Bill C-66 (Historical)

Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts

This enactment creates a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of the judicial records of those convictions from federal repositories and systems. It gives the Parole Board of Canada jurisdiction to order or refuse to order expungement of a conviction. The enactment deems a person who is convicted of an offence for which expungement is ordered never to have been convicted of that offence. The enactment provides that an application for an expungement order may be made in respect of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex persons related to the offences of gross indecency, buggery and anal intercourse. The enactment provides that the Governor in Council may add certain offences to the schedule and establish criteria that must be satisfied for expungement of a conviction to be ordered. The enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts.

Citizenship Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I am sure my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou will be pleased to be able to speak.

Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-8. Although part of my speech will focus on the substance of the bill, I would also like to talk a little bit about how the bill was introduced and debated, both during this Parliament and the previous one.

To begin, I will give a bit of not so ancient history about the government's desire to modify the oath of citizenship. This is not the first time that this bill has come before the House.

The changes to the citizenship oath, as set out in Bill C-8, were first introduced in Bill C-99 during the previous Parliament, the 42nd Parliament. That bill was introduced on May 28, 2019, shortly before the House closed down. Since Parliament was not set to come back until after the October 2019 election, it was reasonable to expect the bill to die on the Order Paper, which is exactly what happened.

Subsequently, a second version was introduced as Bill C-6 in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Since the bill was being tabled at the start of the session this time, there was hope that it would not die on the Order Paper. As the ways of the House of Commons and the government are as impenetrable as prorogation is apparently inevitable, Bill C-6 died a premature death.

However, Bill C-6 did get one hour of debate. To ensure that it did not die in vain, I will provide a summary of the key points of said debate.

First, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that in preparing the bill, his department had consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, an organization that represents indigenous parties in Canada that are signatories to the 24 modern treaties. These consultations had begun in 2016.

Second, to justify the fact that the wording of the oath in the bill was different from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, the minister said that the parties consulted did not agree on wording. The department therefore chose to go with wording that better reflected the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

Lastly, the minister clearly stated the intent of the bill, saying:

The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, our goal is to ensure that new Canadians recognize indigenous peoples' significant contributions to Canada. The government is also reaffirming its commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples.

Based on how the bill has been managed over time, I do not think the government is in much of a rush to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples began in 2016, so it is a little surprising that the government did not introduce the first version of this bill for first reading until May 2019 and that it chose to do so at the end of the Parliament.

Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report was tabled in June 2015, little has been done so far. Just 10 of the 94 calls to action have been implemented. It makes us wonder how willing the government is to take action on this matter. To ensure that the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report is not just a cosmetic exercise, we must remember that even though every call to action is necessary, each individual call is not enough if it is implemented on its own.

If this is not due to a lack of haste and willingness on the government's part, we at least have to question the government's efficiency. For instance, why not graft the amendment of the oath of allegiance onto Bill C-5 regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, the bill we just debated and passed at second reading earlier today?

Why did the government not propose amending the oath of allegiance in the 42nd Parliament, as part of Bill C-6, which also amended the Citizenship Act?

If a separate bill is required to implement each of the remaining calls to action, then we have a long way to go. We have every right to ask ourselves the following question: By addressing each call to action through a separate piece of legislation, in addition to rehashing them, is that also the government's way of trying to cover up the fact that its legislative agenda is pretty meagre, to say the least?

In short, either the government is not being very convincing when it says that first nations issues are a priority, or it is being not terribly effective or deliberately ineffective in order to hide another defect, that is, its legislative laziness.

That concludes the editorial part of my speech, and I will now turn to the substance of the bill.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc plans to vote in favour of the bill. The Bloc Québécois has already made it very clear that we want to be an ally to first nations. In that regard, it is only natural that we support the implementation of one of the recommendations from the report of Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

As I already mentioned, even though each individual call is not enough when implemented on its own, every call to action is necessary, and I intend to vote in favour of a bill to implement this one.

Amending the oath of citizenship to include a promise to recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples is a step in the right direction toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples. First nations peoples are absolutely right to ask for a reference to indigenous rights in the oath.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports a nation-to-nation approach. That is the approach that Quebec will take when it declares independence. Indigenous peoples will be equal founding peoples with us when we create the new country of Quebec.

In the meantime, we hope that this new version of the oath will raise newcomers' awareness of the reality of first nations and their history, but also their new country's shameful treatment of first nations in the past. This is an opportunity to open a dialogue between newcomers and first nations. They will be able to speak to each other as equal citizens so newcomers can learn more about not only the history of first nations, but also their contribution to society.

To prevent history from repeating itself, as it sometimes tends to do, we hope this knowledge of the past will better prepare us for the future.

I personally hope the government will ramp up its reconciliation efforts. If it does, it can count on the Bloc Québécois' steadfast support.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Well, as I said, Monsieur Dubé, we have had an enormous volume of work to get through, as has this committee, as has Parliament, generally. The work program has advanced as rapidly as we could make it. It takes time and effort to put it all together. I'm glad we're at this stage, and I hope the parliamentary machinery will work well enough this week that we can get it across the finish line.

It has been a very significant agenda, when you consider there has been Bill C-7, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-37, Bill C-46, Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-59, Bill C-97, Bill C-83, Bill C-93 and Bill C-98. It's a big agenda and we have to get it all through the same relatively small parliamentary funnel.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I think, Ms. Dabrusin, it's simply a product of the large flow of public safety business and activity that we have had to deal with. I added it up a couple of days ago. We have asked this Parliament to address at least 13 major pieces of legislation, which has kept this committee, as well as your counterparts in the Senate, particularly busy.

As you will know from my previous answers, I have wanted to get on with this legislation. It's part of the matrix that is absolutely required to complete the picture. It's here now. It's a pretty simple and straightforward piece of legislation. I don't think it involves any legal intricacies that make it too complex.

If we had had a slot on the public policy agenda earlier, we would have used it, but when I look at the list of what we've had to bring forward—13 major pieces of legislation—it is one that I hope is going to get to the finish line, but along the way, it was giving way to things like Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-83, Bill C-59 and Bill C-93. There's a lot to do.

Criminal Records Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, there were many witnesses who said the same thing, but I take the words of Solomon Friedman, who said that “better than nothing” is a mighty low bar for our Parliament, and that is what I believe.

The fact of the matter is that in my speech and throughout the study in committee, it was made clear that many barriers remain. In particular, the process that has been put in place will not be accessible to those who need it the most. We just need to look at Bill C-66, which had laudable objectives that we supported, with regard to the historical injustice committed to the LGBTQ community. Only seven people applied out of the 9,000-odd who could have.

New Democrats have asked these questions of officials and the minister in committee, with no one able to answer us in any kind of substantive or real way. What cause would any member of this House have to believe that it would be any different?

Quite frankly, and I say this with all due respect to those who were so wronged, I do not expect any more uptake on this particular measure than there was then. In some cases I expect even less, for a variety of the reasons I enumerated with respect to the barriers that still exist for many vulnerable Canadians.

I will say in closing—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are paraphrasing what was said. They obviously did not use the words “we can't”, but they made it clear that it was too much work for them and that they did not feel as though they had the capacity to do it. In spite of that, in response to one of my amendments, they said that there were privacy concerns. However, the Parole Board of Canada benefits from Privacy Act exemptions that apply specifically to this type of case. It is important to recognize that, if the political will had been there, this could have been accomplished.

The best example is that of San Francisco. After cannabis was legalized in California, a process similar to the one being offered by our government was proposed. As members can imagine, as in the case of Bill C-66, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, very few people benefited from this process, particularly because it mainly impacts people in vulnerable situations.

What did they do in San Francisco? They decided to invest in artificial intelligence, a sector in which our governments like to invest, allowing them to sort through records, identify those who are eligible and develop an automatic process for expunging their records.

If a municipal government like that of San Francisco can be innovative, I do not see why the federal government of a G7 country cannot do the same.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again speak to Bill C-93. This bill has a number of flaws and perfectly illustrates why Canadians' trust in the Liberals has been broken. On the eve of the election, the government is settling for half measures that are not even guaranteed to pass.

As the parliamentary secretary said, we oppose this bill. We are not here to give the Liberal government a free pass for measures that very few people will be able to access. For example, I will talk about Bill C-66, which established an expedited procedure for expunging criminal records of LGBTQ community members sentenced for behaviour that is no longer deemed criminal. This objective is commendable and we support it, but an automatic process would have been preferable.

We can look at the numbers for the sake of comparison. When Bill C-93 was in committee, we learned that of the approximately 9,000 people who were eligible for the procedure established under Bill C-66, only seven had applied. In committee, we asked government officials for an explanation, but naturally, they were unable to respond. I would certainly be able to provide some, just as the experts did in committee. I will come back to that.

Meanwhile, the government said that it would advertise through non-traditional means. Is it talking about tweets, Facebook posts or pretty hashtags? I have a hard time believing that these ads will be seen by the right people, who are often in precarious situations. We are talking about vulnerable Canadians, racialized people, indigenous peoples and low-income Canadians. Factually and statistically, these people are the most likely to have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana.

This is easy to prove. Here in the House, the Prime Minister publicly stated that he had once smoked marijuana recreationally, as did other politicians. There is nothing wrong with that. Black people in Toronto, however, cannot get away with it that easily. They are the most likely to have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. This is a serious problem and is one of the reasons we oppose this bill. It is clear that the people who need this process the most are the same ones who will not benefit from it.

I would like to talk a little bit about the study in committee in order to explain why the NDP does not support this bill. First, a criminal lawyer told us that this was the least Parliament could do and that it was better than nothing but that parliamentarians have a duty to do much better than that. I could not agree more.

The NDP's commitment to Parliament involves doing our best to help those who need it most. We do not want to settle for taking a tiny step in the right direction. The lawyer I mentioned, Solomon Friedman, also raised several problems with the record suspension system. Those problems are not an issue in the NDP's approach of expunging criminal records. He mentioned two factors.

The first is good conduct. Those who apply for a criminal record suspension, whether under the process proposed by Bill C-93 or the usual process, must demonstrate that they are being good citizens. For the average Canadian, that means refraining from robbing a bank or murdering someone, for instance, as farfetched as that may sound.

Actually, Mr. Freidman explained that it could include getting a speeding ticket or causing a minor accident with another vehicle by turning onto a one-way street and the police is called in. These actions would be considered bad behaviour. Fortunately, the leader of the Green Party and member for Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced an amendment to fix the problem. We introduced a similar amendment that went even further. I will come back to that in a moment.

The government's amendment appears quite good, but if the government acknowledges this flaw and the distinction between record suspension and expungement, why did it not simply agree to expunge the records from the outset? That was what my colleague from Victoria's bill called for. Incidentally, some Liberal and Conservative members supported it.

There are other differences between the two approaches, but I want to come back to the amendment. The Liberals moved a sub-amendment to the proposed amendment, which then lost an important element that was found in one of my amendments, which was rejected. Simple possession of a reasonable quantity of cannabis, just like its consumption for recreational, medical or other purposes, is now permitted under the law following the passage of Bill C-45 earlier in this Parliament. An individual who obtains a record suspension for simple possession of cannabis could subsequently commit another crime for all sorts of reasons. I am not excusing the crime or stating whether it would be justified. This is a hypothetical situation.

Under Bill C-93, if an individual with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana has his criminal record suspended and subsequently commits a crime, no matter how minor or insignificant it may be, the record is reinstated. That makes no sense. I do not understand that. If the member for Sherbrooke, the member for Saskatoon West, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, or even I, or anyone else, were in possession of cannabis, that would not be considered unlawful under the act.

An individual can get a record suspension through a government-approved process because the offence they committed is no longer an offence. That individual might go on to commit a crime, perhaps due to being marginalized, as the vast majority of people burdened with the injustice of a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis are. This bill is an attempt to repair that injustice. The individual might be struggling with very difficult circumstances. We do not know all those circumstances.

The government says it wants to help these people, but its new system is flawed. If these people trip up at any point in the future, their criminal record will be reinstated and they will no longer benefit from the Liberals' system.

If their records were expunged, as the NDP and all the committee witnesses except for the minister suggested, the records would no longer exist. No matter what future difficulties people might encounter, that record would be gone for good.

I also want to speak about other vulnerable individuals whom this bill does not help. I want to speak about the issues raised by the Native Women's Association of Canada, which came to committee and said that one of the groups that would benefit the least from this legislation is indigenous women, because of all the barriers that would still exist despite this process.

Earlier, I asked the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston about the fact that, by not making the process automatic and calling it “no-cost”, the government is misleading Canadians who may want to benefit from this process. Why is that? As every witness said in committee, there are sometimes enormous costs associated with obtaining the necessary documents to apply in the first place, especially for the individuals who seek to benefit from this process.

The application no longer has a cost, but people have to pay to get their fingerprints, pay to go to the court to find their old records, if they even still exist, which is something I will come back to in a moment, and they have to pay for any other documents they might need. The costs could be hundreds of dollars, and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If people live far away from an urban centre, in a region that is already underserved and where vulnerable Canadians, indigenous people and others are already victims of a system that is fixed against them in many ways, they are even more disadvantaged by those barriers that would remain in place despite this legislation. That is unacceptable.

What could have been done? We proposed an amendment that was unfortunately ruled beyond the scope of the bill, which is interesting. I challenged the chair and the Liberals voted with the chair, which is not surprising, but the explanation that was provided by the law clerk in committee was interesting, when he argued why the amendments were beyond the scope of the bill. He said that all the bill seeks to do is take the existing record suspension process, which everyone agrees is fundamentally unequal, and make it a bit easier in some aspects.

However, by making it automatic, we would get rid of those barriers. It was pointed out to us by the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Native Women's Association and others that many of these individuals do not even think they have criminal records anymore because they paid their fines, which is considered time served, and have moved on to other things. They do not even know.

Anyone in this room who has dealt with government, and certainly we have, in our offices, by the very nature of our work, knows that if it is hard enough for those of us within government to deal with the government apparatus and to have the proper knowledge, then certainly it is true for the most vulnerable Canadians.

Even the idea of making the system automatic was a compromise. We initially wanted criminal records to be expunged, but we said we could live with record suspensions. We were not happy, but we wanted the government to at least make the process automatic. It refused. It will not even accept a compromise.

I said earlier that I would come back to the issue of documentation and poor records management in Canada. It is madness. Ask the police about the Canadian police database. Ask about a crime being committed in Ontario and having to search for records in Alberta, Quebec or elsewhere. It is crazy to see how poorly managed these records are. One of the things that needs to be done is a digital upgrade.

The Conservatives proposed an amendment that all committee members supported. If a person could no longer locate documents because they had been destroyed or lost, they could sign a sworn statement explaining the lack of documentation. The Parole Board of Canada would be able to accept this sworn statement, this letter or declaration, so that the person could move forward with the process.

Everyone was happy. It was a step in the right direction. When the bill came back to the House at report stage, the amendment was quashed. The government turned it into an option the board could choose to make available in very specific cases. The amendment might as well not have been adopted, because it will not help anyone.

That brings me to my next point, which is about the most shameful and frustrating part of the whole process. I have been an MP for eight years. I have great respect for the public service and for public servants who work very hard with very little in the way of resources, despite what the general public might think. What I saw during the committee's study of this bill was unbelievable.

When we asked the minister why this process could not be made automatic and why the records could not be expunged, he flat out said that it was too much work. I swear that is what he said, and I invite my colleagues to read his testimony. We heard the same thing from the representatives of the parole board and during clause-by-clause consideration. When I proposed amendments to make things easier for the people this bill is meant to help, the Liberals asked officials to provide a reason for rejecting my amendments. What did they say? They said that they did not have the capacity, that they did not know how they would do that and that it would be too much work.

The government says that better is always possible. It introduced a bill to help people in our society who are caught in a tough situation, but it refuses to accept a better approach, one supported by everyone who testified at committee. It seems it is too much work for the parole board. According to police, civil society and every expert in the legal community, the parole board has been mismanaging records for far too long. It is far from being the best system. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is unacceptable.

It is even more shameful given that the committee conducted a study. When the minister was appointed, he came in with great fanfare, much like the rest of the government. He said that the government was going to address all of the injustices created by the previous government and all of the injustices in society. To hear him talk, this was going to be the best government in the history of the universe. According to him, there was no need to worry.

Four years later, what is happening? It costs about $650 for a person to have their criminal record suspended. I do not have the exact number in front of me. There are some disadvantages to giving a speech without any notes. People are being asked to pay about $650 to apply for a record suspension. That measure was put in place by the previous government. Some of the wording has been changed. Now, we talk about record suspensions instead of pardons. As the former Conservative government would have said, a criminal can never be pardoned. The minister said that there was a major injustice in the system and that he was going to fix it.

What happened then? Following in the footsteps of several other members, a Liberal member who, I have to believe, had good intentions, hopped on the bandwagon and ordered a committee study. Most people will have only one opportunity in their entire life to introduce a motion or bill in the House. The member called for a study of criminal record suspensions.

I think he could have asked the committee to conduct the study. It would have gladly done it, but let us put that aside. The member's intentions were good. The member for Saint John—Rothesay appeared before the committee and said that an automatic process should be considered for minor crimes, such as simple possession of cannabis.

We did the work and produced a report. The committee presented its report to the House. The government said it would look at it. Incidentally, Public Safety Canada had already commissioned an Ekos survey that found that three-quarters of Canadians supported simplifying the process for applying for a criminal record suspension, because it would allow individuals to reintegrate into society and get a job. Indeed, 95% of people who are granted a pardon or record suspension do not reoffend.

What did the government do? If I were sitting down, I would fall out of my chair. The government presented the same recommendation that had already been made, which would have been a footnote to our study of the bill, based on what the minister said.

It really fuels cynicism when a government says it will do one thing when it comes to power, but then does not do it. One of the government's own members orders a study. The government says it will do it, and then it does not. Then, a month before the House of Commons' last sitting before the election, the same Liberal members say in committee that we did not really have enough time to do the study and that perhaps it should have been done or will be done with the next government.

This is why we oppose Bill C-93. In the justice system and the public safety system, people were far too often penalized for the colour of their skin or the place they lived. We truly want to help these people. We do not want half measures that fuel cynicism.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was fully supportive of Bill C-66 and the expungement. Being an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, I look at people and who they are. This is something I look at differently. When comparing cannabis to a person's sexual diversity, I find the issues to be very different.

That being said, we need to make sure that we are actually focusing on people charged with simple possession. The thing is, I am concerned that we can come to an administrative barrier. Part of it is that I know the drug dealers on the street. I know there is a big issue happening here.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is actually nice to see the spirit of the House as we are trying to move forward collectively in a way that is going to help those people who have been convicted for small possession of marijuana, especially the most marginalized persons.

We hear in Regina that indigenous people are nine times more likely than non-indigenous people to be charged with small possession of marijuana or carry a charge of small possession. Clearly, that is a fundamental wrong.

If we look at historical wrongs, homosexuality was illegal until 1969. There were charges laid until 1969. It took us 49 years to pass Bill C-66 to expunge the convictions of those who were charged under what was clearly a historical wrong in our society. We do not want to wait another 49 years to fix this historical wrong. We can fix it right now, and record suspension is just not enough. It is going to be a long, onerous and expensive process.

I call on my colleague to support us in calling for expungement. I know she has talked about some of the rationale behind it, but this is just a much easier way. Let us not wait to fix this historical wrong, because we know that it clearly is one.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my friend and friend colleague is retiring, I would like to thank him for his service. We have done some work together at the all-party climate caucus, and I appreciate his involvement there.

With respect to the legislation, we have heard the arguments about record suspension and we have talked about expungement. The MP for Victoria put forward a bill on expungement, which was defeated by the government. It just does not make sense to us that everyday Canadians can go ahead now and legally use marijuana recreationally, while their neighbour, who may have been convicted for using marijuana, still holds a criminal record. Now people are being asked to go through a long process in asking for a record suspension, which is very costly. Records could be expunged. We have done this in the past with historical wrongs, such as with Bill C-66.

Does the member agree that we should go to full expungement, save a ton of money and move on so people, especially those who are vulnerable, do not have to go through this process?

I have 10 first nations communities in my riding. Many of these people are facing huge challenges when it comes to transportation. For them, applying for a record suspension is very unlikely, because of the costs associated with getting to where there is broadband or an office to do that important work.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were discussing Bill C-93, the act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis, just to frame my comments.

The practical effects on pardons and expungements are virtually identical. It is important for our constituents to know that pardoned records are sealed and segregated and they can only be reopened under extraordinary circumstances, such as committing a new criminal offence. The effect of the pardon is protected by Canada's Human Rights Act, so it is not something that can be used in the terms that he mentioned of getting rental agreements signed. A record is available when it needs to be available.

Expungement did not exist until Bill C-66 last year and really it was only intended to be allowed for criminal records of offences that can constitute historic injustices.

The separation here for our constituents to understand is that a pardon maintains a record when we need it. Could the member maybe comment on the difference between pardons and expungements?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about the lack of planning that there seems to have been at the Parole Board. It is interesting, because we saw in committee, from both the minister and the officials, an acknowledgement that they did not want to do more because it would be too much work. Therefore, when the member talks about the numbers not anticipating an increase in requests for record suspensions, it is true.

If we look at Bill C-66, which had an application-based process for expungement for the historical injustice done to LGBTQ Canadians, that process has only been taken advantage of by seven people. Therefore, how are we to believe that the most marginalized Canadians, those whom the bill purports to help, are going to be able to acquire the documents they need and go through the other parts of the process?

