Bill C-93 (Historical)

An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis

This enactment amends the Criminal Records Act to, among other things, allow persons who have been convicted under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act only of simple possession of cannabis offences committed before October 17, 2018 to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the period required by the Criminal Records Act for other offences or to the fee that is otherwise payable in applying for a suspension.

Criminal Records Act

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting question from the member opposite. On issues of character assassinations and attacks on the Prime Minister, I might say that the call is coming from inside the House. Those are Liberal issues that they need to sort out, and as the opposition, we will hold them to account.

However, talking about progressive legislation that is worthy of the praise of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and of this member, I will absolutely say that a progressive piece of legislation that I am very supportive and very proud of is the child benefit. Under the former Harper government that the member opposite is referring to, we introduced a universal child benefit. Now that we are talking about attacks, the opposition at the time, the Liberals, said that parents could not be trusted and would spend it on beer and popcorn. Providing that type of choice to parents, to Canadians, is the kind of progressive legislation that certainly I support.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if anyone else is picking up on this point. It seems as though the Liberals want to rerun the 2015 election, and I wonder why that is the case after four years in office. One would think that they would want to run the 2019 election, but instead they want to go back and rerun the 2015 election, when they promised that it was going to be the last election under first past the post. Here is a news flash for my Liberal friends: Apparently 2019 is going to be under first past the post. The Liberals promised all sorts of things, so they are selective when they say that they are delivering on their mandate.

Here is a specific question to the Liberals who know.

Here are the facts of the matter: Marginalized Canadians, indigenous Canadians and poor Canadians will not have the same opportunity to receive a pardon as wealthier white middle-class Canadians will have. How do I know? It is because that has been the testimony on this bill at committee.

I have a simple question for my friend, and I would like his personal position, not the party position.

Marginalized, indigenous and poor Canadians again are overrepresented when there is a combination of a simple possession charge with an administrative justice charge, such as a failure to appear. These people have the worst access to the criminal justice system, and the Supreme Court of Canada has said they will face racism and systemic discrimination in that criminal justice system. The combination of those two things means that those Canadians will be excluded from ever receiving a pardon and will drag that criminal charge around for the rest of their lives. We know the impact that this will have on them and their families.

Would my friend see an amendment to allow people with those administrative justice charges to also have an opportunity to receive a pardon under this legislation?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly at committee the types of examples cited by the member are exactly what we would like to see studied and exactly the type of testimony that we would like to hear, so that if we as a country undertake a process to right administrative wrongs, we do it in a fashion that is equitable for all Canadians and provides equal access to justice for everyone, regardless of their means, where they are from or their race.

I certainly look forward to having the opportunity to hear the proposed amendments at committee.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-93 at second reading. This bill will make things fairer for Canadians and their families. There was an ineffective prohibition of cannabis for far too long and, as a result, many Canadians ended up with a criminal record after being convicted of simple possession of cannabis.

Criminal records can make it hard for people to get jobs, find housing or even volunteer in their communities. The associated stigma can create the impression that the individual will always be seen as a criminal.

Criminal records are obviously necessary in the context of public safety. However, they can run counter to their objective when they prevent people who do not represent a danger from actively participating in society. This is particularly true when the activity for which the individual was convicted is no longer illegal and when the members of certain communities are disproportionately affected.

This is why our government has introduced Bill C-93, which would streamline the process for getting a pardon, also known as a record suspension, by waiving the waiting period and the application fee.

Generally speaking, an individual convicted of simple possession of cannabis must wait five years for a pardon, although the waiting period can be as long as 10 years. With Bill C-93, applicants could apply as soon as they have finished serving their sentence. The application fee, which has been $631 since 2012, would be waived. On top of that, the usual criteria, like determining whether people have shown good behaviour and whether a pardon would bring them a measurable benefit, would also be waived.

The Parole Board of Canada is taking additional steps, such as simplifying application forms and doing community outreach, with the goal of allowing people with past convictions for cannabis possession to clear their records and move on with their lives as quickly and easily as possible.

