Evidence of meeting #164 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
May 27th, 2019 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I was going to ask if they even have the capacity to receive an electronic record.
4:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
Currently, we do not.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I just want to point out on the record how disappointing I find it that we would be rejecting amendments because we have a backward system that is clearly inadequate. Quite frankly, I think this is so straightforward—the basic stuff to make this system accessible—and we're just throwing in the towel because we're not in the 21st century when it comes to how these things work. It's mind-boggling.
I wanted to state that, for the record, while I thank my colleague for his amendment and offer my support for it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I would agree with Mr. Dubé.
I'm wondering about the silence of it. Does it mean that if we ever get with the current technology, we would be able to do it, even though we don't actively mention it here? Can we still apply it down the road if record suspension can be sought electronically in, let's say, six months or a year, should this bill pass the House?
4:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
What I could speak to is the operational aspect of this proposed amendment. There are two elements here.
The first is the ability to receive electronic applications, and that could include the supporting documents that would be used to determine eligibility for whatever scheme—in this case, the streamlined record suspension process for simple possession of cannabis convictions.
The second aspect is that information the Parole Board of Canada would use to verify eligibility is third party in nature, so we would also need to take into consideration the means of authenticating the documents we would receive from, for example, courts and police services outside of the national criminal repository.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
To the legislative clerk, then, my question is more in line with.... The courts now accept electronic versions of things when they're stamped by police departments or courthouses. They're considered to be legit. I don't see that as being a barrier at all.
What I'm asking more specifically is about the language of this. If we don't make mention of it specifically, as Mr. Eglinski's amendment would allow, and we leave it silent, will that preclude the ability to do so, should it ever become possible?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'd like to make a comment, Chair. When California decided to go to their system, they went outside of their agency and had three different applicants write up programs. I understand that one of the applicants now has a very elaborate program that she says can work internationally on a number of different programs.
All I'm asking is that we look and not ignore it because it's out there. If we sit back, we're doing no justice. We can write all the stuff we want here, but we're not going any further or any quicker. Let's try to make it quicker. All I'm saying is, let's look at electronic aids and see if it can help your agency be more modern.
We can be like CPIC was before CPIC, recording everything by hand and passing it down. CPIC modernized things for us in the RCMP. All I'm asking for is to modernize your agency to help those people get this done a little quicker.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let me ask the reverse question. If this amendment doesn't pass, are you limited to doing things the way you're doing them now?
4:15 p.m.
Brigitte Lavigne Director, Clemency and Record Suspensions, Parole Board of Canada
The Parole Board of Canada is always open to looking for ways to modernize the record suspension application process. Certainly, in terms of enabling an electronic or digitized application, we would need to consult and assess the impacts and the available resources in order to pursue something along those lines.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
If your consultation went well and resources were available, would you be able to do it with or without this amendment?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Clemency and Record Suspensions, Parole Board of Canada
Certainly, if there were amenable means for us to forge something from a modernized standpoint, the Parole Board would be open to those things.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
If it's possible, I wouldn't mind inviting my colleague to modify his amendment into a recommendation that can be done after the bill, to bring to the attention of government that, in addition to our amendment, such a recommendation should be taken under consideration so they can proceed with what they're looking for and modernize the system.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
To do it as a recommendation...?
I think we're in agreement to work with the committee, if we don't pass the amendment here, to put it in as a recommendation to give them the tools in the future to....
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You would like, separate it from the bill itself, a report from the committee recommending that this gets done sooner rather than later. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If I'm hearing correctly, you can't accept this as an amendment to the bill, but you would accept the recommendation?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Again, that's because of logistical issues, but the idea is good because they can do it. Let's push it to the report.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Our suggestion is that we vote on it, and if it gets defeated, then we move to put it in as a recommendation. We'd like to have it on the record, please.