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

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

moved that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the third time and passed.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start off the debate at third reading of Bill C-93. This measure will make the pardon process simpler and quicker for Canadians convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. This is the next logical step in our efforts to establish a safer and more efficient system for cannabis.

During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis. We did that last fall. At that time, we committed to establishing a way for people to get their records pardoned with no waiting period or application fee. Now we are on the cusp of passing legislation to do just that.

I am very appreciative of the members of Parliament who have participated in the debate on the bill in the chamber. I would especially like to thank all the members of the public safety committee for their usual thorough analysis. My thanks go out as well to the witnesses and to those who provided written briefs.

Ordinarily, to apply for a pardon, people have to serve their full sentence, wait five or up to 10 years, collect and submit police and court records, and pay a $631 application fee. People also have to convince a member of the Parole Board that they meet certain subjective criteria, namely, that they have been of good conduct, that the pardon would give them a measurable benefit and that granting them a pardon would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

It is an expensive and time-consuming process, but people go through it because of how valuable a pardon really is. The public safety committee has studied pardons at length, not only in the context of this bill, but as part of a broader study initiated by Motion No. 161 from the member for Saint John—Rothesay.

During that study, a witness from the Elizabeth Fry Society said that a pardon is like “being able to turn that page over” and allows people “to pursue paths that were closed to them.” A witness from the John Howard Society testified that pardons “allow the person to be restored to the community, as a contributing member without the continuing penalization of the past wrong.”

Getting a pardon means that when a person undergoes a criminal records check, it comes up empty. That makes it easier to get a job, get an education, rent an apartment, travel, volunteer in a community and simply live life without the burden and the stigma of a criminal record.

Clearly, now that possession of cannabis is legal, people who have been convicted of nothing but that should be able to shed their criminal records. Given the reality that the prohibition of cannabis had disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities, it is important for the process to be as simple, straightforward and accessible as possible.

That is why, with Bill C-93, we are taking the unprecedented step of completely eliminating the $631 application fee and completely eliminating the waiting period. We are also completely eliminating the possibility that the Parole Board could deny such an application on the basis of subjective criteria like good conduct.

Also, thanks to an amendment at committee from the member for Toronto—Danforth, people will be able to apply even if they have outstanding fines associated with their cannabis possession conviction.

Due to an amendment we voted on at report stage yesterday, people whose only sentence was a fine will not be required to submit court documents as part of their application. That is because the main purpose of court documents for those applicants would be to show that the fine was paid, and that just will not matter anymore. Taken together, these measures remove many of the expenses and obstacles that could otherwise prevent people from getting pardons and moving on with their lives.

I was glad to see that the bill received overwhelming support from hon. members in the House yesterday. We have a process that will be created by Bill C-93 that is simple and straightforward without unnecessary obstacles placed in the path of applicants.

One of the issues that has come up over the course of the study of Bill C-93 is the question of why it proposes an application-based system. Some have asked why not just do it like some California municipalities and erase all the records with the press of a button? We do have an electronic police database of criminal records here in Canada, however, that database does not contain enough information to allow for a proactive amnesty.

For one thing, it generally does not contain information related to summary conviction offences, which is how cannabis possession is most often charged. And for another, it generally does not say whether a person possessed cannabis or an entirely different substance.

Information is entered into the database by individual police officers right across the country. Most of the time for a drug possession charge, the officer just enters “possession of a controlled substance”. It could be cannabis but it also could be cocaine.

To get the details and to find out about summary convictions as well as indictable offences, police and court documents have to be checked. Unlike in California, those documents are kept by many different jurisdictions. They are housed in provincial and municipal repositories across the country, each with its own individual record-keeping system.

Many Canadian jurisdictions have not digitized their records. They exist in boxes and filing cabinets in the basements of local courthouses and police stations. Without applications that enable the Parole Board to zero in on the relevant documents, it would take a huge amount of staff and many years to go through it all. Quite simply, a flick of a switch option that we have seen in California would be wonderful and we would like nothing better than to do just that. In Canada however, that is simply not physically possible in any reasonable time frame. Nevertheless, we are certainly aware of the importance of making the application system under Bill C-93 as simple and accessible as we possibly can.

The public safety committee has made recommendations to continue seeking ways of further reducing the cost to applicants. We have responded with a report stage amendment removing the need for court records for some applicants, and we will keep working to this end.

The committee also encouraged the Parole Board to explore options for moving towards a more digitized system capable of receiving applications electronically, something particularly important for Canadians in rural areas.

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, enabling a truly electronic system would involve technological enhancements not only at the Parole Board but in provinces, territories and municipalities as well. That is a considerable undertaking, but I think we all know that one day it must be done. Our grandchildren should not be breathing the dust off the paper records that we use today. Therefore, I agree with the committee's recommendation to make that advancement happen sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, the Parole Board is taking a number of steps to simplify the application process in other ways. It is simplifying its website and application form. It is creating a dedicated, toll-free phone number and an email address to help people with their applications. It is developing a community outreach strategy with a particular focus on the communities most affected by the criminalization of cannabis to make sure that people know about this new expedited process and how to access it, because accessibility is the most important element of this. The goal is for as many Canadians as possible to take advantage of this opportunity to clear their criminal records and to move on with their lives. It is to their benefit and to the benefit of all of us that they be able to do so.

I would like to conclude by reminding the House just how far the cannabis file has come during this Parliament, from the blue ribbon panel chaired by Anne McLellan, to the massive cross-country consultations in communities from coast to coast to coast, to the passage of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, both of which received extensive study in both chambers of Parliament, and the coming into force of Bill C-45 this past October.

We legalized and regulated cannabis, as promised, with the goal of keeping it out of the hands of children and keeping profits out of the hands of criminals, and early signs are encouraging. In the first three months of 2019, according to Statistics Canada, the criminal share of the overall cannabis market dropped to just 38%, which is down from 51% over the same period a year before. Reporting on those numbers recently in L'actualité magazine, journalist Alec Castonguay said, “Organized crime no longer has a stranglehold on the cannabis market. It is in decline”.

The prohibition of cannabis was counterproductive. It was a public policy failure. The new regime we put in place last October is already showing encouraging signs, and Bill C-93 is the logical next step. I encourage all hon. members to join with the government to pass this bill so that the Senate can begin its consideration, and so that Canadians can begin benefiting from this new simplified, expedited pardon process as soon as possible.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-93 recommends a no-cost pardon and waiver for cannabis convictions, but there are still going to be potentially those who have fines still owing. I want to know if the government has consulted with the provinces where those fines would be owed and roughly what that cost would be.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed one of the challenges, because we wanted to eliminate administrative fines related to these same convictions. However, not all of the fines are owed to the federal government. All the federal government can do is wipe its fines, but it has to discuss this with provinces and municipalities and encourage them to do the same. That kind of discussion is ongoing, but it will take a while to come to an understanding of how provinces and municipalities can actually contribute to this process.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, I have been receiving correspondence from my constituents who raise this issue. They are particularly concerned that Bill C-93 does not go far enough and that what is needed is for the criminal records to be expunged. They have said very clearly that record suspensions do not erase a convicted offence but merely set it aside. Therefore, without an expungement, individuals convicted of possession remain vulnerable to having their convictions reinstated. My constituents are saying we should be permanently eliminating rather than merely suspending the harms that stem from a previous cannabis conviction. To that end, I know the NDP tried to move such amendments at committee, which the government rejected.

I think there is one more chance to do the right thing here. Will the parliamentary secretary consider what I think thousands of Canadians are calling for, which is for the government to do it right and move forward with expungement?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this really was a very key part of the debate. We came up against a couple of challenges that would make that avenue particularly difficult, one of them being the technological challenges, in that all of our records are not held at the federal level in a federal database. Many of them are held at provincial and municipal levels and are not digitized. Therefore, we have no way of knowing where all those convictions are.

For us to go and do that, we would have to go and search for each and every one of those records. Some of those people might have already passed on. Some of these records are so old they could be from 50 years ago and that would take a lot of time and staff effort. We thought that if we made it inexpensive, easily available and we worked with the non-government organizations on the ground that work with these communities that were particularly hit with these kinds of convictions we could do as good a job by using an application method.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns about the pardons and the way they are structured in the bill. One thing I tried to do at committee, which was based on advice from a number of witnesses, is this. There is a condition that a pardon cannot proceed until the sentence has been fulfilled or the fine has been paid. The people who are the most marginalized would be those very people who cannot afford to pay the fine so the pardon becomes out of reach. I do not know if we can pursue this at this stage. I tried to at committee.

However, I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary's thoughts on whether we can deal with this so that the people who are in the greatest need of having the pardon applied are able to get a job to pay the fine to have this limitation removed.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again the challenge comes down to whether those fines are owed to the federal government or not. If they are owed to the federal government, then it is easy for us to say those fines do not need to be paid. If they are fines owed to another level of government or another jurisdiction, then it is not as easy for us to forgive those fines. However, if the fines are only owed to the federal government, those fines will be forgiven and that person can proceed with the pardon.

However, when a criminal records check is done on people who have been pardoned, those fines at the provincial or municipal levels may not even appear. Therefore, the federal government is forgiving those federal fines that need to be paid, but there is a challenge at the provincial and municipal levels.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hon. colleague's candour and honesty in answering questions.

One of the questions I have goes back to the fines that are owed, specifically in terms of municipalities. The number one cost to municipalities is policing. With the passing of Bill C-45, there have been additional costs that have been downloaded to the municipalities. They are still trying to work out how they recover those added costs between the provincial governments. There is still a lot of what-ifs up in the air. One of the ways municipalities would be able to actually mitigate some of the costs would be the fines that would be owed to them through these convictions.

