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

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a few Conservative members talking about the rush on Bill C-45. It was three years from the time of the election and commitment. There were consultations across the country, including in my own community in Niagara, which is four ridings. We heard from mayors, fire chiefs, the police chief and senior officials at the police station in Niagara Falls. We had a meeting there. We met with the District School Board of Niagara. We met with Public Health. That was just one consultation in Niagara. I know the hon. minister did that across the country.

How can the hon. member stand there and call Bill C-45 a rush after three years? It sounds like, after 100 years of prohibition, Conservatives would like to wait another 100 years for this change to happen. If the member could explain how three years is a rush, I would like to hear it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the member for St. Catharines, because it allows us to remember what his leader said when he was running for office.

Let us remember that most of the Liberal promises have since been broken or stepped away from. A critical one is that the Prime Minister said he was going to respect provincial autonomy and respect the provinces. In this area, several provinces asked the Prime Minister to slow down.

Collaborative federalism, which the Prime Minister promised in opposition, was not respected, whether it came to the carbon tax or whether it came to marijuana. I believe both the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario asked him to slow down. The premiers asked because they were putting the retail structure in place. We now have huge shortages, not enough supply and demand. No one was ready. We had communities, probably including his, saying that they did not want retail stores. Municipalities and provinces said to slow down.

However, there was no collaborative federalism as promised. “Sunny ways” has turned to “My way or the highway”. The member knows that. He has probably thought at times about joining the Liberal ethical caucus, over in that corner, who have not liked the way the Prime Minister has conducted himself in terms of all issues.

If a province, one of our partners in Confederation, asks the government to slow down a bit on a critical piece of public health and public safety, the Prime Minister should respect that. This one did not.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member across the way and also the member for St. Catharines for pointing out the consultations that happened on Bill C-45, which is not exactly the legislation we are debating. However, I can echo that we had consultations in Guelph, Wellington and Kitchener-Waterloo. The Waterloo Regional Police Service was there. There was a lot of work that went into the legislation.

Now we are talking about how to make it fair for people who were convicted under a previous crime, and the idea of expungement. I asked the hon. member from the NDP a question on expungement. When people are going to the States, where there is an existing criminal record on file, if we remove the file in Canada, there would be a disconnect between the two countries. The member's answer was that we should go to an expungement regime in the United States, as if we could enforce that from Canada.

Would the hon. member across the way comment on the idea of expungement and the negative effects it would have on Canadians travelling to the United States, where the regime not only does not have expungement but also considers this a crime in that country?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Guelph is highlighting why we need a proper debate instead of the Liberal whip saying no to the MP for Victoria.

Actually, expungement is the superior process. It is the record suspension that is not recognized in the United States, particularly because the government provided information sharing at an unparalleled level with the United States, including entry and exit information and the ability for U.S. customs officials to search Canadians on Canadian soil, unprecedented powers given to the United States by Canada.

What did we get in return? Nothing. It has been a one-way relationship between the United States and the Prime Minister, whether with President Obama or President Trump.

We should be looking at the simplest route. The member for Guelph should tell the public safety minister that the simplest route is to get immigration and customs in the United States to take the marijuana screening questions out of the border questions. The Liberals could not even get that assurance.

Do we think they will get the U.S. to respect modernizing the safe third country agreement? We cannot get anything done under the Liberal government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-93, which aims to provide record suspensions for simple possession of marijuana.

I would like us to focus on the word “suspension” and the effect said suspension could have when people try to cross the border. During border controls, if American customs officers do background checks on Canadians and find record suspensions for simple possession of marijuana, I wonder what value they would have when compared to expungement, which would certainly be more effective.

As everyone knows, many Canadians have this type of criminal record and so cannot travel to the United States. That may be the reason why a major lobby was pushing the Liberal government to provide record suspensions, which it did in a clear attempt to win votes, seeing as there are only three weeks left in the 42nd Parliament. I am not really sure that this will result in more services or freedoms for Canadians abroad.

I would like to come back to Bill C-45, which is what led us to Bill C-93.

The 42nd Parliament will no doubt go down in history as the one that made legalizing marijuana the top priority. It was done under a Liberal government. I am still wondering why it was considered more important than the economy, the environment and our children's future.