This is one of the final chapters in the unfortunate story of cannabis prohibition in Canada, which goes back almost a century. Billions of dollars have been wasted enforcing an ineffective legal regime, not to mention the billions that lined the pockets of organized crime.

In spite of the prohibition, Canadian youth are among the heaviest users of cannabis in the world. Some of them, especially members of marginalized communities, were saddled with criminal records that limited their educational and economic opportunities.

Because of the many different courts and police services in urban and rural communities all across our country, each with its own archives of convictions that go back decades, we do not know the exact number of Canadians with simple possession charges on their records. However, we do know that a simplified pardon process with no waiting period or application fee would make it easier for people to get the pardons they need to finally turn the page.

During the last election, we committed to ending the ineffective and counterproductive prohibition of cannabis. The NDP, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the prohibition of cannabis, with a decriminalization system that would have seen police issuing fines to people in marginalized and low-income communities. As for the Conservatives, they still think that people who possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use should be thrown in jail.

Canadians gave us the opportunity to enact our proposal in October 2018, and we did exactly that. With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we put in place a system of legal, strictly regulated cannabis production and distribution, designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep profits out of the hands of criminals. At that time, the government announced that it intended to provide recourse for individuals who had been convicted of simple possession of cannabis only. Once again, we have delivered on our commitment.

A pardon with no waiting period and no fee is a very effective measure available to everyone in our society.

When a person is pardoned, their criminal record is sealed and sequestered. A criminal record check by a prospective employer or landlord would come up empty, and U.S. border services would not find anything in the Canadian police database either.

The criminal record could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances, for example, if a new criminal offence is committed.

The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a person's criminal record.

Many provinces and territories offer similar protection. Waiving the usual wait period and application fee are unprecedented measures. By doing so, we would be removing the major obstacles in the path of Canadians seeking to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record for possession of cannabis, allowing them to participate fully in society and become responsible Canadians.

We cannot go back in time and give them back the opportunities they have lost, but we can give them a way of moving forward. When people fully reintegrate into Canadian society by going to school, getting jobs and generally participating in community life and Canadian society, we are all better off.

It was in our collective best interest to end the prohibition of cannabis, because a system governed by a rigorous legal framework is safer for us all than a black market operating without oversight of any kind. Now that we have a legal framework in place, it is in our collective best interest to enable Canadians who have previous convictions for possession of cannabis to clear the criminal records imposed on them under the old regime.

Bill C-93 is a step in that direction. I strongly support this bill, and I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look back, the whole idea for legalization was to take marijuana out of the hands of kids and the profits away from organized crime, which we have not seen happening so far. In Oshawa, we had a horrible situation of kids taking marijuana edibles to school, and it was a big issue. The concern a lot of us have is that the Liberals have fumbled this legislation all the way through.

With this piece of legislation for these pardons, what does my colleague think about the question of equity, as previous questioners have asked? There are low-income Canadians and Canadians who can afford to pay for pardons. What does he think about using Canadian taxpayers' dollars exclusively for these pardons, when in many cases these convictions were plea bargained down from more serious offences? Does he not see that there could be some potential danger to the public by giving across-the-board pardons to people?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question.

Before I answer, I would like to note that I have been involved in the justice system, since I am a lawyer by training. I did a lot of volunteer work in my community and I saw the damage caused by having a criminal record, even for simple possession of cannabis.

There are people who wanted to do volunteer work in their community or coach a sports team, but they were prohibited from doing so. Some people wanted to get a job, but could not. Many fields of employment require people to have a clean criminal record.

As far as the impact this could have on the public purse, there is no possible comparison between the government's finances and giving someone the opportunity to reintegrate into the working class, giving someone who wants to work the opportunity to rejoin the workforce.

No measure can compare to that. The positive impact of a free pardon that is available to everyone is a billion times better.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about the NDP's position.

It seems to me the Liberals do not realize they can take “yes” for an answer. We voted in favour of Bill C-45. Anyway, let's get back to the difference between a pardon and an expungement.

As my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly mentioned in his speech, most of the U.S. states that legalized cannabis have expunged simple possession offences from criminal records, and the sky has not fallen as a result. We know that expungement has brought relief to individuals and unclogged the system. As our neighbours to the south have shown, it costs society nothing.

