Evidence of meeting #158 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
With the greatest respect, that sounds like a fairly complicated process. It's particularly complicated for the two target communities that you're after.
I apologize. I don't generally intervene in questions.
I see that Mr. Graham still wants....
5:05 p.m.
A voice
It's Ms. Sahota.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Perfect. I'm actually going to ask something.
In terms of the commitment of having a no-fee process, is that just for your application fee? How about the costs that are going to be associated with getting the records from your local courthouse or police department? Those are affiliated with fees. What about those?
5:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
No. The no-fee is the application fee that is collected by the Parole Board of Canada.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
What kinds of fees would the applicant possibly be on the hook for, generally, in any record suspension case? What kinds of costs do they usually incur before the application?
5:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
I think the costs vary quite a bit, depending on which police service or which court. I don't have any hard and fast estimates with me to provide right now. I do believe that the department maybe had a cursory examination on this issue. But again, you'd be talking.... I would hesitate to give an estimate right now.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's a fair response, because it is outside of your jurisdiction to estimate that. But it's a real cost.
Mr. Motz, you have five minutes, please.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to continue on with that.
There is a fee to get fingerprints. There is a fee to get your record from a police service, and there is a fee, generally, to get your records from court, if it has them. In some communities, if it's in the distant past, they might not have the book anymore where they have them. It's a free system, maybe, for the Parole Board's costing, which is a taxpayer pickup, but it will cost an applicant some time, some effort and some resources on their own to do that, just so we're clear.
I want to get more to the schedule. Bill C-93 has schedules attached to it, and that's the technical side of it. It lists the offences for which an offender can apply and immediately receive a record suspension after the sentence is completed, without paying a fee, other than the ones we've just identified.
The schedule refers to three categories of substances for possession offences. One is under schedule II of the old CDSA, the old Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as it was prior to October of this past year. The second was for the old NCA, the Narcotic Control Act, which was previous to the CDSA. The third was for equivalent offences outlined in the National Defence Act.
However, the lists of substances do not appear to be entirely identical. For example, would an application for record suspension related to an offence concerning possession of Pyrahexyl, or Parahexyl as it's also known, under the old Narcotic Control Act, be assessed without a waiting period or fee being required, since that substance is included in item 3 of the schedule of the Narcotic Control Act, and the applicant would, thus, benefit from the changes proposed in Bill C-93? If so, why would that be the case, being that Parahexyl is still considered an illegal substance in Canada? Your schedules allow that to happen. I'm curious to know why.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The schedule refers to the acts where you can find the cannabis offence. It is only for possession of cannabis. The documentation they would provide necessarily needs to indicate that the substance for which they've been charged under one of those acts was for cannabis.
April 29th, 2019 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I understand what the act says, but your schedules aren't identical. I'm trying to point out that there needs to be some congruency between all the schedules from the CDSA, the NCA, the new act and the National Defence Act to make sure that all of those things are in alignment. I would urge you to have that consideration or that look because that substance is still there and it still remains illegal.
The last question I have has to do with what you mentioned, Ms. Lavigne and Mr. Broom. Does the Parole Board currently have sufficient resources to manage the increase?
We're talking potentially 10,000 over the coming years that's expected with Bill C-93? I know I asked the minister this before. If you don't need new resources, the administrative or clerical functions to do an administrative record suspension will impact the administrative clerical functions required to still do a record suspension for the Parole Board. How does that get navigated, and is $2.5 million really an appropriate cost? I ask because $250 doesn't seem like a whole lot when you look at the time it takes per application.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Clemency and Record Suspensions, Parole Board of Canada
The Parole Board is going to have the resources in place to process these applications when they come in. We currently have staff who are trained to do similar functions in processing record suspensions and pardon applications and as the volumes increase, we'll be ensured additional resources to meet the service standards that are currently in place for pardon record suspensions as well as these expedited record suspensions for those convicted of simple possession of cannabis.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Do you assume then that the $2.5 million that's been a guesstimation covers the additional staffing costs, or is that just the processing costs?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Clemency and Record Suspensions, Parole Board of Canada
At this juncture, the estimates that have been put in place for us and the RCMP to manage this group of applicants would entail the staff resources needed to process the applications and conduct notifications.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you.
I think we're just going to continue building off each other's questions. I'm also intrigued because the minister was saying, just like Mr. Motz, for the list of substances that would be under a certain offence, it's not very clear as to what they were in possession of. It could be a substance under the one list. The onus is then on the applicant to prove that it was simple possession and not another substance on the list. How would they do that? Is that information always available in the court record or is there another, easier way?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That would be either the charge from the local police record or from the court record.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The court record should if the police charge didn't.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Sometimes, but not always.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
In the case that they are listed in the RCMP records, would that person then be able to perhaps not have to go through the process of getting court records and all that? Would it be easy to just suspend?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The local police record shows a few things. It will show whether or not it was the right substance, but also whether they have any other records on conviction that were not in the RCMP, and some of those summary convictions could be quite serious. They could be assault, for instance. That's the other reason you do the local police check. The court record would show not just the substance, but whether or not you've completed your sentence and what your sentence was. You don't do those checks just to determine whether it was cannabis or not. There are other reasons for those checks.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
And I believe—I just want to clarify what you have already said—if there was an assault or various other crimes that the person was convicted of along with the possession, then the possession would not be removed either?