When I made the decision to run as a Conservative candidate in the 2006 election, I was hoping to leave the world a better place for future generations through public policy. This hope is what really motivated me, because I felt that, in my riding, which was a Bloc Québécois riding, there was not enough collaboration with the federal government, and there were not enough federal programs and services. I also thought that the Liberal government of the day was undermining the Canadian economy through its interventions in other countries. These interventions were sometimes hard to understand, and they were impeding international trade. I owned a small business at the time, and I exported hay. Some of the decisions made by the Canadian government were having practically immediate repercussions on my American customers.

That said, I do wonder why such a powerful lobby had such a strong influence on the Liberal Party. When I say lobby, I mean market. The market for marijuana, for drugs, is worth billions. I never understood why the Liberal members did not brush off this powerful lobby.

Political parties often make policy decisions at biennial conventions. They make decisions for the future based on the votes of delegates from each riding and province. Some 2,000 to 3,000 delegates present policies to be voted on.

I do not understand how a party with 2,000 delegates managed to adopt policies to legalize marijuana. Nevertheless, that is what happened. The Liberal Party's hands were tied by its own policies. The Liberals voted, and they kept their promise.

At the last Liberal convention, they also promised to legalize all drugs, which I find quite concerning. They kept their promise to legalize marijuana, and now they must keep their promise to legalize all drugs. It makes me worry about our country's future.

I have always believed that we enter federal politics to make things better for future generations. In my humble opinion, things have taken a disastrous turn. When we regain power and return to the other side of the House, we will have an unprecedented mess to clean up. The Liberal Party has been running amok for four years, and the bills will start to come in. The credit card is maxed out. The government has not started paying it off, and it is going to saddle future generations with this debt, keeping society from moving forward.

We deal with very important matters, and Canadians will have to choose a vision for the future of their country. The Liberal Party tried to impose a vision on Canadians with its promises, but Canadians will remember that, of all the promises made by the Liberals in 2015, the only one they kept was legalizing marijuana. That is the only promise that led to major change in our country, but not for the better.

Today, we are beginning to feel the effects of that change. I recently spoke with the chief of police in my riding. He talked to me about the problems and adverse effects of cannabis legalization in our high schools, including an increase in consumption. We do not yet have the data to prove this, but it is being compiled. It is not legal cannabis consumption that is on the rise in our high schools.

A study published this week in the media reported that a teen's first use of marijuana unfortunately leaves permanent cognitive damage. A father's greatest hope for his children is that they will grow up in a healthy environment so they have more choice and opportunities, which must lead to a better life.

I am 55 years old and I still have some years left. Throughout my life, I have seen people from my generation grow up. Those who used marijuana did not necessarily get the opportunity to achieve their full potential. It can be the difference between earning $14, $28 or $50 an hour. We are practically all equal at the start, but on life’s journey, some people stand out, others stay where they are and there are those whose lives fall apart. All too often, what they share is an addiction to illicit substances such as marijuana and possibly hard drugs.

This week, one of my constituents called me in a panic, once again because of marijuana and other drugs. She was looking for her daughter, whom she had not seen in a month. She is well aware that her daughter uses drugs—she admitted it. She is desperately looking for her daughter, who is in a city somewhere. When people disappear like this, it has a lasting impact on all their family members and friends. Unfortunately, this is happening more and more, because of the decisions this government made under the influence of a powerful lobby seeking only to legalize its market.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we look at the legislation and do a comparison. From day one, I have made numerous references to Bill C-2, which has given the middle-class of Canada a substantial tax break while at the same time increasing the tax level on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Today we are debating Bill C-93, which is in essence going to provide a pardon for simple possession of cannabis. Whether it was day one or today, this is a government that believes we should work hard every day.

Would the member agree, as we look at the next 14 or 15 days of the House's sitting, that we have a responsibility to do what we can to support legislation and see it come to a vote, believing that Canadians will benefit from members of Parliament who are prepared to work all the way to the very last day?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will simply respond by saying that we are in a rush to work on solving a problem that the Liberals created during this Parliament. That is pretty rich. The way they went about legalizing marijuana led to all these consequences. Now we have to rush through other things to fix a problem that the Liberals created. October 21 cannot come soon enough.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that when people are charged and convicted of simple possession of marijuana, it creates barriers for them to access housing, employment, and even to volunteer in the community. The goal here is to try to create a pathway for them to be able to move forward. The pathway being proposed by the Liberal government would simply give people a break, but not give them a break permanently. It would not expunge the records, which is what we need for these people to be treated fairly.

