Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I help with this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think we'd be supporting the motion. The amendment is technical, but it ensures the correct cross-reference in subclause 51(4) to the list of ticketable offences set out in subclause 51(2). Subclause 51(1) would specify the amount of the fine for a ticket would be set at $200 plus a victim surcharge. It basically properly cross-references the right clauses that wouldn't otherwise happen, so I'd be supportive of this motion if Mr. Davies is still putting it forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, Mr. Davies, are you ready?

All right, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-27.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 51 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 52 agreed to)

(On clause 53)

Now we go to LIB-8.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm moving this amendment because I feel that it will protect individuals who face ticketable offences from fines that will impose a significant financial burden. This would ensure that courts could consider a range of factors in setting the fine, including the ability of the accused to pay the fine. By limiting the fine to no more than $200, we are limiting the financial burden imposed by a ticket for less severe offences under the cannabis act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no debate or speakers, I'll call for a vote on LIB-8.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-28. Was this adopted as a consequence of LIB-3?

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I believe this is similar. It simply corrects the cross-referencing in light of earlier amendments to the 100-centimetre limit, and the lack of an amendment to the 30-gram prohibition limit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Are we in clause 28?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We are on NDP-28

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

For French equivalency, I would make a subamendment to add the word “maximale” in French after “amende” on line 32, page 30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

That's in order.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to LIB-9.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, this legislation as drafted would enable a court to apply an order for probation to an individual who is issued a ticket. The intention of a ticketing system was to ensure that penalties or less severe offences would not result in criminality, but would be regulated through fines. It is not the intent to enable probation to be included in the consequences of a ticketing system. The amendment clarifies this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seek clarification.

It references section 731 of the Criminal Code. Which section is that, or what does that section talk about?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

The amendment states:

That Bill C-45, in Clause 53, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 30 the following: “(1.1) If the accused is convicted of the offence, no order is to be made under section 731 of the Criminal Code in respect of that conviction.”

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

What is section 731?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Under section 731 of the Criminal Code in respect of that conviction.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is that the whole code?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Saint-Denis.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Mr. Chair, section 731 deals with the issuance of probation orders upon a conviction. The court may choose to impose certain conditions. If those conditions are breached, there is the risk of a charge being laid, and the possibility of imprisonment for breaching....that charge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers on LIB-9, I call for a vote on LIB-9.

(Amendment agreed to)

Shall Clause 53 carry as amended?

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 54)

We go to PV-17. Is there any debate or discussion on PV-17?

Seeing no debate or speakers, all in favour of PV-17?

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 54 carry?

(Clause 54 agreed to)

We go to a new clause, NDP-29.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Doesn't NDP-29 amend clause 54?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It's a new clause that we've been given; it's new clause 54.1.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I really hope that my colleagues support this amendment, because I believe there is an unintended flaw in this bill, such that, once I explain the policy behind the amendment and what it does, I think all members should be behind this.

What clause 54 says is:

If an accused fails to pay the amount set out in the ticket within the period set out in the ticket, the accused is liable for that amount and (a) a conviction is to be entered in the judicial record of the accused; (b) the conviction is deemed to be pronounced by a court;

Further down, it adds that:

(d) the accused has 30 days after the day of the conviction to pay the amount set out in the ticket

and any court fees.

Subclause 54(2) then says what the effect of payment or imprisonment is. It says:

If, after being convicted, the accused pays the amount set out in the ticket or, if the accused is an individual, the accused has served, in full, any period of imprisonment imposed as a result of a default in payment of the amount of the fine imposed by the court, the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act.

Then finally, clause 55 says:

Only an individual who is unwilling though able to pay a fine or the amount of a victim surcharge imposed in respect of a conviction [...] may be imprisoned in default of its payment.

This is meant to avoid the stigma of a criminal conviction.

Who doesn't get a criminal conviction? It's someone who pays the fine; someone who doesn't pay the fine but serves the imprisonment; someone who could pay the fine but chooses not to, is not eligible for imprisonment.

The person who's left out of this is the poor indigent person who simply can't pay the fine. If they just can't pay the fine because they're poor, then they end up getting a criminal record, and that criminal record can be referred to.

We heard a couple of pieces of testimony by Michael Spratt, who pointed this out. Michael Spratt said:

To its credit, Bill C-45 does attempt to reduce the prejudicial impacts of this ticketing option and there are provisions designed to prevent the public disclosure of judicial records, but this is dependent on the offender's ability to pay a fine. If the ticket remains unpaid 30 days after a conviction is registered, there is no corresponding right to privacy in a judicial record.

If you are poor and cannot pay the fine, you get the record and you don't get the protection of this provision. He goes on to say:

I think the problem is obvious.... if you are poor and can't pay a fine, you are further stigmatized through a public record. If you are well off and can pay the fine, your record is sealed. That judicial record is non-disclosable. Given the research on the impacts of the disclosure of judicial records, the inability of the poor to purchase privacy rights, and the disproportionate enforcement of marijuana offences experienced by marginalized groups, it's quite likely that this ticketing provision...will be found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, Ms. Sidhu clarified this with him. She asked Mr. Spratt:

For clarification, Mr. Spratt, you said that people who are unable to pay tickets are criminalized. In fact, clause 55 states that the ability to pay is a clear consideration in ticketable offences. If you cannot pay, you won't be further punished. I just wanted clarification on this.

Mr. Spratt responded:

It's not that you'll be jailed. The act is clear that the judicial record won't have the same privacy protection as it does for someone who can pay. The punishment I speak of isn't incarceration. Rather, it's the devastating impacts, which are well documented, of the disclosure of judicial records. That's how they're punished.

I think this was an unintended gap in the bill that my amendment clears up.

My amendment would add a new clause 54.1 that says:

54(1) If an accused establishes to the satisfaction of a court that payment of the amount set out in the ticket or of a fine imposed under this Act would cause undue hardship to the accused, the court may, on application of the accused, make an order exempting the accused from the payment of the amount set out in the ticket or that of the fine, or both. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1), undue hardship means the accused is unable to pay the amount set out in the ticket or the amount of a fine imposed under this Act because of the accused's precarious financial circumstances, including because of their unemployment, homelessness, lack of assets or significant financial obligations towards their dependants.

Then finally:

If the accused is convicted of the offence and a Court makes an order under subsection (1), the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act.

In short, Mr. Chair and colleagues, this says if a person can satisfy a court that they're poor and cannot pay the ticket, their record will also be treated in the same way as someone who has paid the fine or the ticket. You don't leave the poor with the stigmatization of a conviction that's not separated as it is for those who can pay.