Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate on Mr. Eglinski's amendment then?

(Amendment negatived)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see no further debate.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We are now on clause 5, Ms. Sahota. Do you want to speak to amendment Liberal-3, please?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We now have NDP-6, standing in the name of Mr. Dubé.

[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.

[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.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. That is not a debatable motion.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8, nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

With that, we are on to PV-2.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Similarly, though, if we ruled NDP-7 inadmissible, so also is PV-2.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Inadmissible in that it's...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It seeks to affect the sentence. It's the same concept.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. Well, it's a good-faith effort to get you to reconsider.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There you go. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.