government, of relatively modest jail
terms under the Provincial Offences Act, at least, because
obviously if there's bodily harm, death ensuing, I have no doubt
that a Criminal Code charge is going to be pursued, but that
vehicle is gone.
That applies to owners. It
also applies to people who would lend their vehicles to others. I
think there has to be some responsibility accepted by me if I
lend Ms Martel my vehicle and she engages in behaviour with that
vehicle that is so criminal, so reckless as a high-speed pursuit,
then I think there should be some responsibility on my part to
have used my discretion. You'll note that's (1.9)(c) "that the
owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting
to prevent any contravention...."
The due diligence, when
you're lending a vehicle, I can see is pretty hard to establish.
Part of it is making sure that I know, obviously, any propensity
she might have if I'm lending her my vehicle, but this applies
more so-please, Mr Mazzilli-to the fact that if I'm a passenger
in my own vehicle and my cohort is the driver of the vehicle, and
that cohort, after getting all drunked up, decides not to stop
for the police and figures he or she can outwit them on a
high-speed chase, that's where the due diligence really starts to
become significant, doesn't it, as compared to merely saying,
"I'm just a passive bystander."
You know the law, Mr
Mazzilli. The passenger of that motor vehicle can get away with a
lot in the current status of things. "I just sat there passively,
didn't do anything to encourage but nor did I do anything to
discourage."
Here due diligence would
apply very much to the owner of the vehicle who chooses to be a
passenger and does nothing. That means that the owner of that
vehicle had better, again, think twice about encouraging or
simply remaining passive when a driver has taken that vehicle off
on a high-speed chase because the owner of that vehicle, although
he or she may not be the driver, can be subject to forfeiting the
vehicle. Quite frankly, the crown could use these vehicles.
Undercover cops need vehicles all the time. The feds-you know
what's happening, Mr Mazzilli-are scooping up all the proceeds of
crime stuff and very little of it trickles back to local police
forces.
That having been said, it
also includes and considers people who have a personal property
security interest, the lien holders, against a vehicle. That
would go to the exceptional hardship consideration where a lien
holder, even if it is a bank, or a person who had an interest in
the vehicle, perhaps even a spousal interest-I'm not going to try
to determine all of the considerations, but in terms of joint
property, community property, matrimonial property-could argue
under the exceptional hardship. Clearly there they could make a
case that they had no control over the driver at that point in
time and couldn't exercise due diligence. It would be beyond
their scope if you lease a vehicle and a year later that driver,
who for all intents and purposes appeared to be law-abiding-
It also deals with rental
vehicles. There you've got the exceptional hardship
consideration. These people can go and apply and say, "No, we're
in the position of a rental vehicle." And of course stolen
vehicles are excluded.
It does permit-because the
impoundment effectively turns into a confiscation after 30 days,
so it does require notice to be given to all the interested
parties. All that has to be done is an application has to be
filed. The determination doesn't have to take place for the
impoundment to be lifted. If you don't have the impoundment,
forget about the vehicle a year down the road when the trial
happens, because the clever owner of a BMW who is inclined to
lead police on high-speed chases is also probably inclined to
sell the vehicle before they go to court. That deals with a
subsequent amendment that the committee might want to
consider.
Again, I've used the
government's model. I've relied upon the government's model for
these amendments. It raises the price of poker; it raises the
ante. Will it cover most high-speed-chase situations? Maybe not,
and even probably not, because if indeed I was wrong and most
high-speed chases are the result of stolen cars, then this
obviously won't cover most of them. Will it cover some of them?
I'm convinced yes.
You want to talk about
sending messages out there. The vast majority of people-this much
I think we can acknowledge-who take police off on high-speed
chases are not the bona fide bank robber, organized crime type of
character. Those are there, but in terms of the high-speed-chase
scenario primarily these are stupid and reckless people who
naively and dangerously think they can either outwit the cops or
outrun them. As often as not it doesn't happen, but unfortunately
when the attempt is made, we don't have to argue about the fact
that it's posing great danger to the community, to police
officers, and that the goal here is to end high-speed chases.
