Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you very much.

Our understanding of the proposed amendment is that this would essentially have the effect of expunging, for all intents and purposes, an individual's offence for cannabis. It would still be a record suspension, but it would result in a partial record suspension.

Where an individual has other offences, those offences would stay on the individual's record and show as such. It would have the effect of carving out, if you will, just the offence of simple possession of cannabis. The process with respect to record suspension is that you suspend the record in its entirety, not individual offences.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on to NDP-4.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is, again, just in keeping with removing barriers from the process, removing the requirement to complete a sentence or fee related to a schedule 3 offence to qualify.

Again, it's pretty clear that there are numerous barriers in the process, as outlined in the legislation, for allowing folks to apply. If it's no longer a crime and if we truly want to give them an expedited process—which we believe should be an automatic expungement, frankly—than there's no reason why we should be expecting individuals to serve time in the various ways prescribed by law for that same offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

This is the first comment in French today. We'll make our staff work.

I want to know whether anyone is actually serving time for simple possession of marijuana. An inmate may have it in their record, but there are many other things. As a result, the person isn't eligible for a record suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Murdock.

[Lyndon Murdock]

Unfortunately—and maybe I can turn it over to my colleague from the RCMP—we don't have that information currently.

[Amanda Gonzalez, Manager, Civil Fingerprint Screening Services and Legislative Conformity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I can't answer that. I don't know about the sentences for this type of situation.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

According to the proposed amendment, as I understand it, people who are already in prison would be allowed to apply for a record suspension. However, this would mean that they're in prison for simple possession of cannabis.

[Amanda Gonzalez]

I'd say that it's rare.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That's right.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The clause can't be applied unilaterally in Canada. The payment of fines in certain jurisdictions is under provincial jurisdiction. As a result, we can't have the federal government impose fines that are currently administered by the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any comment on Mr. Picard's observation?

[Lyndon Murdock]

I'm sorry. I actually didn't hear it. I missed it.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You cannot apply the law when the fine is administered by a province. It cannot be applied the same way everywhere, because part of it—fines, for example—is administered by Quebec and.... What is the other province?

[Lyndon Murdock]

It's New Brunswick.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

We can't do anything about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate on NDP-4?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

In PV-1, there's a line conflict with NDP-4.

Ms. May, I'm assuming you wish to speak to PV-1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that I'm here because of the motion this committee passed, in which I am not allowed to vote on things, or move things. The one thing I am allowed to do is to follow your instructions to show up on the time-limited time and speak to my amendments. I do wish to speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have reminded the committee of that several times.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I like to keep it on the record, because I hope that after the next election, no MP in my position will ever be subjected to the motions that were passed in the last government and this one.

In any case, after the election, we'll have more than 12 MPs, so I won't be subjected to it, but it's not fair or nice for any smaller party.

Here's the motion. It's very clear. I think you've all heard the evidence, and I'm sure are sympathetic to the concerns of the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, that the very people we're trying to help with this legislation may be disadvantaged, because they'll be in the midst of their sentence. They won't have been able to pay their fines, so they can't apply, because the time limits, in the way the act currently reads, are such that a person is ineligible to make an application for records suspension until the expiration of their sentence, or including the payment of a fine.

The amendment I'm putting forward here, PV-1, is to say that we would change that to “regardless of whether or not any sentence imposed” or “the payment of any fine, has expired”.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

My amendment is basically that Bill C-93, clause 4, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following:

(3.11) A person who makes an application referred to in subsection (3.1) may do so using electronic means in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 9.1(d).

Right in our mission statement, or our title, it says, “expedited record suspensions”. The fastest way to do it is by electronics, or computer. According to my research, the State of California in one year eliminated as many records as we are told by Mr. Broom.... They got rid of 250,000 records in one year, by going to electronic means.

I do realize that was expungement, but I believe we would not be doing justice in this committee if we didn't encourage one of our government agencies to modernize and simplify the way it does business, and make it easier for our clients out there to make applications. I think that if we were to use an electronic program.... There are people out there who can develop them. We should encourage our government agencies to modernize and be as efficient and as fast as they can be.

If we do not go to some form of electronic monitoring or application, which can get rid of a lot of that groundwork initially—for example, to say if a person is eligible or not eligible—and do a lot of the work that we're now doing manually, I think we'd be doing an injustice. All I'm saying is to put a section in here that gives them the opportunity to look outside and develop a program that might work to make it much more beneficial to people out there, and much quicker for the RCMP and the Parole Board to get rid of these records.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Subsection 3.1 doesn't limit the capacity to submit an application. In addition, the logistical aspects can be handled in keeping with the regulations. It seems redundant to talk about the electronic aspect.