Today people can legally access marijuana, so why would people living with a criminal record get their record suspended and have to live in fear that another government could come in and reverse that decision, which would make their record available to the public and again become a problem in their lives? It simply makes sense for the government to expunge all the records. It has made marijuana possession legal.

We clearly hear that my colleague does not agree with the Liberal decision to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The government decided that Canadians should be allowed to access and consume marijuana. Now that they are allowed to do that, would it not make sense for the government to expunge the records and move Canadians forward? If they were in government, would they work to completely erase the records that have been suspended and reinstate those records?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The key word here is “suspension”. Does suspension mean anything in today's world? Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana will now have the word “suspension” stamped on their record. When they try to cross the border, the customs officer could still refuse them entry, since they got a criminal record suspension for possession of marijuana, which implies that they consumed marijuana.

Furthermore, if a person wants to work in another country, if they want to do business there or something, being able to prove that their criminal record was suspended is meaningless. It is not a pardon, and it is not an expungement.

Unfortunately, this is just an election gimmick to try to get an extra 300,000 or 400,000 votes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Transport; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93. The bill has come forth as a result of the government's lack of foresight in its hurried quest to legalize marijuana. The bill was so rushed to meet the Prime Minister's self-imposed political deadline that it fails to address a host of concerns raised by municipalities, law enforcement officials, health care professionals and stakeholders who testified at committee and reached out to the government.

As issues arise with recreational marijuana going forward, there has to be due diligence and proper steps taken to protect Canadians, and because of that, I will be supporting this legislation very cautiously.

The Liberals have left consequential legislation to the final weeks of our Parliament. They have failed to consult and to listen to those key stakeholders, including law enforcement.

This has been a theme of the Liberals. They make great promises and then drag their feet and wait until the eleventh hour to implement them. In a lot of ways it shows disregard for the stakeholders to whom they made those promises originally. We have seen this time and time again.

I have heard questions by government members to my colleagues on why we are concerned that they are raising this issue at the eleventh hour of this session of Parliament. I would like to explain it to them in a context that I have used to explain things to my young children, as I do at storytime. I will reference the story of The Tortoise and the Hare.

The Liberals were hare-like when they began. They got off to a loud start with their promises. They promised balanced budgets and sunny ways. They were going to do government differently and were ridiculing their opponents and arrogantly spending Canadians' money on vacations and impressing American celebrities on Twitter. Like the hare, the Liberals figured they were well ahead and decided to take a nap before the race was over.

The Liberals have been in nap mode for several years and their consecutive deficits and their dropping of the ball on important legislation are proof of this.

In the story, the hare eventually wakes up from his nap to find that his opponent had already crossed the finish line while he was sleeping. That is exactly what we have seen here.

It took the explosion of the SNC-Lavalin and Vice-Admiral Mark Norman scandals during the Liberal government's spring of scandal to finally wake them up. Now that the Liberals have finally woken up, it is a mad scramble to the finish, moving legislation that should have happened years ago in some cases.

Certainly, having waited this long, they should have been listening to those stakeholders along the way. However, here we are without having proper debate and proper consultation with stakeholders and we are moving toward the House sitting late for many weeks before the end of session, which has been the custom in this place.

It is a shame that the Liberals did not take that lesson from the tortoise and the hare. They might have been more successful over the years if they had worked slowly and steadily, instead of carelessly leaving Canada with massive debt to pay off.

In the wake of legalization, many questions remain. It is clear that the government was hasty in its roll out because of its rush to roll up. Many groups, including law enforcement, were concerned about the increase in drug-impaired driving after legalization. The Liberals assured the public there would not be an increase in drug-impaired driving, but if there were, they would equip our police forces to deal with it and properly enforce the law and protect the public. That is not the case.

The roadside marijuana testing devices that the Liberals hastily approved in time for last year's legalization roll out is giving out regular false positives. It is a failure right out of Seinfeld.

During testing, this device was giving false positives for subjects who had eaten a poppy seed bagel. People can have their favourite poppy seed bagel at the diner with friends, or a poppy seed lemon loaf at the iconic Canadian brand Tim Hortons, but all of a sudden for that indulgence a person can test positive for opiates in the saliva test and then again when the confirmatory urine test is done.

If people indulge in their breakfast treats or their afternoon snacks and they get pulled over by police, they will be arrested and taken to the station. Then they will be charged with driving impaired, all for having a bagel or a slice of lemon loaf with their Tim's coffee.

