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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It probably has to be at each instance, I would think, but I will defer to the clerk.
4:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
In this case, you could add it afterwards. We could deal with whatever is left over from Mr. Dubé's amendment. If we're dealing with paragraph 7(b) and Mr. Dubé would like to deal with paragraph 7(a), we could deal with it, but conceptually it would make sense to address the issues at the same time.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, so we can deal with it conceptually, but I'd prefer to deal with it sequentially as and when we arrive at the affected amendment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I agree with you, Mr. McKay.
I want to hear from our experts because we have three amendments that deal with paragraph 7(b): the amendment proposed by Ms. May; the amendment proposed by the Liberals, who are suggesting a rewording of the provision; and the amendment proposed by Mr. Dubé, which includes paragraph 7(a). I don't have the text in hand, but it can significantly affect the process. It's just a matter of seeing whether we want to proceed step by step and then come back to Mr. Dubé's amendment or proceed with a comprehensive approach.
Is that the question, Mr. Dubé?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
What's on the table right now is the subamendment to Ms. May's amendment. Let's restrict the debate to that for the time being.
Mr. Dubé, do you not like that idea?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
The reason I raised it was not to debate my amendment. It was just to illustrate the questions I have about this new wording that has been presented and is on the floor currently.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Conceptually, I understand. From a point of order, though, we go subamendment to amendment. If we move this, those in favour of the subamendment—
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
That's my point. Before we get to voting on it I have questions about the subamendment that have remained unanswered.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
In other words, I was asking about the removal of the words “Schedule 3”. What difference does that make? Ms. May and I...that's why I referred to my bill. I'll just say PV-3, before the subamendment, referred to schedule 3, and now we're referring to....
I'm going through the bill and the subsection. Is that just cleaning it up, or does that have a real consequence on which offences are covered?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's a legitimate point.
First of all, let me just see whether the officials have any opinions on the consequences of moving the subamendment now to amend PV-3.
4:35 p.m.
Director, Corrections and Criminal Justice Unit, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The subamendment has the effect of essentially ensuring that record suspensions that have been granted cannot be revoked where the concept of good conduct is applied, but it applies exclusively to convictions for cannabis possession.
The original amendment in PV-3 was broader in scope and could have resulted in partial revocation, where an individual could, again, have the prohibition on the revocation, if you will, applied to the cannabis but still have other offences revoked.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
As I understand, the concern here is that if you pass this now, there will be further amendments of some consequence throughout. Do the officials have any concerns about that?
The second question is the best way to proceed.
Let me have the clerk speak to this now, and then we'll see whether we resolve this.
4:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Procedurally speaking, right now we are dealing with the subamendment, and we can only deal with one subamendment at a time. We could deal with the subamendment and if Mr. Dubé wants, he could either move another subamendment after we've dealt with this one to further amend it and bring it in line with NDP-9, or we can proceed with NDP-9.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I don't mind dealing with my amendments in the order they'll be presented. Again, Chair, I apologize. My intention is not to get us out of order. I'm just trying to understand the concept.
We're talking about proposed subsection (1.1), which refers to proposed subsection 4(3.1). When you go back to that section, I think that's the one that says “offence referred to in Schedule 3”, if I'm following the bill correctly.
With your permission, Chair, I want to clarify the answer that was provided and understand. When we're saying other records would be partially suspended...I apologize. I'm not quite following what the consequence of the original wording was by referring broadly to schedule 3, as Ms. May did in her original wording.
4:40 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
Sure, I can respond to that.
As the motion is drafted without the subamendment, it would mean it would be a little difficult to implement, given that the Criminal Records Act and the PBC operations hinge on actions with the entire record of conviction. The challenge would be that if the amendment stood, the subamendment would narrow it to an impact only of convictions for simple possession of cannabis.
We wouldn't end up in the situation whereby, subject to good conduct, there would be a revocation and let's say there was another offence in addition to the simple possession of cannabis offence, two different actions would be taking place on the record of conviction. On the one hand, there would be no impact, and on the other hand, there would be.
It would be a challenge for us because we wouldn't be dealing with the criminal record as a whole in that instance. However, narrowed to criminal records that would only have convictions for simple possession of cannabis, then that would be consistent with the framework of the Criminal Records Act in dealing with the whole record.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Just to make sure I understand, this would mean, in other words, to filter out individuals who have records for other offences?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Corrections and Criminal Justice Unit, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Okay.
Chair, if I may note just for the record, as part of the debate, that clarification is important, because, again, it goes against the spirit that I want the bill to have, which is—again, previous amendments I've presented have sought this—to have individuals who have other offences able to access this process. I don't want to speak for Ms. May, but I imagine that her intentions might have been similar with regard to the way that our amendments have been drafted. That's an important distinction for me, so the clarification has been helpful.