I would like to know why my colleague supports this bill's proposal to pardon an offence, leaving criminal records intact, rather than the record expungement approach, which most U.S. states have taken.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, to which there is a simple answer. The Canadian pardon system has a proven track record. I know all about that, having been a lawyer and helped clients get a pardon. The Canadian experience is a success story.

The United States, like every sovereign country, has their way of doing things. In Canada, the problem is that it is hard to find every conviction since you would have to go to the registries of every small town in every territory and every province, not to mention the various levels of justice.

When an individual travels abroad and is asked if they have ever consumed cannabis and if they have been accused of cannabis possession, they can answer yes, then provide written and tangible proof of the pardon. We believe that is much more effective than doing the reverse.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question in English since this is a very complex subject.

Indigenous people and black Canadians are dramatically overrepresented in possession charges. We heard from the Native Women's Association of Canada, along with the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. Not only were they not consulted about this legislation, but the groups affected, particularly low-income Canadians, indigenous people and rural people, are much more likely to have also faced penalties for what are called administration of justice offences, such as failure to appear and false name. The combination of those, what is determined as a very low-level, non-violent crime plus a marijuana charge, would exempt them from the pardon system that the member's government is promoting.

Would my friend comment on the idea of actually allowing the discretion of parole boards to allow those who face an administrative justice penalty along with a possession penalty to also receive a pardon? As he talked about in his speech, allowing people not to carry around that penalty, that criminal record, would open them up for opportunities of travel, but most importantly, jobs.

We know the circular effect of the criminal justice system, which has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as inherently racist and systemically biased against these people. We do not want to circle around by having the simple combination of possession and administrative penalty exclude them from ever having that record pardoned and having the ability that all Canadians hope to have, which is to make their lives and the lives of their families better.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is based on the premise that systemic discrimination might exist based on the background of the individual applying for a pardon.

My wife and I practised law together for 23 years. We had a small law office in a very rural region. We assisted on loads of pardon applications for people from all walks of life: white people, indigenous people, francophones, anglophones, the rich and the poor, and people on social assistance.

There were of course some difficult situations, but the only discrimination possible at that point was whether the individual could afford to pay for the pardon. Therefore the fact that this bill removes all costs associated with the pardon application makes it extremely accessible to everyone at any time. I cannot imagine how anyone, regardless of their background, could be discriminated against in that respect here in Canada.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit my earlier question because I did not get a clear answer.

Some of the U.S. states that decided to legalize cannabis expunged criminal records. It is very important to make the distinction between this process and a simple pardon.

If you are crossing the border and are asked if you have ever been convicted of an offence such as simple possession of cannabis, you must answer yes, even if you have been pardoned. This is not the case, however, when the record is expunged. The United States decided to use expungement, completely erasing the record, which makes life so much easier for people convicted of simple possession who want to travel.

Once again, I am trying to understand why the government is not doing what the U.S. did and making life easier for people convicted of an offence that no longer exists and that makes things very difficult when they want to travel or find a job?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will give just one real-world example.

In the past, when describing a sentence for drug possession, the type of drug involved was typically not specified. There may be a difference between possession of cannabis and possession of cocaine. Because of the way things were done, it can be hard to determine, just from reading a criminal record, whether an offence refers to a specific drug or to drugs in general.

When a person receives a pardon for simple possession of cannabis, they can firmly and compellingly argue that they were charged with this type of crime in the past and show their pardon. That is just a working example.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon's debate on Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, gives me the chance I have long sought to make a clear statement in the House of Commons as to the principles that underlie my long-standing views on cannabis legalization. This is actually my second chance, as I was also able to do so in addressing the private member's bill on the same subject a couple of weeks ago.

I have long favoured the legalization of marijuana. Indeed, I have favoured it since I first sought elected office, almost 20 years ago. My views on the subject were first expressed at a public policy conference in 2001 and published in Policy Options the same year, so my comments on this subject have been on the record for a very long time.

