Public Safety Committee on Nov. 17th, 2010

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Nothing in the amendments that we are making here today will change in substance the impact of a suspension of record. It will be identical to a pardon in that sense. So whatever you could say before under a pardon, you can say exactly the same thing under the suspension of record. There is nothing that has changed in that respect.

I might caution individuals who have received a suspension of record and who cross into the United States that the American authorities do not recognize either our pardons or our suspensions of records. They will be asked “Have you ever been arrested?” or “ Have you ever been convicted, even if you've received a pardon?”—or now, “a suspension of record”. You'll have to disclose that even in those circumstances.

So nothing in a practical way like that will change. What this does is simply change when you're entitled to apply and the criteria the board will consider.

In respect of your issue with multiple offences by an offender, if you'll allow me just a minute before I conclude, Mr. Chair—if that's all right...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, go ahead.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The issue here is the integrity of our pardon system or suspension-of-record system. Individuals should not have the right to expect that this clean slate will be given to them.

Canadians have told me very clearly and have told our government very clearly that there comes a point in time when individuals should not be allowed to take advantage of what is not a right but a privilege. That point comes at some particular time, after committing a number of offences.

You heard me address your colleague on this issue earlier. I know you indicated that you didn't have any problem with the three or four convictions. Some have mentioned that some fine-tuning may need to be done there.

I want to say that in the spirit of cooperation that we've been able to develop in this bill, if you can come up with something that carries out the purposes of this act without taking advantage of the goodwill of Canadians in granting this privilege, I will seriously consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for your time. I know you have other commitments this afternoon, so we thank you for your attendance here.

We are going to suspend momentarily, and then we will deal with Ms. Mourani's motion in which she wants to change the orders of the day.

We will suspend for one moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll call this meeting back to order.

At the beginning of the meeting today, Ms. Mourani came with a motion to change the order of the day, the schedule or agenda for today. From checking on the procedure for that, I will say that it would suggest we move immediately to the vote. It is a non-debatable motion.

Ms. Mourani, very quickly, with no preamble, just state that you want to move to five o'clock for committee business; then we will take the vote.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I would like us to set aside time to examine the motion that I tabled in July. I hope we could devote at least 30 minutes to it, but I am ready to accept 15 minutes. I would like us to have the opportunity to discuss it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think the point is that I'm willing to give you that 15 minutes at 5:15., if that's all right, but to switch it up to five o'clock when we have guests here is what gave me a problem. It does not appear as committee business today.

My sense is that when we have a motion that has been brought forward, you can call it at any time.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Just on this point, I'm not going to support it for today, the reason being that we have Madame Morin coming on December 8. I think the appropriate time to deal with motions would be on December 8, after we have heard from Madame Morin, not today.

We also have a longstanding motion. My understanding is that when we began a new session and elected a chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. We're going into debate here.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

No, I have a question. This is an important procedural question, through you to the clerk, if I could, Mr. Chair.

When we begin a new session in September, do we not start over then with motions? Or do those motions that were given prior to September continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

If they're still on the order paper from—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I don't have a problem dealing with the motion. I just think it's more appropriately dealt with after Madame Morin speaks. There are two motions—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Unfortunately, Madame Mourani has the opportunity to bring her motion at any time. Appropriateness is left up to her, when it's her motion.

You have that choice. With a vote, you can move it ahead to five o'clock, if it carries. If not and you want to continue with it today, then we'll discuss it at 5:15 p.m., if you decide you want it today. Otherwise, this is non-debatable.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I just have a question.

I think you've expressed this in two different ways. Is the motion before the committee to move at five o'clock into future business, or is it to move into future business to deal only with that motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's to deal only with that motion, because we do not have future business or committee business on the agenda for today.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So we have to go into future business or committee business at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We would go to committee business.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would also make my motion to issue the summons to Madam Morin, which I think needs to be dealt with in a timely fashion. I made that motion last meeting.

I would suggest that we go into future business at five o'clock to deal with both of these motions, have a discussion, and at least vote on the motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to do this without debate.

All in favour of Madam Mourani's motion to move at five o'clock to debate on that motion?

(Motion negatived)

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a motion to go into future business at five o'clock to debate my motion to issue a summons to Madam Morin for December 8, which I've given notice of and raised. I would make that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have committee business at 5:15. You want to take away from the time we already have.

Mr. Davies has the right to change the agenda, the standing orders, for today.

All in favour of Mr. Davies' motion to go to five o'clock?

(Motion agreed to)

So we will go at five o'clock.

Ms. Campbell.

[Mary Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here again.

Mr. Churney and I are quite flexible on the matter of the committee's schedule. Whatever suits the committee today, or on any other occasion, it's not a problem for us.

I don't have any statement to make, although I think there's a lot of confusion about clause 9. I'd be happy to address that or answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

We're going to continue to the first round with Ms. Campbell, which means a seven-minute round. We'll start with the Liberal Party.

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry I wasn't at the presentation made by the minister. I apologize if this question was asked, but on page 9 of the minister's presentation there is the statement that the bill “affirms the fact that a person's criminal record will be kept separate and apart, but makes clear that the record has not been erased”.

I don't understand how that could be done. How can that be accomplished? It seems there are two competing principles here. How can you, in legislation, guarantee that a person's record will be kept separate but not erased? How can that be accomplished?

[Mary Campbell]

In the physical management of records, that's done by the RCMP through the CPIC system. This has been the status quo since the Criminal Records Act was enacted. By keeping the records sealed and apart, in the ordinary course of duties, a police officer checking CPIC would not see a record that has been pardoned, but the record would not have been obliterated from the electronic system. It would still exist somewhere.

Of course, there are hard-copy records of the conviction. It's not a complete purging of the record, but it strictly limits access to that record. That's what is meant by keeping it separate and apart.