I'm submitting to the
government that (1) having relied on most of its own framework
and (2) accepting the government at its word, saying it wants to
get tough on this stuff, then let's get tough.
Is there going to be
paperwork involved? Of course there is. Is the registrar going to
have to be involved? Is the police officer? Mr Mazzilli, you know
this. When a police officer's involved in a high-speed chase,
there are reams and reams and hours and hours of paperwork in any
event. There's far more time spent at the police station
preparing and filling out forms, general occurrence reports,
arrest reports, booking reports, the whole nine yards, that far
exceeds the period of time that the high-speed chase took
place.
Does it involve paperwork?
Yes. Does it involve expense at the end of the day? Somebody's
got to pay, no two ways about it. But also at the end of the day,
let's get serious about penalties for high-speed chases. This
isn't the total solution. The legislation, even with my amendments, is not the complete
answer to the issue; of course not. But, Mr Mazzilli, your
government bill with merely escalated fines and some periods of
jail time, I submit, although something of an answer, can be
beefed up by imposing these confiscations, as this amendment
does.
I leave it at that. I think
the bill very much speaks for itself. People out there who are
interested in law and order, people out there who care about the
safety of our police and our community, I think, would endorse
this type of amendment.
1610
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Kormos. Any further discussion?
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): I'll be brief because my colleague, I
think, has explained quite fully the reason for the amendment and
has tried to answer any questions the government might have.
I am hoping the
parliamentary assistant is reconsidering, rethinking what seemed
to be his first response, which was that the government was going
to defeat this. I would find that regrettable for two
reasons.
As I heard the government's
remarks on this during the debate, the government talked quite
extensively about the deterrent that was required that would stop
people from engaging in police chases. The government relies
heavily on the fine and the fact that there could be imprisonment
in order to act as a deterrent to those who might be silly enough
or, for whatever reason, might engage in police pursuits.
What we are saying is that
this amendment clearly acts as yet another deterrent for those
who might want to engage in this kind of activity. It will be a
very serious deterrent because it will be the loss of their
property, which as my colleague pointed out, may be only $3,500,
or may be $35,000. But in terms of following closely on what the
government put forward as the reason for this and the mechanism
to reach deterrents, this clearly falls in line with that.
Secondly, this appears as
an additional deterrent. It doesn't take away from Bill 22 in any
way, shape or form. It doesn't take away from any of the fines
that might be imposed. It doesn't take away from the possibility
of imprisonment which might result for those who are engaging in
high-speed chases. It is moved in addition to any number of other
mechanisms that the government has outlined in the bill. There is
no reason to look at it as something that is exclusionary, as
something that might cause a problem with respect to the other
penalties the government would wish to apply. This has to be
seen, and is, quite clearly, in addition to any other penalty
that comes forward in the bill.
I would remind you that
there has been unanimity with respect to support of the bill from
the beginning. This strengthens what is a good bill. It adds to
what is a good bill. I hope the government would reconsider its
position and would in fact end up supporting this amendment.
Mrs
McLeod: I too will be very brief, Mr Chairman. I'm a
little bit surprised to find the government members are not
planning to support an amendment that, if we had different
terminology available to us, would probably be called a
supplement rather than an amendment since it doesn't change any
aspect of the bill that the government has presented. It's much
more typical in committee for opposition members to be attempting
to actually change a government bill. In this case, this is a
supplement and a strengthening of the government bill. I would
have expected that a government that makes law and order its
number one priority would want to support any changes that come
from opposition that would actually enhance the law-and-order
focus of its own legislation. That's one reason why I was
surprised they were not going to support it, and I would hope
that would be reconsidered.
My second reason, quite
frankly, for hoping the government would at least consider this
seriously is that it would give some justification for our
committee meeting today. This is a bill that the opposition
parties have indicated support for. Our critic, who couldn't be
here today, and other speakers on this bill, our House leader,
said that we were ready to support this bill on first, second and
third reading. The government has not tabled any amendments to
its own legislation. We've not seen fit to table amendments. I
appreciate the fact that Mr Kormos has brought forward an
amendment, which I think strengthens the bill and which we can
support as a result of that, and I appreciate the fact that he
gave us some reason for being here today.