At the end of the day, the government might be waiving the fee and saying that it is great and it is expedited, but ultimately these are individuals who get taken advantage of by bad actors who are out there offering bad advice for thousands of dollars, saying they are consultants and things of that nature.

The whole system is backwards and broken, not to mention the fact that we believe expungement would have been the best course of action, as did all the witnesses at committee. Does my colleague not agree that had the Liberals made it automatic, that would have gone at least some way in making this whole process work better, even if it required just a little more effort from these individuals at the Parole Board and the minister himself?

Motions in Amendment

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin today by quoting Solomon Friedman, a defence attorney who appeared before the committee.

I think that this quote clearly states what we think of this bill.

I should first note that Bill C-93 is better than nothing. But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament. You can do better. You must do better. Instead, I would urge a scheme of expungement along the lines already provided for in the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act.

I would add here that that was a bill presented by the government. He went on to say that the record of these convictions for the simple possession of cannabis “should be expunged permanently and automatically”.

I also want to read a quote from Elana Finestone, from the Native Women's Association of Canada:

Unfortunately, the effects of the bill will go unrealized for many indigenous women with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. Simply put, the bill remains inaccessible for indigenous women who are poor and have administration of justice issues associated with their simple possession of cannabis conviction.

I must repeat what I said in my questions earlier. I have never seen such a sorry, pathetic attempt. I have all the respect in the world for our public servants, and they told the committee that it was too much work for them. They said that there were no systems in place that would allow them to expunge criminal records for simple possession, as parliamentarians wanted. This is unacceptable, and this is a far cry from the Liberals' claims of “better is always possible”. As members can see in the quotes I read out, that certainly does not apply to this bill.

Furthermore, when the minister appeared in committee, he was unable to answer my very simple questions. The Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretary who just spoke, the Minister of Public Safety and the associate minister in charge of border security have all acknowledged, on different occasions, the impact that pre-legalization laws had on indigenous peoples, racialized persons, the poor and all marginalized Canadians. They all acknowledged this.

What the Liberals did with Bill C-66, which provided for the expungement of the criminal records of LGBTQ people, was a good, commendable thing. It was what a fair and just society should do. The Liberals expunged those criminal records.

Why did they not do the same thing in this case? I asked the minister that question. Unbelievably, he responded that Bill C-66 had to do with violating rights that were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Excuse me, but that is quite an arbitrary criterion. I asked all of the witnesses who appeared in committee whether the law included the concept of injustice specifically with respect to a violation of our rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They all told me that it did not.

Not only did they say no, but Kent Roach specifically recognized that the minister's standard for defining historical injustice is nothing but a fabrication of the government, an arbitrary measuring stick that it put in place with Bill C-66, and now suddenly it does not want to follow through with Bill C-93 for these marginalized Canadians who, in a different way, have been victims of their own historical injustice.

I could not put it better than Cannabis Amnesty put it at committee when it quoted a Supreme Court decision that recognized that a law can be found to have been discriminatory even if the law itself is not discriminatory, but its application has been discriminatory. It is hard to find better examples in the history of our country than the war on drugs and the criminalization of simple possession of cannabis.

The minister, being unable to respond to those questions, led a parade of witnesses at committee who all agreed with the sentiment expressed in the quotes I shared with the House, that this bill is nothing more than an 11th hour attempt to check off a box and really does very little.

Putting the onus on marginalized Canadians is never going to lead to the kind of justice this bill purports to want to attain. Why? We just need to look at Bill C-66 and the expungement of the criminal records of LGBTQ Canadians. Seven out of the 9,000 some-odd Canadians who could have applied have applied. There are seven out of 9,000, and change. What would be different this time? We asked the officials and they were unable to provide us with an answer, except to say they are going to come up with creative ad campaigns using social media and things like that. It is unbelievable to think that we are going to reach the most marginalized in our society by coming up with fancy hashtags and buzzwords on social media. It is simply mind-boggling.

My speaking time at report stage is limited. I have just 10 minutes, but I want to talk about the amendments that were adopted.

First, there is the amendment proposed by the Green Party. To be clear, this amendment was proposed by the Green Party and then amended by the Liberals. At first glance, it seems well intentioned. It ensures that record suspensions remain in effect regardless of the good behaviour criteria that usually applies. That is something we support in principle. We support it because a record suspension can be revoked under these criteria, for a speeding ticket for instance. We can all agree that this type of assessment is profoundly unjust.

However, the Green Party's amendment amended by the Liberals omits a very important aspect. This is not just about good behaviour. Under this amendment, a Canadian whose criminal record is suspended under the terms of Bill C-93 and who commits a crime thereafter will have their criminal record suspension annulled and will continue to carry the burden of their criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. They will then be unable to make an application under the terms of Bill C-93.

This means that marginalized Canadians, who belong to the various groups that were just mentioned, could presumably benefit from the process set out in Bill C-93, but not if they commit a crime thereafter. Clearly, we are not pardoning the crime that has been committed, whether it is proven in court or not. However, we know that all sorts of factors could come into play, such as mental health, housing and the discrimination that exists in our legal system and our criminal justice system. This means that, whenever another crime is committed, the activity previously engaged in that is now considered legal remains illegal. That is utterly absurd and illogical. I have a very hard time understanding how a government that says it wants to help these people can go in that direction.

I could not believe what the member for Toronto—Danforth said at committee. I felt like I was in the last Parliament, with Vic Toews as Minister of Public Safety. At committee, I said that Canadians who obtain a record suspension for simple possession of cannabis should be allowed to keep that record suspension even if they have committed other crimes, because simple possession of cannabis is now legal. To paraphrase her quite accurately, she said that the NDP was trying to make it easier for murderers to obtain record suspensions. I invite Canadians to look at the transcript.

That is the kind of rhetoric that led to a change in government in 2015. We have a member of Parliament from downtown Toronto employing the same rhetoric as Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the previous Parliament. That is unreal. All we are trying to do is to ensure that the most marginalized Canadians with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis do not continue to be criminalized because they get caught up in the continuing discrimination they have to live with from our criminal justice system.

I want to raise one last point because I have only a minute left. I want to talk about the administration of justice.

Representatives of various indigenous organizations talked to us about indigenous individuals who had a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and who did not show up in court because the court was too far from where they live or because of any number of other factors one can think of that would interfere with getting to court. The representatives told us that these people, who get a record suspension—even though the NDP would have preferred an automatic expungement—these people cannot get a record suspension, much less an expungement, because they did not appear in court on charges of simple possession of cannabis, which is no longer a crime.

In conclusion, this government said it wanted to make things better, but it is a long way from delivering justice to the most marginalized members of our society.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for eight years and I have never been angrier studying a bill. Let me explain why.

The Liberal government did the bare minimum because Parole Board of Canada officials balked at the idea of doing more work, claiming their files were unreliable and not up-to-date, and the Board had yet to adopt 21st century technology. That is a sorry way to support marginalized people.

I have a question for my colleague and I thank him for his speech. He acknowledges that people were disproportionately targeted by laws that existed before cannabis was legalized.

In Bill C-66, the Liberals expunged the criminal records LGBTQ people received in the past in our country. Why not do the same here? Why create an arbitrary standard instead of doing right by everyone who was discriminated against?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The chair has changed, but the outcome may be the same.

NDP-10 seeks to go with expungement, simply put. I refer those listening to us to my exchange with the minister and his complete inability to explain the double standard that exists between Bill C-66 and this legislation. Racialized Canadians, indigenous people, lower-income Canadians have all been unfairly targeted by the law in this case. This is what we are seeking to right here. The only way we can truly do that is with expungement.

The minister and other officials did refer to the need for documentation at the border and such. I would refer colleagues to Bill C-66, the section on destruction and removal. In section 21 is states “For greater certainty, sections 17 to 20 do not apply to documents submitted or produced in respect of an application under this Act.” In other words, as the several calls that we made to the Parole Board confirmed, if people lose the confirmation that their record was expunged, they can request a new confirmation. So the minister's argument is complete bunk that you need this magic document at the border.

I believe, from the witness testimony, that this is the right way to go. I understand that the chair has ruled, so I would, with all the respect that I have for him, challenge the chair.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will take your comments to heart and continue in the same vein the committee of the whole has proceeded to this point.

I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks, followed by some questions.

I am very proud today to take the floor to share with Canadians some of our government's accomplishments in recognizing, promoting and protecting the equality rights of LGBTQ2 communities.

From the beginning of our government's mandate, we have demonstrated our commitment to diversity and inclusion in the hope that all Canadians can participate fully in Canadian society and be recognized as deserving of the same respect, deference and consideration. This commitment equally extends to members of the LGBTQ2 community.

Canadians expect their government to respect their human rights and to promote these rights. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs once stated in this very chamber, LGBTQ2 rights are human rights, and human rights have no borders. It is a commitment our government takes very seriously abroad and here at home.

ln budget 2017, the Government of Canada set aside $3.6 million over three years for the creation of the LGBTQ2 Secretariat within the Privy Council Office. The secretariat works with LGBTQ2 stakeholders across the country. This important work keeps our government informed about the challenging situations affecting LGBTQ2 Canadians and the potential solutions.

The secretariat also supports the integration of LGBTQ2 considerations in the day-to-day work of the federal government across all ministries. These efforts really help the government ensure that federal policies, programs and laws related to gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation are all within the same spirit and the same view to equality, inclusion and diversity.

ln November 2016, I was honoured to be appointed the Prime Minister's special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues. My role is to advise the Prime Minister on how to develop and coordinate the Government of Canada's LGBTQ2 policies and laws. This includes informing cabinet, parliamentarians and committees and engaging with LGBTQ2 organizations from across the country and around the world to promote equality, and listening to LGBTQ2 people and communities and identifying solutions to improve their lives.

In addition to the excellent work of the LGBTQ2 Secretariat, all ministries of our government have a responsibility to improve the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians, and that includes the Department of Justice.

Early in our government's mandate, we also introduced and passed Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. This bill conferred greater protection on members of LGBTQ2 communities who experience discrimination and even violence because of their gender identity or expression. Bill C-16 added gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This law promotes the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, without being hindered by discriminatory practices.

Bill C-16 has also expanded hate crime offences in the Criminal Code to protect groups that are targeted because of their gender identity or gender expression.

Unfortunately, in Canada, transgender people are at high risk of verbal or physical violence and sexual harassment. Given this high degree of violence or threatened violence, it is only fair that our criminal law specifically denounce violence committed against a person as a result of the person's gender identity or expression.

The Prime Minister's apology to LGBTQ2 communities was another significant milestone in recognizing LGBTQ2 communities and protecting them as equal members of Canadian society. On November 28, 2017, the Prime Minister delivered a formal apology in this very House to individuals harmed by federal legislation, policies and practices that led to the oppression of and discrimination against two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Canada.

The Prime Minister apologized specifically for the shameful LGBT purge, the historical unjust treatment of LGBTQ2 federal public servants, including those in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This discriminatory treatment resulted in the loss of livelihoods, dignity and even lives.

There was a time in this country when people could be charged, prosecuted and criminally convicted simply because of their sexual orientation. To address this grave injustice, this government introduced Bill C-66. Now records of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners of legal age can be destroyed.

We are hopeful that this change will provide some relief to the many LGBTQ2 Canadians for whom the pain, trauma and fear have been all too real for all too long a time. Such discrimination has no place in Canada today. With Bill C-66, we took responsibility for recognizing and rectifying this historic injustice.

Since the government is taking measures to rectify historic discrimination based on unfair laws and policies, it is taking steps to remove from the Criminal Code an anachronistic offence that was used to target consensual sexual activities between gay men.

Under section 159 of the Criminal Code, unmarried persons can consent to engage in anal intercourse at age 18. The age of consent for any other form of non-exploitative sexual activity is 16 years old. Section 159 makes an exception for consensual anal intercourse between married spouses if they are of the opposite sex, but not if they are of the same sex. This is discriminatory policy, and several appellate courts have found that this provision violates the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the charter. Repealing section 159, as Bill C-75 proposes to do, will prevent the laying of charges against people who engage in non-exploitative, consensual anal intercourse.

The Attorney General of Canada recently issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories.

Presently, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is undertaking a study that deals with the issue of HIV criminalization. The committee has heard from numerous witnesses about the negative impacts, not just on people's lives but on the public health system, of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. I look forward to the continued work of the justice committee and to its report, and I look forward to the government's responding in a robust way to this very serious issue.

Returning to the directive, I note it is based on current scientific evidence regarding the sexual transmission of HIV and applicable criminal laws, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mabior case. The directive recognizes that the non-disclosure of HIV is, first and foremost, a public health issue. It is also important to note that public health authorities have many tools at their disposal to ensure that people do not engage in reckless behaviour. Those tools would not require that such a provision be in the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of Canada also issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories. It is important that we work with the provinces. Right now, Ontario and British Columbia have policies and directives, but there are several territories in Canada that do not have such a directive. The directive is based on current scientific evidence regarding sexual transmission of HIV and the applicable criminal law.

Today I have touched on only a few of the many actions our government has taken to advance the full recognition, protection and participation of our LGBTQ2 communities. Our government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to promoting an inclusive society that works for all Canadians.

Before I get to questions, it is important to note that when we open up committee to civil society organizations and hear witnesses from coast to coast to coast, we let people who are not within 15 minutes or even two hours of Ottawa know that this government is their government. We let them know that the House and our parliamentary committees are designed to understand the issues that matter to them. It is important that we continue to open our committees to a diversity of voices, such as indigenous voices, the voices of depressed and marginalized people, and the voices of the LGBTQ2 community.

The health committee is right now wrapping up a study that was unanimously accepted by all members, about the health indicators of LGBTQ2 people. Our health indicators for this group are only slightly above those for indigenous people.

We have a lot of work to do in this chamber. We have a lot of work to do in advancing legislation and a lot of work to do to make lives better for all Canadians.

Now I have a few questions for the minister.

Could the minister share with us why it is important for us to continue our work on the prosecutorial policy directive as it pertains to the prosecution of HIV disclosure?

Criminal Records Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with the journalists who have to fact check one of Donald Trump's speeches. They must dread finding that the fact checking is longer than the speech. I felt a bit like that when I was listening to the member for Winnipeg North. The 10-minute question period was not even long enough to correct the facts. If the member had listened to the testimony from the minister and departmental officials in committee, he would have seen just how problematic his comments were.

Bill C-93 arrived at the eleventh hour of this Parliament. Record suspension for simple cannabis possession should have been included in the government's legalization bill. It is crucial to make some distinctions here. I heard a number of members on both sides of the House, myself included, use the word “pardon”, but there is an important distinction to be made.

First, the debate on this bill includes a lot of talk about Canadians being able to cross the border. In the United States, being granted a pardon has a different connotation. Any lawyer will tell you that. In the United states, that is something only the executive branch can do. Giving an individual a presidential pardon, for example, means eliminating their criminal record and giving them a full pardon. In Canada, however, the individual continues to have a criminal record. I will come back to that.

Several years ago, when the Conservative government decided to call this a criminal record suspension, it had a very clear intention, namely to remind those concerned that they had not been pardoned and that the government had only done them the favour of suspending their criminal record. It is often the vulnerable who end up in a precarious situation. They generally try to get a pardon, which is now being called a record suspension, in order to get a job, rent an apartment or do volunteer work. Statistics show that 95% are not recidivists. Calling this a pardon did not pose any problems, since the program itself required these people to demonstrate good behaviour for a number of years before they were able to submit an application.

This change might appear insignificant or semantic to some people who, like us, are in a position of privilege. However, a study done by the Department of Public Safety has acknowledged that these changes are needed. The minister himself said several years ago that this would be rectified in the course of a much-needed reform of the record suspension program, and yet it still has not been done. Unfortunately, with the election just a few months away, we do not expect this to get done, which is really too bad.

This is part of the broader debate we have already had on several occasions. Let us deal specifically with record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Several things came to light during the debate and in committee. First of all, suspending the criminal record does not make it disappear, and this has a number of repercussions. For instance, on job applications, candidates are sometimes asked whether they have ever had a criminal record for which they were granted a suspension.

At committee, like a good politician with several decades of experience, the minister was very careful to specify that the act prohibits employers from discriminating against candidates who have been granted suspensions. Fortunately, departmental officials were there, and they interrupted to clarify that there is nothing in the act to stop employers from asking the question. In fact, the act even specifies that candidates must answer honestly.

I do not know what my colleagues think, but anyone who thinks people will feel protected just because the law prohibits discrimination and that candidates for all kinds of positions and in all spheres of life have never experienced discrimination must be dreaming.

The people in this situation who would try to get a job are the very same people who would then struggle to get legal aid to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or even to launch more of a legal complaint. Anyone who says this is insignificant is completely ignoring the reality of those people.

Who are those people? They are racialized, indigenous and young Canadians, Canadians who are in a particular situation that makes it even more difficult for them under normal circumstances, much less with a criminal record in their file, one for which they cannot get proper recourse or remediation through expungement just by having a record suspension.

Let me provide some examples. When we look at cities like Toronto and Halifax, black Canadians are disproportionately more likely to have a criminal record for nothing but simple possession of cannabis. In cities like Regina, indigenous people are 10 times more likely than white Canadians to have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis.

The Minister of Border Security, under the different portfolios he has managed since he has come to this House, said in 2016 that one of the great injustices in the country was that these Canadians were disproportionately impacted by records for simple possession of cannabis. That is interesting. Why? When Bill C-66 was adopted in this place, which sought to remediate the grave injustice LGBTQ Canadians were subjected to because of the criminalization of their lives due to their sexual orientation, the government rightly pointed out that it was a historic injustice.

The problem now, and this is not to pit communities against each other, is that the Minister of Public Safety is using Bill C-66 as an arbitrary, legally non-existent crutch to identify that there is somehow a ceiling for what needs to exist to expunge criminal records, which is a grave injustice.

With regard to this grave historic injustice, I asked the Prime Minister himself questions about it in the House. He said that, yes, it was disappointing and distressing to see this, and that it was obviously unfair, but he refused to call it an injustice.

When I questioned the minister in committee, he went out of his way to avoid using the word, even though another minister had used it back then, and he said that society's grave injustices should depend on what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines as a violation.

This minister was wrong, because, as distinguished lawyer Kent Roach has said, the Charter should be the minimum, not the maximum, in terms of our sense of justice. Citing rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada, Annamaria Enenajor, the director of the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, told the committee that a law can be discriminatory in its application without being discriminatory on its face.

In other words, if a law starts out with good intentions but leads to a discriminatory outcome, it can still be considered a discriminatory law, and if a law or application of a law is discriminatory, that means an injustice has been committed.

That is why we want criminal records to be expunged and not just suspended. The minister seems to be insisting on this point, but he cannot say why. He keeps referring to Bill C-66.

Can we, as Canadians, say that while a grave, historic injustice was done to the LGBTQ community, we cannot say the same thing about the application of the law regarding the possession of a drug that is now legal, namely, cannabis? This was an injustice largely done to vulnerable communities. I find that really troubling.

On that note, Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer who was at our committee last week, said that this law is not a bad thing, and it is good that we are putting in place mechanisms for these Canadians to more easily receive pardons. In the words of many witnesses and experts, it is the absolute bare minimum. As Mr. Friedman said in committee, certainly we can do better than the absolute bare minimum, especially for indigenous, racialized and other Canadians who are in vulnerable situations.

It is not just a distinction between expungement and record suspension. It is also an issue of whether it is automatic. This legislation would still make Canadians jump through the crazy hoops that exist to obtain a record suspension. The government thinks it has solved that because it would be free of charge and there would be no wait times. However, the reality is different.

When the public safety committee, which I am the vice-chair of, did a study on how we can reform the record suspension program and fix all the issues it has, one of the things that came up time and time again, which all parties agreed on, was the fact the most exorbitant part of the process and the costs imposed on these Canadians is not the cost to apply, which is what the government would be waiving. It is the fact that people have to go to a municipal court and a provincial court. They have to get their fingerprint records. They have to go to the police station. Two Conservative members who are former police officers validated all this information. They said that it is indeed extremely labourious for these Canadians to obtain all those things.

As officials confirmed at committee, indeed it would not be a cost-free process, no matter what members in this House on the government side attempt to tell us.

The costs associated with this process must therefore be assumed by individuals who often do not have the means and are actually applying for the suspension to be able to get a job. Bill C-93 currently before the House maintains certain mechanisms that prevent people from getting their criminal records suspended. It is not true that anyone who has a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis just has to fill out a form for that to happen. That does not just magically happen. This will not be the case for people who, for example, have administration of justice offences on their records. We are not talking about murderers. We are talking about people who might have an outstanding $50 fine, which would make them ineligible. Departmental officials confirmed that such individuals would not be eligible for the process being offered by the government.

I would like the government to explain why an indigenous person who has a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and who was unable to go to court because he lives in a remote area cannot get the government to suspend his record because of an unpaid $50 fine. The government says that it cares about the interests of all communities. I do not understand how that is in the interests of people who are simply looking to sort out the criminal record they have for something that is now legal and ensure it is no longer a burden that prevents them from renting an apartment, getting a job or volunteering.

I am also talking about travelling across the border. I almost fell off my chair when I heard what the minister said in committee. He got two bills passed in his name that increase the amount of information we share with the United States. He said that he was sorry, but that the Americans had been keeping a lot of information about us for far too long, and so we could not really control what they do at the border. In passing, I am astounded that the minister recognizes that this is a problem, but yet, every time we raise this issue in debate, he tells us it is not a big deal and we should not worry because the United States is our ally.

