Evidence of meeting #69 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was record.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael R. Gibson  Deputy Judge Advocate General of Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
André Dufour  Director, Law Military Personnel - Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Erin Shaw  Committee Researcher

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Toone made reference to 2011 and a witness who was before this committee then, which speaks to the length of time, and the number of times this legislation, which is in the best interests of our serving soldiers, has been considered by Parliament. That same witness came back again before our committee during this rendition of Bill C-15. It's getting to the point where witnesses like this are just using this committee to troll for clients and shill their books. It's a total abuse of the process.

Now, the opposition can drag Bill C-15 out—

8:55 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that's an outrageous statement. Witnesses don't come to this committee unless—

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I think he has a point of order. I'm listening to it.

8:55 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

I don't think it's proper for members of this committee to use their time effectively to defame witnesses called to appear before this committee. They don't come of their own volition; they don't walk into this committee room to sit down and testify. They are asked to testify. When we have a situation where a retired colonel of the Canadian Forces comes to this committee....The only person who has been here for both sets of committee hearings is a retired colonel of the Canadian Forces, aside from the dean of a law school, who is not practising law.

To use your time to defame a person like that and suggest they are coming here on their own to troll for clients is outrageous. It's an outrageous statement, defamatory, and probably an abuse of a member's privileges to speak on the public record. I object to it very strongly.

9 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, the members opposite have questioned the motives and analyzed the testimony and commentary of many witnesses before this committee. We have done much less of that in the interests of time and expedient clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. It is mind-boggling to comprehend how Mr. Harris could take a comment like that, from my colleague Ms. Gallant, to have been anything other than a reflection of the same kind of behaviour that he has been engaged in—and in her case, it's been on a much more modest and truthful scale—since the beginning of this meeting, which is now entering its seventh hour.

9 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

As you all know, on this point of order, the only thing that we are prevented from doing in committee and in the House, where we have complete freedom of speech and freedom from civil actions and exemption from jury duty, etc., is made quite clear by Standing Order 18:No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign...nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof....

Freedom of speech is the first and foremost thing here. We do have freedom of speech and are only asked to treat witnesses respectfully when they're here. So the comments are in order whether you like them or not.

Madam Gallant, you have the floor.

9 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Chairman, if the opposition can drag Bill C-15 out until the death of this Parliament, they would do the same thing the next time around, dragging back t the same witnesses after the same things have been said. To unnecessarily delay passage of the bill, they're requiring these soldiers to go through the criminal records suspension process unnecessarily. By their actions, they're doing the opposite of what they say they intend to do.

9 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

With that said, we have no other speakers. We are dealing with NDP-20.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have NDP-21, reference number 5996241.

Mr. Harris, if you can move it onto the floor, please.

9 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Amendment NDP-21 provides that Bill C-15, in clause 75, be amended:

(a) by adding after line 7 on page 49 the following:

“(1.1) The Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces shall without delay transmit to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the list of convictions referred to in subsection (1) to be removed from the automated criminal records retrieval system.”

(b) by replacing line 10 on page 49 with the following:

“purposes of the Criminal Records Act and the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is required to remove without delay all references to those offences from the automated criminal records retrieval system.”

I want to explain why we're putting that there. It's pretty clear from the earlier part of clause 75 which amends the National Defence Act by adding the following after section 249.26:

249.27 (1) A person who is convicted of any of the following offences, or who has been convicted of any of them before the coming into force of this section, has not been convicted of a criminal offence:

That's obviously welcome, that not only those who are henceforth convicted of these criminal offences but everybody who in the past has been convicted of any of these offences has not been convicted of a criminal offence.

What's the consequence of that and how do you give effect to that? That's what we directed our minds to, and in looking at proposed subsection (2) of proposed section 249.27, further than saying it doesn't constitute a criminal offence, it says:

(2) An offence referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) does not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.

So it does two things. It says it's not a criminal offence, so none of these offences that are listed there constitute criminal offences, and neither are they offences for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act. I guess that means you don't have to get a pardon for them because they're not offences in the first place. I think Colonel Gibson would agree with that. That's the intention and that's exactly what it says. The real worry, though, is what is the effect of that?

I will refer to the amendment that was ruled out of order just for the purpose of the argument here. The Criminal Records Act itself goes so far as to require a section 6.1 in order to deal with the consequences of absolute or conditional discharges. I want to circulate to the committee—I have it in both official languages—a short commentary prepared by our analyst who is sitting here, Erin Shaw, from the international affairs and defence—

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Can I just get clarification for my own purposes as chair here? Either Ms. Shaw or Colonel Gibson could probably clarify this for me. Is the Criminal Records Act administered through the RCMP or is it done through the Parole Board?

9:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Well, the Criminal Records Act itself, the procedure that provides for a removal of a criminal record, is administered by the Parole Board. If you're seeking a pardon or a record suspension, you go to the Parole Board to get it. It's governed by the Criminal Records Act, but the criminal records system that we're talking about, CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, access to that and the keeping of criminal records, is actually administered by the RCMP. I think Ms. Shaw can confirm that.