I guess I was a little
perturbed when I saw that we were going into clause-by-clause
committee hearings on a bill that could have had third reading
virtually the day it was introduced because of all-party support.
One of the reasons I'm perturbed is because there was another
bill that was passed with third reading today which we should
have been debating in front of the justice and social policy
committee today, and that's Bill 23, which did require
significant amendments, particularly amendments that were called
for by virtually all of the health care professionals, and yet
the government was not prepared to have that even come to
committee for consideration of clause-by-clause, let alone the
tabling of any amendments.
So I appreciate Mr Kormos
having brought forward a substantive amendment, which at least
gives the committee something to consider, rather than simply
having used this bill which we all support as a dodge to give the
committee work to do instead of dealing with the bills, like Bill
23, that it should be dealing with.
Mr
Mazzilli: Let me start by acknowledging that there is
three-party support for this bill, so the meeting today is simply
on the amendment and then clause-by-clause. I acknowledge that
and the family of Sergeant Rick McDonald acknowledges that.
In relation to the
amendment, let me start by saying, yes, Mr Kormos has followed
the government plan from the beginning in relation to impaired
driving, but there is a significant difference. When the police
stop an impaired driver, in the vast majority of cases the motor
vehicle is driven by the registered owner, so the impounding of a vehicle and the
consequences of who pays at the end of the day is the registered
owner, and that's the intent.
The impoundment or the
seizure of motor vehicles for a certain period of time is
something new in Ontario. It's something that, yes, we initiated.
It's something that we will also have to evaluate to see whether
this is the way to go in the future on other offences.
Having said that, it also
causes enormous difficulties for police departments because at
some point you seize a vehicle and, like everything else you
seize, you have to keep track of it in a bureaucratic process. I
can tell you that at some point vehicles do get lost in the
shuffle, and tow charges build up, enormous tow charges, because
someone has forgotten about making a release order on a vehicle
at some point. I can't say I have ever forgotten in the past and
police departments received a $2,000 tow charge bill and heads
roll. So the amendment is very honourable.
But in the case of police
pursuits, what our government has attempted to do here is to make
the person who flees from police responsible. Responsible in what
way? Certainly by higher fines; certainly by a minimum jail
sentence, 14 days. As Mr Kormos knows, a second impaired driving
conviction, if you prove the second conviction, of course, would
have a similar sort of penalty as this does in the Highway
Traffic Act. Is it enough? Probably not. The Provincial Offences
Act, six months maximum, is as far as our government, the
province of Ontario, can go. We urge the federal Liberal
government to go further and I think I'm also supported by the
provincial Liberal Party on that position, so we'll wait to see
what the federal Liberal government does.
Let's go back to pursuits.
Who is involved in the vast majority of pursuits? The figures
were not provided for Mr Kormos and I don't know; they were not
asked through me. But in the vast majority of police pursuits,
it's not the registered owner of that vehicle who is fleeing from
the police. Either the vehicle is borrowed or it was stolen. A
simple amendment like this, although it seems innocent and wants
to do the right thing-notice how in the stolen vehicle one, the
wording is something to the effect of "if known at the time of
the offence" or something like that.
In the province sometimes
police officers pursue a vehicle, and not for provincial offences
because that's against the guidelines, right? So for suspended
drivers and so on, police cannot pursue those people. It's
against the pursuit guidelines. So when we use statistics like
it's your speeders or your suspended drivers, that's just not
true, because that's against the guideline so there wouldn't be a
pursuit in the first place.
It has to be criminal in
nature. So a stolen vehicle that certainly belongs to somebody
else: At the time it's pursued or at the termination of the
pursuit, it's found that the vehicle doesn't come back stolen and
it takes two or three days, maybe, to find the registered owner.
At the time of the offence, did you know that vehicle was stolen?
No. Now you start this process where you impound the vehicle, and
now it sounds like the registered owner, an innocent victim who
had a vehicle stolen and just was not around to report it right
then, somehow has to go through a legal process to get that
back.
Again, my position as
parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, our
government's position, is that this is all about making the
criminal responsible. If you flee from police knowingly, the
fines have been increased; there's a jail term at the end of it.
