Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am replacing our normal chair, Mr. McKay. My name is Pierre Paul-Hus, and the best of luck to my colleagues in the governing party!

Today, we are continuing our study of motion M-161 on the record suspension program, introduced by Wayne Long.

In the first hour, we will be hearing from officials from the Parole Board of Canada and from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I would ask Mr. Churney to begin his opening statement.

[Daryl Churney, Executive Director General, Parole Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the honourable members of the committee. I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak with you today in relation to your study on the record suspension program.

I would like to start by introducing myself and my two colleagues here with me at the table. I'm Daryl Churney. I'm the Executive Director General of the Parole Board of Canada. Joining me today are Brigitte Lavigne, who is the Director of Clemency and Record Suspensions at the PBC, and our colleague, Angela Connidis, Director General of Crime Prevention in the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate at Public Safety.

We are pleased to appear before you today and to provide the committee with information about the record suspension program to help inform your study.

As you're likely aware, the PBC is an independent administrative tribunal that is part of the criminal justice system. It makes quality conditional release and record suspension decisions, orders expungement, and makes clemency recommendations.

The PBC contributes to the protection of society by facilitating as appropriate the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens. Public safety is the primary consideration in all PBC decisions. Under the Criminal Records Act, the PBC may order, refuse to order or revoke a record suspension. A record suspension allows people who are convicted of a criminal offence but who have completed their sentence and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years to have their record kept separate and apart from other criminal records in the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, database. This means that a search of CPIC will not show that the individual has a criminal record.

However, that record does still exist and suspended records can be disclosed with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety. For example, suspended records of former sexual offenders are flagged in the CPIC database, and therefore, if such an individual applies to work with vulnerable populations such as children or the elderly, that record may be disclosed.

Record suspensions fundamentally help to remove the stigma associated with a criminal record and assist individuals to reintegrate into society. They do this by assisting individuals to access employment, volunteer and educational opportunities. Record suspensions can also be ceased or revoked if the person is convicted of a new offence or is found to have made a false or misleading statement when applying.

Since 1970 more than 500,000 Canadians have received pardons and record suspensions, and 95% of these are still in force.

In 1994-95 the Treasury Board of Canada approved the introduction of a $50 user fee for the processing of a pardon application. That fee represented just a portion of the cost incurred by PBC and the RCMP to process such an application. Since the introduction of the user fee, the cost to the PBC to process a pardon application has risen. As an interim measure, a $150 user fee was adopted by Parliament and came into effect in 2010. The fee was further increased in March 2012 to $631, the present fee, based on a full-cost recovery approach that represented the cost of processing a pardon application following the coming into force of the Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act. The $631 user fee also came with service standards.

In 2016 the board undertook an online consultation on the record suspension user fee and its related service standards. Stakeholders, including former, current and future record suspension applicants, advocacy organizations, indigenous groups and members of the public were invited to participate in that consultation. In 2017 PBC shared the results of this study. Their survey revealed that overall a majority of respondents, 63%, felt the current record suspension application process was long and complicated, hindering their access to the program. They also indicated that the time needed to gather information to support their application was too long and labour-intensive. This included having to deal with various police agencies and courts.

A majority of respondents, 80%, also indicated that the current user fee is high and represents a significant barrier as it imposes a financial burden that many applicants cannot afford. Eligibility periods were also seen as unfair and negatively affecting rehabilitation.

The current operating environment at the Parole Board is challenging due in part to recent litigation in Ontario and British Columbia as a result of court decisions. Changes made to the Criminal Records Act in 2010 and 2012 may no longer be applied retrospectively for applicants living in those provinces. As a result, applications must now be processed according to the legislative requirements in one of three versions of the Criminal Records Act. This means that the PBC must triage and process all applications it receives through three separate CRA schemes. Despite this challenge, the PBC continues to strive to ensure that the records suspension program is as accessible and as straightforward as possible for applicants.

Information on the application process is available on our website, including the official application guide and forms, an online self-assessment tool, a step-by-step video tutorial, a video on how to avoid common mistakes and a number of frequently asked questions. The board has also dedicated a 1-800 line for applicants, a walk-in service and a dedicated email address for applicants.

ln 2017-18, the PBC received 14,661 record suspension applications, about 75% of which were accepted for processing. The main reasons for not accepting applications at screening were that the person was found to be ineligible, a lack of payment or the wrong fee was remitted, and/or missing documentation. However, I would point out that service standards for processing were fully met for 99.9% of files.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee again for its invitation today. We look forward to answering your questions and helping inform your studies.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Churney.

Now we start the first round of questions and comments.

Mr. Picard, you have seven minutes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses and my thanks for their comments.

I have a few technical points to clarify.

The current cost is $631 per application. Normally, that amount covers all the costs associated with the application. Is that correct?

[Daryl Churney]

That is correct.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

What is your estimate of the annual budget for all the cases? There are annual costs. How much are we talking about?

[Daryl Churney]

I don't have the immediate answer to that. I would certainly be happy to get back to the committee with that budget number.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You said that, in 2017-2018, the NPB received 14,661 applications and, of that number, 75% were accepted. If the fees were eliminated, how many more applications would you receive?

[Daryl Churney]

I'm not sure that I follow your question.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Of the 14,661 applications, 75% are accepted. Those 14,661 applications were made with a fee of $631 per application.

If there were no fees for a record suspension application, how many additional applications would you receive, in your opinion? This is about assessing the operating costs and the additional work at the same time.

[Daryl Churney]

Thank you for that.