There is, however, good reason to worry. I said at the outset that the Americans do not make the same distinction as we do between a pardon and a record suspension. The minister tried to give the most ridiculous excuse that I think I have ever heard in my eight years as an MP. He said that one of the reasons why it was better for people to have their record suspended was because a suspension leaves a paper trail, which would give them the documentary proof they needed at the border.

I see two problems with that.

After I asked the question, the department's staff confirmed that with the passage of Bill C-66, which would expunge records, those affected will actually receive written confirmation. It's a miracle.

Second, no one can tell me that, in a G7 country, we are unable to implement a mechanism to provide confirmation that a record has been expunged. As some might say, my word, I do not understand how a government can look at something with such a narrow lens when it was elected by stating that it wanted to take a broader view. That is just crazy. It boggles my mind.

In the same vein, that was the one reason that was given, even though witnesses then came and said that a record suspension will not make it any easier to cross the border. A person would still have to jump through all the hoops that the Americans will impose, if they even choose to let the person in at all, which, at the end of the day, as the minister said, remains at their discretion. An expungement means that Canadians do not have to lie at the border, which is obviously the more egregious offence. However, the priority here is what is happening domestically. It is about these folks being able to get jobs, rent apartments, volunteer and do all the things that sometimes a criminal record can prevent them from doing.

I want to go back to the notion of the administrative burden. The minister is talking about jumping through hoops, saying that it is about paperwork, this, that and the other thing. I asked the minister why it could not be made automatic, and he told me, basically, that it would be too much work. I am paraphrasing, and I am sure he would disagree with my characterization of this, but every other stakeholder I spoke to shared this characterization of what he said.

Apparently, the federal government believes, and it told us, that it would take 10 years to expunge 250,000 records. Well, when we look at the Phoenix debacle, maybe it is right. Maybe the government finally recognized its own ineptitude in managing these files. However, it is absurd to think that somehow the government is going to put the burden on vulnerable Canadians and make them do this process on their own, which many will not even be aware of, will not have the money to pay for and will not even know where to go for. The government could make it automatic, but, sorry, the Parole Board of Canada might have too much work to do, God forbid. As far as I am concerned, that is completely unacceptable when we look at the individuals who are affected by this particular issue.

Certainly, we understand that government databases are no treat to navigate, but there has to be a way that the government can somehow dream a little more, as the Liberals promised they would when they got elected, and somehow find a way to deal with 250,000 records.

With Bill C-66, of the 9,000 LGBTQ Canadians who were criminalized by the Criminal Code, seven have applied so far through that process. Does the government expect me to believe that because officials came to committee and told us not to worry and that they are going to have a non-traditional marketing campaign using social media and other things, the government will make sure that these Canadians know that this process exists? It is laughable. Quite frankly, it is pathetic.

It should have been part of the process from the beginning.

I want to qualify that. The previous speaker tried to explain the NDP's position in terms of decriminalization. It was to prevent these records from piling up that we wanted to move forward on decriminalization before legalization. It was also because we understand that we have to address this as a public health issue and not a public safety issue.

It is exactly because of our core values that we are saying that the right approach is to expunge these records and not to offer a process that is fundamentally problematic.

I will conclude by saying that we had criminal defence lawyers in committee confirm to us that a record suspension, whether given through a process like Bill C-93 or the normal process outside of a special piece of legislation, is always conditional on continued good behaviour.

What does that mean? That is not about someone who is going to go out and commit a horrific crime. That means that the Parole Board of Canada can decide that because someone got caught speeding, going 130 kilometres per hour on a highway, this could be considered. Those things have happened.

I believe this bill is a clear reflection of the Liberal government that has been in power for four years. It is a useless exercise that lets them claim to be progressive when, in reality, they are quite the opposite.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Just for the record, and in defence of Mr. Rankin who's not here to defend his bill, I will say that our position, and his, is that it should be automatic, but there's some consternation as to whether royal recommendation is required. If there's a certain amount of cost, we'll definitely see what the rulings are in this committee when we present similar amendments to this legislation. I do want that to be clear. Certainly the expungement that's proposed in the bill is definitely a vast improvement, so we'll see, as Mr. Cooper said, how the vote goes in the next few minutes.

Mr. Friedman, thank you for being here. I appreciate it.

I did want to ask about the statistics, the 10,000 out of 250,000 and then the seven out of 9,000 or whatever it is for Bill C-66. Obviously, based on your comments, I think there might be a safe assumption—if there's such a thing to make here. I'm just wondering, do you think the 240,000 others who won't apply would likely not be applying because they fall into some category of marginalization or because of the different exemptions that exist relating to, for example, unpaid fines in the legislation?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Right. In terms of the application process to the Parole Board, you talked about it being quite onerous. We saw, with Bill C-66, passed by the government, a process where someone could get an expungement but they would have to apply. I think approximately 9,000 or 10,000 Canadians were thought to be eligible. I think at last count it's something like seven or eight people who've bothered to apply or have been able to get through all of the paperwork. We're looking at about 250,000 people who might be eligible, and the estimate is that 10,000 might apply. Isn't even that, perhaps, a little optimistic?

[Annamaria Enenajor]

Potentially, but Bill C-66 is actually a little bit more complex than what I'm proposing, because the offences listed in Bill C-66 were not only used to prosecute consensual homosexual activities, they were also used to prosecute non-consensual homosexual activities. So with Bill C-66, in your application, you have to either find information that would demonstrate that it was a consensual act, or swear an affidavit to that effect, so it's actually a lot more homework with Bill C-66.

Maybe there's a mirror to what the analyst was asking me before, where you're not sure what the nature of the underlying offence may be and whether it qualifies for what the objective you're trying to accomplish is. In those cases, you may actually have to go back to not just the court documents, to find those, but you may have to order the court transcript. Because oftentimes, even the court documents won't say the nature of the substance. You have to get the evidence.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Even if it wasn't automatic, would a model like what was proposed in Bill C-66 be feasible? We talked about the language being used there, the historical injustice language being applied, but ultimately the Bill C-66 model could very easily have been—or still be—applied in this case, potentially, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're done your five minutes.

My ever-vigilant clerk has corrected me. Bill C-66 did come before this committee. The benefit of getting old is that everything seems fresh again.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have five minutes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

There was reference to Bill C-66 coming before this committee. I don't think it actually came before this committee. It was some other committee, but it wasn't this one, I'm pretty sure. It was probably justice.

Mr. Eglinski, you have five minutes.

[Annamaria Enenajor]

I do not. I make reference to that in my written submission, but I can respond right now.

Essentially, what Minister Goodale was trying to say was that pardons are more beneficial for government crossings to the United States, because a successful applicant will have documented proof of a pardon while an expungement does not. This would only be the case where the government creates a regime that results in that objective.

This question was raised in this committee when the government was studying Bill C-66, which was a bill to create expungement for historically unjust sentences. When the CEO of the Parole Board, Talal Dakalbab, testified before this committee, he was asked this very same question.

Talal Dakalbab testified that those who receive an expungement pursuant to Bill C-66 could carry with them the Parole Board of Canada's expungement decision. This is a quote from that testimony:

This document shows that their offence has been expunged or that they have obtained a pardon or a record suspension. This is usually how this information can be removed from the systems of other countries.

There is a mechanism—if the government constructs the legislation in that way—to provide a document that is equally as useful in the process of an expungement but that is not in a criminal record database. With something, for example, like a birth certificate, there is meaning and weight to its significance, but it's not in a police database; it doesn't prevent you from getting a job.

Where it can be created, as Minister Goodale mentioned in the case of a suspension, it can also be created in the case of an expungement, and that was suggested by the CEO of the Parole Board when testifying about Bill C-66.

[Annamaria Enenajor]

The definition of equality under the charter is a definition that has been developed through case law, and it's a term of art. When you say “equality”, you don't mean formal equality, you mean substantive equality, and that has a meaning. It has content.

Historical injustice is not a legal term of art. You could use it to describe anything that you deem to be a historical injustice, but I think what Minister Goodale was doing in his testimony was being very careful, because the government in essence has created it to be a term of art because of the way that it has structured Bill C-66. I think Bill C-66 was designed to address it with the term “historical injustice”. There was a schedule, and on that schedule they put offences they deemed to be historical injustices. In order for them to have an argument to exclude certain offences from that schedule, they would have to define them as something other than historical injustices.

So I think it's a term of art that's artificially constructed, but you can define historical injustice in any way that you choose to.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

I just want to back up a little to the question about historical injustice, because this seems to have been the grounds on which the government is distinguishing between the injustices committed on the members of the LGBTQ community through Bill C-66, the individuals who would be affected by this legislation, and who have been affected by criminal records for simple possession.

The numbers you've cited in your brief, that I've cited and that many have cited about the disproportionate impact, are essentially government numbers, if I can phrase it that way. Is that correct?

[Angela Connidis]

As I said, I wouldn't associate Bill C-66 with being unsuccessful. I think the outreach was there. We have no data to show that it's because people didn't know about it. It's their free choice to apply.

With respect to cannabis and the pardon for simple possession of cannabis, the outreach strategy is quite different because we know we have a broader range of clientele. It's not a specific group per se, like the LGBTQ2 community. There are many people in marginalized communities. There are youth, which is one reason for using social media. We're changing the way the application process is, to simplify it with online access, etc.

Perhaps Brigitte or Ian would like to contribute.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Yes. There seems to be some thought within the department that you're providing some of the thinking behind why Bill C-66 might not have been successful. Have you looked at how it might play out differently this time and how to accommodate that?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

In any of the thinking that's gone on around this legislation—and I say this with all due respect and I recognize the importance of that issue—even though there are issues with the rollout, which is to say issues with Bill C-66, and naturally, there's a difference of age and things of that nature.... You've referred to individuals who might have passed away.

I'm just wondering. If we're looking at this particular issue we might have younger Canadians who might be more inclined to want to have some kind of clemency, whether through expungement or record suspension. Has any thought gone into some of the reconfiguration that might be required, given the difference in clientele—if you'll forgive my use of that phrase—in this particular instance, of Canadians who might see a need for this longer term because they're not just reawakening an older issue? They might be in their thirties, let's say, and have difficulties getting a job, for example.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

In response to an earlier question, we were talking about how to get the word out that this service would be available. What went wrong with Bill C-66? That was seven out of 9,000 people.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm just trying to square what the minister said. He used an example where, at the border, an individual who had an expunged record would not have proof, but I'm understanding otherwise now. Would there not be confirmation if the legislation were similar to Bill C-66? In other words, would there be confirmation that expungement had taken place?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for sticking with us for this second hour.

For Bill C-66, are confirmations provided to individuals who apply through the process that was created in that legislation, confirmations that their records have been expunged?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It seems clear, Minister, that we disagree on this.

With the minute and a half I have left, I just want to go to your comments. It almost sounded like the implication was that because you don't know what a schedule II possession offence is, that's why it was better to have the applicants apply rather than doing it automatically. It almost seems like the burden's being put, again, on these individuals.

Just in that context, when you look at Bill C-66, to return to that other issue, seven people out of 9,000 have actually applied. Is there not a recognition on the government's part that it would just be better to make it automatic? It's pretty apparent that Canadians who are already marginalized might not be in a position to take advantage of this, as was the case in San Francisco, where only 23 of 9,400 people took advantage of their opportunity to seek pardons for cannabis possession.

Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Trois-Rivières. He gave a passionate speech, although it did come a little early.

I want to thank my colleague as well, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, for his very passionate and clear support for my initiative. I am grateful to him for the clarity and for demonstrating the very obvious distinction that the government seems to wish to gloss over between what are now called record suspensions or pardons, and the notion of expungement, which, of course, is at the heart of my bill.

As a private member's bill, members would know that I was not able to talk about the automatic expungement, because that would cost money and private members' bills are not allowed to do that. Therefore, I was left with an application process of my own. What troubles me is that the government is trying to conflate expungement and pardon as if there were no difference, and to make an argument, frankly a legally baseless argument, that expungement is somehow to be reserved, as the Liberals have chosen to do with Bill C-66, for activities that violate the charter. First of all, as I pointed out in my speech on Bill C-93 on Monday, going through a number of scholars like Professor Roach, Professor Berger and others, there is absolutely no distinction for that. More importantly, the government itself continues to acknowledge that it has no choice; it is from government records.

However, this law, which has been around since 1922, the prohibition on cannabis, has had a disproportionate impact on indigenous people and black people in particular. The government admits that, yet the Liberals are content to stand here six months after they brought in the law that made cannabis legal, in essentially the dying days of Parliament, to bring forward a half measure that likely will not get on the order book. It is something they can check off, I presume, during the campaign. Whether it gets through the Senate, the House and all of its committees before then, I have my doubts. Nevertheless, they have chosen to do this. This has an impact on real people's lives. The government acknowledges that, but the Liberals are prepared nevertheless to do this application process.

The Liberals pejoratively say that I recommended there be an army of summer students. I did no such thing. There are ways to deal with it. If it costs money and it is inconvenient, let us talk about what it means to that black person in Toronto who cannot get his or her foot on the social ladder and has to perhaps be on social assistance, or that indigenous person who cannot rent an apartment because they have a criminal record. The government will say that the Canadian Human Rights Act has an answer for that, but that is not living in the real world, as far as I can tell. It is disappointing.

With regard to the government's initiative, the welcome that it is waiving the fees and making it faster, I would characterize it as a good first step. However, it is too little and it is certainly too late. It is disappointing that we here on this, and it is disappointing that the government has not done the full measure. I was hoping that my bill could go to committee along with Bill C-93, and people of goodwill could try to find a solution which would involve expungement, and make the changes that even the government admits are necessary. However, this measure simply will not do the job.

Criminal Records Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain at the outset that the NDP will oppose this legislation. Over the next 20 minutes that I have available, I hope to explain why record suspension is not the way to go, and record expungement, which I will describe, is the way to go. Record expungement for simple possession is the basis of my private member's bill, Bill C-415, which will be up for second reading debate in the chamber on Thursday.

I have risen on previous occasions in this place to call Bill C-93 a half-baked measure, and I am still of that opinion. Let me explain: It is too little and it is too late.

It is too little, because record suspension is just that, putting a criminal record aside where it could potentially be used again against the individual. It ignores the historical injustice, the disproportionate impact of cannabis possession offences on marginalized Canadians, on blacks and particularly on indigenous people.

It is too late, because it is almost six months since October when we had the historic legalization of possession of cannabis. Here we are, almost at the end of this parliamentary session, starting second reading debate on the bill. It has to go before committee. It has to go to the Senate. It has to go before Senate committees. I am anxious that this will not be law in Canada, as it will die on the Order Paper until the next Parliament addresses that.

It is especially disappointing because the Liberals have had years to do this. Their excuse was to wait until possession was legal on October 17, 2018. Now we are almost six months later, in the dying days of this Parliament, and suddenly talking about it.

I hope that cynicism is not warranted. I hope there is goodwill on the part of the government to fix the bill and move it forward expeditiously. However, I have my doubts.

My private member's bill, which is the counter to this piece of legislation, would require an application process for expungement. In an ideal world, my bill would have had automatic expungement, which is the case in Delaware and California, where officials sweep the records, find out whether a person has a record, for simple possession in effect, and if so, the record is deemed never to have existed. It is gone. It is zapped from the system.

This legislation would require an application. My bill does too, but that is because, as the House well knows, it is a private member's bill, and due to a technicality called the royal recommendation, I could not ask the government to expend money. I was not able to do what has been done south of the border with automatic expungement. That would apply universally and automatically and benefit, disproportionately, indigenous and racialized Canadians.

Let us just stand back from this. We have an activity which is perfectly legal now, but for which hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps that high, have a record for past consumption of cannabis, possession of cannabis, when it was illegal, and now they cannot get on with their lives.

Why does that matter? It matters because blacks cannot rent apartments because they have a criminal record and are on the bottom of the list in a tight housing market. As I will explain later, there are way more people in Halifax who were charged with a cannabis offence and have a record for cannabis than the non-black population.

Believe it or not, it is most glaring in Regina, Saskatchewan. This is government data; this is not me. This is from records disclosed under access to information. An indigenous person in Regina is nine times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession than a non-indigenous person. A black individual is five times more likely in Halifax and three times more likely in Toronto to have the same. An indigenous person in Vancouver is seven times more likely to have a cannabis record. This matters. We would call this law, adverse effects discrimination. We would call this constructive discrimination.

That is why it is so galling that the government wants to bring in a half-baked measure in Bill C-93, rather than doing what is done in California. In San Francisco, there is an automatic intelligence system that simply sweeps the records to make them disappear for those who have a possession of cannabis offence on their record.

Let us contrast this with what the government wants to do today. To its credit, it wants to bring in a bill that says people no longer have to pay $631 for having a criminal record suspended, which is what Mr. Harper introduced, and they no longer have to wait for five years. I congratulate the government for that minor step in the right direction.

In the U.S., a person's record is automatically expunged in the states I have mentioned. These records are deemed not to exist. This matters because it allows people who are asked by a landlord whether they have a criminal record for anything to tell that landlord they do not. When asked by an employer if they have a criminal record, people who have only a cannabis possession charge from several years ago in their background can say they do not, because under expungement, it is deemed not to exist.

The government tells us not to worry and that we do not understand, because there is a human rights statute federally and in all the provinces that says people cannot face discrimination on the grounds that they have a criminal record for which a pardon has been granted. Tell that to an inner city landlord in downtown Halifax or to an inner city employer or small business operator in downtown Vancouver.

It is ludicrous. Why would the government not do the right thing, getting this all done at the same time and done properly, rather than bringing in this half-baked measure? It is too little, too late, which I am sad to say is my theme.

I am not the only one with this opinion. I am pleased to say that the Liberal member of Parliament for Beaches—East York acknowledges the limitations of the bill. He said:

Only full amnesty recognizes the disproportionate impact of cannabis prohibition on people of colour and the fact that cannabis should never have been criminalized in the first place.

Our government’s solution is better than nothing, but it’s not enough to be better than nothing when we have an opportunity to make historic injustices right.

I am quoting a Liberal member, not someone who has an axe to grind, if you will, on this issue. This is a Liberal who realizes we can do so much better.

One of the arguments the Liberals have used to explain why we cannot have expungement is that many people would be affected and it would cost so much money and take so much time. However, that is not true anymore, because we have new data suggesting that only some 10,000 people would be positively affected by the bill. That is not a very large number. Why can we not expunge their records rather than simply giving them this record suspension, after which records move from one filing cabinet to another and can come back and bite people later in a subsequent event if the state deems that they have committed another crime?

What about a crimes such as failure to appear? These are called administration of justice offences. They are not like the actual offence of cannabis possession. They occur when people do not pay a fine or do not show up in court. In these situations the criminal justice system is continually on a person's back, even though the root of it all was a cannabis possession charge.

I have been advised that indigenous women are sometimes affected down the road in this way when they have custody issues with their children. This occurs not because of the cannabis offence but because of the other matters on their record that have resulted from that. It is ludicrous.

The government says our most important relationship is with indigenous people. Here it could make a tiny but critically important change in the lives of so many. Why would it let this opportunity pass to expunge the records of people so they could say they have no criminal record, allowing them to get their foot on the social ladder in order to get employment, housing and the like? I do not understand the government's reluctance in this context.

Professor Kent Roach is one of Canada's leading criminal law specialists. Recently, in the Criminal Law Quarterly, he wrote, “The government's approach to cannabis convictions in the wake of legalization is even more problematic than the expungement act,” which is another bill I will come to.

He continued, “It has announced plans to allow the National Parole Board to grant pardons under the Criminal Records Act. This again requires case-by-case applications. This places challenges on the most disadvantaged people who have been convicted of cannabis possession.”

He goes on, “By not relying on expungement, the government's approach leaves applicants vulnerable to records of convictions and arrest being retained by the RCMP and other federal departments and to questions from prospective employers and landlords about whether they ever had a criminal conviction. It falls behind states such as California and Delaware in terms of reform.”

He then goes on and says about my bill that it “...takes a better approach by proposing to expunge cannabis convictions including the destruction of records of convictions.”

I am not here to score political points. I am not even running again in the next election. I am fully convinced that automatic expungement is the way to go. It is what people deserve. I implore the government to amend this bill and do the right thing by so many people who are affected, whose lives are on hold until we get this right.

Record suspension simply removes criminal records from the main database, CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, and puts the data somewhere else, where it can be used prejudicially later and potentially shared with other departments, thereby having a negative effect.

Expungement means those records disappear for all purposes and for all time. A record suspension or pardon indicates the government is forgiving or excusing individuals for criminal behaviour, and that is all; expungement acknowledges it was wrong to criminalize it in the first place.

At this time, let me give the House the other government excuse for not doing the right thing.

It brought in, to its credit, Bill C-66, which was called the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act. That bill dealt with same-sex sexual activity, which is no longer criminalized but was in the past. The government said it was going to deem those offences to no longer be on a person's record—gone.

I have two things to say about that.

Number one is that since October, from the last statistics, do members know how many people have even bothered to apply, of the 9,000 eligible? It was seven. That hardly gives confidence that this application process is going to make a difference.

Number two is that the government says, “Oh, member for Victoria, do you know what we will do? We will say that this is to be reserved for things that are constitutionally over the line, such as same-sex sexual activity.”

There is no principled reason for that smokescreen. I have talked to criminal law specialists and constitutional specialists across the country who say that this argument is not valid. Second, even if it were valid, which it is not, what about the constructive discrimination I just talked about, the adverse effects discrimination, whereby the policy and application affect blacks and indigenous people dramatically more than others? What about that?

Not doing the right thing for cannabis expungement as for same-sex sexual activity, which the government is prepared to expunge, makes no sense at all. It is another Liberal smokescreen.