I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than abstract terms. However, the debate today, like the one a couple of weeks ago, allows me to discuss the civil liberties issues associated with the war on drugs separate from the discussion of marijuana legalization. We are not discussing marijuana legalization today. That deed is done and cannabis is legal. If this bill is defeated tonight, cannabis will still be legal. If after tonight's discussion the bill goes on to receive royal assent by the end of this Parliament, cannabis will retain the same legal status.

Tonight we are not talking about the impact that chemicals in drugs could have if we were to legalize them. Today we can say that this is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking purely about the harm caused by the act of turning a victimless act into a crime.

Today, I want to say, as I did 18 years ago when I first published on the subject, that it is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any individual other than the user himself or herself. The act of ingesting cannabis or alcohol, for example, and then driving a vehicle on a public roadway endangers others and is not a victimless crime. That is why it is illegal. That is why it ought to be illegal. However, consuming cannabis and then staying home for the weekend is victimless. For that matter, consuming alcohol and staying home for the weekend is also victimless.

When no person is victimized, other than the person engaged in the act, then it is a moral evil for the state to penalize the person who engages in that act. This principle would apply even if it were the case that none of the following conditions were true.

This principle would apply even if it were not the case, for example, that some people suffer from trauma that causes them to make impulsive choices, especially with regard to mood-altering substances. When these individuals are penalized, the law in effect singles out for punishment those who have suffered from the abusive behaviour of parents or partners, or from the trauma of war, or from fetal alcohol syndrome, or from simple brain trauma. The principle that victimless acts should never be punishable would apply even if it were not true that some people are endowed from birth with genes such as the NRXN3 gene, which in 2011 was identified as being associated with a greater likelihood of becoming addicted. In this case, the law is singling out for prosecution those who have lost the genetic lottery.

The principle would apply even if it were not true that those who have greater influence and power are far less likely to be prosecuted than an average Canadian who has committed the same offence. A case that makes this point is that of the Prime Minister's brother, Michel Trudeau, who escaped prosecution for marijuana possession 21 years ago because of the intervention of his father, who was at the time himself a prime minister.

Here is how our current Prime Minister put this in a speech two years ago. He reported that back in 1998, his father, Pierre Trudeau, “reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away.” He continued, “We were able to do that because we had resources, my dad had a couple of connections, and we were confident that my little brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life.”

The principle that no one should be punished for a victimless act would be true even if it were not the case that disadvantaged Canadians who are statistically more likely than their fellow citizens to be caught, prosecuted and saddled with a criminal record for life are far likelier to be members of social or racial groups that appear to be marginalized in other ways too.

Two criminologists from the University of Toronto found that in the period of 2015 to 2017 in Halifax, black people were five times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession. The same researchers found that in Regina, in the same period, 2015 to 2017, very recent history, indigenous persons were nine times more likely than white people to be arrested for this offence.

Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, who was one of the two criminologists, stated, “We know that rates of cannabis use are relatively similar across racial groups. So the fact that specific groups have been disproportionately targeted for drug law enforcement, especially black and Indigenous populations, strengthens that need for amnesty and for pardons. Because those groups have not only been disproportionately targeted, they have been disproportionately harmed by the consequences of having a criminal record.”

Therefore, it is not merely the issue of cannabis legalization that affects people on a racial basis. It is the removal of those byproducts of that racialization of the legal system. Given these facts, I think we can say that this is the very definition of systemic racism, regardless of the proximate cause of each individual arrest.

Of course, the foregoing examples of inequity really do exist and therefore, the provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of small quantities of marijuana, which happily is now repealed, was wrong at all of these levels too.

If the underlying offence ought never to have been an offence in the first place, which is not merely what I feel but what has already been decided by Parliament when it enacted the Cannabis Act a year ago, then it stands to reason that the retention of any long-term penalty such as a criminal record for the formerly unlawful activity must be wrong for exactly the same reasons. This is true whether it is a charter-protected right that we are talking about or whether it is merely the practical impact on some groups that have been discriminated against in the application of the law. It is true even when the issue is not whether the wrong is a charter prohibited wrong but whether it is merely a wrong when viewed from the point of view of natural justice, a point which is of very considerable significance when we speak about the distinction of the reasons why the government will not issue record expungements as it has done for offences under the Criminal Code at a time when homosexual acts between consenting adults were illegal.