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'll get our analyst to respond first if she would.

Is that the correct interpretation, that it's the RCMP and not the Parole Board?

March 4th, 2013 / 9:05 p.m.

Erin Shaw Committee Researcher

CPIC's databases are functionally administered by the RCMP, but perhaps our expert witnesses would be in a position to reply.

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Colonel, with all these lawyers sitting around here, we may as well get some legal opinions on the table and see how different they are.

9:05 p.m.

Col Michael R. Gibson

I think there are actually a number of technical issues that need to be commented on, but I wanted to be sure that Mr. Harris had finished with his comments before I did that.

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

As chair I just want to make sure that this is in order and that it's relevant.

9:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

I certainly welcome whatever Colonel Gibson has to say.

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'm looking for information for my own purposes right now.

9:05 p.m.

Col Michael R. Gibson

By way of confirmation, Mr. Chair, the short answer to your particular question is that, yes, the Canadian Police Information Centre is administered by the RCMP. The central essence of the Criminal Records Act is for the national Parole Board to consider granting a record suspension.

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

It is in order, so we'll just continue on.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

9:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

We're distributing Ms. Shaw's paper, which was prepared in response to questions we had concerning the effectiveness of the act as it's written, in terms of having the practical effect of getting rid of the records.

I think we're all agreed here. The idea is that we don't want whatever is being excluded here to prevent people from.... You know, if all of these sections are being taken out of the criminal record provision, then we don't want people who have been convicted of these things have it show up with respect to police activity or border activity or the things that we're trying to avoid.

I want to give you a reference to section 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act, which talks about how you get rid of these records. This talks about “Discharges”. There are marginal notes on these sections in the act itself. There are various marginal notes on the side—“disclosure”, “inadequate”, etc.—on various sections. For clause 75, for example, the marginal note says, “Convictions for certain offences”. You'll see that on the outside. That's the marginal note. Well, the marginal note on section 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act is, “Discharges”.

This is on the back page of Ms. Shaw's paper, by the way, for your information. Page 3 of Ms. Shaw's paper has a reference to section 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act.

Then there's the marginal note “Purging C.P.I.C.” on the outside of subsection 6.1(2). CPIC is the Canadian Police Information Centre.

It says: The Commissioner shall remove all references to a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code from the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the expiration of the relevant period referred to in subsection (1).

That refers to a discharge. The discharge, as you know, means that there was never a conviction. A person given a discharge is not convicted of a criminal offence, is found guilty but not convicted, and there's a certain period during which the discharge expires.

It's the same with the absolute discharge. If someone has an absolute discharge, it means they've never been convicted of a criminal offence. That's what section 730 says, that a judge may discharge an accused absolutely or with conditions.

An absolute discharge means it's done instead of convicting someone. It has the same effect as what we're saying here; you're not convicted of a criminal offence, or you've never been if you've already been, and that's what it says in subsection 6.1(1).

My argument is as follows. If it's necessary to have that kind of provision to get an absolute discharge out of the CPIC database, and that's the one that the police use, and peace officers, whether it be RCMP or local police.... I'm sure the MPs in the military have access to it as well, as do municipal police forces. We ought to have a provision here to ensure that if these records, potentially thousands of them going back, I guess, ever since they've been keeping these records and putting them in, are on that computer system with respect to these offences, then they ought to be removed.

That's essentially the question we asked: how do we ensure that as a practical matter, with the retroactive nature of these, we remove the criminal records of individuals convicted of certain offences under the code of service discipline?

The answer that was suggested to us was that we ought to go further, as suggested here on page 2, to accomplish the goal of Justice LeSage, where in his recommendation about reviewing the consequences he talked about:

There ought to be a full review of the issue of criminal records flowing from convictions at summary trial. I also recommend a review of the processes and procedures for entering information into CPIC and of the relevant NDA sections to avoid consequences disproportionate to the violation.

Looking at that, we considered the possibility of an amendment that would ensure the records get out of the RCMP database. It was suggested that:

...an amendment would need to instruct the Commissioner of the RCMP to remove all references to convictions that meet the criteria set out in the proposed amendment.... Such an amendment could be modelled on section 6.1(2) of the CRA, which sets out provisions for dealing with absolute and conditional discharges....

That's the model we have here, section 6(1) of the Criminal Records Act, and there's an explanation above that saying that—

9:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Chair, on a point of order, I was going to wait until Mr. Harris finished, but I think this point of order is relevant at this point.

We have heard from witnesses, and it is relevant to the amendment before us now, and I think makes it inadmissible, that all convictions from summary trials at present, and under the amended version, after Bill C-15 that we have just agreed on after amending Bill C-15 with clause 75, do not result in criminal records within the Canadian Police Information Centre. None of those convictions from summary trial do so at present. They do result in a criminal record under the Criminal Records Act, and that is dealt with by the amendment that we've already passed. I think you'll find Colonel Gibson and his colleagues can confirm that. It makes this amendment—

9:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Inconsequential.

9:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

—inconsequential and inadmissible, in my view.