Public Safety Committee on Dec. 11th, 2017

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, you have five minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will assure you that I will not take five minutes.

I just have clarification on one question that my colleague Mr. Paul-Hus asked. It's around clause 23. With respect to the preamble and what's talked about in clause 25 regarding the list and the schedule of offences, I know it has been suggested that clause 23, specifically subclause 23(2), might still have some ambiguity on the expansion of offences that might be included at some point down the road with the Governor in Council.

I just need clarification around how you would interpret the current language and whether this is more of a closed offence type of expungement, which is listed here, the family of offences being listed, or is there the possibility with this language that it can be opened up to almost anything that current governments, however they might change, can expunge records on beyond this?

[Angela Connidis]

The intent was not to limit it to this nature of offence, issue, or circumstance. The emphasis is really on the fact that it should be considered a historical injustice, and part of that is considering whether or not that criminal activity or that criminalization of an activity is considered to violate the Canadian charter of human rights, as an example.

The context is really looking at any crime that is now considered to be a historically unjust crime, and whether or not we should be providing the option of expungement.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you. That does open us up to some potential overreaching government power at some point down the road, as opposed to what the intent here is with Bill C-66. I just want to make that statement.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Spengemann, you wanted to ask a final question.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I think Mr. Ruimy has one as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, go ahead, Dan. Again, welcome to the committee.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming in today.

I just have one question, and I'm hoping it doesn't apply here, but in a lot of cases, seniors who have been forced to go into seniors' homes, for instance, have been forced back into the closet, because they have a fear of being outed where they are. If they choose to go ahead and get this, is it public in any way if they don't choose to make it public?

Is there a public record of this?

[Talal Dakalbab]

No. There was a decision made to make sure that the decisions are not accessible in a decision registry or through any other process, obviously, except for the applicant or whoever the applicant assigns to work with him or her. This is going to be pretty confidential if the person wishes.

Obviously, we will be informing our colleagues, and notifications will be sent out, but that's it. The public cannot request a copy of the Parole Board of Canada's decisions.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Sven.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

To close out my exchange with Mr. Dakalbab, very briefly, because time ran out on us, is it your sense that this application process is structured in such a way that an applicant would not have to retain outside counsel to be successful in the application? Is it user-friendly enough and simple enough that there's no cost that's going to come in by having to retain a lawyer to prove status or prove eligibility?

[Talal Dakalbab]

Obviously, this is our intention. Experience says that sometimes people will still seek support, whether for a simple part of the application or other reasons, but that will be their decision. We will have, as I mentioned, staff available by phone and online to provide them with all the services so that they don't need to do that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We still have a bit of time for any other questions.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I had one last area where I know that some concerns had been raised, in particular, by historians—I'm a recovering historian and political scientist—about the destruction of records. The act to me seems to say that judicial records will be destroyed, not all records. Some historians are concerned that the record of government activities in hunting down gays and lesbians and making sure they were fired, or campaigns by the police—we had some recent ones that have taken place even in Toronto—would be destroyed.

My understanding, from a reading of the law, is that it's simply the judicial records, and not all records of the activity. I just wonder if we could have some clarity on that.

[Kathy Thompson]

I think the RCMP probably can respond to that.

[C/Supt Serge Côté]

Yes. Thank you. I can obviously speak to that.

We were talking earlier about best practices. To make a comparison, this process, this legislation, is very similar to what we are currently doing with respect to record suspension of pardons. The difference is that under a records suspension decision by the Parole Board of Canada, we sequester the information, and in doing so, federal agencies and police partners are directed that we will communicate with them with the view of sequestering the information they have that would make reference to that charge, to that conviction, whether it's on a local records management system or whatnot. As part of the RCMP, in my duty in terms of being responsible for the national repository of criminal records and fingerprints, my role will be to ensure that this information is deleted from our databases, from the national repository as well as from RCMP databases.

It is the judicial record, but it's also information relating to that record that we're going to direct federal agencies to work on.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

But it isn't necessarily all the records that dealt with arrests around these kinds of issues.

[C/Supt Serge Côté]

If we are looking at the pardon or record suspension regime, it is the information in relation to.... If it was going to be disclosed in a way where it makes reference to that record suspension, or in this case the expunged decision, then that record would be deleted as well.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

There's just a concern from some who want to preserve the history of what happened. Most of the individuals I talk to are quite happy to have everything destroyed. There is a kind of tension between those two views in the community.

I would just go back to Ms. Connidis for one last clarification, if I could.

You said that it would take legislative change to remove things from the schedule. Would that include things that were subsequently added to the schedule? If cabinet, by order in council, can add, say, the bawdy house offences, what is the process...? How secure is that once they're added?

[Angela Connidis]

Thank you for the question.

The legislation was drafted to allow an addition and not to allow a removal. It can't be removed in the same way it can be added.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I just wanted to be absolutely clear on that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

I believe Mr. Paul-Hus has a brief question.