That is simply the intention, not to create another bureaucratic
process for the police and the courts to follow. Those are my
submissions.
1620
Mrs
McLeod: Do I understand then that the government's
concern with the amendment is that if there are a sufficient
number of police high-speed chases, there could be too many cars
to track and that some might get lost in the process, and that
the concern now is with the victim, who might be the owner of a
car that was involved in a high-speed chase and would lose their
vehicle?
It seems to me if that's
the government's concern, we've gotten rather a long way away
from a concern for potential victims of high-speed chases.
Mr
Mazzilli: I've placed several concerns on the floor. I
think you're concerned about one. Is there a tracking issue?
Absolutely. There always is any time you're taking in any type of
property, so by adding one more bureaucratic process to it
all-and let's face it, we have always said that we want more
front-line officers dealing with the public. This amendment does
not do that.
I know there's a roomful of
lawyers, and lawyers generally have the ability or the luxury of
going to a law library after the fact and researching everything.
Police officers do not have that; the decision has to be made at
the time. So when I look at a bill that initially addresses
fines-and that's what it is, fines and penalties for the person
who has committed the offence-then we go to an amendment that has
all kinds of exceptions to it. Who would remember all these
exceptions?
Those are the end of my
submissions. Our focus is to keep police officers on the street
and double the fines and jail penalties for the people who have
committed the offences.
Mr Kormos:
Just in response briefly, Mr Mazzilli, impounding a vehicle is
not a complicated process. In most parts of this province you
call up Cease James Towing or whoever happens to be next on the
list-because surely you use a list; you don't favour any
particular tow truck company-you have them come and get the
vehicle, he or she tows it to their compound and, bingo, it's
impounded. I've never heard of competent police officers losing a
whole motor vehicle.
In all my experience
throughout this province, I am unaware of a motor vehicle being
lost. Sometimes notebooks get lost; I understand that. From time
to time I lose personal items myself, to my great regret. From
time to time small things get lost. In the event of a stolen
vehicle, a prima facie
stolen vehicle, one that's been reported stolen, you impound it
anyway, don't you, Mr Mazzilli? You don't tell the offender, when
he or she is released on bail, "Go ahead, your car is out back
and here's the keys."
Quite frankly, any vehicle
involved in a high-speed chase is not going to be released, Mr
Mazzilli. You know this, don't you? Of course you do. It's not
going to be released to the offender when the justice of the
peace says: "OK, Mr Jones, Ms Doe, you've just led the police on
a high-speed chase. You're charged with this offence. By the way,
here's the keys to your car." Mr Mazzilli, I think you exaggerate
that particular difficulty. But that's fair enough.
Please, let's not turn this
into a debate about more police officers, because I've read about
what your minister said over the weekend. He said,
"Municipalities are on their own from this point on." He said,
"It's too bad, so sad; you guys are on your own." That's what he
said to the regional municipalities.
The other thing that I
think should be considered is the prospect of federal
legislation. Please, listen carefully to this one. I am pleased
that the province is moving forward with this, and there is every
appearance that the federal government is going to again follow
suit.
Understand what this will
do. If there are two pieces of legislation, one federal and one
provincial-one Criminal Code, one provincial offences-and they
both effectively do the same thing, both aren't going to pursued
in a court, are they, Mr Mazzilli? Of course not.
What is going to happen is
that the provincial offence will be withdrawn-hopefully it will
be the provincial offence; that's assuming the federal offence
carries with it a heavier penalty, and certainly a criminal
conviction-and the Criminal Code conviction will be proceeded
with, unless, Mr Mazzilli, the provincial offences offence-to
wit, this Bill 22 with its amendment-does something above and
beyond and different than what the federal code offence does by
way of consequences, right?
If this amendment is
included, this will give prosecutors the capacity, in my
submission to you, to proceed not only on the federal Criminal
Code conviction to get a conviction and a penal consequence, but
it will also permit them to proceed on the provincial offences
offence to pursue the goal of confiscation of the vehicle.
I'm submitting to you that
you are treading on unfortunate ground and I appreciate that if
you don't want to pass it, you won't, and I understand that.
You've been very candid with me, I've got to give you credit for
that, throughout the whole course of this debate.
