Public Safety Committee on April 29th, 2019

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Could I ask our RCMP expert to explain how that information is available at the border?

[Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, Director General, Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Yes, you're correct. There is an agreement in place between the RCMP and the FBI to exchange information in a limited sense through the CPIC interface so that when people are crossing the border, if there's information in the system, they are able to view that.

In the context of a record suspension, that information is sequestered so it is not available. No one is able to view it in the system once it's been sequestered during that process.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Do you know how long the Americans keep information?

When someone receives a pardon, his or her file is wiped clean immediately, meaning that the next time anyone looks, there is no trace. However, the Americans probably keep the information for longer, unless you are telling me that they consult the database regularly and that they receive information as quickly as Canadians do and so have up-to-date information. That would avoid situations where, for example, an American customs officer might think that someone lied because his file contains old records.

Are people's files kept sufficiently up to date to prevent old data from accumulating in the American system?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That is exactly the predicament I was referring to that could cause an embarrassing and potentially difficult situation for a Canadian at the border. If the Americans have, in their records, information that they acquired a number of years ago, and subsequently that particular individual received a pardon, there could well be a conflict, on the face of the record, between what the American records show from historical data compared with what the facts are at the current moment. It would be useful to the Canadian to be able to say, “I can verify what my status is”, which you could do with a record suspension and you could not do with an expungement.

In terms of the exact retention period, I will see if I can get a precise answer from the Americans to answer your question. I suspect they retain previous information for quite some time, but I'll see if I can get a reading from American officials on how long they keep it.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

That's what I'm afraid of, yes.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Exactly.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I know. It's the old story.

The issue is that the Americans might ask you whether or not you've had a criminal record.

However, at customs, they are not necessarily trying to find out whether a person has a criminal record. That is the peculiar thing. They are trying to find out whether that person has used marijuana, because the American do not always see as legal in their country what we see as legal in ours.

We have to tell those Canadians interested in the matter that, although this is an innovation that is more than justified in Canada, it does not guarantee a problem-free open door to the United States, because of the nature of the use.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That's exactly right, Monsieur Picard.

I know it's cold comfort, but there's an example that shows this issue works both ways. In the United States, an impaired driving charge is not a criminal offence. In Canada, it is viewed as a criminal offence. An American coming into Canada with a DWI can, in fact, be denied access to Canada on the basis of that charge. It's a point of some considerable contention with some on the American side that Canadians view this offence with a substantially more serious eye than apparently it is treated under the law in the United States. It works both ways.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Mr. Eglinski, you have five minutes, please.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Broom, once a person applies for a simple possession pardon—or whatever we're going to call it—and you've looked at it, what do you do? How do you get rid of it?

[Ian Broom]

I'm not sure I follow the question.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

A guy goes through the whole process. You have the document in front of you and you feel it's justified. What do you do?

[Ian Broom]

If an applicant submits the required documents that demonstrate that they've satisfied—

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

No, I've already said that. You're wasting time.

Everything is good. How do you get rid of the record?

[Ian Broom]

We would then issue the record suspension and we would contact the RCMP, and then the RCMP would remove it from the CPIC record. My colleague could confirm—

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You're talking about a mechanical thing. The minister spoke about a mechanical thing.

Why couldn't you sit down with 100 people and go through the criminal records in Canada, take those things, send them to the RCMP and tell them to get rid of them? You're saying it's simple possession, but you're getting yourself a nightmare of paperwork in looking at each one, forcing Canadians to put an application in, when all you have to do is a simple mechanical thing that you said couldn't be done. You contact the RCMP and you get rid of them.

Why are we going through a process asking Canadians to go through the hurdle again?

[Ian Broom]

As the minister alluded to earlier, if it were possible to do that, that would be fantastic. I think the issue we're faced with is not having a particular offence that's simple possession of cannabis. For example, we need to have the CPIC record, which is verified by fingerprints, so we know the right person is applying. If it's, let's say, a summary conviction, it may not end up in the CPIC repository.

We also need to receive court information, which would verify whether or not the sentence has been completed, the fines paid, etc. Unfortunately, those holdings are in provincial courthouses in various means of storage. I think, as we pointed out, we do require these documents simply because they are not all available to us.

As you were suggesting, if people were to proactively try to gather them, we wouldn't necessarily know where to send them and then if we did, there would be various types of research expeditions—

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You're telling me the system really isn't going to change very much because you still have to do your CPIC check, your investigation, other things. What's changing from the way it is right now?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

There's no fee and there's no wait period. A person can apply and, assuming they present all the information that satisfies the application form—

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

But Mr. Minister, he says now he's going to check CPIC. They're going to have to check their records to make sure that the—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That's if we do it your way, Mr. Eglinski. That's if we did it your way.

If you were to say to the Parole Board, “Okay, you identify all the simple possession records in the country and wave your magic wand and make them go away”, then quite frankly, you'd be searching through the boxes and the records in courthouses and police stations across the country. It would be huge administrative task to ask the Parole Board to undertake that in just a holus-bolus manner. It would be very expensive.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

All right.

The question I'd like to ask the minister is this: Is anyone from your department going to check with our American counterparts?

As brought up by my colleagues across from me, they will choose the wording, whether it's “Were you ever arrested?” or “Were you ever in possession?” It's about having some type of agreement because once I say the wrong thing at the border, they're not going to let me across. Even if I have a little piece of paper from your department, I'm doomed as soon as I'm caught on that wording.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

If they think they're dealing with a person who's not telling them the truth...and that works both ways, in terms of what direction you're moving across the border.

Mr. Eglinski, the reality is that the Americans make the rules about access to their country and they administer those rules. Officials on our side of the border, the Canada Border Services Agency in particular, are in constant dialogue with the Americans about making the border experience as predictable and positive as it can be for travellers in both directions because a thin efficient border that is safe and secure is in everybody's national interest on both sides of the border. They have indicated to us in response to our constant dialogue about the cannabis issue and the impacts at the border....

We all know that moving in either direction, whether you're moving from Canada to the United States or the United States to Canada, if you're taking cannabis across the border, that's illegal. They have said that they do not intend to change their questionnaire at the border unless they have grounds to be suspicious. The experience so far in the first several months of the new law is that the experience at the border has not fundamentally changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Eglinski.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the final four minutes.