I am not here to score political points; I am just trying to persuade the Liberals to do the right thing. Why would they not do it? That is what is so complicated for me to understand.

The NDP has been calling for this measure for years. I will not go through the whole background of it, but there are deficiencies in addition in the bill that is before us today. The Parole Board does not have the resources to do the job, so there are going to be even further backlogs for other applications from people seeking pardons. There is a whole industry, sadly, out there to help people get rid of their criminal records. If members go on the Internet, they will see everybody who wants to help if they give them a few hundred bucks.

The forms are complicated. Members might not think they are, but for a poor person with little education who is living in the inner city, this measure would impose another burden, and I do not understand why, when our friends south of the border figured it out much more readily.

There are also eligibility gaps in Bill C-93. Only those people convicted of simple possession are eligible, meaning anyone with prior record suspensions of crimes related to the simple possession charges will not be able to use this process. I gave the example of failure to appear or not paying the fine or the like. If there is another offence on the record, then they are facing an inability to apply.

Someone pointed out that if a person has a summary conviction offence and then four years down has another cannabis offence, there may be a total wait of nine years to apply under this bill. I do not believe that was intended, but it is a function of the drafting of the bill, according to experts I have consulted. That is problematic.

The Liberals have had six months since they brought in legalization to do this. This bill is maybe four and a half or five pages in English, so how on earth did it take that long? The elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Bill C-75, which was 302 pages, was before the justice committee, and it rammed that one through. This bill is five pages in English and maybe nine pages in total with English and French. It took the Liberals that long to produce this tiny bill, this weak bill. Presumably they can just check it off on the list that another promise was kept, except if the bill dies on the Order Paper, as most people are anticipating.

This is a real problem. This is an opportunity for the government. My hope is that if the private member's bill that I have before Parliament for debate on Thursday goes to the public safety committee at the same time as this bill, perhaps there will be a way in which some of the provisions that I have suggested for expungement could be brought into the bill that is before us and we could get it right for the victims as they are.

It is not just me saying this. The Prime Minister has been quoted as follows: “...there is a disproportionate representation of young people, from minorities and racialized communities, who are saddled with criminal convictions for simple possession as a significant further challenge to success in the job market....” He seems to get it.

The statistics that the government has produced under access to information confirm what I am saying. I am not making up those shocking statistics about overrepresentation of blacks and, particularly, indigenous people. The Prime Minister gets the consequences, so why would the Liberals not do it right? I do not understand.

Professor Doob, the famous criminology professor at the University of Toronto, stated:

There is no justification for forcing those who were convicted to live with a criminal record for behaviour that will soon not be criminal. A procedure for dealing with the problem has been devised by the current government. They should ensure that relevant drug records are expunged for the thousands of Canadians who have them.

Senator Pate, who has been very powerful on this issue in the other place, has made similar arguments, and I hope that those points are taken into account by the Liberals opposite.

I have been working with a very talented lawyer in Toronto, Annamaria Enenajor, who is the director of Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. She is a prominent lawyer in Toronto and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is volunteering for this important cause and she states:

...the government...leaves the impression that restrictions exist on the government's ability to issue expungements for the offense of simple cannabis possession that are beyond its control. This is false. There is nothing in Canadian law that prohibits our government from issuing expungements for offenses that, in their application, unjustly targeted racialized and indigenous communities. It simply chooses not to. This is a policy decision.

That is the nub of the argument. Let us do it right.

There may be some good arguments in theory. I talked about the theoretical ability to apply the human rights legislation when people have been given pardons and so on, but it does not work in the real world. We have an absolute dearth of money for legal aid, and legal aid rarely covers human rights complaints if one has been discriminated against because of one's record. Theoretically, I guess, the Liberals could hang their hat on that, but they sure have not visited many inner cities if they think that is a viable argument in practice. Many small businesses and landlords draft their own applications and may not be aware of human rights legislation.

We have a historic opportunity in the dying days of this Parliament to do it right. Let us expunge criminal records for small quantity cannabis possession and help those thousands of Canadians who need a head start and a chance to get their foot on the rung in the social ladder. Let us do the right thing for those people as soon as we can.

Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-415 by my hon. colleague and friend from Victoria. We both hail from Vancouver Island and I really admire the work he has put into this bill.

It is not very often that one gets to debate a private member's bill in this place that would have such significance in how it would change how we approach criminal law and acknowledge past wrongs. One other private member's bill that I can reference, which I think had a major impact, was Bill S-201, brought in by Senator James Cowan to recognize genetic non-discrimination. The Liberal cabinet was opposed to that bill, but virtually the entire Liberal back bench rose and disagreed with the cabinet and voted in favour of the bill. With the combination of the Liberal back bench, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, we passed that bill and it received royal assent.

I very much implore my Liberal colleagues to look at what this bill attempts to do. I know that some have raised concerns about the bill. They may not think it is perfect, but at second reading stage, we are acknowledging the intent of the bill. I think that if they looked into their hearts, they would find it worthy to be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we could hear from departmental officials and expert witnesses, many of whom the member for Victoria has already quoted. That is where we can look at the language and technical jargon of the bill to see if some of the concerns can be addressed. However, let us at least send this bill to committee. I think this is a very important moment.

Last year, I had the pleasure of giving the NDP's response at second reading to Bill C-45, in my capacity as the justice critic then. I acknowledged that the bill was not perfect and there was a lot of fulsome debate on its merits. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway said it right, that Bill C-45 did not really legalize cannabis; it just made it less illegal. There are some strict limits that if someone steps outside of, the full weight of the law will still come down on them.

Nevertheless, I think that even my Conservative colleagues can realize that there has been a sea change in public opinion in Canada with regard to cannabis possession. The public has realized that the continued criminalized approach to cannabis possession is wrong. Far too many people suffered under it and, in fact, the continuation of a criminalized approach would actually cause more harm than the use of the drug itself. They have recognized that.

When looking at many of the arguments that Liberal members made in support of Bill C-45, not the least of which was by the Minister of Justice, one of the reasons they cited was that thousands of Canadians end up with criminal records for a non-violent minor cannabis offence each year. I will quote the minister. In her second reading speech on Bill C-45, the Minister of Justice said:

A majority of Canadians no longer believe that simple possession of small amounts of cannabis should be subject to harsh criminal sanctions, which can have lifelong impacts for individuals and take up precious resources in our criminal justice system. Our government agrees that there is a better approach.

I could not agree more with what the Minister of Justice said last year during that second reading debate on this.

There are roughly 500,000 Canadians who have criminal records for cannabis possession. That means that if one were to take a room of 60 people, one person in that room would probably have have a record for cannabis possession. We acknowledge that that has far-reaching consequences. We know that it has affected marginalized and racialized populations disproportionately more than average Caucasian Canadians. That is borne out by the evidence collected in each province and many of our major cities.

Another big issue is that the government came to power with a promise to legalize cannabis. That promise was adopted at the 2012 Liberal policy convention. Therefore, I think that the Canadian public has known for quite some time that this was coming.

As my friend the member for St. Albert—Edmonton said, elections have consequences, and the Liberal government did fulfill that one promise. However, I have an issue with the length of time that it took. We needed the task force to present its report. We then finally had Bill C-45 introduced in April 2017. It received royal assent and came into force only on October 17 of this year. There was plenty of time for the Liberal government to deliberate on the subject and on the consequences that criminal possession has on people's lives. We have this strange binary situation where a person who possessed cannabis on October 16 received a criminal record, but a person who had it on October 17 was perfectly fine.

It is quite amazing what has happened in this country. One can now possess up to 30 grams in public. People can now grow their own plants. Even though there are still very real consequences with the over-consumption of cannabis and whether it is getting into the hands of children, I think we can very much agree that the continued criminal approach to the issue was wrong. It was using up precious resources and it was in no way effectively dealing with the problem.

When we look at the intent of Bill C-415, I very much admire the word “expungement”, because it has an air of permanence about it. It is very much different from a record suspension. As the member for Victoria very clearly laid out, a record suspension is simply setting aside the record. It does not protect the individual in any way from having that reapplied sometime in the future. Indeed, the individual would very much have to prove that he or she is worthy of that happening. However, an expungement allows an individual to truthfully answer the question of whether the individual has a criminal record that he or she does not have one, because expungement makes it as if it never happened in the first place.

We can look at the statistics, specifically with reference to indigenous people in Canada. In Vancouver, indigenous people were seven times more likely than white people to be arrested. In Regina, it was as high as nine times. If we are trying to address a historical wrong, a very real case of social injustice, I think expungement is absolutely the way we should be going.

The Liberals have raised concerns. They have said that they wished to reserve expungement for activities that have been found to be unconstitutional. The parliamentary secretary made reference to Bill C-66, which, absolutely, every member in the House was in support of. However, I have to repeat that the member for Victoria clearly outlined that reserving expungement for activities that have been found to be unconstitutional is simply an arbitrary distinction and has no legal or principled foundation. This is basically a government making up its own rules. I would ask the Liberals to point to any specific case law that underlies their arguments for this, because, trust me, they will not be able to find it.

The Liberals would also like to say that pardoning people will work, because they are going to make pardons free and immediate. I appreciate the fact that the application process will be removed and that the fee will be waived, but right now, the only legislation that actually exists on the books to address this issue, at the end of 2018, three years into the Liberal government's mandate, is Bill C-415 from the member for Victoria.

The Liberals also agree that the process needs to be fair, but they have other doubts about the bill. The bill has been consulted on widely with academics and members of the legal community. I again appeal to my Liberal colleagues to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they have difficulties with the technical aspects of this bill, with the language, surely they can understand the intent behind the bill and surely they can find it within their hearts to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we can make the necessary amendments so that it is reported back to the House in a form they can support.

I look forward to voting on this bill. Again, I congratulate my friend and colleague, the member for Victoria, for bringing in this fantastic piece of legislation.

[Peter Schiefke, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-415, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions.

First, I would like to thank the member for Victoria for his hard work and strong advocacy on this issue. I know he has spoken numerous times with the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction about this issue. It is something we very much appreciate.

It is clear that the member shares our conviction that some changes need to be made with a new cannabis control regime in place. For nearly a century, the criminal prohibition of cannabis failed to protect youth and led to the highest rates of cannabis use in the world amongst our kids. It also led to billions of dollars in profit for organized crime and created an unhealthy and unsafe situation in all of our communities.

That is why we replaced the criminal prohibition with a far more effective and proportional system of comprehensive cannabis control. While there are no turnkey solutions to righting the wrongs that resulted from that regime, there are now steps we can take to address them.

Bill C-415 would create a method to expunge cannabis possession convictions, regardless of quantity, that are no longer an offence under the Cannabis Act. It proposes a no-charge, application-based process that would allow applicants to provide sworn statements to prove their eligibility. It does not, however, require them to prove their attempts to obtain official supporting documents in doing so.

This bill also proposes that expungement must be granted, so long as the review by the Parole Board of Canada does not reveal any evidence that the activity in question was prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or any other act of Parliament.

The approach proposed in Bill C-415 is similar in form to another bill this House passed not long ago, but the nature of the convictions proposed for expungement is quite different. Bill C-66, Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act, received royal assent in June of this year. That legislation was introduced on the occasion of the historic apology to the LGBTQ2 community for decades of state-sponsored systemic discrimination and oppression.

It put in place a new process to permanently destroy records of convictions for offences involving consensual activity between same-sex partners that would be lawful today. The government passed that law so that expungement could be available as a tool to correct a profound historical injustice, where the offence had been ruled unconstitutional or contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Code.

However, there are substantive differences between the nature of those offences and cannabis possession, which courts have never found to be constitutionally invalid. That said, clearly we agree with the member for Victoria that individuals who have previously acquired criminal records for some possession of cannabis should be allowed to shed the burden and stigma of that record.

That is why, when the Cannabis Act came into force on October 17, the government announced its intent to introduce legislation that, once in force, would allow individuals to apply for a record suspension, as long as they had completed their sentence. The five-year waiting period would be waived, and record suspension would be immediately eligible. Finally, the unfair $631 fee put in place by the Harper Conservatives would also be waived, and record suspension would be available at no cost to the individual.

As my hon. colleague across the way mentioned, these records have had a disproportionate impact on youth from poor communities, racialized communities and, of course, indigenous communities. Many Canadians also have a criminal record as a result of some youthful indiscretions, and now lead otherwise exemplary lives.

This proposed measure would make affordable record suspensions available to those individuals. It would give them the opportunity to remove the stigma and burden on their lives that results from a criminal record.

Here, I would point out that thanks to the motion by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has been instructed to undertake a study of the record suspension program formerly known as “pardons”.

The idea behind this study would be, first, to examine the impact of a record suspension to help those with a criminal record reintegrate back into society; second, to examine the impact of criminal record suspension fees and additional costs associated with the application process on low-income applicants; and third, to identify appropriate changes to fees and service standards for record suspension, and to identify improvements to better support applicants for a criminal record suspension.

The committee would be able to study improvements that could be made to the process for record suspensions. However, I am pleased to note that the government's announcement of intent with respect to the legislation on record suspensions for some possession of cannabis reflects the desire to reduce the kinds of barriers reflected in that motion.

Protecting Canadians is our number one concern. We do that by implementing evidence-based criminal justice policies that are proven to support rehabilitation, prevent crime and victimization, and keep our citizens and communities safe. The government's announced intent to introduce new legislation is in keeping with that principle.

Aside from the differences in the proposed approaches, I would like to also point out that Bill C-415 is flawed as it is currently written. Under the bill, the acceptance of a sworn statement to prove eligibility without having to demonstrate attempts to obtain official documents would risk that an expungement could be ordered and records destroyed for ineligible individuals, such as those who have been convicted of possession of far more dangerous uncontrolled substances, such as cocaine.

As currently written, indeed most individuals would not be eligible to apply, as the bill would require that the activity be legal today. All cannabis obtained prior to the coming into force of the Cannabis Act was illicitly possessed, and the possession of illicitly obtained cannabis remains an offence today.

I am grateful that many members in this House feel that people who have been previously convicted for possession of cannabis should be allowed to participate meaningfully in society. They should have access to good, stable jobs. They should have access to housing and education and the ability to participate in the community. For far too long, many thousands of Canadians have faced barriers to those necessities simply for having possessed cannabis. However, values have shifted, and we recognize the failure of prohibition. It has now been over a month since we have had legalized and regulated cannabis, and we see the positive impact of that action.

What we do now to make things as fair as possible for Canadians must be done carefully and diligently. I very much look forward to taking the next steps to help people turn their lives around. Once again, I would like to thank the member opposite for his views on how we can do so. I am also thankful for the opportunity to address this issue today.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved that Bill C-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to present my private member's bill, Bill C-415. My bill would have the effect of expunging or erasing criminal records for the half million Canadians who have records for the possession of small quantities of cannabis, which became a perfectly legal activity in October of this year.

This is a matter of fundamental justice and I urge all members to support this initiative. I urge government members to keep an open mind and to study the bill and amend it so we can move it forward as quickly and effectively as possible.

As far back as 2012, the Liberal Party passed resolution No. 117 on cannabis legalization and it is curious that it used the words of elimination of all criminal records for simple possession. I am pleased that the Liberal Party agrees with me that expungement and not merely record suspension is what is required in this circumstance.

According to a report commissioned by the Department of Public Safety, fully 86% of those surveyed agreed that completely erasing criminal records for minor offences, particularly cannabis possession, was the right thing to do. Judging by the enormous outburst of editorial support that I am pleased to have received from coast to coast, Canadians get it. They support this initiative because they are fair-minded people who recognize the unfairness inherent in continuing to burden people with the effects of a criminal record for something that is now legal.

I stood yesterday in the House with a prominent aboriginal leader from British Columbia, with people from the John Howard Society and with Senator Pate, the former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society. They all called on the government to get with this, expunge records and not to rely, as I will explain why, on merely criminal record suspension in this context.

I have three fundamental arguments in the short time available that I would like to make. First, I want to challenge the government's assertion that it will be bringing on immediate pardons. The word “immediate” means now and I will explain why that is simply not possible. Second, I want to address the government's apparent argument that expungement is somehow reserved for only one category of past historical injustices and not things like this. Only record suspensions apparently, in the Liberals' mind, are appropriate in this context. Third, it is important to tell Canadians about how the unjust application of cannabis laws in our country has happened. I think it is undeniable that there has been an injustice.

On the first point about the timing, the government has had several years to address this signature initiative on cannabis legislation. Other jurisdictions like California and Vermont, when they brought in their laws, brought this piece in at the same time and automatically expunged the records for people with convictions for a small quantity of cannabis. The Liberals chose not to do that. They said they should wait for record suspensions, sometimes they called them pardons, and that will happen sometime soon, maybe with legislation introduced, I presume, in the spring.

Canadians know there will be an election in October. They know any initiative has to pass through both Houses and be proclaimed in law, so it is likely that this will not take place until 2020, if my arithmetic is right. When Canadians hear the word “immediate”, they think of something different. I would urge the Liberals to work with my bill and make it better so we can get on with the task that should have been commenced when we brought in legalization in the first place.

The second argument is the arbitrary distinction between expungement reserved for something called historical injustices and pardons for something else. I do not know who is giving legal advice to the Liberals on this point. I have had the good fortune of getting opinions from Benjamin Berger, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall, and noted constitutional lawyer Professor Kent Roach at the University of Toronto. They see absolutely no distinction in law. I see none in public policy for what the government seems to be insisting upon.

Let me quote from a leading Toronto criminal lawyer, Annamaria Enenajor of the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. She said, “the government...leaves the impression that restrictions exist on the government's ability to issue expungements for the offense of simple cannabis possession that are beyond its control. This is false. There is nothing in Canadian law that prohibits our government from issuing expungements for offenses that, in their application, unjustly targeted racialized and indigenous communities. It simply chooses not to. This is a policy decision.”

Professor Kent Roach says that “The charter is the minimum not the maximum in terms of our sense of justice. The government's proposed pardon scheme also reveals larger problems with our pardon system which, among other drawbacks, is conditional on future good behaviour.”

There is no distinction possible, although the government wishes to make it. I urge it to keep an open mind so we can do what is right for Canadians.

That takes me to my third point. The application of this law is a historic initiative to address a historical injustice. It is a fact, and I commend the government for acknowledging that black and indigenous people across this country have been disproportionately burdened with criminal records for possessing small quantities of cannabis. That prevents these people, who are often already more marginalized and impoverished than other citizens, from getting their foot on the social ladder. Why? It is because they now have a record. It means they are last in line when they want to rent an apartment. They are last in line when they want to get a job and have to answer “yes” about having a criminal record.

If that record were expunged, as my bill would do, they could honestly answer that they do not have a criminal record. It would be deemed in law that they do not such a record. Imagine how many thousands of impoverished Canadians we could assist by doing the right thing.

Jaywalking is not an offence under the charter. However, if nine out of 10 people we go after for jaywalking ho are black or indigenous, then it is a charter violation. Again, I commend the government for acknowledging this data as being valid. If someone is indigenous in Regina, they are nine times more likely to be charged and have a record for cannabis than non-indigenous people; and seven times more likely in Vancouver; and if someone is black in Halifax, they are five times more likely to be charged and have a record; and three times more likely if they live in Toronto. This is wrong. This is Canada. We should fix that, and let these people get on with their lives.

I want to address head-on the government's argument about record suspensions. It chooses to call it “pardons”. It does not do the job. What is the difference between a pardon and expungement? An expunged record is erased; it is completely destroyed. Under my bill, the offences would be deemed in law to have never happened. Therefore, a person whose record has been expunged could truthfully say on a job application that they do not have a criminal record. That makes all the difference.

What about a pardon? A pardon merely reclassifies the record. It may still be released, and even revoked, in the future. Most importantly, with a pardon, an individual can still face those obstacles I talked about. Furthermore, a pardon talks about forgiving, by implication, and not expungement, which would be an acknowledgement of the historical injustice in how cannabis laws have been applied in our country.

For a long time, cannabis amnesty has been a policy of the NDP. Since 2004, we have been calling for amnesty for people with records for cannabis possession. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who has done excellent work on this file, introduced a motion in the House asking the government to immediately pardon all criminal records for simple possession. The government said no.

Let me go to the argument I have heard the government use as recently as this morning. It is wrong. When a landlord or employer asks a person if they have a record, the question they are supposed to ask is whether they have ever been convicted for a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted. Now, the government says that if there has been a violation of that requirement, they can go to the human rights branch or the human rights tribunal in their province. I do not know whether the government has dealt with people from the inner city.

I used to do legal aid in downtown Toronto. People who are illiterate and do not speak English have enough trouble already. Do we think they are going to get lawyers, with legal aid in this world being so scarce, and take this to the human rights branch? I do not really think so and neither does Samantha McAleese, who is doing her Ph.D. on this very topic at Carleton. She has worked in the inner city of Ottawa with The John Howard Society for many years. She said that many people struggling with criminal records can often have barriers like literacy or language, making these formal complaints to the human rights codes very daunting. She further said that requiring individuals to muster through a complaint process in order to access employment, housing or any other social domain seems quite ridiculous. People with criminal records already face enough barriers in the community and are often already doing everything they can to get by day by day.

Even if the government is right, why would it not go far enough to complete the job with expungement? Even if there is a legal, technical reason for being right, which I urge the government is not the view of the leading criminal and constitutional lawyers I have consulted, why would it not complete the job?

I was so proud to have stood in this House when another expungement initiative took place not long ago: Bill C-66. It was the expungement of what the government termed, and I agree, historically unjust convictions for people convicted in the past for same-sex sexual activity and yet thousands of racialized and marginalized people have also been treated unfairly in the past. I have demonstrated that and the government accepts it.