I should tell Mrs McLeod
that the reason this committee is meeting today is because I very
much wanted this committee to meet today. It was originally the
House leaders who agreed to two days. I indicated to Mr Mazzilli
and to the House leaders that we didn't need two days. If it was
going to be dealt with, I needed an opportunity to present two
amendments.
That's my response to the
debate. I call the question and I look forward to the votes.
The Chair:
We'll vote on this amendment.
Mr Michael Bryant
(St Paul's): Recorded vote.
AYES
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
NAYS
DeFaria, Elliott, Mazzilli,
O'Toole.
The Chair:
I declare the amendment lost.
We have another
amendment.
Mr Kormos:
I move that subsection 1(3) of the bill be struck out and the
following substituted-"struck out" is a mistype.
Mr Douglas
Beecroft: It strikes out subsection 1(3) of the
bill.
Mr Kormos:
Oh, of the bill, OK. Thank goodness. I thought we were going to
have to seek unanimous consent again, Chair. Holy moly, I was
nervous there. Once lucky, twice what? I don't know. Thank
goodness for legislative counsel.
I move that subsection 1(3)
of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(3) Subsection 216(6) of
the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Forfeiture:
"(5.1) If a person is
convicted of an offence under subsection (2), the court may make
an order that the motor vehicle that was being driven by the
person at the time of the offence be forfeited to the crown in
right of Ontario.
"Appeal of suspension or
forfeiture:
"(6) An appeal may be taken
from an order under clause (3)(c) or subsection (5.1) or a
decision to not make such an order in the same manner as from a
conviction or an acquittal under subsection (2)."
The Conservative members of
the committee didn't want to accept the previous amendment. Fair
enough. I disagree but that's OK. We'll probably disagree about
tough penalties in this type of offence for a long time.
But here's a second kick at
the can, if you will. This doesn't involve the difficulties Mr
Mazzilli purports are inherent in the first amendment. It simply
makes it a part of the sentencing process. A judge may order
forfeiture of the vehicle that was used in the offence-"may," not
"shall."
All the arguments that Mr
Mazzilli made against the former amendment carry no weight with
respect to this one because it doesn't involve losing vehicles,
it doesn't involve more police time, it doesn't involve
determining whether or not a vehicle is stolen at the time of the
offence; it involves a process, after conviction, where a judge
may order confiscation of the vehicle: straightforward, simple.
It ups the ante for people who take our cops on high-speed
chases. These same criminals who take police on high-speed chases
are exposing the public and police officers to incredible risk,
to incredible potential
for injury and death. I agree with the government to "Let's get
tough on high-speed chases." If we're going to do it, let's do it
right.
1630
The reality, Mr Mazzilli,
is you've been here now for six months. I'm sure it seems like
much longer, doesn't it? But, Mr Mazzilli, you like everybody
else who is new here comes full of enthusiasm and full of a sense
of an understanding of Parliament that is quickly the subject of
disillusionment. You came here thinking that, boy, if things can
happen so quickly and if you really drive an issue, you can get
it on track and you can turn it into law. You and I both know
that this bill, Bill 22, is unlikely to be revisited for a good
chunk of time.
This isn't a new issue. It
wasn't until these final days of the Legislature-Bill 22 I
concede is not in itself a complex bill. It didn't take a long
time to be drafted. But it only got presented for first reading
on November 25. You know it wasn't at the top of the lineup when
all those cabinet committees and inter-ministerial committees,
the inner circle, the inner cabinet and Lord knows what all those
things are did all the screening.
This bill will not be
revisited in this Legislature for more than a little bit of time,
no matter how much you or your colleagues may want it to be, or
Mr Bryant or Mrs McLeod or I would want it to be.
Let's do it right. Here we
are. You weren't happy with the previous amendment. I disagree
with you; I find it unfortunate. This gives the judge, as part of
the sentencing process, the discretion to order forfeiture of the
vehicles.
Will it be utilized very
often in view of the circumstances that we're inclined to all
agree on about what is involved when you're talking about
high-speed chases? Probably not. Most of them are stolen
vehicles. Fair enough, if indeed that's what the data are. I have
no quarrel with that. But for those vehicles that aren't stolen,
let judges have the sentencing discretion to include confiscation
of the vehicle.