If they are left owing, there is still another what-if. Is the federal government prepared to step in and assist these municipalities in terms of the offloading, paying or assisting with the payment of those fines?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe how it would work, at a provincial or municipal level, is that payment of those fines, if they are not granted amnesty on those fines, would be through civil recourse.

I know that the federal government wants to help the provinces and the municipalities succeed in this, because we do want this pardon process to be a success. We believe it is really important for our society as a whole, not just for the individuals who are carrying this burden. There have been discussions and I imagine there will be more in the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for people watching, I just want to make a point about pardons and expungement in Canada.

If a person has a record in the United States, it does not really matter what Canada does, expunge or pardon, they still have a record. The Americans do not often erase that. Expungement, in some cases, could actually hurt a Canadian. When Americans call Canada to say that this person had a record and ask whether it is still a problem, and Canada says that we cannot find any records of it, because it was expunged, the Americans may say that person has committed a crime and there is no evidence that it is not a problem.

If the crime is pardoned, Canada can then say that it was pardoned and it is not a problem for us anymore. That may help the person who has had a problem with the United States records, which they can keep forever. They might be better off.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my hon. colleague.

When people are entering another country, they might not be asked if they have a criminal conviction. They could be asked if they had ever been in possession of cannabis. That would actually make that difficult as well. If people have a pardon, they actually would have paperwork to prove that they have been pardoned. There is no guarantee that this would make a difference to the border officer, but they would have that paperwork.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

Before talking about Bill C-93, I have to say a few words about Bill C-45, because Bill C-93 builds on it. One of the Prime Minister's rare accomplishments from the past four years is a completely botched bill. From the start, Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, was not well received, especially because of the way the bill was originally put together. Bill C-45 was poorly received because marijuana legalization was by far the most pressing national issue for the Prime Minister. Instead of addressing organized crime, violence against women, or the economy, the government chose to focus on Bill C-45 to legalize marijuana. It was very urgent.

In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness mentioned information obtained from journalist Alec Castonguay of L'actualité. According to Mr. Castonguay, organized crime has experienced a drop in sales. I wonder if my colleague could provide more information that could be verified with police forces like the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association, which are on the ground and must receive much more technical information that is also available to the government. Unfortunately, we cannot consult that information. Mr. Castonguay is an excellent journalist, but I think the government could provide us with more specific information.

What mattered most to the Prime Minister was giving Canadians from coast to coast to coast access to cannabis. The House may recall that that was his first campaign promise. Now that Bill C-45 has become law, the Prime Minister is realizing that he forgot a step. That is why, at the end of this session of Parliament, we now have to study Bill C-93.

In 2015, the Prime Minister promised an open and transparent government. He promised to save Canada from the bad Stephen Harper. He made many, many promises. Many Canadians put their trust in him and voted for him. Some of them believed so strongly in his message of hope that they decided to run in the last election “because it is 2015”. Today, in 2019, after becoming disillusioned and witnessing the Prime Minister's many mistakes, many Canadians and even some Liberal members have basically thrown in the towel.

Canadians are tired of seeing the Prime Minister dance around when it comes time to work. They are frustrated with seeing the Prime Minister talk when he should be taking action. They are worried that the Prime Minister is welcoming terrorists, contract killers and other criminals without lifting a finger to help victims of human trafficking and our veterans who gave everything for Canada. They are sick of seeing the Liberals go after law-abiding citizens and ignoring organized crime and ISIS traitors. They are sick of it.

They saw the Prime Minister go after women in his cabinet because they resisted. What was their crime? They simply wanted to obey the law.

Canadians and the Liberal MPs who have decided not to come back are sick of seeing the Prime Minister refuse to take responsibility for his blunders, and this October, Canadians will take action. A number of Liberal members have already taken action, in fact. Several have quit the caucus, and others have already announced that they are leaving politics. The Toronto Star is already touting a potential replacement for the position of leader of the Liberal Party. They are sick of all this too, but that is another story.

Bill C-93 would change the pardon process and eliminate fees for Canadians previously convicted of marijuana possession. With cannabis legal as of October 2018, this bill would help Canadians who were convicted of something that is now legal by allowing them to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the usual waiting period or fees. Offenders usually have to wait five to 10 years after serving their sentence, depending on the type of conviction, and the application fee is $631.

This legislative measure seems to be another proposal that was hastily brought forward for political purposes. It is obvious that the Liberals did not take the time to do a thorough analysis. As it stands, this bill proposes a new type of record suspension that cannot be easily revoked and that can be granted automatically without any knowledge of an individual's past history. As with Bill C-45, we are committed to fixing this bill in October, when we form the next government. We want to ensure that we maintain the integrity of our record suspension system.

We support the idea of an expedited pardon process, but we want to ensure that it is a fair process. That is why we proposed amendments. We very quickly realized that the bill could be improved. However, the Liberals have a majority in committee and in the House, so they no longer feel the need to listen to Canadians. For example, we proposed that applications for a record suspension be submitted through an online portal. My colleague spoke about this earlier, and I would like to thank her, because this is new to me. The Liberals have finally listened to the Conservative MPs, but the fact remains that the amendment was rejected. Not only would this measure have saved taxpayers money, but it would also have made it easier for Canadians to apply.

We proposed a measure to allow applicants whose records were destroyed to swear an affidavit explaining their situation and certifying that they are eligible. This would have made the process even more fair. The Liberals agreed to this amendment in committee but changed their minds at report stage and decided to reject it. Once again, I remain doubtful.

Why would they refuse a measure proposed by the Conservatives that would help the public? We do not agree much on the process overall, but we tried to improve it. Our Liberal colleagues agreed with this change in committee. Why, then, did the government reject the idea at report stage? We still do not understand why this amendment was rejected.

We also proposed to restore the Parole Board's discretion to conduct inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of the conviction. Obviously, someone who has committed other crimes since the original conviction should not be eligible for a pardon like someone else who did not commit another crime. The Liberals also rejected this proposal.

Another one of our amendments would have restored the Parole Board's discretion to conduct an inquiry into all of the factors it could consider to determine whether granting a record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Liberals obviously defeated this amendment.

Our proposals were therefore serious and balanced, but the Liberals, with their majority on the committee and in the House, did what they wanted. They agreed to only one of our amendments, the one requiring the board to include a review of the law's success rate and the associated costs in its annual report. Of course that was only to appease us. I thank them, but it is still a little insulting to have those amendments rejected, considering how we worked in committee.

Ideological fights often erupt in the House. The NDP thinks one way, the Liberals think a certain way, the Conservatives think a certain way and the Green Party thinks a certain way. However, during the committee study, we managed to set ideology aside and come up with technical amendments that had nothing to do with ideology. If we try to co-operate and that does not work, the members opposite should not be surprised when there is some friction on certain issues.

There are many examples to show that the Liberals do not take crime seriously. The amendments we proposed would have improved the bill's procedural fairness and given the Parole Board of Canada better tools to enforce this new law more effectively.

As currently worded, this bill allows for a pardon before the fines are even paid. That seems to be very bad accounting to me. In other words, the fines will remain on the individuals' records, but the provinces will have no way of collecting them. We see that Bill C-93 is poorly crafted, just like Bill C-45. These are aspects of a bill that was rushed in order to fulfill a promise at the last minute. In her speech, the parliamentary secretary said that all this would be fixed later. In trying to rush things, the government is taking shortcuts.

In October, when a new Conservative government is elected, we will have to redo all this work to ensure that all the actors involved, the agencies, organizations, and the provinces, have the answers to their questions. There are many, many questions that remain unanswered.

With respect to the record suspension process, the Department of Public Safety estimates that this measure will cost roughly $2.5 million. Jean Chrétien said that the gun registry would cost $2 million and it ended up costing $2 billion. We know that likely will not happen, but we know what those evaluations are worth.

Moreover, while approximately 250,000 people have previously been charged with simple possession of marijuana in Canada, officials estimate that only 10,000 people will apply, possibly less. That is puzzling. To come up with the figure of $2.5 million, it was estimated that this would cost the government $250 per person. That is less than the current amount of $631 per application because there will be no need to do a background check, as is normally the case.

That being said, the 10,000-people estimate does not seem very high to me. At first, the information we had indicated that 500,000 people had been charged with simple possession of marijuana. In the end, officials told us that it was in fact only 250,000. It is also surprising that they expect only 10,000 people to apply. Based on various assessment criteria, the government does not expect more people than that to apply for a pardon.

The other option, expungement, would involve minimal cost, but it would not apply to individuals charged with more serious offences who negotiated lesser charges or who were in possession of a quantity above the current legal limit. That could be problematic. Judges, Crown prosecutors and the police negotiate deals with individuals who are guilty of other crimes to speed up the process, but if we do not take people's criminal records into account in the pardon process, they could be let off the hook for a different crime.

In that regard, Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said the following:

In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.

That is why, after hearing the testimony of the Canadian Police Association, we proposed an amendment to the bill to delete clause 6.

In his haste to deliver on his self-imposed legislative agenda, the Prime Minister failed to consider the many concerns of municipalities, law enforcement, employers, scientists and doctors regarding the legalization of cannabis. Similarly, the Liberals adopted this bill related to cannabis legalization in the last few weeks of this Parliament without consulting the main stakeholders, including law enforcement.

Now that cannabis is legal, Conservatives understand that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not place an unfair burden on Canadians, but we will be monitoring the implementation of this bill, and we promise to assess how well it is working and how fair it is when we take office in October.

As with Bill C-45, the Conservatives will also amend Bill C-93 in order to ensure that it effectively provides appropriate access to no-fee record suspension. We believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension and we will ensure that the law upholds the integrity of the Parole Board of Canada so that Canadians can have their records suspended.