It would certainly be a guess on our part at this point to give you a solid answer with respect to how many people would apply were there no fee. What I can tell you is that, prior to the amendments that were made in 2010 and 2012, the volume of applications for pardons was significantly higher than what we're seeing today. For example, between 2002-03 and 2011-12, the board received, on average, about 25,000 pardon applications per year, of which about 20,000 were accepted for processing. That would be at a time when the fee was $50. Going to zero, I would think that we would be somewhere in that neighbourhood, if not maybe a little bit more than that.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

When someone applies to have their record suspended, is it just because they have fulfilled their conditions and have waited for the required length of time before making the application, or is it because it is a required or desirable procedure because the person is looking for a job or wants to settle in a particular place?

[Daryl Churney]

I think it's both. I would suggest that there certainly could be a number of reasons that individuals apply for record suspensions.

Fundamentally, I think it's fair to say that most people see a record suspension as an opportunity to close a particular chapter in their lives, to move on and to have the validation that they have done what the law has asked of them to do, which was essentially to remain crime free for a period of time.

Certainly, having the benefit of the record suspension does eliminate the stigma of having a criminal record and having to disclose that to potential employers. I think what we see most often in terms of people's applications in terms of their explanation—their rationale—for the record suspension is that it's to pursue employment opportunities. Sometimes it's for educational opportunities or to travel, but largely it's employment-related or for their own personal satisfaction, in order to say that they have moved on in their life.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

It is reasonable to assume that taking steps to have the record suspended is part of someone’s desire to re-integrate into society. Is that correct?

[Daryl Churney]

Yes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

That re-integration may be partly professional. Is one of the possible options for the fees to be spread out and paid in instalments, once the person is back in the workforce?

[Daryl Churney]

What I can say is that the fee that is in place right now—the $631—falls under the umbrella of the Service Fees Act and that fee is set by order in council under the authority of the minister. As an administrative tribunal, we are obligated to charge that fee. We do not have discretion to waive that fee or to process it in installments.

I mentioned in my opening statement that in 2016 the board had undertaken an online consultation to solicit feedback on these kinds of questions. Some of the questions posed to individuals, the public and organizations were with respect to the structure of the fee itself and whether it should look like something else.

One such scenario was whether you could construct a scheme whereby there is an initial screening fee, so that the person pays a nominal amount to have their application received and vetted, ensuring that everything is complete and satisfactory. Then, if the board decides that it is such, the person would pay a second installment to finish out the process. That was one such scenario that was contemplated.

Certainly, there are other schemes that could be contemplated, but I would just reiterate that under the scheme we have right now we are obligated to administer the $631 in full.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Mr. Eglinski, you have seven minutes.

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

Thank you.

I'm looking at the form you have here, your “Record Suspension Guide”, where step one is to get your criminal record from the RCMP in Ottawa and then get your court information using the form on the back and your military conduct and local police records.

I have a question. If a person has his criminal record and it's been identified by fingerprints, as per the policy here, why are you asking her or him to provide a local police record check? You already have the criminal record check. Can you explain why you are asking for the local one?

[Daryl Churney]

I can. I'll give you my interpretation of that, certainly, and then I'll ask my colleague to join in if I have missed anything.

I think the short answer is really that with respect to the criminal justice system in Canada it is quite decentralized, so there is no central repository for criminal records. Those records may be held by the RCMP in their national repository. They may also be held by provinces and territories or at a local courthouse. There is no guarantee, then, that the RCMP will have all of that information.

The purpose of the local police records check is to do one other step of verification to ensure there is no other conviction on the person's record that we have not been made aware of and that the RCMP may not hold. It's possible that someone may have an additional summary conviction offence that did not show up on the repository that's held by the RCMP. It's a matter of due diligence to find out that there is not some other conviction that we're not aware of.

[Jim Eglinski]

That surprises me. That answer is actually quite shocking. Spending 35 years as a police officer here, it's the first time I've heard that there are records being held by courthouses in other jurisdictions.

I understood there was one central depository in Canada that had the records. You sent fingerprints there, because fingerprints had to be verified. Now you're telling me that a local community or department can say that you have a criminal record, when they don't even have the authority or the jurisdiction, I understand, in Canada to give you that. That really bothers me.

I want to continue on, following on the theme of Mr. Picard.

I am concerned. The fee you're asking people to pay is a sizeable amount but not unrealistic. As a former mayor of the city of Fort St. John, we charged for a criminal record check. If you wanted to get a criminal record check, you went to the local RCMP detachment. I imagine you did the same in your municipal police force. We charged you to get that record, because there were a lot of them coming in. We needed to recuperate our costs. I imagine that you are trying to do the same with your $631.

What really starts to irk me is that now you're saying to a local person that he has to get local police record checks within the last five years. If I'm an engineer and I work in construction, I may have lived in seven or eight places in the last five years. In every one of those places, if it happened to be a municipality in Canada, there's going to be a charge for me to get that record, for you to add on to this document. If I don't have that, this document is not going work and I can't put my application in. There's an additional cost. We're probably climbing to the $1,000 mark.

I'm really surprised at your comments about the local police record checks and why they're needed. I find that very alarming.

Now, is the $631 to recuperate your costs of doing the process?

[Daryl Churney]

Yes, it is. The $631 is based on a full cost recovery program.

When the assessment was done and when the legislative amendments were brought into force in 2012, the $631 was brought in at the same time. We had done an assessment to determine the cost of administering the entirety of the program. That includes screening, any investigation done by the Parole Board, decision-making done by the Parole Board member, related program support in terms of administrative services, any regional support, information services and technology that the board uses, internal services in terms of offsetting the cost of finance, HR, technology and communications, etc. It includes legal services and all of those components that go into running the full cost of the record suspension program.

The program is entirely funded by that $631 fee.

[Jim Eglinski]

Is that an equal fee for everyone?

[Daryl Churney]

Yes, sir.