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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate on Mr. Eglinski's amendment then?
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
At this time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to take that motion and work with the committee to put it in as a part of a recommendation of our report, so that it gives the Parole Board the opportunity to look into and research more modernized techniques.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I have to say, as chair, that this is entirely consistent with the evidence we heard, and I also have to express a frustration. What's the point of these hearings if things don't move forward? We are trying to make the lives of our citizens somewhat easier, and it just doesn't sound right when officials come in and say, “Well, we can't.” It doesn't sound right.
Anyway, that's too much editorial comment from the chair. That's enough.
We are now on amendment NDP-5.
Mr. Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I see no further debate.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We are now on clause 5, Ms. Sahota. Do you want to speak to amendment Liberal-3, please?
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
This amendment is that Bill C-93 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 3 on page 3 with the following:
pended, without taking into account any offence referred to in Schedule 3, if the Board is satisfied that
Basically, the purpose of this amendment is so that, for those with criminal offences who are seeking a pardon for their other criminal offences—I'm not talking about cannabis—and have a cannabis possession on their record, that cannabis possession is not taken into account as “bad conduct”. That basically would go against the purpose of our saying that cannabis is now legalized and trying to remove those simple cannabis possessions to begin with.
It would be very harmful for that to be taken into account when individuals are dealing with their other convictions and are trying to seek pardons for those other convictions. They've met the time and they're paying the fees—all of those things—but then there is this cannabis possession charge from maybe a few years back. That is then considered to be bad conduct and they can't even get those other convictions pardoned because of it.
That's my justification for this.
Liberal
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
This is similar to amendment NDP-3. It is another amendment that seeks to make it so that individuals who have other items on their criminal records can still obtain the record suspension for simple possession of cannabis. Again, regardless of whatever other offences they may have, it just seems strange that we would have a double standard, where for some people it's okay now because marijuana has been legalized but for others it's not.
Again, this is just trying to remove that double standard that exists, especially for individuals who might have other offences that are also relatively minor. Those individuals in particular are some of the most penalized by the approach put forward in this legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I see no further debate on NDP-6.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now have NDP-7.
The suggestion here is that it is beyond the scope of the bill as it seeks to affect sentences, which is not a concept that is in the bill.
Does anybody want to challenge the chair? It seems to be fashionable these days.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
It's nothing personal, Chair, but I will because I think the sentences are directly related to the process of applying for your record suspension. I think that if you're talking about offering an expedited process—as the bill purports to, both in its title and its summary—it has been made clear by members on all sides, and by witnesses, that a barrier to the quickness of that process and the ability to do it is any outstanding sentence.
The amendment seeks to set aside “any sentence that was imposed for that offence that, on the day on which the order is made, has not expired according to law”. Again, it's just removing some of these barriers that exist.
Without it being anything personal, I will challenge the chair on that and ask for a recorded vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. That is not a debatable motion.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8, nays 1)
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This will be very straightforward to present, because the rationale matches the one I presented on—
Liberal
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. Well, it's a good-faith effort to get you to reconsider.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Given your standing, which you have reminded us of in many instances, you probably don't have the standing to challenge the chair.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I can't challenge the chair, withdraw my own amendment, or do much else but show up when I have to, based on the motion you passed.
Green