Come October, when we form the government, we will have a lot of cleaning up to do. Our priority will be the real needs of Canadians, including their safety and their prosperity. Everything we do will be for Canadians. When we go to India, it will not be to dance and wear costumes. When we go to Washington, it will be to work and to clean up the mess made of the new free trade agreement. When we invest taxpayers' money, I guarantee it will not be to reward murderers, terrorists or dictatorships that are detaining our citizens on bogus charges. We will also clean up the mess at our borders. We will prioritize new Canadians who obey Canadian laws, and we will crack down on those who cheat and jump the queue. As a government, we will show compassion to those in need, as well as taxpayers. We will take action to improve the environment, but not by dipping into taxpayers' pockets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate that has been taking place on this issue and the whole legalization issue about cannabis. It is a major change in public policy with the way in which it has evolved to where we are today.

It is quite interesting that back in 2015 it was only the Liberal Party talking about the legalization of cannabis. The NDP wanted to decriminalize it and I think the Conservatives were somewhat for decriminalization, but not really advertising it. In fact, they were sending out a lot of misinformation about the legalization of cannabis. Now we are talking about that issue having been resolved as it is legalized.

My understanding is that the Conservative Party now supports legalization of cannabis. If that is not the case, maybe the member can provide a little bit more information on that aspect from his party. Second, if he could clearly indicate where he stands as an individual on the idea of the pardon, given the comments he just made.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long question, but my answer will be brief.

Regarding the legalization of marijuana, we had a debate and we voted against the bill. We had our reasons for doing so. One of the main reasons was that the bill was botched. It had nothing to do with any philosophical idea about whether cannabis should be legalized or not. The government's approach was sloppy. I would still argue that today. Certain aspects are still causing problems in our society. Police are having problems, and medical professionals are having lots of problems. That is another debate. Today we are debating pardons.

Do I support granting pardons to people who have done something that used to be a criminal offence? That is what we are debating. Some people are claiming today that we should erase the past, since those acts are no longer considered a criminal offence. Some people agree with that, while others, including myself, have certain reservations in that regard. People cannot be criminals one day but not the next. The fact remains that even in the case of simple possession of marijuana, some young people have tried marijuana and gotten caught. People can separate these things. They are not dumb. We are not talking about another crime on an entirely different level.

Our position is as follows. We were willing to decriminalize marijuana, but we felt that legalizing marijuana was more about creating an industry that would primarily benefit the Liberals' friends. All the government's goals, such as keeping profits out of the hands of criminals, are nowhere near being met. Nothing about the health of young people has been improved in any way.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this evening and I thank him for shedding some new light on this debate.

The NDP thinks that this is too little too late. I know my colleague does not agree that this is too little, but we would have preferred an expungement instead of a simple record suspension. It is too late, because the government was in a rush to legalize marijuana and open shops across the country, but it forgot many things, such as prevention, public safety and the fact that the provinces and municipalities were left to deal with difficult situations with no resources. It is also too late because there are just three weeks left in this Parliament. It will be very difficult to properly bring clear legislation to fruition.

Does my colleague agree that it is too late and that the government botched this legislation, for the reasons I mentioned or for any other reasons he can think of?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, in all matters, there are ways of doing things.

The past four years have been intense, for example, with Bill C-45, the most botched bill that the House has ever had to deal with. It nevertheless has a big impact on Canadian society.

The same is true with Bill C-93. Time is running out. As I mentioned in my speech, we proposed simple, intelligent amendments, but the government rejected them. It is also still not listening to police officers.

Lastly, the government has had no idea what it was doing all along.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, began his speech by talking about all the work done by the committee.

Some of his comments are the same ones we often hear when undertaking studies in committee. The Conservative members proposed amendments during the process. Our approach is very technical. We do not play political games when we move amendments. We really try to improve the legislation and how it will apply in real life.

The member started to speak a little about how this bill was treated in committee. I would like to hear more about the Conservative amendments that were rejected.

I also think that this bill should have been introduced along with Bills C-45 and C-46. In fact, the three issues should have been dealt with in an omnibus bill.

As a member of Parliament, I voted in favour of the expungement of criminal records. At the time, I believed that it would be the best approach. Bills C-45 and C-46 were passed and received royal assent, and the Liberals have had plenty of time to try to find a technical solution to the problems faced by people with a criminal record who are applying for a pardon, while addressing criminal records at the provincial and municipal levels and the associated costs.

I would like my colleague to talk about the work done in committee. Which Conservative amendments were rejected by the government, even though they would have reduced the impact on people on the ground and made this bill better?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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

One amendment the government agreed to covered situations where an individual who wants to apply does not have information about the arrest, such as the name of the city and the province. The documents relating to the criminal record exist only on paper, so the information might be in a drawer at some police station or courthouse. Sometimes the individual in question is somewhere else in Canada and does not have access to the documents or may not even remember where the arrest took place.

To simplify things, our amendment suggested that applicants could submit a sworn statement attesting to the details of the arrest and the individual's inability to obtain the documents. We were prepared to accept a sworn statement in order to process applications without proper documentation because accessing documents is very complicated. The Liberal committee members agreed to the amendment, but the government rejected it, and we have no idea why.

Now people have to fill out forms. Those 10,000 people with criminal records I was talking about earlier are marginalized and do not really have much in the way of resources. That makes it hard for them to know where to go to get the forms. Accessing the forms online is easier, so we suggested that systems should be digitized to improve the situation. The government rejected that idea too. If the government had agreed to that amendment, it would have made things easier.

Our requests were practical.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not think this bill goes far enough. It is too little, too late. Let me explain. It is too little because this bill was not introduced until after cannabis was legalized. The government dragged its feet on record suspensions. It waited too long. The legalization of cannabis came into effect, but people still have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. We are not talking about trafficking marijuana here, just simple possession. These people have a criminal record for simple possession, when it is currently legal to use marijuana.

By the way, just because something is legal does not mean it is a good idea. I want to say that even though it is legal to use marijuana, it is not really a good idea to do so. I also want to say that the legislation legalizing cannabis should really have included a major public health campaign to make people aware of the effects and risks of using marijuana. Marijuana is like any other substance. It is legal to drink alcohol, for example, but it can be addictive. I know what I am talking about. I know people who are addicted to alcohol. Marijuana can also be addictive. That is obviously the case with tobacco as well, which is also a legal substance. Cigarettes are a terrible product that can be addictive. These are legal products. The government can legalize these products, but it also needs to inform the public of the risks associated with using them.

We are talking about people who have a criminal record for simple possession. This has nothing to do with trafficking. It is really about people being caught for simple possession. These people therefore have a criminal record for something that is now legal and has been legal for a few months. Drug use should never be criminalized. Instead, it should be regarded as a public health matter. I am thinking of the opioid crisis raging across Canada, for example. We should be taking a public health approach.

This bill is too late because legalization came into effect several months ago, yet we are only just debating this legislation today. This legislation allows for criminal records to be suspended. This means that criminal records are set aside, but they are not expunged.

As a result, people who are granted a record suspension will still have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They will always have to wonder what might happen when they try to rent an apartment, find a job or apply to volunteer. They will be asked if they have a criminal record, and they will have to answer that their record was suspended. Their criminal record will not be completely expunged. The same will be true when they want to travel. What will happen when they want to travel? If the government really wanted to do things right, it would have passed the excellent bill introduced by my colleague from Victoria.

His bill was introduced a long time ago. In October 2018, my colleague from Victoria introduced a good bill. We were ready. We had done our homework. Instead of using that fine bill, the Liberals showed that had no regard whatsoever for Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, something that is no longer a crime, and who face barriers to things like employment and housing.

It is far too late to wake up now. There are less than three weeks left before the end of this Parliament. Now the government is waking up and introducing this bill. We are at third reading stage. We are moving quickly, but unfortunately we are cutting corners. We are not being thorough, and it is truly worrisome.

There is a not-for-profit organization in my riding or in the central Quebec region that does very important work. As others have mentioned, the problem with the Liberal philosophy is the lack of emphasis on resources.

I would like to talk about an extremely important resource. The organization is called Action Toxicomanie. This community-based organization was founded in 1991. It provides services in the central Quebec and Drummond region.

The organization serves a significant number of young people through its addiction prevention programs, which are also offered in schools. Action Toxicomanie is a community-based not-for-profit organization that promotes healthy living and addiction prevention and is geared to young people from 10 to 30. As I was saying, the organization takes a holistic approach that focuses on promoting physical and mental health as well as social skills development. Interventions can be individual or group-based and seek to develop individual knowledge and abilities.

Action Toxicomanie's website details the organization's mission, which is to prevent addiction, provide accurate information about substances and related addictions, support the development of social skills, inform and support parents and adults, intervene with teens and adults with emerging substance abuse issues, and support teens with clear substance abuse issues and refer them to specialized services.

I would like to congratulate the entire Action Toxicomanie team on the excellent work they are doing with our young people. As I have always said, resources like this are extremely important. When the government legalized cannabis, it put the cart before the horse. In their rush to legalize cannabis, the Liberals forgot to safeguard public health in this country, implement a comprehensive public education and prevention campaign, provide provinces and municipalities with the right resources to prepare for this major social change, and make sure organizations working to educate youth and prevent addiction were ready to deal with the change and properly equipped to go into schools and communities to inform people. That is why I find it virtually impossible to support the bill.

I just want to digress for a moment if I may. We are talking about physical and mental health. I just talked about a very good organization, Action Toxicomanie.

I would like to talk about the book N'oublie jamais by Gregory Charles, which my mother gave me. She may have been giving me a message to never forget to think about her, never forget to call her or never forget to go see her. Mothers send subtle messages like that. This book talks about Alzheimer's.

Gregory Charles comes from Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, in my riding. He grew up there. He recently visited École Jean-Raimbault in Drummondville to talk to the children about his passion, his faith in music and his strong values. He did this for the children. He came to visit the children who are studying music and spent over an hour playing music with them. I simply wanted to acknowledge the time he spent with these children.

His book highlights the importance of hard work and strong values and talks about how crucial it is to take care of those around us. I think that is what my mother was trying to tell me when she gave me this book. I thank her for that.

I thank Gregory Charles for what he did for the community of Drummond, and I congratulate the team at École Jean-Raimbault, especially Denis Lambert, who spearheaded this initiative.

I would like to give some other examples.

When it comes to the legalization of marijuana, the government is only taking half measures. Before I talk about them, I want to give an example of another issue on which the government is only taking half measures, and that is the housing crisis.

Drummond is experiencing a housing crisis. The vacancy rate is 1.7%. The vacancy rate for three-bedroom homes is 0.4%. What is more, prices are going way up. Over 15,000 renter households in Drummondville are being forced to spend more than half of their annual income on housing. When households have to spend half of their annual income on housing, they do not have much money left over to meet their other needs.

David Bélanger, the chair of Drummond's municipal housing board, said:

When people have to spend nearly one-third of their income on housing, there are obviously other needs that are not being met. We are developing projects to create more affordable housing. The housing crisis has two dimensions, namely accessibility and affordability.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about pardons for simple possession of cannabis. The member is talking about the issue of housing and a housing strategy. I would ask that he be a little more relevant to the legislation before us.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is aware that the rules about relevance, one might say, are not closely observed. I trust the hon. member will over the course of his remarks address the topic and bill at hand.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain the context to my hon. colleague, who was obviously not listening very carefully to my speech because I clearly said that I was going to digress a bit to explain how the pardon bill was a half measure. I was giving another example of the Liberal government's half measures. I will obviously be coming back to the subject of pardons momentarily.

I was trying to say that the government is also taking half measures with housing. It is another example. If I can finish my point, it needs to be said that one in five Canadians spends more than 50% of their income on housing. Even though the Liberal government has a national housing strategy, 90% of the funding will not come until after the next election. The government was not announcing a national housing strategy. It was making an election promise. In February 2019, the Liberal government voted against an NDP motion to act quickly and create 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing within 10 years. The government could have taken our suggestion, and this measure would have provided some much-needed accessible and affordable housing in Drummond. Too many Canadians are spending more than one-third of their annual income on housing. Too many Canadians are spending half of their annual income on housing. They are struggling to find housing and grappling with a housing crisis. Housing is hard to come by, but affordable housing is even more difficult to find.

I want to come back to the topic at hand, the government's lack of ambition with respect to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Why is there such a lack of planning and lack of ambition?

As I mentioned, in October 2018 we were ready to introduce a bill that would have completely expunged criminal records, not just suspended them. That would have reassured people who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis but not for drug trafficking. These were people who had a health problem and consumed a substance that, at that time, was illegal but today is legal. We had a plan.

In closing, I will talk about another example, and that is climate change. The Liberal government is implementing half measures. It will meet Stephen Harper's weak targets for 2030 a full 200 years too late. The government says that it will take action to fight climate change. It is putting a price on carbon but has left out the largest emitters.

Last Friday, we tabled the plan called the courage to act. Not only will it create jobs, but it will address climate change. This is an ambitious and courageous plan. That is what the constituents of Grand Drummond and Canadians across the country want from their government. They want ambition and courage.

Therefore, I will close my speech with a quote that sums up everything I have said about the 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.

That is what Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence attorney, said in committee to explain why this is important.

In closing, let me repeat his words: “But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.”

Unfortunately, the same standard seems to apply to social housing and the environment, and that is why we need to do more and be ambitious and courageous.

[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?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Maintain our records only when we need them, Mr. Speaker?

Why would we need them? We do not need that criminal record. That is why it should be expunged. My colleague just suggested that records should be kept if they are needed, but there is no need because this substance is legal now. Criminalizing people for simple possession of cannabis was extreme in the first place.

That is why we introduced a bill. We wanted to decriminalize cannabis. It is appalling that people got a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That kind of record has ruined people's lives. That is why we need to more forward with this.

You may choose not to believe me. I admit I am no expert on the subject, but Solomon Friedman was absolutely right when he said that, while this bill is better than nothing, better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, the member tried to tie in the idea of half-baked. I could tie in the idea of hypocrisy.

It is interesting to hear NDP members talk about expungement versus a pardon. In the last federal election, the NDP said they were in favour of decriminalization, so the whole issue of expungement or a pardon would not even be a part of what we have been debating today, for the NDP platform.

I am glad that the NPD members have changed their opinion. I am glad they have decided to support what Canadians have been telling the government to do and what the government has done, and that is to legalize cannabis.

Why did the NDP come to the conclusion that the government's approach to the legalization of cannabis was a much better way than what the NDP were proposing in the last federal election?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague, who has a lot of experience in the House.

If we had decriminalized marijuana use, we would have introduced legislation to expunge criminal records, that is certain. That is what we have been saying from the beginning. We oppose the criminalization of drug use. Of course we would have expunged criminal records, but we would have done so in a structured and carefully planned manner. We would not have waited until we legalized cannabis, as the Liberals did, only to scratch our heads afterward because we had forgotten those with criminal records. We would not have then rushed a bill through the House of Commons and send it to committee, so we could finally say that we were moving forward, despite the sloppy work, less than three weeks before the end of the session. We would have done things properly.

Moreover, in October 2018, the NDP member for Victoria introduced his bill, which was already ready. Unfortunately, the government decided not to support that legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, who is a strong advocate for the people of Drummond. We had never heard so much about the people of Drummondville before he came to the House. This experienced member is doing an excellent job.

I would like to ask him a question. There is a choice to be made between imposing a complicated and expensive process for granting people individual pardons and expunging people's criminal records.

If Canadians choose the NDP on October 21, when we come back to the House, would the NDP be willing to expunge all these criminal records, or will it continue to force people to go through a very complicated and expensive process to get a pardon?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his excellent work, his kind words and his visits to Drummond. He came to Drummond several times to lead sessions on tax credits for people with disabilities. I thank him very much, as do the people of Drummond. Thanks to him, they ended up receiving a few thousand dollars. They were entitled to that money, but this was not well advertised by the previous governments.

The member's question is very important. Of course, if the NDP takes office in October 2019, it will remedy the current situation. The NDP will not only implement a process to permanently expunge criminal records, but it will also work on addiction issues and treat drug use as a public health issue. The NDP will be sure to organize public education and awareness campaigns and invest both the human and financial resources necessary to deal with this issue. It must be said that addictions are a serious social problem that has to be taken seriously.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I am quite astonished. I went back and looked at the NDP platform to see what it wanted to spend in this year if it had been elected into government back in 2015. This party quite clearly must not have understood the seriousness of the housing crisis in this country because, when we look at its platform for homelessness, it was going to spend an extra $10 million a year. That is it. I can walk through Vancouver and find $10 million of new investment spent in that city by this government alone. We did not spend $10 million more; we spent $100 million more. The numbers that really get me are the three zeros for the last three years of its housing program. There are zero dollars for new affordable housing. That is how the party addressed the crisis in its platform. Thank God it did not get elected.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know it is getting late, but I want to remind members on both sides of the House that they should not be having conversations back and forth when a parliamentary secretary, of all people, is asking a question.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting to see the Liberals rise in the House to demand that I not talk about social housing, even though there is a very serious housing crisis in Drummond, and then ask a question on that topic. I am happy to answer that question because, in this Parliament, we moved a motion to quickly call for the creation of 500,000 housing units. The entire country, including Drummond, is facing a housing crisis. We need to take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara West.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions to individuals for simple possession of marijuana. As I said last week, the bill is deeply flawed and will not help the people the Liberals have set out to help. This was clear from the limited testimony at committee, the information provided by departments and agencies and answers to our questions about the process and system.

This record suspension, much like the Liberals, is really not as advertised.

Bill C-93, based on what we heard at committee, was rushed, lacked consultations outside of the government and would fail to help those the Liberals said it would, in particular, racialized communities and those who live below the poverty line.

The Liberals suggested the bill would provide a no-cost simple process for those with convictions for simple possession of marijuana to provide a record suspension and it would remove the stigma of a criminal conviction for this offence.

After committee hearings, this bill clearly should have been called “lower cost”, not “no cost”.

No one should have been caught off guard by this legislation, least of all government departments and agencies that have been working on this for years. When the Prime Minister announced his plans for marijuana legalization in 2015, clearly some kind of amnesty or consideration would have had to take place to balance the old and the new realities. The issue was raised in the House and by media as legalization was occurring and after the legislation had passed. The government repeatedly said it would bring in amnesty after legalization.

On October 18, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety said that he would make things fairer, removing the stigma. That is why it was so confusing. No one had a clear idea of how many people would be eligible or benefit, how it would be implemented or how much it would cost. When we asked officials how many people would be eligible, officials and the minister provided a best guess. Why? It is because the work to know who would be eligible would have been a challenging and time-consuming process.

Convictions are not listed as simple possession of marijuana. In order to know who would be eligible, officials would need to know who had a record for possession of an illegal substance, which falls under a specific category, schedule II, and then which of those was the simple possession of marijuana, meaning under 30 grams. That may or may not have been listed.

According to testimony at committee, Canadian conviction records generally do not say “cannabis possession”. That is not the language used in the records. They say something like “possession of a schedule II substance”. Then one has to check police and court documents to find out what the particular substance was.

The blanket, generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian records system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database. Additionally, many older records are paper copies kept in boxes in courthouses and police departments across this country.

We also do not know how many individuals the government expects to apply for record suspension. Public safety officials said:

[I]t's very difficult to know who has possession for cannabis offences, so we can't just go into a database and say this is how many offences there are. We've extrapolated from statistics collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and their figure is upwards of 250,000 convictions for the simple possession of cannabis. That is a starting point. The number of people expected to apply is much lower.... Let's remember you can only get that pardon if your only offence is for possession of cannabis. While you may have that offence, if you have others on your record, you would not be eligible. It's not an exact science but we've extrapolated from the figure of 250,000 and estimate 10,000.

Outside experts have told us a significantly higher number, approximately 500,000 who have a record for minor possession. Those who will actually benefit, however, remains unknown.

How much will taxpayers pay to provide a record suspension to someone who has committed a minor offence? The minister and officials have guessed about $2.5 million, a nice round figure for an unknown number of people with an unclear amount of work involved. We asked the minister to provide the committee with details of how the costs were reached. The minister committed to provide it before we had to vote on the matter. As we still do not have the breakdown of that cost as it was calculated, we could just add it to another long list of broken promises from the public safety minister.

As of yet, there is no clear mechanism to deal with higher costs. Will it be passed on to other applicants or will taxpayers pick up the difference?

One thing we heard from almost all our legal witnesses was the challenges of obtaining a record suspension, especially for individuals who could benefit the most. The application process can be quite challenging for those with limited legal or administrative skills. It requires getting a record of conviction from the court of jurisdiction, meaning people may need to travel to the courts to get the records removed; proof that fines and all sentencing conditions have been met; and a records check from a police agency, along with an identity confirmation by way of fingerprints. All of this will cost potentially several hundred dollars. Therefore, the no-cost application suggested in the bill's title is clearly misleading.

It became quite clear that the people the minister and his colleagues say they are trying to help could continue to face potentially insurmountable hurdles.

What we heard at committee supported that statement.

The Native Women's Association of Canada said, “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.”

The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said, “The suspension of the record will almost seem like a token gesture...for many who are coming from extremely poor areas and families who don't have the means to push them forward, this is a huge stumbling block.”

This is yet another promise that is not as advertised.

To deal with this issue, legal experts advised the committee that convictions should be expunged. Expungements eliminate the records while record suspensions mean they can be reversed. An expungement would certainly be more closely aligned to the what the Liberal government promised in its statements. It would be simpler than this process, cost applicants less and ensure that whatever barriers they experienced would be eliminated. However, the Liberals voted against the NDP's Private Member's bill to do just that. Ironically, the Liberal members introduced amendments to make these record suspensions as close to expunged records as possible.

This is like the Liberals' claims about how legalizing marijuana would remove the black market, decrease use by children and reduce consumption, all of which is not actually happening. We also know Bill C-93 would not accomplish anything the minister claimed.

I believe in redemption, but I know that redemption is not earned through the generosity of the minister; it is earned by the person who seeks it. I am not sure that the redemption in these cases will result in any benefit for many Canadians.

I was pleased that the committee agreed to make some minor improvements to deeply flawed legislation. Originally, a Conservative amendment addressed what could happen if the court records were lost, destroyed or otherwise not found. The Liberals chose to amend this issue and provided the ability for the Parole Board to review when information was missing. However, that is not much help to those who can not get information to apply in the first place.

The Liberals continue to put in processes that serve the government, but not the people intended to benefit from the legislation.

Ultimately, we were not able to eliminate clause 6, which would limit the considerations by the Parole Board when examining these applications. We should not be giving records suspensions to people who do not deserve them. The only way to accomplish that is to ensure a thorough review. That was the only request of the Canadian Police Association, to ensure that anyone who received these record suspensions met the criteria. That aligns with good administration and instills the trust of Canadians that the system works effectively. The Liberals sadly disagreed with that.

This is not a good bill. It only makes things slightly better for a very small number of Canadians who will benefit.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his statement, the member said that our new policy on the legalization of marijuana had done nothing. I want to remind the member that according to Statistics Canada, one out of every 10 young people between the ages of 15 and 17 will smoke cigarettes. The reason for that is that we injected a lot of money into educating our youth on the effects of smoking, the harms of it and the reasons it was bad for their health. It has been drilled into young people at schools.

This is exactly what we want to do with the legalization of cannabis. We want to ensure that the money we receive from that is invested in education programs to make safer consumption for youth. Often cannabis has been mixed with other products. We want to ensure we educate youth so we bring the consumption rate down to the numbers I just mentioned. Those are Statistics Canada numbers from 2011. We want to ensure we reduce the consumption and this is the way to do it.

Does the hon. member agree that if we use the example of smoking cigarettes and apply that to cannabis we can reduce the rate?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that education is a critical component of any sort of public policy. I unfortunately would have to disagree that in this case the desired outcomes from what the government has proposed or expected from the legalization of marijuana have not played out in reality, as was proposed in policy or in principle.

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

Madam Speaker, what is my colleague's perception and what feedback has he heard from stakeholders, including police associations and other groups, about the ability of police to do their jobs and for law enforcement agencies to protect against drug-impaired driving? As we have seen in jurisdictions with the legalization of cannabis, robust methods were required to equip the police to do proper roadside screening. My understanding is that the equipment that has been approved is insufficient and produces many false positives.

Could my colleague speak to that, based on the study of this legislation and also based on his professional experience?

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

Madam Speaker, in conversation with law enforcement officials over the last year or thereabouts, since the legislation was put in place, significant challenges continue to exist with the application of the law as well as the inability for officers to have the equipment necessary to perform the required roadside screening tests. It is an issue of public safety and those challenges continue to exist at this point in time.

We knew when this legislation was proposed that there would be significant court challenges for a lot of the aspects of the legislation. The results hopefully will play out soon and we will get some resolution to it. Right now, there are challenges with law enforcement and the ability to enforce this across the country.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that Conservatives will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-93 would make changes to the pardon process and waive the fee for Canadians with a past conviction of simple cannabis possession. It would allow people convicted of possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis to apply for free to have their record suspended. It typically costs $631 for someone to apply for a record suspension. In light of the legalization of cannabis in October of last year, the bill seeks to assist Canadians who were criminally charged for something that has now been rendered legal.

Having said that, it is important to discuss some concerns we have had with the bill along the way.

The government has received significant criticism as to how it has handled matters relating to cannabis in the aftermath of legalizing it. For example, last year, the government confirmed there is no conclusive way to determine if someone is driving high. This left our law enforcement officials in limbo, with several police forces across the country refusing to use government-approved testers.

In addition, the safety concerns of employers, workers and indigenous communities have not been addressed. To add to that, the Prime Minister has failed to explain how his plan would keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. Also, the lack of public education has left many Canadians unsure of the new rules and how this would impact border crossings between Canada and the United States.

The uneven rules by the government for every province, territory, and municipality have created uncertainty and confusion from coast to coast. The bill is an attempt to address the record suspension issue that was left outstanding since the legalization of cannabis, but there are still many other aspects of the legalization of cannabis that need the government's attention. However, I am glad to see it is finally starting somewhere.

With respect to these issues, the end result the government has come up with is a new category of record suspensions that cannot be easily revoked and can be granted automatically without much insight into an individual's history. To be more specific, if an individual were to reoffend, the record suspension received for the charge of simple possession is difficult to reverse.

On this side of the House, we support the idea of expedited pardons, but we want to ensure that the process is fair and accountable.

We are also happy the government accepted two Conservative amendments, which help to improve the bill's procedural fairness and require the Parole Board to include a review of this program in its annual report. This review process would allow the legislation to be improved upon if necessary.

I would like to note a specific concern expressed by law enforcement agencies about the bill that I find to have a lot of merit. Although they generally support the bill and what it aims to achieve, law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns that an individual could have been charged with a more serious infraction but pleaded it down to simple possession. This makes the individual still eligible for record suspension, making the process very problematic.

The President of the Canadian Police Association has expressed his opinion on this, saying:

In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.

Committee members are aware of this. At their appearance, officials said they could not discern between plea deals to lesser charges and people convicted of the genuine offence. This is one of several issues the government has encountered in its rush to meet the Prime Minister's own self-imposed political deadline. It is also strange that the Liberals have left this consequential legislation to the final weeks of our Parliament and have failed to consult key stakeholders.

The concerns are still very real and need to be dealt with. I would like to highlight some of them here.

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Conservative members asked officials about how unpaid fines would be dealt with at the provincial level when a record suspension can be granted under this law at the federal level, while those fines are still outstanding. They could not answer. This needs to be dealt with since the provinces could lose money if they cannot enforce the payment of fines once these records have been deleted. It is an important detail of this legislation that needs the government's attention.

I am also concerned as to why the government changed this law so that a record suspension could not be revoked on the grounds of bad conduct. Does it want record suspensions or expungement? It is very unclear.

The bill lacks the public safety considerations that come with a proper record suspension and the accessibility of an expungement. It is almost as if the Liberals got lost somewhere along the way in the creation of this legislation and did not think of several important details.

There is also a cost to this legislation that needs to be considered, which officials have estimated would be around $2.5 million. The calculation is based on the idea that over 250,000 people are eligible for record suspensions but only 10,000 would make use of it. What if all 250,000 apply; does the government have a plan for that? The cost would then be around $62 million and not the anticipated $2.5 million, which is a big gap that needs to be accounted for. It is an amount that the government does not seem to have a plan for.

In addition, the government has overlooked another important cost, which is the full cost estimate of the process for the Parole Board to to run a query of its database to determine who is eligible for record suspensions while providing it with the necessary information. This is a process, like any other bureaucratic one, that will require significant resources depending on how many people submit a query.

Another area of concern was brought up by witnesses who testified that this law would impact different communities differently. Generally, those less well-off and those with lower education levels are more likely to have convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Legal experts have said that the people who do not have record suspensions today are unlikely to be able to sort through the challenging paperwork needed just to apply.

In addition to the paperwork, to make matters worse, the government calls this a no-cost bill when that is not the case. There would be a $2.5-million price tag for taxpayers and likely between $50 and $200 in fees and complex paperwork for applicants. This process seems designed to ensure as few people as possible apply. It does not look like the government is interested in making it more accessible either. It took out a proposed Conservative amendment that would have made it easier for individuals to access these pardons. As with other types of government applications, this could be complex and time-consuming to fill out.

In these cases, we have also seen the emergence of predatory application experts online, who charge up to $1,600 for their services. There are also no meaningful protections in this bill that would prevent this sort of predatory behaviour in order to protect those who are trying to get a record suspension.

The Liberals have said to Canadians that smoking marijuana should be accepted and accessible, and they have implemented legislation to that effect. That is why it seems odd that they are not interested in making the record suspension process just as accessible.

The last concern I would like to bring up on the topic of cannabis is one that is very relevant to my riding of Niagara West, and that is the smell produced by cannabis cultivation facilities. This is especially an issue in the town of Pelham, where families avoid opening their windows in the summer due to the extremely strong odours coming from two cannabis-producing facilities located more than five kilometres away from their houses.

David Ireland, a resident of Pelham, recently said that on hot, humid days it is worse because the production facilities have to vent more often. Because of this, he cannot open any windows without his whole house smelling like cannabis. The situation has become so bad that the Town of Lincoln in my riding has temporarily halted new cannabis-production facilities and put existing operations on notice.

At a special council meeting earlier this year, councillors approved a staff recommendation to pass an interim control bylaw that will effectively stop any new cannabis facilities until the town can update its zoning bylaws. The bylaws come at the behest of local residents, who have complained about cannabis greenhouses popping up where they should not and causing light and odour concerns in residential communities.

Kristen Dias, a resident from the town of Jordan, was quoted in one of our local papers saying, “Daily, my kids ask about the dead skunks.” Ms. Dias has since moved her children to a different school, saying that the cannabis odour from the production facilities is part of the reason for the move.

My constituents have made dozens of complains about the odour coming from these factories to no avail. Health Canada has not been helpful because it says it is the town's jurisdiction, while the town says it is Health Canada's problem. We have been caught in this constant loop for over a year now with no resolution in sight.

Our community of Niagara West needs to be clear as to who is responsible for regulating the odour because something needs to be done. Cannabis odour issues produced by production facilities are yet another oversight of the government with respect to rushed marijuana legislation.

To get back to the bill in question, we will monitor the implementation of it and commit to reviewing it for its effectiveness and fairness. Now that cannabis is legal, Conservatives understand Canadians should not be unfairly burdened by criminal records for something that is no longer illegal. On this side of the House, we agree that Canadians should have expedited access to record suspensions at no cost. That is why we will be supporting this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, the NDP put forward a bill on expunging criminal records for marijuana possession, which the Liberals trashed and voted against. Now, instead, we have a very complicated and costly process someone would have to undertake to hopefully get a pardon. As my colleague from Drummond said a little earlier tonight, it is better than nothing, but barely better than nothing, as many witnesses testified.

I wanted to ask the member why he thinks the government has been so poor in approaching this issue. Rather than looking for something that would allow people who have criminal records to actually look to the future with some certainty, it would impose a very complicated and costly process they would have to go through.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are going to be rising in the next couple of weeks. We knew this was coming down the pipe, and quite frankly, consultations probably should have started a lot earlier. As I said, in some cases, there has not been a whole lot of consultation at all. I think that is the challenge.

We are grateful that the government accepted a couple of our amendments. It would have been nice if it had accepted a few more. In the rush to get this through before the end of this term, I feel that maybe more consultation could have happened.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member brought up a new aspect in the debate. He made reference to communities that are impacted by people growing cannabis.

Whether it is rural or urban communities, what we witnessed in the past was the substantial growth of grow-ops, which have been very damaging to communities in many different ways. I believe that with legalization, we will see the number of grow-ops diminish as the criminal element is taken out of the sale of cannabis. I think there is a silver lining.

Just to get an affirmation from across the way, I understand that the Conservative Party is actually supporting the legislation. The NDP is not supporting it, because it wants expungement. Am I then to believe that the Conservative Party supports pardoning over expungement?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the community aspect he raised. One of the issues we have seen with legalization, first with medical marijuana and then with individual licences cobbled together, and I realize that they are not necessarily illegal grow-ops, is that what ends up happening is that the standard is not set as high as it is for commercially regulated medical marijuana.

The challenge I have in my community is that there are literally dozens of legitimate greenhouses that produce a huge odour. We had a story in one of the local papers. An individual actually had that smell in his car and claimed that he was pulled over when crossing the border, because they thought he had something going on in his car or on his premises. He tried to explain. There were emails to my office and a number of other councillors.

I hope that we are able to see the illicit stuff gone. I am still concerned about whether that will happen, because of the price comparisons and what is going on. However, we are in early stages. I would suggest that as we move forward on this, we need to do something about the odour with regard to additional facilities, outdoor growing and things like that. We have to take care of that to make sure that our residents are not bothered by these smells.

Bill C-93—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-93 on record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

From the outset I would like to say a few words about Bill C-45 because it is impossible to forget. It was no great feat of the government opposite, but it was one of the Prime Minister's rare accomplishments. That should be noted.

Nonetheless, no one will forget that Bill C-45 was bungled from the start and now that it has been in effect since last October, it certainly has not been a resounding success. Many of the projected outcomes of legalizing marijuana did not come to fruition, including reducing the sale of cannabis on the black market to curb organized crime. In fact, the opposite happened. Cannabis sales on the black market have increased.

I cannot ignore the fact that the government opposite also rejected our amendment to create a public registry of investors in the cannabis industry. However, since many of them have direct ties to the Liberal Party and since the money comes from tax havens, we are not holding our breath for the government to set up a public registry. The Liberals said that they would do politics differently and transparently. Fortunately their time is coming to an end.

When the Prime Minister came to power, he decided that his 2015 election promise to pass Bill C-45 at any cost was a national priority, even though other priorities could have easily come before Bill C-45. Like many Canadians, I still have a hard time believing that there was absolutely nothing more important in Canada than legalizing marijuana. Too many people put their trust in the Prime Minister in 2015, believing that he was creating hope in many respects for Canadians. Now, in 2019, it is plain to see that he made a lot of promises and did not follow through on much.

Was legalization truly more important than the economy, safety and security, justice and the future of our children? I believe the history books will confirm that that was indeed the case in this 42nd Parliament.

Getting back to Bill C-93, I want to point out that it can lead to confusion with respect to the use of the term “suspension” in the notion of the record suspension for simple cannabis possession. I want to highlight the importance of thoroughly understanding everything about this notion because many people are surprised to learn about the consequences this could eventually have when they wish to cross the border into the United States.

As we know, U.S. customs have always been very strict when checking the records of Canadians seeking to cross the border and enter their country. They have become even stricter with the legalization of cannabis. When they see that a Canadian has a suspended record for simple possession of marijuana, I am convinced, as are others, that this will have negative rather than positive repercussions. The expungement of criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis would have avoided all of this.

This leads me to wonder about the effectiveness and the goal of this measure. If they wanted to do something about this, record expungement would potentially have been much more effective.

Furthermore, we are debating this matter because after the government legalized marijuana, many Canadians were left with a criminal record for simple possession and inevitably wanted this record expunged. They know very well that a suspension is not as good as an expungement.

Many Canadians have this offence on their criminal records, which prevents them from travelling to the United States. This could be why a powerful lobby asked the Liberal government to suspend the records. Funnily enough, this demand was very much a ploy to win votes, as there are not many days left before the end of this Parliament.

Bill C-45 took effect in October 2018, and the Prime Minister chose to ignore the concerns about the legalization of cannabis expressed by municipalities, police forces, employers, doctors and a number of concerned parents. The Liberals rushed to introduce Bill C-93 at the last minute, at the end of this Parliament, just before the upcoming election. This makes me think that they are desperately trying to pad their record, which is currently light on positives.

The Liberals already promised to legalize cannabis so now they want to please another consumer group, those who were charged with simple possession of cannabis, by quickly getting rid of their criminal record. Still today, an offender with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis has no choice but to wait between five and 10 years to apply for a pardon. The application costs $631. It is important to reiterate that the cost associated with applying for a pardon was determined based on the cost to the Canadian government and taxpayers, which is fair and equitable. We always felt that is was not up to law-abiding taxpayers to pay for those who break the law.

Bill C-93 is a fait accompli. That being said, even though sound management of public funds is a Conservative priority, we agreed to make pardon applications for simple possession of marijuana free of charge. We know that some verifications were made, that roughly 10,000 people would be eligible to apply for a pardon and that the cost associated with these applications, which would be covered by taxpayers, would be roughly $2.5 million.

It is important to remind those tuning in at this late hour that the purpose of Bill C-93 is to pardon individuals accused of simple possession of cannabis. These are not people with long and colourful rap sheets. As many people have pointed out, the charges usually stem from youthful indiscretions, and in most cases, that is something we can understand.

As such, we believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension. However, as with any bill, it is vital that we ensure it is enforced intelligently, fairly and realistically so that it becomes a good law once passed.

Conservatives understand perfectly well that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not create an unjust burden for Canadians now that cannabis use is legal.

Nevertheless, as a responsible party that respects law enforcement, the justice system and public safety, we will always take it upon ourselves to closely monitor the implementation of Bill C-93.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I very much appreciated the member's speech, Madam Speaker. She indicated wanting to share her time, but she did not specify with whom. Hopefully, we will find out before too long, and when we do, what a surprise it will be.

The Liberals want to foist a highly convoluted process on people whose only offence was having consumed something that has since become legal. We have always called for expungement of these criminal records. The Liberals refused. They rejected our request, which comes from the very people who were arrested. The fact remains that this once illegal substance is illegal no more.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the Liberal approach, which is complicated and places a burden on each and every person by forcing them to initiate their own individual process even though there exists a much simpler solution that would apply to all.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As we have seen for going on four years now, the Liberals always seem to be looking for new ways to make life harder for Canadians. As the hon. member was saying, there are much simpler ways to go about drafting this type of legislation, but the Liberals have gone with a much more complicated process in order to pander to their friends. That is my analysis.

