Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
But to that point, Mr. Chair, if the witnesses were brought here to help us understand the bill, and I asked for an explanation as to what the effect of clause 103 was and the witnesses said they'll get back to us and let us know what it does because they have to confer with someone to do that, aren't we in...? What's the point of having the witnesses here? I'm not saying they should have the answer to every question at their fingertips, but if they're going to assist the committee in understanding the bill that we're being asked to vote on, I for one.... When I ask the question about the consequences of all these changes and what does that do and what does schedule 1 itself do in relation to the bill and we're told by the witnesses, by the experts, that they will check it out and get back to us, are we not going to wait until they get back to us? Or are we going to vote on this blindly?
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I think that where you are is somewhere different. I think you've asked the official for an explanation that he may or may not have. I'm not sure if you accepted the explanation that he had, and then he went further on it.
Having said that, we could spend a lot of time asking the officials what each one of these clauses changes.
Mr. Wilks, you're next on the list.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Maybe I can bring some clarity to this. If we refer to clause 115, you see there that schedule 1.... Convictions under section 752 of the Criminal Code will provide that one will not be eligible to apply for parole for 10 years. You're bringing that under schedule 1, and that includes manslaughter, for which the applicant, etc. So it includes all of those under clause 103 that are now going to be brought into schedule I, and that will link back into clause 115 to be part of schedule 1 for pardon.
That's how I read it. It's linking back into pardon, so that's the link. Do you follow me?
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, I don't follow you at all. What's this got to do with 741? I'm looking at clause 103 right now.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
You're looking at clause 103 and you're talking about why we're bringing some of these offences into schedule 1.
Then if you go to clause 115 and you look at schedule 1, it has to do with pardons. Clause 115 increases the time before applying for a pardon to 10 years. It will bring those offences into schedule 1 so that people cannot apply for a pardon for up to 10 years.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well, I can see the reference to schedule 1 there, Chair.
I asked the official what the purposes of schedule 1 are, and I can see what Mr. Wilks is saying in relation to clause 115. But there are a whole bunch of other references there at the top of schedule 1, for example, in the CCRA, and I'm wondering what else we're doing other than giving clause 115 a bunch of other offences to avoid allowing for an application for what the government proposes to change to a record suspension from a pardon.
What else are we doing?
1:35 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Just to clarify, there are two different sets of schedules being talked about. The schedule that's in the Criminal Records Act is essentially the flagging schedule for sexual offences. So that is a different matter entirely from the schedule that is set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
In the CCRA, schedule 1 is essentially a list of sexual offences and schedule 2 is serious drug offences. So really, it's just an articulation, a listing, or a grouping of types of offences, and the lists relate to different aspects of correctional management so that when decisions are being made, for instance, with accelerated parole review, which was just recently repealed...but, for example, offenders under schedule 1 and schedule 2 were ineligible for those provisions.
So the list exists essentially just to give a grouping of offences so that operators of the correctional system can reference who may be eligible or not eligible for certain provisions of the act. That is separate from the schedule that's set out in the Criminal Records Act. In the CRA, it's essentially a listing of sexual offences. So when someone receives a pardon and then applies for a vulnerable sector position, for example, like a baseball coach or a hockey coach, that record can then be matched to the flagging schedule so that if somebody applies for that vulnerable sector position, the RCMP will get hit on their CPIC system and then that will be transmitted to the Department of Public Safety, which then flags that to the minister. The minister can disclose that record. So that's the function of the Criminal Records Act schedule. It's a flagging schedule for sexual offences.
But with respect to the CCRA, there is a listing of sexual offences in schedule 1 and serious drug offences in schedule 2 that relate to the operation of the correctional system and decisions that are made by correctional officials.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That explanation doesn't seem to me to be complete. We're talking in clause 103 about adding to--
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
On a point of order, are we beyond our 10 minutes on this?
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
The problem is, what you agreed to in respect of Mr. Harris's motion was 10 minutes per party on each item, and we haven't been a half hour.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the Liberal Party hasn't spoken.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Have they given their ten minutes to the NDP? I didn't hear that; I might have missed it.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I agree with that, Mr. Seeback, but as I told you when you voted on this last week, you put the chair in a position to try to decide when 10 minutes are up. You came up with 10 minutes for each side, and then the ask was that the chair be able to move the time around.
Mr. Cotler, I think it was, said that he would expect what you did, and that it was to be used with caution by the chair. The problem is that the motion you made was not all that clear to the chair. I may have been less than frank in telling you at the time that it was going to be impossible if we're going to deal with 30 minutes a clause. We're at clause 103, and if we multiply it times 100, for 30 minutes—
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We're a long way away. I agree we're talking in circles here, and I've talked with the legislative clerks. Some of what's going on here you can't change anyway. At some point we will call the vote.
Mr. Harris.
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We're talking about two different schedules, but the schedule that's being sought to be changed is not the one under the Criminal Records Act. It's the one under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The schedule we're talking about doesn't just deal with sexual offences in schedule I. That has everything from manslaughter to murder to treason, I think we're now putting in, to pointing firearms and the sexual exploitation of a person with a disability. So I'm a little confused. What's your suggestion?
I thank Mr. Wilks for pointing this out. It has an effect in the act in relation to the criminal and what may happen with pardons. But does that have other effects on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as a result of its being in the schedule and the references to 107, 129, 130, 133, 156, etc.? Are we doing something else here in addition to what Mr. Wilks has suggested?
By the way, Chair, I didn't understand that asking questions of the witnesses was part of the debate on a clause.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative