Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate on Bill C-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions, gives me the chance I have long sought to make a clear statement in the House of Commons as to the principles that underlie my long-standing views on cannabis legalization.
I have favoured the legalization of marijuana since I first sought elected office. My views on the subject were first expressed at a policy conference in 2001 and were published in Policy Options the same year, but I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than in abstract terms.
Here today, I can express my underlying belief. I believe today, as I did when I first published on the subject 18 years ago, that it is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the said use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any person other than the user himself or herself. When no person is victimized other than the person who is engaged in the act, then it is a moral evil for the state to penalize the person who engages in that act.
This principle would apply even if it were the case that none of the following were true.
The principle would apply even if it were not true, for example, that some people suffer from trauma that causes them to make impulsive choices, especially with regard to mood-altering substances. When these individuals are penalized, the law in effect singles out for punishment those who have suffered the abusive behaviour of parents or partners, or the trauma of war, or fetal alcohol syndrome, or simple brain trauma.
The principle that victimless acts should never be punishable would apply even if it were not true that some people are endowed from birth with genes such as the NRXN3 gene, which in 2011 was identified as being associated with a greater likelihood of becoming addicted, in which case the law is singling out for prosecution those who have lost the genetic lottery.
The principle would apply even if it were not true that those who have greater influence and power are far less likely to be prosecuted than an average Canadian who has committed the same offence. A case that makes this point is that of the Prime Minister's brother, Michel Trudeau, who escaped prosecution for marijuana possession 21 years ago because of the intervention of his father, who at the time was himself a former prime minister.
Here is how our current Prime Minister put this in a speech two years ago. He reported that back in 1998, his father, Pierre Trudeau:
...reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away,…
We were able to do that because we had resources, my dad had a couple of connections, and we were confident that my little brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life.
The principle that no one should be punished for a victimless act would be true even if it were not the case that disadvantaged Canadians, who are statistically more likely than their fellow citizens to be caught and prosecuted and saddled with a criminal record, are far likelier to be members of social or racial groups that appear to be marginalized in other ways too. Two widely cited statistics in this regard are from Halifax, where black people have historically been five times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession; and Regina, where indigenous persons have been nine times more likely than white people to be arrested for this offence. This would appear to be the very definition of systemic racism, regardless of the proximate cause for each individual arrest.
Of course, the foregoing examples of inequity really do exist, and therefore the provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of small quantities of marijuana, which happily is now repealed, was wrong at all of these levels too.
If the underlying offence ought never to have been an offence in the first place—which is not merely what I feel but what has already been decided by Parliament when it enacted the Cannabis Act a year ago—then it stands to reason that the retention of any long-term penalty, such as a criminal record for the formerly unlawful activity, must be wrong for exactly the same reasons. That is true whether it is a charter-protected right that we are talking about or whether it is merely the practical impact on some groups that have been discriminated against in the application of the law. It is true even when that is not the issue, but simply the case that a law was fundamentally wrong.
To be clear, the retention of criminal records for persons who used marijuana when it was a criminal offence represents an ongoing injustice that ought to be remedied.
Quite frankly, a provision expunging the records of persons found guilty of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis ought to have been included in the Cannabis Act. Why it was not, particularly given the heartfelt civil libertarian sentiment that must have been the motivation for the Prime Minister to share the story about his father and brother, remains a mystery to me.
I note that in other jurisdictions that have legalized the non-therapeutic use of cannabis, such as California and Vermont, provisions expunging the records of those convicted under the repealed statutes are a part of the repeal legislation itself. It is now too late for Canada to make a perfect copy of this enlightened example, but it is not too late for us to correct the oversight. Bill C-415 is an effective and well-designed instrument for achieving an end to this lingering injustice.
About 500,000 Canadians, which is somewhere between 1% and 2% of our adult population, have criminal records for the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. The bill would expunge their records.
An expungement is not quite the same thing as a pardon or record suspension. It differs in a number of ways. For one thing, a pardon must be formally requested. Any person can apply for a pardon, but only after waiting for a period of not less than five years, and only upon the payment of a fee of just over $600. Expungement would be immediate and costless.
I am aware that the government recently proposed a measure of its own in an apparent effort to supersede Bill C-415. The government bill, Bill C-93, has a title that tells the entire story of what the government is proposing: an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis. In short, Bill C-93 would remove the five-year waiting period and would eliminate the $600 fee.
As far as it goes, I think this is good, and if the bill comes up for a second reading vote, I will vote for it in principle. However, Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement.
Let me show members how they differ.
As everyone knows, American border control officials reserve the right to ask Canadians who are crossing the border if they have a criminal record for using marijuana. Canadians are regularly turned back at the border if the answer is yes. Everybody should know that if people answer this question untruthfully and lie to an official of the immigration service while on American soil, as people are when at a land crossing, as opposed to the Toronto or Vancouver airport, they can be arrested on the spot.
If records are expunged, but not if pardons are issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they do not have a criminal record for this former offence. This is a meaningful distinction.
I hold no remit for marijuana itself. I never used it unlawfully when it was banned and I have never used it since. I care only about sensible, generous laws and about doing all that we can as lawmakers to make Canada a place where nobody is punished for actions that hurt no one else, and where no person faces long-term penalties for actions that we now think should never have been unlawful in the first place.
I congratulate the sponsor of the bill and I plan to vote in favour of his excellent proposal.