Unfortunately, it was the same thing with Bill C-45. By refusing to take the concerns of municipalities into consideration, the government made things a lot harder for them. They basically kicked the problem to the provinces. The Liberal mind will always seek to make things as complicated as possible for Canadians, who are sure to struggle as a result.

One can only hope the Liberal reign will soon come to an end so we can finally move on with our lives.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I definitely want to thank my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Official Languages with us and who does a very good job. There is no doubt about that. Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix is certainly a beautiful riding. I sincerely thank my colleague.

I am somewhat perplexed by this evening's debate. I thank you for your opinion and comments on this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he must address his comments to the Chair and not to the individual. The hon. member may now continue.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, thank you for correcting me and for allowing me to continue.

The problem is that the NDP is saying that we must do everything and pardon everything, and the Conservatives are saying that we do not really need to do anything. They are against cannabis legalization and they do not agree with it. I would like the member who spoke to explain what she believes to be the solution.

In her view, what is the best way to move forward on this issue? That is my question.

Provide us with the solution we are looking for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will not be providing the solution, but I will ask the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix to give a brief reply.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things to my colleague opposite. First, it would have been helpful had they listened to the stakeholders first and foremost. Second, the simplest solution is to elect a Conservative government.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Records Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak once more to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

As I said last week, this is a terrible bill. It reminds me of the NAFTA bill. However, sometimes a bill is better than no bill.

As I have said many times in the House, I was never in favour of the legalization of marijuana, Bill C-45, which was another typically ill-conceived bill brought in by the Liberal government.

I will support the Bill C-93 because there is a common-sense element to it.

Although I did not support legalization, I am not naive enough to say that it was not right to look at the whole cannabis strategy in Canada. Let us face it, we are not the only ones. Many other countries have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. We only have to look at our closest and best trading partners, the good old U.S.A.

The use of marijuana has been legalized and decriminalized in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, Mariana Islands and Guam. Many of these jurisdictions are looking at or have commenced programs to get rid of the old cannabis-related charges for simple possession. There are several different programs being looked at. Some are similar to this bill, Bill C-93. Some are similar to what the NDP has been pushing, which is expungement.

We have heard from many of my colleagues in the House about the injustices that have taken place with respect to Canadians who have records for simple possession of marijuana. Stories have been told about people being turned back at the U.S. border. However, in my research, I have found the same things are happening in the United States. I will provide two cases. We have heard this before with respect to our people, just not south of the border. I will not to give their names to protect their identity.

A 70-year-old retired carpenter in the United States, who once ran for the Senate, was convicted back in 1968 for simple possession. His conviction caused him to be refused entry into Canada and he is unable to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Another gentleman, a professional lighting technician, worked for Willy Nelson for a time. Because of a misdemeanour drug charge as a youth, he was unable to accompany the band on tour to Canada.

Therefore, I strongly believe we need to remove the records for Canadians who were charged with simple possession of marijuana. Clearing people's records can remove barriers to employment and housing.

Many groups in Canada have become victims because of the area they live in and the environment around them. Many are good people who made the wrong choice at the wrong time. That is why I support Bill C-93, although I feel the bill did not go far enough. It should have, and could have, looked at many minor Criminal Code offences, such as public mischief and wilful damage, offences we call misdemeanours in the Criminal Code. There is always room to fix things. Maybe sometime in the future Bill C-93 coanbe fixed.

I spoke about this last week. In California, Code for America has brought out a program called “Clear My Record”. It is a computerized program that allows for the expedient removal of simple criminal code records, such as the simple possession of marijuana.

From the list of states I mentioned previously, nearly every one has passed laws that allow people to clear or change their criminal records. Those states recognize the impact on the economy and on the lives of families when millions are shut out of the workforce or unable to fully reintegrate into their communities because of criminal records from their past. I was shocked to learn, in my research on Bill C-93, that one in three people had a criminal record in the United States.

I also discovered that those states that had a cumbersome, overly complicated system of removing one's record failed in their goals. Only a small fraction of the tens of millions of eligible Americans benefited from these laws, which was directly related to being over-complicated, costly and took too much time to do.

“Code for America”, a computerized system that was adopted by California, is a modern 21st century technology that is quick, efficient and benefits the recipients. “Clear my Record” is a free online tool that assists people in California to navigate the complicate process of clearing their records. People can fill out a short, easy to understand application online that typically takes 10 minutes to get connected to a legal authority.

Jazmyn Latimer and Ben Golder, who co-developed the program, realized there was a problem when they looked into how many people were taking advantage of getting their records expunged. They found that less than 8% of the people who qualified accomplished it, simply because the system was opaque, hard to understand and navigate and costly, both for the people with the records and for the government. Does this sound like Bill C-93? It very much does.

I made recommendations to Bill C-93 during committee that the Canadian Parole Board look at electronic means of modernizing the way we do business. We are still following 20th century technology, trying to do too much by hand. Why? I could not get an answer for that.

The state of California, which has implemented the electronic process, has plans to try to clear over 250,000 cannabis-related convictions by 2020. That is probably as many as we have in Canada, and if not, a lot more. I hope it succeeds.

As well, I hope our Parole Board looks at an electronic process for Canadians with all possession charges and to expand in the future to look at other minor Criminal Code offences. We owe it to Canadians to make this system simple and free so they can get rid of their records, live better lives and be less of a burden on society.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite fascinating to hear the member for Yellowhead say that Bill C-93 does not go far enough, that it should include some minor offences and that processes should be free and easier to get at.

I invite him to comment on the measures taken by the previous Conservative government, a government of which he was a member. It jacked up application fees, increased the waiting time to the point where the backlog is substantial, as is the hardship for many of the people in the very situations he described. That is the record of the Conservative government.

How does he square that with the position he has taken on this bill?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' stand was that we were trying to run an efficient government, with a balanced budget. Sometimes, governments must take hard measures, realizing that certain expenses may have to be passed down to the public. It is obvious that not many people are receiving the benefits of our parole program and pardon system.

We would be naive if we did not look at ways of modernizing it. Bill C-93 tries to do that. It should have gone further. It should have been more forceful in looking at electronic means to make it simpler, less costly and more efficient for the government.

[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.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have mixed emotions. Expungement would be a quick and simple way of doing it. However, I was a police officer for 35 years. Many times when I charged an individual with possession for the purpose of trafficking, that charge got reduced. There may have been other charges. When that person went to court, the Crown and the defence lawyer would decide to plea bargain and, a lot of times, it went down to the simple possession charge. Therefore, I have a hard time with that.

We need to have a way to clarify if the is the only thing relating to the charge of simple possession. I personally have dealt with hundreds of cases over the years, where I may have made the charge simple possession but it may have been a lot more serious. If the guy was polite and co-operative, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The chiefs of police have brought that concern forward.

I know that technically we could do it with the press of a button, but I do not know if that would be right. We need to really look in-depth at that aspect. We need some way of clarifying it. It is not as easy as a simple possession. In many cases, there are a lot of other things relating to that charge.

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

Madam Speaker, I could just stand here and listen to the member for a few more minutes. There is so much to learn, because this debate does have so many different sides to it. We have people who have spent 35 years in the policing community, who have a voice in here. People who have had a criminal charge against them have a voice in here. There are so many different things that we need to look at, so I do respect the words that the member said. That is what makes a healthy debate in the House of Commons.

I am proud to stand here and speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Although I am not 100% behind the bill, I do feel that it does what is best for Canadians.

To begin, I am concerned about the cost to taxpayers. There are different ways of looking at this. In the previous Conservative government, the process was a user-pay system. This system was put in, and for many years in my experience as a constituency assistant, I would sit with people who had a criminal record and needed to get a record suspension.

We would go through the list of what they needed to do, everything from going to the police station and to the courthouse and all of those different things that were necessary. In many cases, people were trying to get their criminal record suspended because they were looking for better opportunities, for better jobs, for things that would increase their livelihood. I fully respected that.

For many people, although there are different ways of looking at this, what I found was that sometimes the user-pay system was very difficult. For those people who wanted to have a better life, I found it extremely difficult when I knew that they did not have the means, and all they wanted was to have a job. Sometimes this is a real difficulty.

What is at the end of the day for taxpayers? The border security minister indicated that there could be up to 400,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession, but the government expects between 70,000 and 80,000 are eligible to apply. According to public safety, the cost would be approximately $2.5 million, equalling approximately 10,000 applicants.

There are ways of doing this. I believe that when someone breaks the law, there needs to be some sort of penalty, but sometimes the penalties can live on forever if people do not have the opportunity to have their record suspended, because it is not going away. If people do not have the means to pay for that record suspension, they are going to continue to have that record.

That is why I wish I could see that the government looked at a possible means test. The Liberals talk about means tests all the time, and about not helping the millionaires or the people who do not need it, so I do not know why they did not consider having means tests. Those people who cannot afford it could pay what they can—pay a small portion or pay for the court documents or the records or whatever it is they need. It could be very difficult, but instead we will have people who are making zero dollars and people who are making $500,000 all paying the same to make it universal.

We know that this is an expensive program, so if we are looking it as a poverty reduction measure, let us make sure we are actually helping those in poverty by reducing the cost to them so that those people can have a better life.

One of the discussions we had was whether it was necessary, the idea being that people would say getting a job was not a big deal and having a criminal record was okay. I lived during an economic downturn, and people who had lost their job at Ford in St. Thomas or lost their job at Sterling or a variety of other places were now looking to get a foot in another door. One of the things stopping them was their criminal record.