When some criminal loans
some high-powered BMW, Porsche or Jaguar, what have you, and
figures that he or she is going to take the cops off on a
high-speed chase, let them be convicted and let them pay a
monetary penalty. If there's been bodily harm, let them go to
jail. Let some undercover police officer drive that same BMW,
Porsche, Jaguar or indeed-well, why not? I've got no sympathy for
the criminal-what the heck, I don't care if you sell them off and
pay down the debt. Hold an auction. It's not that complicated,
sir.
I urge you, Mr Mazzilli, as
parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General-I believe you
when you say you want to get tough on this stuff, I believe you
and I want to support you every way I can. I want to do
everything I can with this government to get tough on these types
of offences and on other types of crimes that put the community
at great risk and cops at great risk.
Let's not just talk about
it. Let's do it. Here's our chance. The bill simply gives
sentencing judges or justices of the peace or whoever might be
hearing these trials to also order confiscation of the vehicle.
There you are. Please.
Mr
Mazzilli: Certainly Mr Kormos's position on law and
order issues to date has been impeccable, and I'm sure the
policing community supports all those initiatives. This is an
area where Mr Kormos knows that in this type of hearing it
wouldn't be a judge who hears it; it's a justice of the peace who
would have to make such a decision. Now the decision that we want
the justice of the peace to make is not only penalties but to
take into account forfeiture, which is really a new area of
highway traffic management, if you will, something we've not got
into.
I would take the position
that I would want the justice of the peace to refocus and
consider penalties, as opposed to the forfeiture of Pintos and
1969 Chevy Impalas that at the end of the day it may cost the
crown money to dispose of these vehicles. Those are my
remarks.
The Chair:
Thank you. Recorded vote.
Mr
O'Toole: Mr Chair, just one comment. I want to make sure
I am accurate in what I heard. Mr Kormos was saying that our
government wasn't moving fast enough. I heard repeatedly in the
House that we're moving too fast. I want to record that as duly
noted. Also, I think his attitude-his changing attitude I might
add-toward the debt is worth noting for the record. That's
through you to Mr Kormos. Will you give that to him, please?
Mr Kormos:
I shall respond. It's unfortunate that Mr O'Toole doesn't pay
attention in these debates, because Mr O'Toole should listen
carefully to what people say. Nothing should be done in haste to
the point where it's done irresponsibly. Mr O'Toole should be
well aware that I've been concerned enough about the debt to be
concerned about the fact that this government has generated new
debt in the exercise of promoting bigger and bigger tax breaks
for the wealthiest people in this province.
Please, Chair, the issue
here is this bill. One thing I haven't changed is my attitudes
towards ensuring that our cops have the tools to do their job.
Let's give it to them by accepting this amendment.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Kormos.
AYES
Bryant, Kormos, McLeod.
NAYS
DeFaria, Elliott, Mazzilli,
O'Toole.
The Chair:
The amendment is lost.
Shall section 1 carry? Any
discussion? Carried.
Shall section 2 carry?
Carried.
Shall section 3 carry?
Mr Kormos:
I want to speak to section 3, please.
The Chair:
I thought you wanted to speak to the long title.
Mr Kormos: You want me to speak to
the long title? OK, go ahead.
The Chair:
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the long title of the
bill carry?
Mr Kormos:
We're supporting this bill here in committee, as we did on second
reading, as we did on first reading. You will recall that I
encouraged Mr Mazzilli to get this brought into the House for
second reading for fear that it won't get dealt with by the House
before the Christmas break. Christmas season is a little bit of a
higher-risk season for high-speed chases because of the nature of
what's going on out there in our communities.
What with these extended
drinking hours for New Year's Eve, I'm anticipating even more
concern, which at the end of the day simply means drunker people
out there in even greater numbers. It's unfortunate that that
didn't come to the Legislature for debate, but nonetheless, the
ministry has the power to do that.
