Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

If I might clarify, my understanding of the way the NDP amendment would work is that, effectively, murderers with simple possession would be in a better position than murderers without a simple possession charge, based on how this works when they're trying to get.... That's effectively why we can't agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Seeing that this debate has been exhausted, the vote is on Ms. Dabrusin's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment PV-3 as amended passes and we are now on NDP-8.

Again I've been handed this note about its admissibility. It seeks to grant record suspensions for offences not contained in the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

This was actually a recommendation that was made by a number of witnesses. It was for administration of justice offences relating to schedule 3 offences. In other words, to use an example that's been used in committee, if an indigenous person is unable to appear in court for a variety of geographic considerations and it is an appearance in court related to the offence, then we would also suspend that offence.

Again, it seems strange to me that we would want to right the supposed wrong that these individuals have incurred and then not be able to do so by making them continue to have other marks on their record that will inevitably cause them problems. The remediation the bill seeks to give will not actually be obtained by many people who could use it, frankly. I will again challenge the ruling, with all due respect to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm starting to feel bad about this.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8, nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's another outstanding victory for the chair.

We now go to Mr. Motz with CPC-2, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I'm proposing CPC-2 as a fallback mechanism for the government to decide onus on applicants to prove the convictions they had. Under this bill, the onus is that individuals convicted of minor possession of marijuana will have to prove that they were convicted of only that charge. However, I can tell you from experience, and from the testimony we heard before this committee, that there will be individuals whose records cannot be found or have been lost or destroyed. In those cases, they are unable to prove their case through no fault of their own.

In those circumstances, I am proposing a common-sense addition whereby applicants can demonstrate and swear an oath or an affidavit explaining why that's the case. It would enable the Parole Board to review the application and investigate and determine eligibility in that capacity, as opposed to an outright denial in those circumstances. In the interest of ensuring that all of those who are eligible can access the same process, I am submitting this to provide some procedural fairness.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

In the absence of some of the amendments I've proposed being in order, much less adopted, to make the process automatic, this is a nice plan B, so it's an amendment that I support.

However, I do seek guidance, perhaps, from the clerk to understand why a process that would have been automatic, such as in NDP-1 and NDP-2, where the board would have been doing the work, was too much of an undertaking for the board and beyond the scope of the bill, whereas here the sworn statements lead to the board's making inquiries to ascertain whether conditions have been met. Certainly, the undertaking is not quite as vast, but it, nonetheless, seems to have the same intention. It's not that I want to jinx this amendment—I am glad it's in order—but I do have some difficulty understanding the distinction there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Your question is that if your amendment was beyond the scope of the bill, why is this one not beyond the scope.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

What's the threshold for ordering the board to do additional work?

[William Stephenson]

In this case, the amendment is dealing more with the issues of parameters and the inquiries that the board would be making. From what we understand, based on our knowledge, they already have the power to make inquiries to ascertain that there has been good conduct...all of those things. In this sense, it's a little bit different from the other amendments because it's affecting the parameters that are already within the scope of the bill—requesting suspension, that the onus on the applicant is fairly narrow—versus the other amendments that are a bit more like new schemes or mechanisms in the bill.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I request a three-minute suspension to talk in more detail about this technical issue. We'd like to talk about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think we can suspend for three minutes.

With that, we're suspended for three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, can we come back to order?

Mr. Picard, do you wish to say something?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I have no debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Is there any further debate on amendment CPC-2?

[An hon. member]

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Let me write this date down because that's the first time this has happened in any of my committee deliberations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Such peace and harmony has broken out that I'm not quite sure what we're going to do now.

We're on to NDP-9, which was previously discussed.

Mr. Dubé, do you want to move that?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Again, this is just to make sure we're not revoking record suspensions, if ultimately the intention of the bill is to allow individuals to move on from an offence related to something that is now legal.

I did have a question on my own amendment, if I can connect back to the previous amended amendment, which was PV-3. I don't have it in front of me, but I included paragraph 7(a), and the subamendment only mentioned paragraph 7(b).

Can someone help out with what the distinction is there?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Murdock, do you want to respond?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Paragraph 7(a) deals with a person who is subsequently convicted of an offence, whereas paragraph 7(b) deals with the issue of good conduct.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I appreciate that clarification.

An important part of why I opposed the previously amended amendment is that an individual who obtains a record suspension for something that is now legal, and goes on to commit another crime deserves the punishment of that crime. If they're found guilty, that's fine, but it's difficult to square the circle of why that person's record for something that is now legal would be reinstated.

Whether we like those individuals or not, whether we agree with the act that has been committed or not, there is a principle here that this is no longer a crime. In keeping with our position, and that of many of the witnesses, expungement is the way to go. To me it seems to make sense that we would not be putting an additional line on someone's criminal record for something that is now legal because it happened to happen to them when it was illegal. The Parliament of Canada has recognized that individuals should more easily obtain a record suspension should that be the fate of this bill.

That is an important addition there, which was absent from the subamended Green Party amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

With that, I'm going to have to vacate the chair, and ask Mr. Paul-Hus to take over.