To be clear, the retention of criminal records for persons who used marijuana when it was a criminal offence represented an ongoing injustice and represents today an ongoing injustice that must be remedied. Quite frankly, a provision expunging the records of persons found guilty of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis ought to have been included in the Cannabis Act a year ago. Why it was not, particularly given the heartfelt civil libertarian sentiment that must have been the motivation for the Prime Minister to share that very personal story about his father and late brother, remains a mystery to me. I note that in other jurisdictions that have legalized the non-therapeutic use of cannabis, the recreational use of cannabis, such as California and Vermont, provisions expunging the records of those convicted under the repealed statutes are part of the repeal legislation itself.

Now, it is too late for Canada to make a perfect copy of that enlightened example, but it is not too late for us to correct the oversight. Bill C-415 standing in the name of my colleague, the member for Victoria, was an effective and well-designed instrument for achieving an end to this lingering injustice.

Bill C-93 is a less perfect and less complete way of achieving the same end for many, although not all, of those who face this injustice. About 500,000 Canadians, which is around 1% to 2% of our adult population, have criminal records for the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. Had Bill C-415 passed, it would have expunged all these records.

An expungement is not quite the same thing as a pardon or record suspension, which is what the current piece of legislation, Bill C-93, proposes. It differs in a number of ways. For one thing, a pardon must be formally requested. Any person can apply for a pardon, but under normal circumstances, only after waiting for a period of not less than five years, in the case of a summary conviction, and only upon the payment of a fee of just over $600. Had Bill C-415 gone forward, expungement would have been immediate and costless.

Bill C-93 would not do quite the same thing. The bill's very long title tells the entire story. People would not pay a cost and there would be no waiting time, but they would have to make the application, and then the Parole Board would decide whether to issue that pardon, if the applicants met a series of conditions. It is therefore called an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. It would get rid of the five-year waiting period and eliminate the $600 fee, and that is it. As far as it goes, that is good, and for this reason, I will be voting for the bill in principle, to send it off to committee later on this evening.

However, I want to be clear. Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement. Unlike an expungement, a record suspension does not result in the permanent destruction of a record of a conviction in federal databases. Unlike expungement, where the person is deemed under Canadian law never to have been convicted of the offence in the first place, one would still be guilty of that offence. One would still have been convicted. It is just that no one could see that anymore.

There are some significant, meaningful differences here. As everyone knows, American border control officials reserve the right to ask Canadians who are crossing the border if they have a criminal record for using marijuana. Canadians are regularly turned back at the border if the answer is yes. Everyone should know that if people answer this question untruthfully and lie to an official of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while on American soil, as people do when they are going across a land border, as opposed to in the Toronto or Vancouver airports, where they do so while on Canadian soil, they can be arrested on the spot. If records were expunged, but not if pardons were issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they did not have a criminal record for this former offence. This is a very meaningful distinction.

The government uses the following rationale for not using expungement in the case of cannabis offences. I am quoting from the Liberals' press release of March 1, 2019, which is the day Bill C-93 came out. It said:

Expungement is an extraordinary measure reserved for cases where the criminalization of the activity in question and the law never should have existed, such as in cases where it violated the Charter.

I just want to be clear about what is wrong with that logic. The Liberals were making specific reference to the fact that consenting homosexual acts were once illegal, and now any law that prohibits them is regarded as a violation of the charter. It is true that this is a charter distinction, whereas cannabis could be recriminalized without violating the charter. That is about the charter. It is not about the morality of the underlying act. We have said in Canada that there is nothing wrong with consuming cannabis for personal use and possessing small amounts for personal use. There is nothing wrong with it.

I defy any member of the government to stand up here and say that she or he believes that it was morally wrong, that the underlying act was morally wrong a year ago or two years ago or 10 years ago or 50 years ago, that it was morally wrong then and it is morally okay now, any more than it was morally wrong to commit a homosexual act 10 or 20 or 100 years ago and now it is okay.