I'm disappointed about the
lack of amendments or the failure of the two amendments I put
forward to be accepted; also, I suppose, disappointed by the fact
that I announced these amendments to the ministry. I declared my
intention and my concern about the lack of these tough
penalties-forfeiture, confiscation-to Bill Campbell, one of the
minister's political assistants, when Mr Campbell spoke with me
very quickly after first reading. I had hoped that my
conversation with Mr Campbell, after it was relayed to the
government, would result in the government bringing these
amendments. There is no indication given of that.
1640
During second reading I
made it clear to Mr Mazzilli at the same time I asked you for
data about high-speed chases in the Legislature. Mr Mazzilli, you
carried the bill for second reading, and fair enough. But I
indicated my intention to move these amendments and I made it
quite clear to you then that it wouldn't hurt my feelings one
tiny bit if the government brought these amendments, that I would
have supported them. I don't want to speak for other opposition
members, but I suspect that all of the opposition members would
support them.
That said and done, it's
important that legislation be moved through as quickly as
possible but not without adequate consideration. I think it's
important that we had this committee hearing today. It isn't
going to take up the whole afternoon, but so be it. It was
important to discuss whether or not the penalties here went as
far as we should be going.
I also want to mention
this. The deterrent effect of heavier and heavier penalties is,
in my view, not always the primary deterrent. You know that. Most
people who do criminal behaviour don't expect to get caught. They
wouldn't do it if they expected they were going to get caught. I
hope the word will get out there very, very clearly that the ante
has gone up. The price of poker has gone up for people taking the
police off on high-speed chases.
Although I very much agree
with the heavier penalties, one of the unfortunate things about
the wish by everybody to expedite this bill is that we haven't
talked about the broader issues here. I'm not going to go through
the same things I spoke to on second reading, but issues of
training-and I think you agree with this, Mr Mazzilli. You made
every indication that you agree that the government is not
financing sufficient training through the Aylmer police college
and perhaps other resources.
I hope there's a point in
the very near future where we can work on that technology and
give the cops the tools they need to do their job. I very much
believe that a Toronto helicopter-you know that. I think the
province has to take some responsibility for absorbing the
incredible cost. It's a huge cost. Financially it's big bucks, no
two ways about it, along with other technology. The spike belt is
out there, but you've already heard my concerns about the lack of
training that I believe accompanied those spike belts.
Agreeing that a big chunk,
and perhaps indeed the biggest chunk of high-speed chases is
initiated by drivers of stolen vehicles takes me to this. I
appreciate that mandating what is an essential component of a
newly manufactured vehicle probably is federal jurisdiction, the
federal Department of Transport. But I'm told that, for instance,
not the after-market but more so the factory-installed,
anti-theft devices-because most of the people, again, stealing
cars who are inclined to get into high-speed chases are not the
ultra- or hyperprofessional car thieves, the ones who ship them
off in containers to other parts of the word for huge profit.
They're punks.
My understanding is that
the factory-installed, anti-theft devices by and large are
reasonably-nobody is going to stop the professional. Locks are
for honest people only. That's an old maxim just illustrating the
contradiction or the irony. A highly skilled pro is probably
going to steal any car, no matter how many anti-theft devices are
on it. However, for the kind of stupid, drunk and stoned punks
who steal cars from people's driveways, from parking lots, who
end up in these high-speed chases, those factory-installed
devices I'm told are reasonably effective. In other words, they
impede the theft of a vehicle sufficiently well and for a
sufficiently long period of time that the stupid kinds of people
who take cops off on high-speed chases probably won't be able to
steal the car.
You're the parliamentary
assistant. I know you're accountable to the minister, but you and
I also know you've got your office and your staff and you should
be embarking on some of these adventures yourself. You should be
taking it upon yourself without even telling the Solicitor
General, without even telling your boss that you're doing it.
Don't waste time consulting. It'll take you months and months to
get it cleared, but just get out there-
Mr
O'Toole: Just do it.
Mr Kormos:
Please, and I'd be pleased to join you. I think Mr Bryant would
join you as well, to start talking. Let's find out about these anti-theft devices.
Let's get some data. You and I should sit down, and Mr Bryant as
well, and look at some of the data on which cars are being
stolen. We know the insurance industry issues these reports
annually, but are the cars equipped with these anti-theft
devices? Is there a correlation between frequency of theft?
