Thank you, Chair.
This amendment would delete lines 26 to 29 on page 2, which concern the onus. It says:
The person referred to in subsection (3.1) has the onus of satisfying the Board that the person has been convicted only of an offence referred to in that subsection.
Again, it is just in keeping with the theme of what we heard through testimony and what we're hearing today, which is unfortunately not getting any kind of support, and that is the fact that these individuals are sometimes far away from the centres where they can acquire fingerprints and background checks, the things that they need to satisfy these requirements. We're talking about individuals who.... If we're talking about a process that's supposed to be a “no cost” one, it's been told to us repeatedly that there actually is a cost associated with it.
A big part of that cost, regardless of what's in this legislation, is due to having to provide all the supporting documents and so on. This is not only tedious but costly as well for individuals who quite frankly will either be taken advantage of by bad actors out there who seek to offer their services, or who quite simply will just not know where to look, regardless of any good intentions the department may have for whatever kind of advertising they have in mind, which is also unclear following the hearings.
Again, if we're going to continue with this non-automatic record suspension process, then I think the very least we could do is to ease the burden a bit with an amendment like this.