People have barriers to renting apartments or getting jobs. Mothers from Saskatoon have cried on the phone to me that their child, busted a couple of years for having a couple of joints, cannot coach the soccer team because of these vulnerable people initiatives that require that people not have records for reasons we well understand, dealing with children and so forth. Their lives are also affected by this. After years of injustice, why would the government settle for a process that will not fully relieve the burden of a criminal record? The only way to right the wrong and finally give the half million Canadians a fair chance is expungement, to erase the records for simple possession.

The evidence is pretty clear that the argument about pardons may be good in theory, but in practice, people in the real world do not always ask those precise questions that the government says landlords and employers should be asking, “Have you ever been convicted for a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?”, that magic incantation. In the real world in downtown Ottawa or Toronto, we were told yesterday, people do not always ask those questions and, therefore, people cannot get on with their lives because they have criminal records, they are already the poorest among us often and they are disproportionately indigenous and black Canadians.

It is simply the right thing to do. Why the government did not do it at the time, like other jurisdictions they modelled their legalization on, I do not know, but it is time to do it now and it is time to do it right. A half-measure is not good enough for Canadians. Expungement is the answer. Record suspension does not do the job. Let us get on with it. I urge all members to do the right thing and support my bill in the House.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I would have to get back to you, Ms. Dabrusin, on the issue of the direct cost analysis. I know that when the previous government raised the fee, first of all to $150 and then to $631, their argument was cost recovery, that the fee increase was necessary to pay for the cost of the service. As to whether it covers the cost of the service on a dollar-for-dollar basis, I will have to check to see exactly what the cost is compared to the revenues that are raised, but as a result of Mr. Long's representation and others, we are looking at the broader question of record suspension.

The previous government changed the name from “pardon” to “record suspension”. They changed the eligibility rules, they changed the waiting periods, and they increased the fee. A number of people have made the argument that those previous decisions should be revisited. We are examining those questions in terms of broad reform with respect to pardons.

In the meantime, we have two specific sets of issues. We've dealt with one in Bill C-66 with respect to the LGBTQ2 community, and now we are seized of the issue of dealing with pardons or record suspensions in relation to the simple possession of cannabis offences. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we'll be coming forward with a very specific proposal on that latter point in the very near future.

[Prof. Robert Leckey]

It's both. I think the chance of fresh charges being laid now is relatively remote. I think it is more concrete in that it's a gap. I don't think the expungement provision goes as far as it was intended to go in Bill C-66. Given that we know that the criminal law can be used in ways we don't imagine, I think you should fix them both, but I also think realistically there's a real problem with the expungement.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I want to build on what Mr. Boissonnault asked you, Dean Leckey, if I could.

Of course, you haven't done the thorough charter analysis that would be required, but I think you said very clearly that you thought that Justice Canada's charter statement in respect to certain provisions was inadequate. I can't recall if that was with respect to paragraph 268(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, about intersex children and their protection, or if you were talking about paragraph 25(c) of Bill C-66.

I'm going to ask you to repeat that.

[Professor Gary Kinsman, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Laurentian University, As an Individual]

Thanks, Tom.

Also, thanks to Dean Leckey for the support from McGill for the position that we are putting forward today before this committee.

The act of indecency section of the bawdy house law is linked to a broader legal construction of same-gender sex as indecent in Canadian history. This is also the case with the indecent acts offence. These sections have been and continue to be used to define LGBTQ2S practices as more indecent than similar heterosexual activities, mobilizing discriminatory practices against our communities.

In this presentation, I'm drawing on extensive research and writing that I've done, along with other members of our group, on the regulation and policing of consensual sexual activities in Canada. Since the late 19th century, the offence of indecent acts has been used to arrest LGBTQ2S people in bars, clubs, parks and washrooms. In these situations, the individuals involved have constructed relations of privacy and intimacy for themselves, hidden from view behind trees or bushes, and in cubicles with locked or closed doors, and have not been trying to bother other people. Often they have been entrapped by the police invading their privacy.

Police often used indecent acts instead of gross indecency or buggery charges because it was a lesser offence, and it was easier to prove in court. In the national security purge campaign, which the Prime Minister apologized for against LGBTQ2S people, indecent act was the charge that the RCMP threatened to use to get gay and bisexual men to give up the names of their friends in the public service and the military, so that the police could then purge those individuals.

In Ontario, following the mass resistance to the bath raids in the early 1980s, the police used targeted surveillance, including the use of video surveillance equipment, for indecent act arrests. These occurred in St. Catharines, Welland, Oakville, Oshawa, Mississauga, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, and at the Orillia Opera House. The names of those charged were released by the police to the newspapers, leading a man in St. Catharines to kill himself.

According to the Right to Privacy Committee, 369 men in Toronto were arrested for indecent acts with other men just between July 1982 and April 1983. Thousands of people were unjustly arrested under the indecent acts offence.

Section 60 of Bill C-75 amends parts of the indecent acts provision. This provision must be entirely repealed. This would also allow those unjustly convicted under indecent acts to apply for expungement of their conviction, which they are currently denied under Bill C-66. It is not listed in that bill, and it is still on the books. This committee can actually make an effort to deal with this historically unjust offence.

Vagrancy is also a broad, ill-defined offence. It has historically been used against sex workers, but also to police people's genders and sexual expressions. Those viewed as wearing the clothes and/or otherwise engaging in the self-presentation of the “wrong” gender were charged under this offence. In a 1994 Supreme Court case, vagrancy was declared unconstitutional, and contrary to the charter. Clause 62 of Bill C-75 removes part of the vagrancy law, but like bawdy houses and indecent acts, the offence otherwise remains intact. It must be entirely repealed.

The targeted use of morality provisions and police entrapment have created historical links and ties between the struggles of LGBTQ2S communities and sex workers. We fully support the position that was presented to you by the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform.

In 2015, the justice minister declared, “I definitely am committed to reviewing the prostitution laws”. Three years later, it is past time to act. In the broader context of repealing laws criminalizing sex work, we join the call for the repeal of the material benefits and advertising offences, which create unsafe working and living conditions for sex workers and puts sex workers at risk.

There are many other laws that have been used to criminalize the consensual activities of LGBTQ2S people that must be addressed, but are not mentioned in Bill C-75. We certainly hope they will be acted upon soon. These include obscenity laws that have been used against LGBT bookstores and publications and to construct non-conforming sexual representations as more obscene and indecent than similar heterosexual ones.

We also fully support the concerns that the Canadian AIDS/HIV Legal Network and many others have raised regarding the sections of the Criminal Code being used to unjustly criminalize those living with HIV.

In conclusion, we urge you to end the reliance of the Criminal Code on enforcing morality. This is done through various sections that define our sexualities as indecent and criminal. Instead, criminal offenses should be directed where they really need to be, which is on actual violence and actual harassment.

The apology process to our communities demands that the bawdy house laws and indecent act and vagrancy provisions are entirely repealed in Bill C-75. Otherwise, that apology remains flawed and unfulfilled. You have the opportunity to fix this now. We hope you will take it.

Thanks.

[Professor Tom Hooper, Contract Faculty, Law and Society Program, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting us to speak here today. I'll be sharing my time with Professor Kinsman.

We're here representing a group of gay and lesbian historians, with expertise in the policing of queer sexualities. We're here to follow up on the 10th report of the Senate human rights committee, which called on this government to address archaic laws used to criminalize LGBTQ2 people in Canada. I really mean archaic: indecent acts, vagrancy, bawdy houses. This is like the Antiques Roadshow of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-75 repeals section 159, anal intercourse, and this is an important part of thePrime Minister's recent apology to LGBTQ2 people, in which he specifically referenced the criminal provision against buggery and the harm caused by it. Acknowledging this harm, the government passed Bill C-66, which allows those convicted of this offence to apply to have their records expunged under certain conditions.

The repeal of anal intercourse is part of the larger effort to eliminate what has been labelled “zombie” laws. These laws are still on the books despite court rulings specifically declaring them unconstitutional. The Prime Minister also apologized to those arrested in the bathhouse raids, and he specifically referenced the injustice caused by the bawdy house law, but this was excluded both from Bill C-66 and the bill before us today. This is because the bawdy house law does not precisely fit the government's narrow definition of a zombie law. It has not explicitly been declared unconstitutional by the courts. It's not a zombie law. It's a different kind of monster. It's a Frankenstein law.

Why am I using this broad cultural reference to Frankenstein to describe the bawdy house law? Well, I'm going to give you three reasons.

First, like Frankenstein, the bawdy house law is a 19th-century relic. It was included in the original 1892 Criminal Code as a prohibition against brothels and other spaces of sex work. It was amended in 1917 to include places of indecency, in an effort to close massage parlours. This law is anachronistic and it must be repealed.

The second reason I am calling this a Frankenstein law is that like Frankenstein's monster, the bawdy house law is known to cause harm. In the 2013 Bedford decision, the Supreme Court found the bawdy house law to cause harm to sex workers that is grossly disproportionate to the objectives of the law. As a result, the reference to prostitution was removed from the bawdy house law under the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act in 2015, PCEPA.

PCEPA maintained many unjust laws, including the bawdy house law and its reference to indecency, which was used by police to raid bathhouses. From 1968 to 2004, more than 1,300 men were charged in bathhouse raids all under this law. You heard last week how this caused harm to gay men like Ron Rosenes, a member of the Order of Canada who to this day has a police record from being charged in the 1981 Toronto bath house raids.

The government has specifically apologized for this unjust law. Why do we need to be here to ask for its repeal? Men like Ron Rosenes deserve to have their records cleared.

The third reason I'm calling this a Frankenstein law is that like Frankenstein's monster, the bawdy house law does not resemble the intention of its creator. This law was created by Parliament to criminalize brothels and other sexual spaces based on a community standard of morality.

The 2013 Bedford decision led to the removal of sex work from this law. This left behind the vague concept of indecency, which was significantly altered by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Labaye case. In that decision, the law was not declared unconstitutional; instead, it was rewritten by the court. The definition of indecency was changed from a community standard of morality to a standard based on non-consensual harm.

This new definition of a bawdy house is a very serious offence and is totally unrecognizable from what Parliament intended. What was once a morality law against brothels has turned into a heinous, violent crime. What type of establishment would allow such acts of non-consensual harm? Is a 19th-century morality law the best tool to combat such places?

Such acts are covered under other more appropriate sections of the Criminal Code. It's strange that clause 75 of Bill C-75 amends the bawdy house law to allow the possibility of summary conviction, a lesser penalty. This is inconsistent with the gravity of this offence as the courts have defined it now.

In 1982, then minister of justice Jean Chrétien said to this committee, “As a matter of principle, I believe that if sections of the Criminal Code have fallen into disuse or become obsolete, there was no reason to maintain them.” There were zero charges under the bawdy house law in 2017. Parliament does not need to wait for the courts to repeal this outdated law, especially a law that the Prime Minister has apologized for.

I urge this committee to not only repeal the zombie laws, but also the Frankenstein laws, and all other laws crafted in 19th-century morality that have criminalized LGBTQ2 people and sex workers.

Thank you.

[Professor Robert Leckey, Law Professor, McGill University, and Past-President, Egale Canada, Egale Canada Human Rights Trust]

Thank you very much. Signal if I'm going too fast at any point.

Our LGBTQI2S communities are appreciative of the interest shown us by the federal government in a whole range of ways, reaching right up to the Prime Minister.

In my time this afternoon, I intend to make four points. First, I will articulate our general perspective or approach. Second, I will express Egale Canada's agreement with the submission by Gentile, Hooper, Kinsman, and Maynard, whom you'll be hearing from, it turns out, after me.

I want to call for legislative change in two respects. The first is the failure in Bill C-75 to address the problem of surgeries on intersex children, and the second is a problem with the otherwise welcome efforts to undo past discrimination against our communities.

Let me start, briefly, with the overall perspective.

At Egale Canada, we come at these issues from a general approach attuned to LGBTQI2S equality, dignity and inclusion. Fundamentally, we are keenly conscious of the long history of the criminal law's sexual and moral offences being applied against our communities discriminatorily, discretionarily and disproportionately. We would emphasize intersectionality, conscious that members of our community experience overlapping disadvantage by virtue of being queer people with disabilities, for example, or being racialized or indigenous transpeople. I would emphasize the symbolic significance of the criminal law on matters touching our communities.

The Victorian prohibitions relating to sodomy, bawdy houses, indecency—you name it—have consequences beyond their enforcement and convictions obtained. The mere threat of their enforcement can operate powerfully, and it operates more powerfully against those most vulnerable people who might not get good legal advice or have any idea how to respond.

Second, very briefly, I wanted to signal that we fully endorse the report from Kinsman et al., whom you're about to hear from. We support their calls for Bill C-75 to go further than it does, in a number of ways. We affirm their call for adopting clear, evidence-based guidelines on the use of criminal law in prosecuting cases of HIV non-disclosure.

Let me turn now to the two legislative changes that it is possible nobody else will raise with you.

The first concerns intersex children. Subsection 268(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the crime of aggravated assault, and subsection 268(3) addresses excision. It specifies that “wounds” or “maims” includes cutting a person's “labia majora, labia minora or clitoris”, but then it provides an exception, where surgery is performed “for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function”. The alternative basis for the exemption from aggravated assault's application is when a person is at least 18 years of age.

In other words, paragraph 268(3)(a) deflects the protections of the criminal law from children on whom surgery is inflicted for the purpose of giving them a “normal sexual appearance or function”. The idea of a “normal sexual appearance or function” is a vehicle for cisnormative assumptions about which bodies are medically correct or normal.

I can't undertake a full charter analysis this afternoon, but subsection 268(3) raises concerns about security of the person and equality. Moreover, international human rights bodies have recognized that so-called corrective surgery of children whose genitals are characterized as abnormal violates their personal autonomy and integrity. We urge you to amend Bill C-75 to modify subsection 268(3).

The final point concerns legislation with a view to ending historical discrimination.

Two corrective efforts—proposed section 156 in Bill C-75 and the expungement mechanism in Bill C-66, already passed—rely unjustly and discriminatorily on today's age of sexual consent.

First, proposed section 156 preserves the possibility of prosecution for wrongful conduct where the offences, once in place, have been repealed, so long as the conduct remains criminal today.

Second, paragraph 25(c) of Bill C-66 provides for applications for expungement orders for convictions in respect of listed same-sex offences on certain conditions, including that the persons participating in the activity were 16 years of age or older at the time.

Both provisions aim to end the harmful effects of criminalizing same-sex conduct in a discriminatory way, while preserving the power to punish conduct that remains plainly criminal by today's standards. But both are problematic. Efforts to assure equal treatment must not rely, as these do, on the current age of consent of 16. Instead, it is necessary to take into account the fact that, while the age of consent for sodomy was for a time 21, and then 18, the age of consent for different-sex sex was 14 until the year 2008.

Proposed section 156 would still allow the prosecution for consensual sodomy committed with a 14- or 15-year-old, because today, someone that age cannot consent to sex except with a person close in age to them. The expungement provision, for its part, would not permit the expungement of a sodomy conviction for consensual sodomy carried out with a 14- or 15-year-old. Whatever the good intentions, these provisions unintentionally perpetuate discrimination against our communities, insofar as there is no basis for prosecuting a heterosexual who had consensual vaginal intercourse with a 14- or 15-year-old while the age of consent was 14.

Accordingly, Justice Canada's charter statement is incorrect when it states that “the enactment of proposed section 156 would limit any such prosecutions to those that do not raise Charter concerns.”

Thanks for your attention.

[Ronald Rosenes]

I think there are two things that are important. I think the posthumous provision is important. I would support that without question.

As well, I've done a lot of work with historians, who will be presenting in the future. When we presented on Bill C-66, I also said, “Look, I don't want to have my record at the Toronto Police Service or the Scarborough Court anymore, but I don't want to see my records disappear off the face of the earth, because I think it is important to preserve our history”, so I would also add to your point that I would very much like to see the preservation, with my express permission and with agreement, of our documents in the historical archives of such places as the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives in Toronto.

That is just one example. I would like to see the records preserved in that way, if possible, and under our express permission.

[Ronald Rosenes, Community Health Advocate and Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you and good evening. I really appreciate the invitation to be able to speak to you this evening.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation.

I will be speaking in English.

I'm really here tonight to speak very specifically about the impact of the bawdy house law on LGBTQ people over many years. While I applaud the proposed repeal of anal intercourse from the Criminal Code, it was certainly not the only law that was used to unjustly target LGBTQ people in my community.

I'd like to begin by telling you a story. I'd like to take you back to the night of February 5, 1981, which remains seared in my memory, despite my very best efforts to put what occurred behind me.

That night, I found myself at the Roman baths on Bay Street. For those who don't know, that's a club for men seeking to meet other men for consensual sex. It's a place that I had visited on several occasions as a 34-year-old out gay man seeking to enjoy my new-found sexual freedoms in a supposedly safe space. However, what happened that night really was my first-ever encounter with the state and a police force that took it upon itself to enforce the archaic bawdy house law that still exists on the books and in the law to this day. It's a law I would very much like to see repealed in Bill C-75.

That night, we were rounded up brutally. We were called “dirty faggots” and arrested as “found-ins in a common bawdy house”. The police may have suspected that money was being exchanged for sex, but this was never proven in court. The premises were ransacked at all of the city's bathhouses that night, and several closed their doors permanently as a result.

In his apology last fall to the LGBTQ community, the Prime Minister specifically mentioned the bathhouse raids and the bawdy house law in his apology, but those of us arrested using these provisions were left out of the most recent bill, Bill C-66, which was the expungement legislation. I again provided witness testimony to the senators, who seemed reluctant, in retrospect, to tackle the issue, perhaps—this is something we can discuss—out of concern that the bill would not get passed before the summer break. For us and for me, Bill C-66 became a lost opportunity in terms of providing an opportunity for the repeal of the bawdy house law.

I'd like to also remind everyone that more than 1,300 men were charged with this offence for being in a gay bathhouse between the years of 1968 and 2004. I feel as though I carry their voices into this room with me.

We were dragged through the courts and publicly humiliated. I ended up being put on the stand, where I admitted that I had been at the Roman steam baths that night—yes, I got on the stand and I told the truth—and I became one of some 36 men, out of over 300 who were arrested, who were actually convicted, and I was made to pay a fine. In my case it was an insignificant amount. It was insignificant, really, compared to the sense of shame that I and many other men were made to feel as our names were read out in open court and dragged through the press at the time.

In my case, I was fortunate. My own self-esteem has remained intact. I have benefited from a number of advantages—a loving family, loving partners, a good education—but I can never forget what happened that night. I was wrongfully arrested and convicted, having committed no crime.

Others were not so fortunate. Many lives were ruined that night by exposure in court and the press. Bathhouses at the time were often frequented by men who went home to families who were unaware of the sexual orientation of their spouse, their father, or their brother, and many were from cultures in which homosexuality was frowned upon.

Those of us who were arrested in the bathhouse raids are now dependent on the repeal of the bawdy house law. To this day, it shocks me how traumatizing and stigmatizing that night was and the bathhouse raids proved to be. At least two men are known to have taken their own lives. To this day, I'm one of the few people among those who were arrested who is willing to talk about the bathhouse raids and that night publicly.

The unrelenting power of stigma continues to cast a shadow over many lives. For that reason, I'm here today to appeal to the legislators to ensure that people like me with records, people who were wrongfully convicted of being found-ins in a common bawdy house, are treated on an equal basis in the proposed legislation. We missed out on Bill C-66, but I would like to be treated no differently from all of my LGBTQ sisters and brothers who were either hounded out of the civil service or dishonourably discharged from the military.

Now we are dependent, as I said, on repeal of the bawdy house law in order to apply for expungement of our wrongful convictions and, in some cases, criminal records. Certainly it was clear from Bill C-66 that an offence had first to be repealed before it could be added to the list of offences that qualify for expungement, so the law needs to come off the books.

It came to me as quite a surprise, through a request for information from the Toronto Police Service in December of 2017, that a record of my arrest and a supplementary report could still be found in their files. I suspect that if this is true for me, it's true for others. Therefore, I'm here today really on behalf of all of us to ensure now that we're included in Bill C-75. People who were wrongfully arrested in the bathhouse raids, I believe, have every right to request inclusion under the same law that offers expungement to others and to feel part of the government's apology. The bawdy house laws were among the laws used, in the words of MP Randy Boissonnault, “to victimize LGBTQ2S+ people systematically”, to give you the proper quote.

Bill C-75 now gives you the opportunity to correct this oversight. I think it would be a grave miscarriage of justice to ignore this opportunity and to deprive us, all of us, of our right to equal justice under the law. I think it's time to put 19th century notions of indecency behind us. Only those acts that are non-consensual or that cause harm to others should be prosecuted under more appropriate sections of the Criminal Code.

Also, I would like to say that I stand in solidarity with people in the sex-work community because I understand first-hand the harm that was caused by the bawdy house law. I also stand with others in recommending that the bill be amended to repeal laws that have been unjustly used against our communities, including laws related to obscenity, immoral theatrical performance, indecent exhibition, and nudity. I know that next week my colleagues will be speaking further to some of these issues.

It's essential, in my view, that we create some closure around these painful moments in our history. There are those who will say the raids came about as a result of attitudes and opinions—that is to say, prejudice against and fear of homosexuals and homosexuality that were prevalent in society at the time and persist to this day. Laws do not necessarily change prevailing attitudes, but they are absolutely necessary, in my view, for the protection of our human rights. They represent a necessary step in the ongoing struggle to promote tolerance and respect for difference in Canadian society.

