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.
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you.
Chair, I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague for his motion. I support it. I think it's important for the committee to say and particularly in the context of.... I know through this process I've been hard on the officials. I think it's important to note here that the Parole Board will do the job it can with the tools it has been given, and it just hasn't been given the tools to help the marginalized people who require this process, a better process than what's in the bill.
We heard this throughout committee. I think another thing we heard throughout committee that I believe we can conclude, seeing how this bill is going to be reported back, is that the absolute bare minimum was done for what should have been part of a flagship piece of this government's agenda.
This committee has agreed in the past that record suspensions could be looked at as automatic. It was part of a study we did when we discovered what a mess this whole thing was.
Mr. Eglinski's recommendation, while good, I'm sure he would agree is just one step in resolving this whole mess. I come away from this process very disappointed, like many I'm sure, but will look forward to supporting my colleague's motion.
Conservative
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I would like to suggest that our comments take into account the preliminary steps the department will have to follow if we give it the mandate to implement an electronic system. It will have to assess, among other things, the resources, the equipment, the development costs and the procedures involved.
We all share the desire to modernize services and facilitate work through electronic means. An optimal approach to reach that goal should take into account the necessary elements, costs and procedures that would give the department the means it currently lacks and would enable it to make its electronic services as accessible and efficient as possible.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Thank you, Mr. Picard.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Who is in favour of Mr. Eglinski's recommendation?
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
My comment had a question mark at the end. Does the recommendation as written engage the department to undertake steps to acquire electronic services? I don't have the text in front of me, so I am relying on my memory.
Conservative
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Does the text give you the latitude to evaluate what's needed before going straight to “let's implement something”?
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
My first line, I think, might clarify that to you. It states that the committee recommends that the Parole Board “has a mandate to deliver services quickly, effectively and efficiently”. Then I go into using the technology. It's just mandating them to look beyond where they are to the modern technology that will enable them to do it. That's all we're asking them to do.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If I may clarify, in answer to Mr. Picard, the actual “be it resolved” states that the standing committee “recommends the minister immediately look” at the implementation of electronic systems for record suspensions.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
We will now vote.
(Recommendation agreed to)
Thank you.
Ms. Sahota, it is your turn.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Okay. The recommendation I have is basically in terms of the fees that are required. We heard from a lot of witnesses that although we're waiving the actual cost of the record suspension, there are other fees involved.
My recommendation is that:
After having studied Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, and having studied the Record Suspension Program pursuant to Motion No. 161, the Committee wishes to make the following recommendation to the Government:
That, given witnesses have expressed concerns about additional financial costs in the pardon application process, such as acquiring copies of court and police documents, and given that the Government has recognized the importance of reducing the financial burden of applying for a pardon as evidenced by Bill C-93's proposal to waive the $631 fee, the committee strongly encourages the Department of Public Safety and National Security to study further ways to reduce costs associated with applying for a pardon.
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
We cannot be against virtue, but I just want to say again how discouraging all this is. We have a government that has been in power for four years. We have carried out a study that was entrusted to us through a motion from a Liberal member. Yet here we are today making another recommendation to say the same thing.
Everyone has known this for 10 years, since the amendment was adopted. So it is unfortunate to have to make recommendations to a department when, ultimately, the minister could have taken action and corrected in a broader way than this bill the damage caused by the program. It is the 11th hour, we are three months away from an election campaign, but nothing has been done yet.
I will vote in favour of the recommendation because we cannot be against virtue, but I deplore all these good intentions we are expressing while a minister, who has had four years to make these changes and to have a real impact on people's lives, has done nothing.
Conservative
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes, I have a correction to my recommendation. I said that it encourages the “Department of Public Safety and National Security”. I mixed up the name of the committee with the actual department. It is actually the “Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness”.
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to echo the comments of Mr. Dubé and agree. I think I remember that when we looked at M-161, we made a very similar recommendation to the minister, and the minister agreed that he'd be doing exactly this. I'm wondering whether we actually need that again, because we did talk about it, I know, in M-161, almost word for word. Is he going to act that much faster because we have two recommendations? I don't know.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I think it's good to re-emphasize it because this is a new set of witnesses we've heard from. It doesn't hurt for us to re-recommend it. Obviously it is something we've heard from many witnesses. From Matthew's comments, although he's disappointed, it is the step he wants taken.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Since there are no other comments, we will vote.
(Recommendation agreed to)
Now that both recommendations have been unanimously agreed to, are you okay with putting them in the same document and presenting that document to the House?
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes, but on condition that we do not ask for a government response, as there is not enough time left for that.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
We could ask for one, but the government will not have time to prepare it.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Okay.
My point is just that the two motions will be put together in the same report.