Canada's Conservatives understand that Canadians should not be unfairly burdened by a criminal record for something that is no longer illegal. I understand the government wanting to create a process for pardons. What I do not understand is the attitude when the situation is inverse. That being said, that was carried out while it was perfectly legal and being deemed illegal was the consequences of that.

In its recent firearms legislation, the government has moved to reclassify certain rifles as prohibited, which means over 10,000 legally bought and owned rifles will be reclassified for no reason in particular. That has the potential to criminalize the owners of these rifles if they do not comply with the new ownership requirements of a prohibited firearm. This law would be applied retroactively, which means someone could be jailed for up to 10 years for something that would be perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate, as licenced and law-abiding firearms owners in Canada know.

Imagine a government that is giving pardons for actions that were crimes when they were committed, but are now legal. It is criminalizing something that was legal when it was done; a classic Liberal strategy.

We proposed several amendments to the legislation at committee in an effort to strengthen the legislation and empower law enforcement and the Parole Board, but the Liberals stood opposed to those common sense suggestions and amendments.

We put forward an amendment that would have given the Parole Board the power to make the necessary inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of conviction. In my meetings with representative of Canadian police unions, their concern with the legislation was that it was an introductory or gateway offence and not an isolated incident of someone being arrested for simple possession and a one-time mistake. However, this amendment was to empower the Parole Board, which is the expert in the field, to provide it with as much information as possible. Evidence-based decision making is what we are advocating for and the Liberals are steadfastly against that.

In addition to that, we put forth an amendment that would restore the Parole Board's power to take a look at ordering the record suspension to see if that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Canadian Police Association, as I said, had suggested these amendments and wanted the Parole Board to have that flexibility, that discretion, the ability to conduct investigations and ensure that the small number of applications seen from habitual offenders were being properly vetted. This would prevent individuals taking advantage of a process in a way it was not intended to be.

We have grave concerns that the amendments were not given serious consideration. We have concerns that the time was not taken to review it, and now it is being hastily imposed. The government's failure to recognize these amendments is an affirmation about the haste with which it has gone about this legislation and, frankly, with which it has carried out its mandate.

I will be cautiously supporting this interest. However, Canadians can count on a Conservative government this October to correct this Liberal failure along with many others.

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

Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, fairly strong words came down from the PMO. If an opposition member were to propose an amendment, to not allow it to see the light of day. That has changed from the time of Stephen Harper to the current Prime Minister. We have a prime minister who encourages members of Parliament of all political stripes to look at ways in which legislation can be improved. Whether it is this legislation, or Bill C-45 or many other pieces of legislation, we have seen ministers respond to the presentations being made and listen to members on all sides of the standing committees.

Would the member not agree that this is a much better attitude toward standing committees than Stephen Harper ever had?

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

Madam Speaker, a concept has been put forward by the member opposite, but certainly not the practice that is currently in place. We have seen time and again the heavy hand of the PMO and the Liberal members pressing down on committees. We need look no further than the interference by the PMO in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We need look no further than the government's efforts on all things when it comes to due process.

While the concept that the member opposite proposes is an interesting one, we are certainly not seeing anything of that from the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, we know the Conservatives did not support the legalization of marijuana. However, the NDP is in support of looking for ways to ensure the records of people who were arrested for simple possession of marijuana in the past, when it was illegal to consume, get expunged so they can move forward, like everybody else in society, and there is fairness.

Regardless of the position of the Conservative Party, not supporting the legalization of marijuana, at this point in time, the majority of Canadians would like records expunged, not just suspended.

My colleague said a couple of things in his speech, on which I would like to find out more. Now that it is legal in society, if one neighbour consumes legally today and another neighbour was charged in the past and carries a criminal record that could affect him or her getting employment, or housing or is even an obstacle to volunteering in the community, does he support expungement at this point?

The member also said something that I would like him to clarify. He said that if the Conservatives were to get into power, they would be fixing things. What fixing is he talking about? Is he talking about completely erasing the suspension of records that they have proposed, which the New Democrats think is far from what is necessary, which is to support expungement?

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

Madam Speaker, this is one of many messes left behind by the Liberal government that the Conservatives will be required and prepared to clean up. We heard great testimony from experts at committee and we have received recommendations. We would like the opportunity to look at them to see if we cannot improve this flawed legislation that will advance through the House.

It has been said, and I will repeat, that a Conservative government will not recriminalize marijuana, but we certainly want to ensure there are no undue obstacles or burdens on folks as a result of this change in the law.