While you're addressing delays in the judicial system and looking at the matter very broadly through this legislation, I hope you will take this opportunity to remember those of us who were arrested back in 1981 and over the years from 1964 into the 2000s, and that you will ensure this time around that the bawdy house law is repealed in Bill C-75.

Thanks very much.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for your work along with Minister Goodale on Bill C-66, which we hope to see get royal assent later this week.

I want to thank you for your leadership in getting section 159 to this point so that it can come out of the Criminal Code. It means a lot to the LGBTQ community. As special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ issues, I thank you for your work on behalf of the community and on behalf of our government.

I sit on indigenous caucus on the government side, and we are interested, and I am particularly interested, in how the provisions in Bill C-75 are going to help make lives better for indigenous Canadians, reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in our criminal justice system, and see a criminal justice system that is fair and that sees people for who they are and the experiences with which they come to the criminal justice system.

If you could comment on that, I'd be grateful.

Foreign Affairs

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that we hear the people sing for human rights, for justice, and we are calling on the member and all of his caucus to support the good work of this government in pursuing those laudable objectives around the world.

When it comes to our record on Iran, this government has been very clear. We condemn its support for terrorist organizations, its threats toward Israel, its ballistic missile program, and its support for the Assad regime. We continue to call on Iran to respect the human rights and democratic rights of the Iranian people. The protection and promotion of all human rights, at its core, influences and inspires this government's foreign policy.

The lack of respect for human rights in Iran is a serious concern, including the high number of executions, particularly for juveniles; widespread discrimination against women; discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; restrictions on freedom of expression; and serious and systemic discrimination and harassment of ethnic and religious minorities. This is why our government is committed to holding Iran to account for its violations of these rights. Again, I call on my hon. colleague and the entire Conservative Party of Canada to put aside partisan differences and join this government in pursuing those objectives.

Contrary to what the member says, when the protest took place in Iran in December 2017 and January 2018, Canada was one of the first countries to publicly express support for the right of the Iranian people to protest peacefully. On December 30, we publicly called on the Iranian authorities to uphold and respect democratic and human rights, and on January 3 of this year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed deep concern about the deaths and detentions of protestors in Iran. As she said then, “The Iranian people have the right to freely assemble and express themselves without facing violence or imprisonment.”

Let me be clear. As long as Maryam Mombeini is not able to leave Iran, the focus of any discussions with Iran will be on getting her home to Canada. We also continue to demand answers from the government of Iran on the detention and death of Kavous Seyed-Emami. We will continue to use every means at Canada's disposal to seek further information.

The member opposite raised in question period the issue of LGBTQ2 rights. There has never been a Canadian government so committed to the promotion and protection of LGBTQ2 rights as this one. From Bill C-66 to the appointment of my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton Centre, as a special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues, to the Prime Minister's historic pardon in the House, our government's commitment is clear. During the UN Universal Periodic Review, Canada took a very firm position related to sexual orientation and gender identity more frequently than any other country.

Our record when it comes to Iran is clear. Our record when it comes to the pursuit of human rights and social justice causes around the world is clear.

Finally, once again, I call on the hon. member to put aside partisan causes and support this government. Let us do good together.

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, in just a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent for a motion dealing with Bill C-32. Bill C-32 would repeal an archaic section of section 159 of the Criminal Code. Adopting Bill C-32 would remove a longstanding point of discrimination against gay men by eliminating the unequal age of consent for anal sex.

Bill C-32 was tabled on November 25, 2016, and it has been sitting on the Order Paper since then. With the imminent passage of Bill C-66 in the other place, I am asking that Bill C-32 be adopted at all stages by the House today so that criminal records based on section 159 of the Criminal Code would immediately and clearly qualify for expungement as provided in Bill C-66.

That is why I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-32, an act related to the repeal of Section 159 of the Criminal Code, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the discussion and debate in the House on this particular motion, Motion No. 22, and I am rising to support the motion.

I have been in this place for a very long time and I have watched political gamesmanship come and go. I have watched, when we were in opposition, all these little games being played occasionally. However, I think what we are talking about right now is that there are still some important government bills that need to be finished. Let us just pick one.

Let us look at Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1. I understand and I heard very clearly the debate from the hon. member that this is not going to be fair, that the government had a long time, and that it could have done a lot of things. This may or may not be true; that is not the issue. The point is that there are some things in our budget implementation bill that must come to pass in a certain period of time.

Let us look, for instance, at the Canada child benefit, which is being indexed starting in July this summer, and what will happen if we do not finish the debate on it or if we do not get it passed. If we do not get that done, middle-class families will not get the benefit of the indexation.

There is the workers benefit plan. If we do not get this debate done, workers will not be able to take advantage of that extra $500 that they may get, especially if they are making $15,000 a year. That could help them out over the rest of the time.

One could argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, who said what, when they said it, and what this is all going to mean if it is or is not fair. At the end of the day, who is it supposed to be fair to? It is supposed to be fair to our constituents. It is supposed to be fair to Canadians. Canadians need to get the benefit of some of the things that are happening in these bills.

Let us look at the issue of pollution. In this House today, we are talking a lot about the environment and pollution, etc. The indexing of carbon needs to start. It needs to move forward. There are 67 nations in the world that have a carbon price, so let us get moving on this. Let us start getting money in and money out, and getting that money back into provinces so that they can start moving. Then we could get the greenhouse gas emissions down, and some other things could come about from the indexing of carbon.

Let us look at Norway. For me, this is the finest example of what a carbon tax could do. Norway started a carbon tax way back, with their former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. All of the oil companies decided that they hated it, but they paid it, and that moved them forward to start doing technology and changing to clean technology in terms of oil and bringing down their greenhouse gases. I think they are the fifth-largest oil producer in the world, but they are number one in terms of environmental sustainability and they are no longer paying a tax.

I hear sometimes from across the way, especially from the hon. members of the official opposition, that this measure is going to kill the economy. Norway has the highest per capita income in the world. All of the Norwegians are enjoying the benefits. The money is going into social programs. It is going into making sure that Norway is a better place for quality of life. When we look at some of these things, we see that we have to get moving.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax, I think for about 10 or 12 or 15 years. Now British Columbia is the number one performing economy in Canada. British Columbia is actually creating more jobs, and we are seeing better employment in British Columbia than in anywhere else across the country. Let us get moving on some of these things.

The point is that we need to move forward with the initiatives that we need to finish before we rise. We all want to go back to our ridings and enjoy the summer, spending time with our families and our constituents. Our constituents need us to roll up our sleeves and get moving here. Let us forget whatever gamesmanship we want to play and who said what and where and when, and who is right or wrong, and let us just get this done for Canadians.

Let us just move forward and do it. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. When we look at all the people who are waiting for these bills to move forward, we see it is really time to start talking about how to do things to change it.

Let us talk about, for instance, Bill C-65, which addresses harassment and violence in the workplace. Let us get this done, get it moving, so that we can diminish the amount of harassment and violence in the workplace. We know that this is important. If we do not get this done before we rise, and we wait until we come back in the fall, what will happen is that it will continue for an extra three months.

We passed Bill C-66, on which all of us came together. That was a shining example, in my opinion, of how well we can work when we care and when we put Canadians first. Let us look at the expunging of the records of LGBTQ2+ Canadians who were convicted of offences involving consensual sexual activity. The bill was introduced on the same day the Prime Minister delivered his apology. Everyone in this House came together. We moved forward, and those affected are going to be able to get compensation. We can do things when we want to.

Sometimes I think the politics get in the way of getting the work done. Let us all agree that we need to get this done. Working later hours means that we can get to some of these important pieces of legislation that must be passed for the benefit of Canadians. This is what I am getting to. If we have these extended sittings, one can actually discuss and debate the bills and do what we need to do with these bills. The motion would give us time for that extra debate on those bills.

At least before we rise for the summer, we would be able to say to Canadians that we worked hard; some of us did not like it or think it was fair or the the right thing to do, but we were putting them first. I think we sometimes forget to do that in this place. We forget who we are serving and why we should be serving them in a very efficient and effective manner. Tricks and tactics are cute. Everyone gets a “gotcha” and “my strategy is better than yours”, but sometimes we have to put that aside for the benefit of the people who elected us.

Let us think of what we need to get going on and agree on in terms of British Columbia and New Brunswick, which are facing flooding. We know that in British Columbia, there are chances of fires over this very hot summer, which may be another thing we have to deal with. Therefore, let us put in place some kind of process so we can move forward and get help to them.

On Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, we have seen amendments come from the standing committee. Let us deal with those amendments. Let us look at this and talk about how we get going. We are talking about the Canada child benefit, which is the biggest one I can think of for the middle class. I know that families are waiting for this to give them the extra money they need to help their children. Time is of the essence when we are looking at putting money in people's pockets. Not only that, but once we index it with this bill, it is going to assist indigenous communities. Many do not know that they are eligible or that they need to apply. They need to know how to apply for this money, and it is important for them.

As I said, the new workers benefit, the CWB, will allow Canadians to take home more money while they work, and it will encourage Canadians to enter the labour market. Some of the other pieces in the budget implementation bill will help to create a work-life balance for people in this House and women and men who are working and trying to bring up their children. They are worried that they do not have the time for anything, that they are neither fish nor fowl, they are neither workers nor parents.

Let us move forward and be generous with our time in terms of helping Canadians. We can look at some of the work to do in this House that will not only help middle-class Canadians but also move the economy forward, get people working, and get more jobs going in the summer. I am not being condescending, but we all know that sometimes, for our constituents, a month, two months, or a year is what they need to get moving to live the quality of life they want. Let us get moving on some of these things.

We can look at the Minister of Democratic Reform. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with any of the arguments that have been made, but at the end of the day, we need time to move forward, with the election coming up.

I know that some members have said that we did not do it, and so now what? Who are we punishing when we do not do it and say we could have done it and should have done it, and now we are running late? At the end of the day, getting work done is not about saying “woulda, coulda, shoulda” and that we have a timeline. Let us just put aside some of the scoring of points we try to do in this place. It would really help Canadians in feeling that they can trust their politicians, that politicians sometimes care about them more than about scoring points and creating tactics and “gotcha” moments in the House.

We can look at tax reform in Bill C-74, for instance. We are talking about the fact that small and medium-sized businesses can use the corporate tax savings to help themselves get about $7,500 a year so they can expand their businesses. In so doing, they can create more jobs. It would help people come summer and moving on into the fall. They can bring new capital investments. Those are some of the things we are talking about.

We also know there are loopholes for large private corporations and that they use the loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Let us fix that. Let us get some of these things moving. It may be the unintended tax advantage they are looking for. Let us fix it. Let us move on and get some of these things done.

I will go back to carbon pricing. Right now, everyone is debating carbon pricing and what is happening with carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris agreement. Let us get it moving. Every time we delay things here in the House, we are making Canadians lag behind. We are putting things on hold, when we know that time is of the essence. Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing with people who say that we had an opportunity to do it but we did not and that we are not giving the opposition enough time to get their pieces on the table.

Right now we have legislation on the table that has to be passed for the benefit of Canadians. I will reiterate. Let us put aside all the tactics we are employing in the House, all the gamesmanship, and come together, as we have shown we can. We did it with the LGBTQ2+ issue. Let us show that we can come together for the benefit of Canadians, because that is what we were elected to do.

There will always be enough time for gamesmanship and pointing fingers. However, the environment, the economy, and jobs are very important things. Look at the changes we are proposing in terms of making Parliament more open and transparent. We have promised to give the Canadian public a bigger say when looking at projects and when planning, and so on. We can get better input from them. Let us get that going. The summer gives Canadians an opportunity to start thinking about these things and having input.

Let us talk about parliamentary committees. I remember being in opposition when the parliamentary committee system was run by the parliamentary secretary, and we had to do what the parliamentary secretary said. They got the agenda going and nobody listened to anyone. We said we were going to change it. We came in, and we did. Parliamentary secretaries sit on committees, because they need to hear what is going on so they can go back to the minister and say what people are debating. However, they have no vote. They cannot run the show anymore. It is now far more democratic in parliamentary committees.

Having chaired a committee myself, I can say that now everyone is busy debating the issues and people are agreeing on so many things. I look to my seatmate here, who is chair of the finance committee. The finance committee is doing yeoman's work. It is changing things and making amendments that are making a difference, and it is all because Parliament is working a whole lot better.

I could go on, but I am not going to. I just want to make a plea. We have made our points in the debate in the House that the government is dragging its feet or not dragging its feet. Members have made their points. Let us now get on with the work. Let us roll up our sleeves and work the extra hours. Let Canadians see that we are committed to them, to the work we need to do, and to the reason we were elected, and let us just get things done.

Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-66, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other acts, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Edmonton Centre, Calgary Nose Hill, and Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

Today, we meet following the historic apology to the LGBTQ2 community.

We had a historic apology to the LGBTQ community, two-spirited community, queer community, and the trans community. It was extremely moving. It was powerful. Today, with Bill C-66, the intent is to provide tangible reparations, the expungement of criminal records, for crimes that we would no longer regard as anything but a historical shame for Canada to have treated our fellow brothers and sisters and citizens in this way.

This bill is flawed. Many historians have been referenced already. I will mention how grateful I was to learn so much from the positions put forward by a professor from Carleton, Patrizia Gentile; from York University, Tom Hooper; from Laurentian, as I have already mentioned, Professor Gary Kinsman; and Steve Maynard from Queen's University. They are all historians who have looked at the really troubling, disturbing, and horrific record.

Our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill spoke very emotionally and personally about how it affected her while getting to know more of what occurred. I certainly know that in meeting with my constituents about their treatment in the Canadian military and being jailed, these are stories that we find virtually impossible to believe. Fortunately, for the most part, we have an enlightened society. It is extraordinarily important that we could meet today with unanimous consent to ensure that Bill C-66 passes, but I do so with some misgivings because of the flaws in the bill that have been brought to our attention since it was originally tabled.

I also take comfort from the assurances by government members, particularly the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, who bears a particular responsibility on behalf of the Prime Minister, to be responsible for championing issues that relate to the LGBTQ, two-spirited, trans community. It is enormously important that the designation has occurred and that we have a consensus in this place.

I want to add that the wrongs that were done do not pass from our minds easily. It is one of those things that sticks with a person. When I was a very small child, I do not remember why I got into a conversation with my mother about same-sex couples and why some people thought it was wrong. This would have been, relatively speaking, a long time ago, because I now find myself something of an elder in this place, being over 60. I think I was about six and talking to my mom about friends who were gay and beginning to understand that gay friends were once discriminated against and sometimes still were.

My mother told me the story of one of the people she loved best in her music program. My mom was a pianist and she knew a brilliant young pianist, one of the most gifted of her generation in her school, who took his own life because he was not allowed to live the life of a gay man. He felt suicide was his only choice. It grieves me to this day to think about that musician, who cut his life short, who was one of my mom's contemporaries, but it did educate me a bit.

I remember the horror I found in beginning to love and read Oscar Wilde. I still love and read Oscar Wilde, and I think about that brilliant man dying in prison, disgraced for whom he loved. These things we tend to push out of our minds when we quote Oscar Wilde, when he was funny, which he was virtually all the time. He was brilliant and witty, jailed and disgraced.

Many cultures have now moved through this, but we recognize that the discrimination against, and in fact targeting for eradication of, gay men in Chechnya has now been exposed by journalists. We saw Canadian Journalists for Free Expression give its award this year to the brave reporter who broke that story. Therefore, around the world, Canadians are standing up.

By the way, it was only Lithuania and Canada that were willing to offer refuge to gay men from Chechnya so they could escape being targeted and murdered. This is now. This is what is happening around the world now, so there is a lot more work to be done.

However, in addressing the past wrongs that were done in Canada, this bill will be watched closely. I thank my hon. colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for committing that he and his party will keep an eagle eye on this. I will do my best from the Green Party caucus of one to keep an eye on this, to make sure that criminal records from bawdy houses, from offences that are not listed, and military records of dishonourable discharges, and all of the historical wrongs that remain on people's records in Canada will be removed. I thank my hon. colleagues on the government side for their commitment. Based on that, I think we could move to unanimous consent today to expedite this bill.

I looked for something from Oscar Wilde to share that was not witty, that spoke to the issue, because I do not quote RuPaul. I am just too old for this. Oscar Wilde said, “Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead.”

Keeping love in our hearts is why we redress past wrongs. Keeping love in our hearts is why it matters that we redress the past wrongs of the treatment of indigenous peoples, and why after a century and a half of discrimination and racist policies against indigenous peoples they are still prepared to talk to us. It is an enormous tribute to the human spirit that the will for justice can flourish between and among the past oppressors and the past oppressed, especially when this is recent history.

With that, I am thinking of love. I know that short of questions and answers, this will be the last time I address this House in 2017. For all my friends and colleagues—and they are all friends—I want to say from the bottom of my heart that I hope they enjoy time with their families between now and our resumption in late January; that, if they celebrate Christmas they have a merry and blessed Christmas with the arrival of our Lord and saviour in that small manger in Bethlehem; and if they are experiencing Hanukkah, I would point out that we are about to light a menorah down the way and I wish everyone a happy Hanukkah; and if they celebrate other religions or no religions, that they celebrate the time that Canada as a whole comes to a lovely pause.

Things slow down. Statutory holidays alone give us a chance to be with those we love, and we should turn our hearts and our minds, particularly at this time of year, to those who are alone at Christmas, who are unable to put a meal on the table, and to take some time to donate to those good causes in all of our communities that ensure that a meal will be served and that the homeless are welcomed with warmth, and that all of us reflect the enormous blessings of our lives at this time through sharing with all of those who are without.

Merry Christmas, God bless.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on behalf of LGBTQ2 Canadians. I would like to ask him about the process.

As he knows, an applicant will identify someone who has been given a criminal record that is historically unjust. They may be members of the public service, they may be military service members prosecuted under the National Defence Act, and the schedule of eligible offences for Bill C-66 accounts for both. These applicants will then gather available evidence and apply free of charge directly to the Parole Board. Family members or another appropriate representative may apply on behalf of the deceased individual.

I would like to know the member's comments on those provisions in the bill. Moreover, on a more personal nature, how in the future, after his long advocacy on these matters, will he reflect on the latter two months of 2017 in this place?

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

Mr. Speaker, as a gay man, I take particular pride in standing in the House today to speak to Bill C-66. For me, the bill is an important and necessary part of the apology delivered by the Prime Minister in the House just a week ago. In that apology, the Prime Minister acknowledged that governments in Canada had run campaigns of humiliation, intimidation, firings, and persecution of fellow Canadians on the basis of their sexual orientation. This ranged from interrogations; to pressure to inform on colleagues, to firings from the public service, the foreign service, the RCMP, and the Canadian Forces; and to campaigns by police targeting gay men for consensual same-sex activity, all of this despite the fact that most forms of same-sex activity were legalized in 1969.

As a gay man of a certain age, I also take a personal interest in the expungement legislation. It was probably more a matter of luck than anything else that I was not caught in the nets cast to capture gay men in public places, like the 146 men arrested in raids on two gay bars in Montreal in 1977, places and a year in Montreal which I am familiar. More than 300 were arrested in raids on four bath houses in Toronto in 1981.

What is important about these two events is that both of them sparked public demonstrations for the first time against these campaigns of arrests. More than 2,000 turned out in Montreal and more than 3,000 turned out in Toronto. These demonstrations marked the beginning of the organized resistance of the LGBTQ community against these campaigns of oppression, resistance which has ultimately led to this legislation being before the House today.

Correcting some of the injustices resulting from these campaigns is indeed the purpose of Bill C-66, as those subject to these campaigns suffered real consequences. However, some of these consequences can never be reversed, especially as many of the resulting charges led to public humiliation when the names of those arrested were released for publication in the media, this at a time when being out was not really a thing and was far from being socially acceptable. Those who were convicted found themselves with severe limitations on their ability to retain jobs or to find new jobs if they were fired, as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was only outlawed in most jurisdictions in the 1990s, with the notable exception of Quebec, where it took place in 1977, and Manitoba in 1986.

A settlement of the class action law suit launched by those who were fired from their federal jobs, and on which agreement in principle was reached only days before the apology, will provide some monetary compensation to those still living who lost jobs. However, there are other consequences of convictions resulting from these campaigns against consensual same-sex activity that continue to this day.

Those with criminal records remain prohibited from volunteering with vulnerable people, whether that would be serving as a role model for LGBTQ2 youth, as foster parents, or volunteering to serve seniors with dementia. Of course, criminal records often result in severe restrictions on the ability to travel abroad.

While I am glad to see the legislation being dealt with expeditiously in the House, I have to remind my colleagues that many in my community have waited decades for this moment to come. Many never thought we would see this day and many, in fact, did not live to see this day, some simply because it has taken too long and some because having their lives and careers ruined as a result of those campaigns led them to take their own lives.

In 1992, NDP MP Svend Robinson raised the question of the gay purges with Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney, and he responded that “if” these campaigns had occurred, they would have constituted human rights violations and should have been investigated. However, 25 years ago nothing came of this.

Activists within the LGBTQ community first made formal demands for an apology in 1998, nearly a decade ago, but the Liberal government of the day did not respond. In 2014, long-time NDP member of Parliament and first out lesbian in the House, Libby Davies, introduced a motion calling for an apology. Also in 2014, NDP MP Philip Toone introduced a bill to get rid of these unjust criminal records.

When we look at how the LGBTQ2 community has pursued an apology and expungement of criminal records for 25 years, the words fast and expeditiously need to be used sparingly when it comes to Parliament acknowledging the unjust treatment of the community and responding appropriately.

