Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2019

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

I would leave it to the officials to answer the question. My understanding is that it doesn't waive the fine, and that's because it's held by the provinces. It does mean that you're allowed to get the record suspension even though you have not paid the fine. As to how that works—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, are you on the same point or a different point?

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

It's probably the same take on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Then let's get what the members think first, and then we'll hear what the officials think.

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

I'm just looking for clarity.

The way the act is read is...and the legislative clerk has already said we have to keep the scope of these amendments along with the intention in the bill. If that's the case, then those individuals who are applying for this don't qualify because they have administrative charges on there.

If I'm hearing you correctly, are you trying to ensure that administrative charges don't preclude someone from applying for a record suspension for a marijuana minor possession?

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

I'm just talking about the fines. If their sentence was that they had a fine to pay and they have not yet paid it, they can still apply for a record suspension. It's the fine that was given specifically—

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

You mean the fine for simple possession, not for any administrative charges.

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

This is just for simple possession of cannabis.

I want to clarify. When I mentioned the provinces, the issue is that in Quebec and New Brunswick the system is that the fines are actually paid through the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see Mr. Eglinski wants to weigh in here. It's not as if I'm ignoring the officials, but I want to do it all at once.

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Following through with the fines, if they can put their application in to have their record removed, then why would they ever intend to pay the fine? Have we consulted with the provinces on that?

If I can put the application in, did your program or your amendment have a process in there to follow back on the provinces? We're going to have a whole bunch of people owing money in provinces who don't have records.

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

First, yes.

I think we should get to the officials to explain all the details of how it works. However, the idea is that we don't stop them from being able to get their record suspension because of the outstanding fine.

[Lyndon Murdock, Director, Corrections and Criminal Justice Unit, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Yes, the effect of clause 3, as was mentioned, is that it removes the fact of an outstanding fine as a barrier to applying for a record suspension. You're quite correct that in the two jurisdictions we did consult—Quebec and New Brunswick—they administered the fine collection for those jurisdictions. The federal Public Prosecution Service administers fine collection for all the other jurisdictions.

With respect to your question, sir, about what the incentive is for individuals to pay their fines. It is civilly enforceable. Admittedly, in the two jurisdictions, Quebec and New Brunswick, where they administer the fine collection, those areas probably have more compelling levers to incentivize the payment of fines, for example, up to and including withdrawing a driver's licence. There are not as many levers at the federal level, other than the fact that a fine still remains on your record and is outstanding.

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

I want to make sure. I don't think my question was entirely addressed. My question is this: For any organization doing a background check, where normally a record that has been suspended would no longer appear—which is the purpose of providing the record suspension in the first place—would that background check then turn up unpaid fines for what are now schedule 3 offences?

[Ari Slatkoff, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Department of Justice]

No, the effect of the record suspension is still that it is only with respect to the payment of fines that persist. The other effects of the record suspension are valid and will exist for individuals. It would not turn up.

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

Then how come it's listed in the same enumeration, under the same qualifiers as the proposed subparagraph 2.3(b)(v) in the amendment, which is section 36.1 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act? The other sections, as I said, some of these.... Again, I thought this was a similar provision to what was initially brought in when it was changed to record suspension and we were providing for certain offences still appearing under certain texts.

[Ari Slatkoff]

This amendment to proposed paragraph 2.3(b) enumerates the very limited number of situations in which certain obligations or disqualifications persist. The general effect of the record suspension, that it be kept separate from other criminal records, applies in all situations. These are very narrow exceptions, things such as the firearms prohibitions and driving prohibitions that are referred to in the first part of the provision, and the same for the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The only intention here is to preserve the civil enforcement of the fine.

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

I'm just confused. You're saying that those are disqualifying or they remain, and proposed subparagraph 2.3(b)(iv) in the amendment specifically refers to “in respect of any fine or victim surcharge imposed for any offence referred to in Schedule 3”. I'm not clear how those other ones can remain on the books, and then that one will not appear anywhere, even if the fine's unpaid.

[Ari Slatkoff]

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. The intention of this amendment is simply to preserve the enforceability of the fine civilly. There's no other effect of the conviction.

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

With the indulgence of the chair, just to be clear, in the amendment, in proposed paragraph 2.3(b), five exceptions have been listed. Is that correct?

[Ari Slatkoff]

Yes.

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

What's the effect of those exceptions?

[Ari Slatkoff]

I just need a moment to attend to your question, please.

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

Sure.

[Ari Slatkoff]

Thank you.

I can confirm that section 734.5, which is referred to in proposed subparagraph 2.3(b)(iv) in the amendment, is the ability to recover a fine civilly. Section 734.6 is the ability to refuse a permit or licence. Those are two abilities that a federal or provincial government would have. Those are effects of the conviction that will persist.

Section 145.1 is the civil enforcement under the National Defence Act. Those are the only effects of the conviction that would persist.

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

Those fines would not appear anywhere that would otherwise undo the effect of receiving the record suspension in the first place.