Let's sit down and talk
about some of that. If the province can't force the auto industry
to install them, rather than extra-cost equipment, rather than
options, make them an essential part of the car. At least you can
lean on the industry. You certainly can lean on them to make them
mandatory. You can lean on the insurance industry to give people
a break or a discount when they've got them in their cars, which
will alleviate the concern people have about paying more for
them. Again, whether they're mandatory or optional, they're going
to cost, I understand that, but lean on the insurance industry.
You may not be friends of the insurance industry, but there are
people in your caucus who are, who have contacts. Lean on them to
make sure they let their clients know there are discounts, that
you get a discount for having a factory-installed or certain
level or specification of anti-theft device.
I'm surprised the insurance
industry isn't more interested in this whole process, because
they're the ones who pay out the money when a car gets all
smashed up or burned after being stolen, the torch job. These
guys, the insurance industry, in terms of how they keep on
bragging about how good they are at evaluating their costs and
doing the management of that sort of stuff, just keep charging
premiums and when they have to pay out, they pay out.
What I'm saying to you is
that we should be looking, all of us, at ways, rather than just
bigger penalties and the deterrent effect they have, of really
getting down to the nitty-gritty and dealing with things that can
reduce the number of occasions when police are called upon to
engage in high-speed pursuits.
I know that you keep
talking about the threshold before a high-speed chase can happen.
That doesn't change the profile, though, of the person who-what
are police supposed to do once a person takes off in a reckless
manner? I don't want to sit around second-judging the police,
because all they know is that a car is going like a bat out of
hell away from them, prima facie endangering all sorts of people.
I'm not going to sit back and tell cops how to do their job. But
let's find ways and also listen to the cops. Use your position as
parliamentary assistant. Surprise the minister. I'm sure the
Solicitor General enjoys a good surprise, as any of us do.
I'm supporting this
legislation. Bring it back into the House promptly. I'm confident
that it will pass on third reading within the hour if not less. I
can't speak for the Liberals, but I'm confident it'll pass within
the hour if not less.
Mr
Mazzilli: If I can just comment on some of the comments.
First, as you've heard, Mr Chair, all three parties are certainly
supporting this bill. The purpose of today was some further
discussion about prevention, I guess, which Mr Kormos has just
brought out. Our government has been working in the area of
prevention, and police are receiving added training in the
deployment of spike belts, but technology has come a long way.
Now there are stop sticks, easier units to deploy than once were
available-that's sort of an ongoing process, as Mr Kormos
knows-three of the four helicopter projects in the province.
These are trial periods to see if helicopters are effective in
the prevention of high-speed pursuits. So we're exploring
that.
One area that is very
interesting that he's brought out, and it's an area again away
from the bill, is that in order to prevent high-speed chases,
what we're certainly out there doing and what we are hearing is
through the crime commission on anti-theft devices. I am proud to
say that the Ford Motor Co has taken a leadership role in this
area. Their 2000 passenger vehicles have flight track and
anti-theft devices, across the board. Your S-10 pickup, which was
purchased at a unionized dealership, I believe, in St Catharines,
may not have that. I don't know.
You're right, it is a
federal jurisdiction and we urge the federal government to make
it mandatory that these devices be installed, and I think they
will. But Ford has taken it upon themselves to do it because of
market-driven demand for these units. Hopefully the federal
government will jump on board and prevent some high-speed
pursuits, through anti-theft devices.
Mr
O'Toole: With your indulgence, I would like to put on
the record that I am certain all the automakers, including
General Motors, will be working diligently to address the issues
of security and safety in vehicles, and Mr Kormos supports that,
I know.
The Chair:
Shall the long title of the bill carry?
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): Recorded vote, please.
AYES
DeFaria, Elliot, Kormos,
Mazzilli, O'Toole.
The Chair:
The long title of the bill is carried.
Shall Bill 22 carry?
Carried.
Did you want that recorded
too?
Mrs
Elliott: Yes, please.
Mr Kormos:
No, it's too late now.
The Chair:
Too late.
Shall Bill 22 be reported
to the House? Carried. The bill is to be reported to the
House.