Nevertheless, I take the apology very seriously. I hope it will be a springboard for action, not just to redress previous wrongs but to launch efforts to remove ongoing discrimination against my community, including ending the gay blood ban, fully implementing Bill C-16 to bring about equal treatment for transgender and gender variant Canadians, and ensuring the concerns of two-spirited Canadians are addressed whenever reconciliation is on the table.

At this point, I should restate the NDP position on the bill, and that is that the bill should go forward quickly, as there are ways within the bill itself to deal with the concerns that have been raised since it was tabled.

It is unfortunate that the community and the many researchers and activists who have been working on this issue were not consulted in the drafting. those like Gary Kinsman and Patrizia Gentile, who we can actually say wrote the book on this, when they published their book The Canadian War on Queers in 2010. For some reason, the Liberal government was determined to keep consultations on redress separate and apart from consultations on the apology itself.

Turning to the contents of Bill C-66, there is of course one big omission in the bill. It excludes bawdy house offences from the list of offences for which one can apply for expungement, never mind that raids on gay bars and bath houses were key parts of the campaign of persecution against gay men. It is a curious omission from the list for which one can seek expungement when the Prime Minister himself clearly labelled use of bawdy house provisions against the LGBTQ2 community as discriminatory, and specifically included both bathhouse raids and entrapment by the police in his apology. Therefore, it seems wrong that the list of offences in the bill is narrower than the apology delivered by the Prime Minister.

One might ask why am I arguing this bill ought to go forward with this gap in it. Clause 23 of the bill allows cabinet to add offences to the schedule by order in council. I trust the Liberal government will consider these issues that have been raised and discussed here today and will fully implement the apology after the bill passes by adding bawdy house offences to the schedule. The New Democrats will be here to remind the Liberals if they should forget or dawdle.

Some have expressed a concern that offences added later would have lesser status and could easily be removed by a future government. Let me point to the testimony by officials in the public safety committee Monday, reassuring us that once offences were in the schedule it would require legislative action to remove them.

On the question of ensuring there are no obstacles to LGBTQ2 citizens being able to use the expungement process, again we heard reassurance from the public safety, justice, and Parole Board officials. First and foremost was the confirmation that we had again here today, that there would be no fee to apply for expungement. Second, there was assurance from the Parole Board that the application process would remain “simplified” and that staff would be made available to help citizens file their applications so they would not be required to retain legal counsel to do so.

Another concern is the question of what would constitute proof of consent for offences, which are often quite old and are convictions for offences for which the question of consent was not germane to the conviction. The bill says that it has to have been consensual sex. Again, officials assured the public safety committee that dealing with this question was the purpose of proposed section 7(3), allowing sworn statements where records, and therefore evidence on the question of consent, are not available. Further, the government's charter statement on Bill C-66, which was tabled yesterday, very clearly says the following, “Pursuant to sections 12 and 13, the Board must expunge if there is no evidence that the applicable criteria are not satisfied...”

With regard to the age of consent provisions, officials again pointed out that the laddering provisions in effect at the time of the conviction allowing exemptions for those close in age would still apply to the expungement.

I stand here today as a proud member of the LGBTQ2 community and a proud member of a House of Commons, which has acknowledged the historical campaigns of persecution against my community, apologized for those injustices, and with this bill, has begun the process of redress that will complete the apology.

My community waited decades for this acknowledgement and apology, so I am glad we have moved quickly on the bill, even if we were very late at getting to the starting line.

Let me stress once again my hope and the hope of my community that the apology will mark a turning point and a springboard not just for action to address the historical injustices, but a springboard for action to remove ongoing discrimination.

Members of the LGBTQ2 community who were the subject of campaigns of persecution should not have to wait longer to see the formal part of these injustices undone. We have come a long way, but there is still more work to do.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and it is a great privilege and honour to stand in this place and speak on behalf of this legislation.

For those who may be watching and are wondering what we are doing on the last day before we rise for the December adjournment, we are debating Bill C-66, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other acts.

This enactment would create a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of the judicial records of those convictions from federal repositories and systems.

This enactment would provide an application for an expungement order that might be made for respective convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex persons related to the offences of gross indecency, buggery, and anal intercourse.

The enactment provides that the Governor in Council may add certain offences to the schedule and establish criteria that must be satisfied for expungement of a conviction to be ordered.

What does that mean?

I would like to translate what that means and why this legislation is so important to somebody who is a Calgarian. As a Calgary MP, I just want to take a moment and talk about him, because he and many others are the reason why this legislation needs to occur in the first place and “him” of course is Everett Klippert.

I want to thank Kevin Allen, a Calgarian, who has been working on absolutely important work. It is called the Calgary Gay History Project. He is writing a history of this topic in Calgary and he has been doing it for many years. He was very helpful in the consultation that I undertook on this particular issue. This is from him:

Despite homosexuality being a criminal offence in 1960s Canada, and [Klippert's] multiple convictions of gross indecency, he was always frank and truthful in his interactions with the state, even though he paid a severe penalty for that honesty.

When Calgary Police questioned him about the 18 names in his little black book, which was also his dating record, he confessed to having had homosexual relations with them all.

In Pine Point, NWT, local RCMP brought Klippert in for questioning and threatened him with an arson charge of which he was innocent. Using it as leverage to open Klippert up about his sex life, he readily confessed to having had intimate relations with four men there.

In every court case, he pled guilty. A court psychiatrist reported that Klippert told him his “homosexual behaviour had existed since the age of 15; that to him homosexual activity [was] his only satisfactory sexual outlet. He found the thought of heterosexual conduct abhorrent. He told me that he never had heterosexual relations.”

Gay activist and lawyer Douglas Saunders interviewed the incarcerated Klippert in December 1967 in what he described as “the fortress-like Penitentiary at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.” His unjust treatment gave his convictions a certain resolve. Klippert told Saunders: “If I meet someone on the outside now and he asks me, I'll say sure I'm a homosexual, what are you? I'm not going to be ashamed of it anymore.”

Klippert who grew up Christian took comfort in his prison bible and noted Psalm 22:24 to Saunders: “For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”

This man should not have been incarcerated. I do not know what more to say than that. This legislation is important because it would reverse that. I cannot imagine. I read John Ibbitson's piece on him. He noted how his family was reluctant to talk because they did not want to have to revictimize him posthumously.

I am really glad that we are pushing this legislation through the House of Commons, because one of the things that I stand behind in my party and in our policies declaration is a belief in the equality of all Canadians. It is right there.

Every once in a while as Canadians we really have to think about what equality means. It is a beautiful thing for me to be able, generations after Mr. Klippert, to think that there is no situation in which my government would persecute me based on who I love or what I do in my personal life.

Can members imagine what the people who are subject to this bill had to go through? The stories that I heard when I went through the consultation for the apology were the antithesis of what equality means. I heard from someone whose lesbian partner at that point in time was actually physically hauled out of her house for questioning on allegations of her sexual preference. There was the “fruit machine”. I have had people write into my office and say, “the government is spending so much on this apology”. We spent a lot of taxpayer dollars back then persecuting people. We spent a lot of taxpayer dollars developing a “fruit machine”. That is a dark point in Canada's history. If we are going to stand up and talk about equality, there cannot be partisan differences. It just should be something that we all accept, and that is why this bill is important.

For people who had to go through a criminal conviction or suffered employment loss or anything that gave them a record based on whom they love, that is not equality, that is not Canadian, that is a violation of human rights. If we stand here as Canadians and talk about how we comport ourselves in international relations when we demand other countries to behave certain ways, we had better be getting it right at home, consistently, all the time.

What this bill is trying to do, in its spirit, is a no-brainer. I appreciate that my colleagues are bringing up technical points. I know that my colleagues within our party have brought up some technical points too. My colleague across the way acknowledged that this is the first time, I believe, that expungement happened. We are, in good faith, believing that this bill will do what it is intended to do. There will be time to hold the government to account on that, certainly. I am very pleased to be here today to say that there is no question that this should happen. I want to be very clear about that. From the bottom of my heart and from the depth of my soul, if we want to believe in the equality of all Canadians, no Canadian should have a criminal record for loving somebody. It is really as simple as that.

It is really cool to be able to stand up and support this bill, and I think it is really cool that this bill has all parties' support. It is something that Canada can celebrate internationally. I encourage individuals who have questions or concerns about this bill to really have a hard think about the rights that they have as Canadians, to really have a hard think about what equality means for them. If we do not make everybody equal, we have lost what it means to be Canadian. Whom one loves should not be a question of equality. There should not be historical or current criminal penalties for that. There should not be discrimination against that. It is just wrong.

To you, Mr. Speaker, and for all of my colleagues in this House, it is fantastic and pretty cool that we are debating something of such importance as we rise for Christmas break. Every once in a while, we do something here that resembles work. Because I am not sure anyone has ever done this in the House before, I am going to quote RuPaul, “If you can't love yourself how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?”

Merry Christmas.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on this particular bill.

Today Canadians who were unjustly convicted because of who they love are one step closer to clearing their names and moving on with their lives. They were victims of past federal policies and practices that under no circumstances would hold up in Canada today. They were systematically discriminated against and demeaned, and they spent much of their lives with all the repercussions of a criminal record, unable, in some cases, to find work, or even travel with their families. They were made to feel as though they had committed a major crime, and they were made to feel as though their sexual orientation could determine whether or not they had a chance in life.

Many tried to fight their convictions and lost. Some waited decades for redress, and others nearly half a century. Tragically, some did not live to see this day.

Today we are sending all of them and their loved ones a clear message when we move this legislation forward: their country is deeply sorry. Their country was wrong. Their country wants to make amends and help their healing process.

I would like to take a moment today to thank all members, on both sides of the House, for their dedication to moving this bill forward. I would also like to thank all the activists and all those who have fought for more than 50 years and put themselves in danger to demand these changes over the past five decades.

We have accounted for these issues by adding the provision that in cases where court or police records are not available, sworn statements may be accepted as evidence.

Second, I would like to speak to some of the questions we have heard concerning bawdy house laws. To be clear, bawdy house laws were intended to capture a broad scope of acts deemed immoral at the time. What this bill would do is deal with charges under gross indecency, buggery, and anal intercourse, which were used under the Criminal Code to victimize LGBTQ2 people systematically. We have enumerated those in the schedule to make sure we are being precise and clear.

Some have raised questions about whether we are simply passing the legislation and then leaving the rest to the LGBTQ2 community. That would be a mischaracterization. Once the bill passes, the government will undertake a proactive outreach process for potential applicants to increase awareness of the initiative as well as the criteria and the application process.

The government will work closely with federal partners and stakeholders from the LGBTQ2 community to inform those applicants. We will not leave members of the LGBTQ2 community in the dark. We have set aside $4 million over two years to implement the process, and I am confident that the process will be sound, efficient, and effective.

The Parole Board, once applications are made, will determine, case by case, successful applications, and successful applicants will have their records of convictions permanently destroyed. The RCMP can then destroy any records of convictions it has in its custody, and it can direct other federal departments or agencies to do the same. The expungement order will then be communicated to other courts and police forces as appropriate.

The bill would also allow the Parole Board of Canada to refuse to issue expungements in certain circumstances. More information on the application process will soon be available to potential applicants. It will not be long after the bill receives royal assent that the Parole Board could begin accepting applications.

The suffering the LGBTQ2 community has endured will not be forgotten. The government will contribute a minimum of $15 million for projects to record and memorialize the tragedy of the past and the hope for the future. That includes a national monument here in Ottawa and an education package concerning discrimination against LGBTQ2 Canadians.

I am proud to stand behind the government's efforts to improve life for our LGBTQ2 community.

I invite my hon. colleagues to help eliminate discrimination and right the wrongs committed against the LGBTQ2 community by joining me in giving their full support to Bill C-66.

Before I end, let me say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the House leader, and all of my colleagues on this side of the House, a very merry Christmas and happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker, and your family, to all parliamentarians and staff for their hard work, to the Clerk and all table officers, to all branches and services of the House administration, to all the families connected to the Houses of Parliament, and to all the loved ones present here today and those we remember because they are now in our prayers and no longer able to be with us. I wish the pages good luck in their exams, and may they have much success in their future endeavours.

Feliz Navidad, merry Christmas, and happy new year.

Merry Christmas to all and to everyone in this place.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by eight minutes.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration, at third reading, of Bill C-66, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other acts.

Bill C-66—Charter Statement

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice, I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement on Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts.

While I am on my feet, I want to express the appreciation of the government to all members on all sides of the House who have facilitated the prompt procedure of this legislation through the House of Commons.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I present the report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, I want to acknowledge the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who has made a significant contribution to this report.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank each and every one of you for your efforts to be here, particularly on a day like today.

With that, we'll suspend and re-empanel in a couple of minutes.

Mr. Paul-Hus will begin to chair the second half. I have to report Bill C-66 to the House.

We are suspended.

[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.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I was at an event on the weekend in London, back in the riding. It was a Christmas choir event put on by the Pride Men's Chorus in London, Ontario, and there was a great deal of excitement about what's moving along here.

I also want to commend my colleague across the way, who I don't know terribly well, but I do know that he has worked on these issues for most of his life.

Thank you very much, Randall, for what you've done.

My first question has been touched on already in terms of international experiences. Australia is mentioned, as are New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These initiatives have really taken off in these countries very recently as well, with all of them in 2017, if I'm not mistaken. To the extent that we are now moving along with Bill C-66, can you comment on how we have looked at those experiences in terms of legislation and have sought to build into this approach best practices and lessons learned from their very early approach?

[Kathy Thompson]

The Prime Minister did not only provide an apology. He also provided a number of measures that complement the apology. There is Bill C-66. There's also an agreement-in-principle that has been signed with respect to a class action. There will be initiatives to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1969 decriminalization of homosexuality, and through the Commemorate Canada program, there will be funding available for initiatives that increase awareness of people, actions, and struggles that led to the decriminalization.

I mentioned the toll-free number that's available for RCMP and National Defence staff to seek support. Also, there is funding that's being provided for a number of projects in anticipation of the increased demands for LGBTQ2 individuals through the ESDC program.

[Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand there's not a lot of time allocated this afternoon, so I'll be very brief.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-66. My name is Kathy Thompson. I am the assistant deputy minister for community safety and countering crime at Public Safety Canada. I'll very quickly introduce my colleagues with me today.

To my right is Angela Arnet Connidis, director general of crime prevention, corrections and criminal justice directorate at Public Safety Canada.

To my immediate left is Chief Superintendent Serge Côté, director general, Canadian real-time identification services at the RCMP, and Talal Dakalbab, chief operating officer at the Parole Board of Canada.

My colleagues and I are here today to answer your questions about our role in relation to Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts. On November 28, this bill was introduced in the House of Commons.

On that same day, the Prime Minister made a formal apology on behalf of the Government of Canada to the LGBTQ2 community. As part of that apology, the Prime Minister spoke of Canada's history of criminalizing private and consensual sex between same-sex partners, leading to the unjust arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of Canadians. Bill C-66 was developed to provide recognition of this injustice and recourse to those affected.

The expungement of historically unjust convictions act would create a process that would allow for the destruction or permanent removal of records of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners that would be lawful today. It would deem a person convicted of an offence for which expungement is ordered never to have been convicted of that offence.

Under the act, there would be a schedule of offences eligible for expungement, which would immediately include the offences of buggery, gross indecency, and anal intercourse. This would apply to cases of the offences prosecuted under the Criminal Code, as well as military service members who were prosecuted for these offences under the National Defence Act.

Individuals convicted of an eligible offence would be able to apply directly to the national Parole Board of Canada, and there would be no application fee. If an eligible individual is deceased, appropriate representatives, including family, a common law partner, a loved one, or a trustee would be able to apply on their behalf. Applicants will be asked to provide evidence that the conviction meets certain criteria, three specifically, to demonstrate that the act is no longer criminal. Given the historical nature of these offences, if court or police records are not available, sworn statements or solemn declarations may be accepted as evidence.

For offences initially listed in the schedule, there are three specific criteria: that the participants of the sexual activity were of the same sex, that they consented, and that they were at least 16 years of age, or subject to the “close in age” defence under the Criminal Code.

If the expungement is ordered, the RCMP would destroy any record of the conviction in its custody, and it would notify any federal department or agency that to its knowledge has records of the conviction and direct them to do the same. Relevant courts, and municipal and provincial police forces would also be notified of the expungement order.

Expungement is distinct from the existing processes, including record suspensions. One of the primary differences is that expungement will be available posthumously, while record suspensions are not. A suspended record is set aside for most purposes, but it is not destroyed. The purpose of a record suspension is to remove barriers to reintegration for a former offender. Individuals with convictions that constitute historical injustice should not be viewed as former offenders.

Expungement under Bill C-66 would provide appropriate and permanent recognition of these historical injustices. Similar expungement schemes have been introduced in several different countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany. While there are no plans at this time to add any offences to the expungement scheme, the legislation does allow the government to do so in the future if it determines that the convictions for those offences were historically unjust.

Thank you. My colleagues are available, as I am, to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I would like to bring to order the 91st meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is a special meeting to review Bill C-66, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other acts.

We have, as witnesses, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Parole Board of Canada. I understand that if the committee wishes, Ms. Thompson is prepared to make a statement. If the committee doesn't wish a statement, then we can go directly to questions.

What is the will of the committee?

Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to point out the number of times governments and communities had come close to getting changes in legislation only to have another jurisdiction put the community back and deny human rights. That is the long timeline, over 50 years, of resources and people's lives to simply have human rights recognized in the charter extended to LGBTQ2 Canadians.

The apology was heard by many different people. For some people, they will have remembered the incidents and persecution that could have happened to them or a family member. Our parliamentary leader spoke to some of the individuals who were impacted. Everyone had an opportunity to hear the government's words and to apologize, which is important.

However, it is so critical, which was the gist of my comment, that legislation needs to change. We need to get going very quickly so Canadians do not see themselves going back to making a promise and LGBTQ2 Canadians needing to wait years to see that realized through legislation.

I am very proud to support and help the government and Parliament move forward as quickly as possible on Bill C-66, so we can get to some of the other matters I mentioned, which are just as important.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I talked about some of the additional pieces I would like to see the government move on to continue this important first step we are taking today with Bill C-66. However, there are other things that need to happen quickly after the apology so Canadians, especially LGBTQ2 Canadians, know the government is serious and following through.

For example, they include ending the ban on men who have sex with men being able to donate blood. There is no scientific evidence for that ban, and it needs to be removed right now. People count on people donating blood, and it is simply unacceptable.

The government has also introduced the changes to the Criminal Code around the age of consent, but that has stalled. We do not know what had with that, but we would like to see that come forward very quickly. Those are two things that the government could move on very quickly in order to continue the momentum and to show Canadians that the apology was just a first step toward making Canada more just for LGBTQ Canadians and, in fact, all Canadians.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. The apology and Bill C-66 are a step in the right direction. I also agree with her that there is still lot of work to be done.

At the end of her speech, she made some suggestions to help the government ensure that the rights of LGBTQ2 people are not violated in the future. I would like to know whether she has any ideas about what the government could do to move in that direction.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the NDP to support Bill C-66 and its quick passage into law.

For me, as a member of the LGBTQ2 community, the government's apology last week was a long awaited historic moment that paved the way for a more just and more inclusive Canada for everyone. I feel like I am walking on a path walked by so many brave and tireless activists throughout the last 50 years. I also want to acknowledge the important work of former New Democrat MPs such as Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, Bill Siksay, and Craig Scott, who paved the way for gay and lesbian Canadians in this House.

I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose tireless efforts resulted in transgender and gender non-binary Canadians finally receiving the same protections and rights as all other Canadians.

Last week's apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada was a very emotional day for many Canadians, as well as for me. Even as we celebrated the moment and looked forward to the righting of past injustices, the day also inevitably revived some darker memories of what Canadians have suffered.

In 1965, Everett Klippert, from Saskatchewan, became the last Canadian to be in jail because he was gay. He was declared a dangerous sexual offender and was sentenced to life in prison in 1966. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld his conviction until he was released in 1971, two years after then justice minister Pierre Trudeau's bill legalized consensual homosexual acts. Journalist John Ibbitson, who profiled Klippert, recently said in an interview:

He didn't see himself as a pioneer in the gay rights movement. He was just a guy who loved driving trucks and, as it turned out, loved men as well.

Everett was merely the last Canadian to have been imprisoned for who he loved.

There are countless Canadians whose lives have been shattered and altered immeasurably because they were persecuted for who they are. While the apology is welcomed and the right thing to do, there are many for whom it has come too late. It came too late for Everett Klippert.

Every change, every advancement in law, every protection of basic human rights enshrined in law and policy for members of the LGBTQ2 community has been achieved by dragging governments and public institutions kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Let us hope that those days are over and that today is the day we commit, as Parliament, to end all state-sanctioned discrimination and to begin the long overdue restoration of justice for its victims. Let us hope that, indeed, as the headline for former NDP MP Svend Robinson's opinion piece in The Globe and Mail states, “For the countless Canadians humiliated by anti-gay policies, healing can finally begin”.

Thanks to activists and allies here in Canada, we have seen a gradual shift away from persecution and unjust punishment and a slow but unstoppable recognition of rights for LGBTQ2 people. I want to share a brief timeline.

In 1969, homosexuality ceased to be a crime in Canada, but it still took two more years before Everett Klippert was released from jail.

In 1975, Doug Wilson, a graduate student in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan, was refused by the dean of the College of Education to supervise practice teachers in the school system, because he was a gay activist. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission dismissed his case of discrimination.