The fact is that it was never wrong in the case of a consenting gay act between adults, and it was never wrong with regard to cannabis. This distinction, which has to do with what made it into the charter and what did not, because sexual orientation almost did not make it into the charter, is just nonsense.

The fact is that more people who are marginalized because they are poor, mentally ill or come from a group that suffers racial discrimination, and there are different kinds of racial discrimination in different parts of the country, are being prosecuted and persecuted, and they have been in the past. The fact that the cops have been acting in a racist way in different parts of the country at different times does not make what happened to these people somehow less bad than what happened to people who were convicted for committing the supposed crime of engaging in consensual homosexual activity. This is a nonsense distinction.

I point out that I was down in Washington, D.C., last week meeting with members of the House of Representatives in the Senate, who are considering making changes to their cannabis laws. They are not necessarily looking at legalizing it for recreational purposes, as we are doing here, although some favour that. Many want to look at medical marijuana changes, which would make it available to veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. One bill would prohibit officials of the U.S. border services from asking Canadians if they have a cannabis-related conviction. Another one would deal with interstate banking laws as they affect cannabis operations that are legal under state law.

In the United States, they are very aware of the civil liberties issues and the racially inequitable way in which these laws have been applied in their country. The word that is used universally when discussing getting rid of criminal records is “expungement”. There is no reason in the world the government should not accept expungement of these records.

This bill, as I have said, is good as far as it goes. Later on this evening, I will be voting for it, and I encourage my colleagues to do so. However, it is not good enough. It is not acceptable to leave a systemically racist pattern of law enforcement in effect after we have said that the crime itself should never have been a crime and that it was never wrong and is not wrong.

It was okay for the Prime Minister, who was never caught, to use pot when it was illegal. He just did not get caught. He admitted after the fact that he used it. Somehow that is okay, right? I never heard him say that he used it when it was illegal and that it was morally wrong then. I never heard him say that if he had been caught, it would have been right for him to go to prison or to have a criminal record for life. He did not say that. He said that it should not have been wrong, so we are getting rid of that law. He was right about that. He would have been right to make sure that nobody who did not have a prime minister for a dad or the world's best Rolodex would ever face a situation of having a criminal record for life.

The bill is good; it is not good enough. I will be voting for it. I will be very much encouraging members on the committee to vote for some form of amendment to encapsulate the very important consideration brought forward by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley about taking care of those who have some kind of minor procedural item on their criminal records and are therefore going to face this being left on their records for life. It is an excellent idea. I hope the Liberal government will show some flexibility in this regard. It would be an excellent litmus test of whether the purpose of this bill is to help people or to simply take an issue away from the New Democratic Party, which produced an earlier and better bill on the same subject.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the intellectual arguments the member opposite brings forward, whether it is in the House or during filibusters. I would like to ask him about one he brought forward tonight related to victimless crimes. Does he believe that administrative penalties, such as not showing up for a parole hearing, etc., for any crimes are victimless crimes and therefore should not be crimes?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, that was not what I meant. I do think there needs to be some kind of penalty for these kinds of behaviours, or else people who have been charged and are allowed out on parole or who are awaiting sentencing would not have to be compliant with the law. That is absolutely not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that in this case, we have said that the initial offence should not have been wrong. We have gotten rid of the offence.

Things can happen that are contextual. Certain acts committed in a time of war are more serious at that time, and once we are no longer at war, those items that were unlawful are no longer unlawful. That is not what we are saying with regard to cannabis.

The problem here is that we have said that the particular offence ought not to be an offence and the kind of procedural problems that arose were in the context of having a hearing in relation to that particular offence, which ought not to have been unlawful in the first place. That is where the problem lies, and that is the item we can address.

I certainly would not classify that as a victimless crime.

A victimless crime is where one does something that only involves oneself. One might harm oneself, but that is one's affair, not the affair of the state. The state, as the Prime Minister's dad once said, has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. He was right then. It was the wisest thing he ever said. Now that the state is out of the bedrooms of the nation on this issue, maybe it should also allow us to shut the door and the windows and have a little more privacy.