Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2019

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We'll now look at Mr. Dubé's NDP-10 amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair

NDP-10 seeks to achieve—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

I want to tell my colleague that, unfortunately, the chair considers the amendment inadmissible. However, he can still provide an explanation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The chair has changed, but the outcome may be the same.

NDP-10 seeks to go with expungement, simply put. I refer those listening to us to my exchange with the minister and his complete inability to explain the double standard that exists between Bill C-66 and this legislation. Racialized Canadians, indigenous people, lower-income Canadians have all been unfairly targeted by the law in this case. This is what we are seeking to right here. The only way we can truly do that is with expungement.

The minister and other officials did refer to the need for documentation at the border and such. I would refer colleagues to Bill C-66, the section on destruction and removal. In section 21 is states “For greater certainty, sections 17 to 20 do not apply to documents submitted or produced in respect of an application under this Act.” In other words, as the several calls that we made to the Parole Board confirmed, if people lose the confirmation that their record was expunged, they can request a new confirmation. So the minister's argument is complete bunk that you need this magic document at the border.

I believe, from the witness testimony, that this is the right way to go. I understand that the chair has ruled, so I would, with all the respect that I have for him, challenge the chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Dubé.

The ruling was made, and I'm sustaining it.

Since the request has been made, the recorded division will concern whether to sustain the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 1)

(Clause 6)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

We'll move on to clause 6 and look at the CPC-3 amendment.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The intent of CPC-3 is that clause 6 be amended by deleting proposed paragraph (b) which strips the Parole Board of the power to cause inquiries to be made to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of conviction.

The following two amendments were suggested. Both CPC-3 and CPC-4 were suggested by the Canadian Police Association, which believes the Parole Board should retain some limited authority and discretion to make inquiries to ensure that some consideration is given to the small number of applications that will be made by people who are repeat or habitual offenders, and to ensure they don't take advantage of a process that is clearly not meant for their specific cases.

As we were told by the association president, we know of situations where applications may be made by offenders where a simple possession charge was given by the courts and it was arrived at as a result of a plea bargain. Once the Parole Board would be able to drill down into those cases and have the authority to do so, the agreement by the Crown and the courts could form a more serious charge. They may have accepted those on the assumption that a conviction would be a permanent record of the offence that was made, and a lesser plea wouldn't have been accepted otherwise.

It's just an amendment to allow that to occur.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Is this a matter for discussion?

Do you want a recorded vote?

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

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

We'll move on to the CPC-4 amendment.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

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

Similar to CPC-3, this deals more directly with the Parole Board's discretion as to whether granting a record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I believe that the bulk of applicants who would apply for this are upstanding citizens, and they'll have no issues in being approved by the board.

That being said, we should still let the Parole Board do its work. If the government doesn't believe that the Parole Board has work to do, then this government should have introduced expungement of records as opposed to record suspensions.

That's the rationale behind CPC-4.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We'll proceed with the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

As the alternate chair, since the two motions were mine, I simply want to remind the committee that the Canadian Police Association made these recommendations. As the regular chair said, we must take into account the recommendations of our witnesses and, above all, of people such as members of the Canadian Police Association.

We'll now move on to the LIB-4 amendment.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

This is a consequential amendment, based on the first couple that I have proposed in trying to deal with this fines issue.

It's technical, so I thought it might be best if I ask the officials to describe what it does. These are the technicalities that need to go into place to make it happen.

[Lyndon Murdock]

Sure, I'm happy to.

This amendment to clause 6 modifies Bill C-93 to add proposed subsection 4.2(1.1). This proposed subsection clarifies that the board inquiries related to good conduct and disrepute should not be made where the applicant applies for a record suspension under subsection 4(3.1), that is, where the conviction is simple possession of cannabis only.

The proposed subsection further clarifies that neither simple possession, offences referred to in schedule 3, nor the non-payment of associated fines and victim surcharges, will be considered as part of the board inquiries where there are other convictions on the individual's record.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Is that all?

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

That's all.

These are technical consequential amendments at this point.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

That's fine.

Will there be a discussion or questions?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'm more confused than I was in the beginning, but that's all right.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Okay.

We'll proceed with the vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

We'll move on to the LIB-5 amendment.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

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

The technical changes just keep rolling, with so much fun.

This basically makes sure that the fines can still be applied even after a record suspension has been granted. That was the part we had talked about in regard to Quebec and New Brunswick. They run their fines programs, so this is in order to keep the system cohesive.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

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

I'm curious to know whether the officials were involved in this drafting, or did they review the material prior to submission?