In December 1977, Quebec included sexual orientation in its human rights code, making it the first province in Canada to pass a gay civil rights law. By 2001, all provinces and territories had taken this step forward.

In 1978, Canada's new immigration act removed homosexuals from the list of inadmissible classes.

In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in its annual report that sexual orientation be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The following year, MP Pat Carney tabled Bill C-242, which would have prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It did not pass. NDP MP Svend Robinson introduced similar bills in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1991.

In 1991, Robinson tried to get the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act to include “or of the same sex”. In 1992, he tried to get the word “opposite sex” definition of spouse removed from Bill C-55, which would have added the definition to survivor benefit provisions in federal pension legislation. All the proposed bills were defeated.

In 1987, Don Cochrane, a professor of education at the University of Saskatchewan, organized the first Breaking the Silence conference to discuss gay and lesbian issues in the education system. The conference celebrated its 30th year this year, but that year, the organizers had to hire security to protect attendees from physical and verbal harassment and abuse from protesters.

In 1988, Svend Robinson became the first member of Parliament to come out. Robinson was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979, and in 2000, the B.C. riding of Burnaby Douglas, as it was called then, elected him for the eighth time.

In 1991, Delwin Vriend, a lab instructor at King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta, was fired from his job because he was gay. The Alberta Human Rights Commission refused to investigate the case, because the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act did not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seven years later, after he was fired for being gay, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and finally, on April 2, 1998, the high court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also that year, in my community, Gay & Lesbian Health Services of Saskatoon, now called OUTSaskatoon, opened its doors, thanks to the shear determination and tenacity of Gens Hellquist. GLHS was started to serve the underserved health, social, and emotional needs of gays and lesbians in Saskatchewan.

In August 1992, in Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the failure to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act was discriminatory. Federal justice minister Kim Campbell responded to the decision by announcing that the government would take the necessary steps to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In November 1992, a landmark legal challenge was won by Michelle Douglas, who was fired from the military in 1989 for being a lesbian. The Federal Court finally lifted, in 1992, the country's ban on homosexuals in the military, and that year, for the first time, allowed gays and lesbians to serve with pride in the armed forces.

In May 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on the case involving Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit, two gay men who sued Ottawa for the right to claim the spousal pension under the Old Age Security Act. The court ruled against Egan and Nesbit. However, all nine judges agreed that sexual orientation was a protected ground.

In May 1995, an Ontario judge found that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringed section 15 of the charter by not allowing same sex couples to bring joint application for adoption. Ontario became the first province to make it legal for same sex couples to adopt. British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia followed quickly after.

In 1996, the federal government finally passed Bill C-33 and added sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same sex couples should have the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common-law couples and equal access to benefits from social programs to which they contribute.

In June of that year, although many laws would have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in May, Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In February 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals introduced Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in response to the Supreme Court's main ruling. The act would give same sex couples who lived together for more than a year the same benefits and obligations as all common-law couples. On April 11, 2000, Parliament passed Bill C-23 with a vote of 174 to 72. The legislation gives same sex couples the same social and tax benefits as all couples.

In total, the bill affected over 68 federal statutes related to a wide range of issues: pension benefits, old age security, income tax deductions, bankruptcy protection, and the Criminal Code. Despite this, the definitions of marriage and spouse were left untouched.

On December 10, 2000, Reverend Brent Hawkes, of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, read the first bans, an old Christian tradition of publishing or giving public notice of people's intent to marry, for two same-sex couples. Hawkes said that if the bans were read on three Sundays before the wedding, he could legally marry the couples. The two same-sex couples were married on January 14, 2001. The following day, the Ontario government reiterated the government's position, saying that the marriages would not be legally recognized.

The year 2000 was also the year that a Saskatoon Mount Royal high school teacher, Patti Rowley, attended a session at a school board convention by gay and lesbian health services. A year later, she started a gay-straight alliance in a high school in Saskatoon, at Mount Royal Collegiate. She has been facilitating a weekly meeting for students and teachers ever since, 22 years later.

In May 2002, then Ontario Supreme Court Justice Robert MacKinnon ruled that a gay student had the right to take his boyfriend to the prom. In July 2002, for the very first time, a Canadian court ruled in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages under the law. The Ontario superior court ruled that prohibiting gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In February 2003, MP Svend Robinson unveiled a private member's bill that would allow same-sex marriages. The federal government had already changed several laws to give same-sex couples the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual common-law couples. In June of that year, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling to legally allow same-sex marriages. The judgment said “the existing common law definition of marriage violates the Couples' equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation..”.

In June 2003, the Ontario government announced that the province would finally obey the law and register same-sex marriages. Nearly two dozen couples applied for marriage licences in Ontario on the following day.

In August 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien vowed not to let religious objections alter his stand on same-sex marriage. He said that members of Parliament would be allowed to vote freely on the bill when it was introduced into the House of Commons, after his retirement in 2004.

In December 2003, the Ontario court ruled that Ottawa had discriminated against same-sex couples by denying benefits to their partners who had died before 1998. The court ruled that benefits would be retroactive to April 17, 1985, when equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.

In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In February 2005, the federal government finally introduced the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons. The bill would give married same-sex partners the same legal protection as other married couples. In May of that year, a Canadian Forces sergeant and a warrant officer were married in the chapel at CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia, in the military's very first gay wedding.

In June 2005, the controversial bill, Bill C-38, titled “Civil Marriage Act”, passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 to 133. On July 20, 2005, the bill became law, and Canada became the fourth country in the world, after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, to finally and officially recognize same-sex marriage.

We can see that the road to the apology has been strewn with obstacles, and the struggle and resistance have been real and unrelenting. Each battle has been fought multiple times in multiple jurisdictions.

While governments, parliaments, police services, and other institutions, which were created to protect people, continued to persecute and prosecute LGBTQ Canadians, brave and courageous souls made change, positive change, despite governments. They did that one person, one family, one community at a time, and they saved people's lives. While the apology sadly came too late for some of these brave people, it does represent a much brighter future for those who remain. The apology is the proper first step, and we applaud the government for taking it.

New Democrats have been unwavering in calling for a just apology, and we are pleased that the government has announced that it is including redress measures in the bill. An apology without any redress measures would have been just an apology, not a just apology. There are thousands of people with unjust historic convictions for consensual same-sex sexual activity still on the records, and these convictions continue to be a barrier for people when it comes to travel, volunteering, even to getting a job.

New Democrats have fought to make sure that expungement legislation was tabled at the same time as the apology, and we are committed to working together with all parliamentarians and government to get this legislation passed as soon as possible. By expunging the convictions for historic consensual same-sex activity, the government is ensuring that no unfairly applied discriminatory label or judgment can continue to have negative impacts on people's daily lives.

While Bill C-66 is not perfect, we believe that all of the issues in question are fixable without amending the bill and therefore should not cause delay in the passage of the bill. New Democrats would like to see the immediate implementation of a process for the expungement of criminal records for consensual same-sex sexual activity. Speedy follow-through on a redress measure is necessary to complete and validate the government apology.

Now that Bill C-66 is tabled, we want to also make sure that the government continues to make sure that Canadian Forces service records are revised, that it quickly moves on the tabled legislation to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code, and, of course, that it finally ends the blood ban for men who have sex with men.

I would like to thank those who went before us, as well as everyone who continues to work toward a more inclusive and equal Canada. There remains, unfortunately, a lot still to do.

I chose to run to be a member of Parliament for Saskatoon West. My goal was to end homelessness. As we heard the parliamentary secretary mention, LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in homelessness in this country. It is estimated that between 25% and 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ2. These young people are more vulnerable or at a higher risk of homelessness because of homophobia and transphobia. LGBTQ youth leave home most often because of violence and abuse. Their home is not safe for them. They often choose to live, literally on the street because they face homophobia and transphobia in our shelter systems and in support services. Despite human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and legalizing same-sex marriage, homophobia and transphobia are still very much a part of daily life in Canada, in our language, in our behaviour, and in the policies and practices of many of our helping institutions.

In the timeline I shared today, I highlighted important Canadian firsts that took place in my home province of Saskatchewan. These are important milestones that have improved the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians. I would like to end my remarks with one final first.

This fall, the first long-term LGBTQ2 youth home in Canada, Pride Home, was opened in my riding. The youth home is operated by the amazing organization OUTSaskatoon. In 2016, a survey by OUTSaskatoon found that 40% of the local LGBTQ2 youth had dealt with homelessness at some point in their short lives.

We all hope for the day that all LGBTQ2 youth, all youth, have a warm and supportive loving home, but, until then, thank goodness for organizations like OUTSaskatoon.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill C-66, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other acts.

Today I will be short and sweet, because I believe that in this House we do have consensus, where all parties do agree that it is important to move forward on this.

As I have noted prior, I had the opportunity to speak to Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are part of the LGBTQ2 community. More specifically, I held consultations with several groups of individuals regarding the national apology. From all of the conversations and research that I did, one of the key requests from this community throughout this process was the request to expunge the records of Canadians who had been charged under the Criminal Code. The request to destroy and remove these judicial records would provide individuals the freedom of having their criminal records that have been looming over them for activities gone.

I had the opportunity to review this bill with the members for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and St. Albert—Edmonton, following its tabling. Like any bill, there will be questions on specific sections but, overall, I support the principle of this bill. When reviewing the bill, section 25 specifically outlines the eligibility for an applicant, including the type of conviction, consent, and age requirements, things that I believe are all very important. I feel that this perfectly in line and safeguards Canadians from being eligible for offences that are outside of this realm.

The proposed schedule of offences would impact all Canadians, including members of the LGBTQ2 community. This is extremely important as it covers the particulars of the offences. For Canadians who do not have a criminal record, it is hard to realize some of the negative impacts that it has on individuals in many different types of circumstances. Criminal records can have an overwhelmingly negative impact on employment opportunities and opportunities for career advancement. For travel to the United States or for immigration purposes, Canadians with a criminal record can be banned from entering many countries.

Now take into consideration the group of Canadians that this legislation is targeting are no longer viewed as guilty of criminal offences. How unfair would it be to allow them to still have a criminal record, when we know that this is not a crime? It is totally life changing, and I believe that this legislation is doing its part.

As I indicated, I have had the opportunity to speak to many Canadians on this issue. From all of my consultations, every group and individual made the request to have the records of these criminal convictions expunged. It is truly obvious what needs to be done here.

As a Parliament, I believe it is extremely important that the legislation we have in front of us is done. It gives Canadians a way to move forward. I fully support Bill C-66 and look forward to seeing this legislation passed in order to see those who do not deserve these criminal records finally have some sort of peace. It is one step at a time, and I believe we are going in the right direction.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-66.

I, along with all members, was in the House for the landmark apology that was offered by the Prime Minister to the LGBTQ2 community. The apology was then echoed by every party leader in the House. It was an incredibly moving moment.

I remember debating same sex marriage in the House. I remember how difficult the debate was and how proud I was to support the legislation at the time. To see how much progress we have made on this issue as a country is very heartening.

I attended an event that the Canadian Human Rights Voice hosted, where Todd Ross was honoured, and he shared his story. He served in the Canadian military with distinction. However, as a very young man, he was forced, through lie detector tests, to come out to two strangers in a room that he was gay, before he had the opportunity to come out to anybody else, and he was forcibly removed from our military. To hear share his story, and what that apology by our Prime Minister and every party leader meant to him was so important. We already see the effects of that apology. However, that apology in and of itself is not enough.

The Prime Minister's assertion that the injustices will never be repeated again, that we will not make the same mistakes is essential. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we work with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit communities to make right past wrongs and to ensure this never happens again. We are proud of the relationship we have with this community, but we recognize how much work needs to be done. Bill C-66 is a critical part of that.

It is difficult for many of us to fathom that there was a time in our history where laws allowed persons to be charged, prosecuted, and criminally convicted simply because of who they loved. LGBTQ2 Canadians were humiliated, imprisoned, and saddled with criminal records because of their sexual orientation. They were forced to live with permanent stains on their lives when they had done nothing wrong, until now.

Bill C-66, the expungement of historically unjust convictions act, would create a process to permanently destroy the records of a conviction of offence involving consensual activity between same sex partners that would be lawful today. It would give the Parole Board of Canada jurisdiction to order or refuse to order expungement of a conviction. It would deem a person convicted of an offence for which expungement was ordered never to have been convicted of that offence.

This is very different from other processes that currently exist today. For example, a record suspension or pardon, the purpose of which is to remove barriers to reintegration for former offenders, does not destroy the criminal record. It sets aside for most purposes, but the criminal record could be disclosed or revoked in certain circumstances when public safety is at risk. Also, record suspensions or pardons cannot be granted posthumously, meaning those who have died do not get an opportunity to have their name cleared.

In contrast, the government fully recognizes that those convictions constitute a historic injustice and that they should not be viewed as former offenders. They are not only wrong today but they were wrong then, in violation of our charter, and of fundamental rights. These convictions were for an act that should never have been a crime. However, this expungement process will allow these convictions to be fully and permanently removed from federal databases.

For thousands of Canadians impacted, the process will be straightforward. Applying will be free of charge. Those eligible to apply directly can do so to the Parole Board. In the case of deceased persons, a family member, loved one, or other appropriate representative will be able to apply on their behalf. This is consistent with the recommendation of Egale Canada's human rights trust.

Applicants will need to provide evidence that the conviction meets certain criteria, including that the act was between same-sex individuals, that it was consensual, and that those involved were at least 16 years of age or subject to a close in age defence under the Criminal Code.

Upon confirmation of a successful application, the record of the conviction can be destroyed. That means once the Parole Board orders expungement, the RCMP will permanently destroy any record of the conviction in its custody. It will also notify any federal department or agency that to its knowledge has any records of the conviction and direct it to do the same. Relevant court and municipal and provincial forces will be notified of the expungement order as well.

Expungement offers more than a clean criminal record check. It is recognition that the conviction was unjust and that it never should have occurred in the first place. It is recognition that it was inconsistent with the fundamental rights now protected under the charter of rights and freedoms.

All of this is not to say that there will be blanket expungement. Indeed, we want to ensure we are only catching those who meet the set criteria. Criminal records for individuals convicted of non-consensual sexual activity will continue to be upheld. Applications submitted for an ineligible offence or by an ineligible applicant will also be rejected. Furthermore, an automatic expungement process would be irresponsible as it could result in the expungement of records for acts that are still criminal.

However, those eligible will find the process to expunge their record very straightforward. This includes military service members whose offences sometimes were prosecuted under the National Defence Act. That is why we have allowed for a schedule of eligible offences that will apply to convictions under the Criminal Code as well as convictions under the National Defence Act.

Applications must be for offences listed in the schedule of the act, and initially this will include buggery, gross indecency, and anal intercourse.

The act would allow for the Governor-in-Council, in future, to make other historically unjust convictions eligible for expungement by amending the schedule of eligible offences, and as necessary, criteria through order in council.

Given the historic nature of these offences, if court or police records are not available, sworn statements may be accepted as evidence.

It should be noted that anyone attempting to mislead the Parole Board about a historical offence can be charged with perjury.

To put all of this in place, the government has set side $4 million over two years to implement this new process. Proactive outreach will also be undertaken to increase awareness of the initiative, the criteria, and the application process among potential applicants. The government will work with federal partners and stakeholders from the LGBTQ2 community to inform potential applicants.

It is now incumbent upon us to ensure that happens sooner rather than later.

The moment the bill is passed we can begin accepting applications, which is why I would urge all members to pass the bill as expeditiously as possible. The Parole Board of Canada can begin accepting applications as soon as this legislation is brought into force.

At the same time the government introduced the bill, it announced a settlement in the class action lawsuit for actions related to the purge. This will provide up to $145 million to former public servants and military and RCMP members impacted by state-sponsored systemic oppression and rejection.

The agreement in principle also includes a minimum investment of $15 million by the Government of Canada for projects that will record and memorialize those historic events, so we never forget our past, so we never repeat it again in the future. That includes museum exhibits curated by the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. It includes a national monument located right in Ottawa, along with an education package memorializing the historic discrimination against the LGBTQ2 community.

As I have mentioned, all of this represents an important step but not a panacea. Working to create the inclusive and diverse country we want will take sustained effort and collaboration on all our parts.

As the Prime Minister noted in his apology, “Discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities is not a moment in time, but an ongoing centuries-old campaign. We want to be a partner and ally to LGBTQ2 Canadians in the years going forward.”

That is why we have been and will continue to work hard to address issues impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, and two-spirit individuals.

I am deeply proud of what the government has accomplished to date and of the work that is still ongoing. Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister named the hon. member for Edmonton Centre as his special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues. An LGBTQ2 secretariat has also been established within the Privy Council to support government initiatives on these issues.

With the recent passage of Bill C-16, gender identity and gender expression are now prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-16 also expands hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code to protect identifiable groups that are targeted for their gender identity or expression. Another piece of legislation, Bill C-39, has been introduced to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code.

Work is also under way to develop a long-term vision for blood services that ensures safety and non-discrimination in donation practices. In fact, the Minister of Health was instructed in her mandate letter to work with the provinces and territories toward that very goal.

The government is working toward adopting policies and practices that remove unnecessary collection of gender markings in government forms. We are also working to introduce an X gender designation on passport applications. This would ensure Canadians who do not identify as either male or female receive the same services and support as everyone else does.

The government also plans to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in 2019. It will do so by providing funding for initiatives that increase awareness of the people, actions, and struggles that led to that milestone.

For example, more than $770,000 in federal funding will be provided to the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust to support the “Legalizing Love: The Road to June 27, 1969” travelling exhibit project.

I am also proud to note that Canada is actively promoting LGBTQ2 rights on the international state, including as co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition.

Since 2014, we have provided $2.9 million in funding for projects that support violence prevention programs, awareness campaigns, and advocacy efforts in support of LGBTQ2 communities abroad. These include initiatives aimed to combat homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia in education systems.

In Canada, we know that LGBTQ2 youth have a disproportionately high rate of homelessness. According to a 2016 Statistics Canada study, while members of LGBTQ2 communities make up between 5% and 10% of our population, they represent between 25% to 40% of our homeless youth. A new and unique facility, currently under construction in Toronto, will be exclusively dedicated to serving this very vulnerable group. The Egale Centre will offer transitional and emergency housing, as well as counselling services, for homeless LGBTQ2 youth.

Last week, the government announced just over $47,800 in federal funding to help improve the Egale Centre's security. The funding will be used for the installation of security cameras and access control systems. The enhanced security measures will mean greater peace of mind and a safer and more secure facility, for the benefit of the Egale Centre's residents, staff and volunteers.

I am proud to stand with a government that is committed to protecting the fundamental human rights of all Canadians. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression must be able to live their lives free from stigma, violence, discrimination, or prejudice.

Sadly, as we know, there was a time in our history when the prevailing attitude to LGBTQ2 issues was very different from today. People could be criminally charged and convicted simply because of their sexual orientation. The could lose their jobs, their livelihoods, and their loved ones, or be barred from serving their country. They could be bullied, ostracized, and made a pariah by their own government.

The landmark bill we are discussing today is an important and necessary step toward righting the historical discrimination faced by LGBTQ2 Canadians for so many years. It is a key step we are taking, but is only one of many. It is in the context of a world in which calls for equality are slowly being answered.

Just yesterday, the legalization of same-sex marriage occurred in Australia. It joined countries like the U.K., Germany, and many others. They are also looking at making reparations for the historic discrimination that happened to the LGBTQ2 communities within their countries.

We remain in a world in which many LGBTQ2 individuals are still forced to live in fear, fear of being rejected, fear of being hated, fear of facing violence or even facing death, just because of who they love. Sometimes the gaps appear so far apart, they are like worlds we cannot bring together. However, as the proverb goes, a river cuts through rock not because of its power, but because of its persistence, and the calls for an inclusive world in which diversity can thrive are stronger and more persistent than ever. The apology that was given by all of the leaders in this House was demonstrative of that. The fact that we can come together as a House and be able to stand and acknowledge our part with respect to the wrongs of the past, as well as to be able to talk about the future we want, not only for our country but for all people across the world, about basic human rights, and the right as basic and as simple as being able to love the person that one loves without fear of reprisal, is something that we can stand for and propagate.

I am proud to introduce this bill. I urge all members to support it expeditiously.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the report stage debate of Bill C-24, the one-tier ministry bill. Tomorrow, we shall commence second reading debate of Bill C-66, the expungement of historically unjust convictions act.

On Monday, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-51, the charter cleanup legislation. Tuesday we will return to Bill C-24 at third reading.

If Bill C-66 is reported back from committee, we would debate that on Wednesday with agreement. The backup bill for Wednesday will be Bill S-5, concerning vaping, at second reading.

On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-50, political financing. Then on Friday, we will consider Bill S-2, the strengthening motor vehicle safety for Canadians act.

Human Rights

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I was very proud to introduce Bill C-66, which would allow the expungement of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex and age-appropriate partners. People will be able to apply for themselves or for a loved one who has passed away. We have committed $4 million to run the process, which I hope will start very soon.

I encourage all members to help us take this important step toward addressing historical injustices against LGBTQ Canadians, and I would note that with unanimous consent we could move it to committee this afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's historic apology to the LGBTQ community and with the answer we just had from the Prime Minister, we see an opportunity here to begin to address some of the unfinished business the Prime Minister has been talking about.

In order to do that, will the Prime Minister join us in seeking agreement from all members of this House to deal with Bill C-66 before Christmas, so that gay men with criminal records for same-sex consensual activity can have those records extinguished?

Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)