Many people would say it is against human rights. If there is no reason to worry about that criminal record and it has nothing to do with their job, it should not matter to the employer whether they have a criminal record or not, but let us be honest: When a company is receiving 200 applications and notices there is a criminal record, it is very easy to put it into the “later” pile, because those are issues it does not want to deal with. Companies do not know that it may be a simple possession of marijuana, but it is a simple way of separating the good from the bad, even though the best employee may be lost in that later pile. Those are some of the things we have to understand.

One of the key elements to this issue is poverty reduction. I believe giving every Canadian a chance to better themselves is extremely important, and now that we have legislation that allows for the possession of cannabis and the use of cannabis for people over the age of 18 in Canada, we need to be able to make sure that nothing is holding them back. Having this record suspension so that they can have better lives is key when it comes to a poverty reduction strategy, and it is one of the things that should be implemented for that strategy.

Law enforcement seems to be somewhat supportive. It is off and on. However, as we just heard from the previous speaker, sometimes people had reduced charges. For instance, people trafficking on the streets or who had something else in their possession may have had a reduced charge. There may have been other petty crimes like that, but the possession of cannabis was seen and may have been the only charge laid.

As the previous speaker said, it would be really nice if we could find out more, but what more do we need to do? At the end of the day, it would definitely slow down the process and would not make the process as expedient as people would wish. However, it is important, because sometimes people who have committed much greater crimes have only this possession conviction on their record. In some cases, it was the only offence for which a person could be found guilty, or it may have been a plea deal or a variety of things like that.

Some Canadians, like the NDP, are asking for full expungement. However, I question full expungement because of those cases in which a person has been able to get the charges reduced to simple possession.

There were several common sense amendments put forward by the Conservative Party that were defeated.

Those who had fines and had never paid them would still be eligible for this program, which defeats the whole purpose of having a fine. This is one thing that I am really concerned with. If, let us say, a person has a fine from 20 years ago sitting on their record, it would also be expunged. However, if my mom had a fine, for example, she would be at the station paying it the very next day, because that is who she is. She is a very honourable person. There are some people who may forget, which is one thing, but there are people who just choose not to pay the fine, and they would have this service as well, so at the end of the day, was there any penalty? The answer would be no.

I also think that the surcharge should be up to those individuals with unpaid fines and should not be laid upon the taxpayer.

One thing I like is the amendment that would allow the swearing of an affidavit. Many times I have helped people who have tried to get their records. They have gone to the courthouses and police stations, but sometimes getting those records has been extremely difficult, so the opportunity to swear an affidavit is a very positive amendment. I congratulate all parties who supported it.

Turning back to the legislation, a criminal record showing that charges were withdrawn or that there was an acquittal can have negative effects and can be an obstacle for people wanting to volunteer at their child's school. For years I volunteered at my children's schools in reading programs or on school trips, although not so much now that I am a member of Parliament. However, if a person has been charged with simple possession in the past—which, let us be honest, has happened to a lot of Canadians—that person is not allowed to volunteer at their child's school or for a school trip. If this was something that happened when they were 18 years old and now they are taking their 10-year-old on a school trip, it is just really out there.

We have these screenings because children are vulnerable and we want to make sure that the children have the best opportunity to be with the best role models, but a simple possession charge does not make a person a horrific human being. It is so important that we allow those people to also be involved, whether it is volunteering at food banks, schools, or churches, or at many organizations where a person's criminal record must be clean. These are big concerns.

This goes to the idea of where the NDP would go. What would happen if there was expungement? There are a lot of issues with that. People with a criminal record would be unable to work at a bank, at most government jobs, as insurance or real estate brokers, taxi drivers, police officers, or private investigators. They would be unable to work at restaurants where alcohol is served and, as I said, as volunteers.

We have to give people opportunities, and sometimes it is as simple as giving them a second chance.

Therefore, I am pleased to support the bill before us. As with any other piece of legislation, we will have to look at it and make sure that it is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. We have to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do for the people who are supposed to gain the ability to have their sentences removed.

Let us do this while looking ahead and also looking behind to make sure that we have done it properly.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very balanced perspective that the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward, showing what some of the advantages are and what some of the disadvantages are. That is the kind of conversation we should be having, and I appreciate that. However, this is not finished. Everything is not done here. There is more to do.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. If she could pick one thing that we were to look at in the next Parliament to make this even more effective, what would it be?

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

Madam Speaker, I think part of it is making sure that those records are all compiled, because people have to go here, here and here. We need to make it user-friendly. That is one of the biggest things we have to lean towards, making it user-friendly.

[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.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I do not know them all by name.

Part of the issue is that there are some bad people out there, and I do not want to just say, “Forget about it. It was a simple charge.” Some of those people have caused great angst for many families.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I think that there could be improvements, and I know that the Green Party requested some amendments, including expungement. We have a lot of people in this country who have criminal records based on simple possession. It has ruined a lot of good people's lives and opportunities, and it creates problems for people who want to cross the border.

I think expungement is the best solution. Finding a way to make it very affordable for people to have their records removed so that they can carry on with their lives and not carry this with them for the rest of their days is very important as well.

I would ask the hon. member whether she think that the bill is good enough as it is to support it. What changes would she make otherwise?

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

Madam Speaker, I look at this and I am just not there yet with expungement. I need more facts to show that we are getting only the people who have had simple possession. I think that is where my breaking point is, simple possession versus trafficking. That is where the line is.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my neighbour to the north, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-93. When I spoke to the bill previously, I expressed my concern that it has been rushed to meet the Prime Minister's self-imposed political timeline. We are going to miss real opportunities to get this right, and there was a lot of runway for the government to get this done.

Municipalities are going to struggle with this. There will be real costs for them. We have heard from law enforcement professionals about the challenges that the hurried legislation will present for them. Health care professionals have also expressed concerns about the timetable that came with legalization. It is fair to describe it as half-baked indeed.

The issues that come from a lack of due diligence are so much more than the downloading of responsibilities to municipalities. It furthers the inequalities people will face.

There is also a risk, as my colleague said, that we will not be able to have full visibility on the criminal records of the folks who will receive these expedited pardons. Perhaps the amendments that were proposed ought to have been given better and proper consideration by the government in an effort to further the interests of justice in Canada.

The last time I spoke to the bill, I described issues in a very clear way for the government to give it the opportunity to understand and consider the error of its ways. I did this using the story of “The Tortoise and the Hare”. I will not retell it, as I am sure government members were captivated by my first telling of it. However, the fact remains that through the government's failure to deliver, we find ourselves here.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety spoke on this issue, she conceded that due diligence had not been done. She said:

However, not all of the fines are owed to the federal government. All the federal government can do is wipe its fines, but it has to discuss this with provinces and municipalities and encourage them to do the same. That kind of discussion is ongoing, but it will take a while to come to an understanding of how provinces and municipalities can actually contribute to this process.

Further on she said:

Mr. Speaker, I believe how it would work, at a provincial or municipal level, is that payment of those fines, if they are not granted amnesty on those fines, would be through civil recourse.

It is pretty late in the game, as we are at quite an advanced stage, for those discussions to be ongoing or, more correctly, not happening.

Concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders persist. We have heard what the risks are for municipalities. However, our law enforcement and public safety professionals continue to have inadequate tools for roadside testing and screening for impairment. That presents a grave challenge. Despite all of the time and education that has been invested in preventing and stopping alcohol-impaired driving, we continue to have issues. Authorities could run a ride check any time of day and they would find people who are impaired.

It concerns me that while our law enforcement agents are out trying to do their jobs with this newly legalized substance, they do not have the tools and the tool kit to get the job done. The tool they have is error-plagued. Members may recall that the device police have been given is the same device on which folks test positive for opiate use after eating a poppyseed bagel.

[An hon. member]

What?

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

Madam Speaker, I share the shock and surprise of my colleague. It is unbelievable.

The rush to get things done comes out of the government now realizing that it has run out of runway and it wants to have a few things on the achievement list after a pretty rough spring for Canada.

The institution that we believe in, the independence of our judiciary, has been questioned. It has been weakened by the Liberal government's actions. We need to look no further than the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We need to look no further than the politically motivated prosecution and persecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Now that the Liberals are looking to get a few accomplishments in their brochures for the election, this bill is one that they want to get done.

The Liberals have broken promises that they made in the last election. The democratic reform that they promised has not materialized. Certainly, it is quite the opposite. It is very concerning that the Liberals have Elections Canada now paying the better part of three-quarters of a million dollars to Instagram models and the like to influence the outcome of the election. It is preposterous. I cannot even believe that is part of the government's strategy. It clearly is not the work of a serious mind.

So much of what the Liberals have failed to do risks the future for Canadians. Failing to balance the budget, as the Liberals promised, is a huge problem. Having been given a balanced budget in 2015, they plunged us into deficit after deficit after deficit. Here we are in year four with another deficit. These deficits today will be the taxes of tomorrow. It is very concerning for Canadians.

We had a promise from the government that it was going to take real action on the environment. Hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewage are being dumped into the St. Lawrence without consequence. It is not a concern for the Liberals.

In the absence of a plan to help the environment, the Liberals put a tax on everything. They put a tax on driving one's kids to hockey and a tax to run a small business, those same small businesses that the Liberal government alleged to be tax cheats.

Conservatives know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the real economic driver. We have often heard the government say that it created one million jobs. It is not the government's responsibility to create jobs. It needs to create an environment where jobs can be created. Canadians create jobs.

The Liberals will not accept responsibility for failures but they are quick to take credit for other people's successes. Certainly they are quick to take credit on the backs of ordinary Canadians and small business owners, just as they are quick to bring in taxes to pay for their reckless spending.

It is a hurried process that we have arrived at with Bill C-93, but it matches very much the chaotic nature of the government.

We will monitor the implementation of this bill. We commit to reviewing its effectiveness and fairness. When we form government, we will see if any changes need to be made to ensure the reasonableness and fairness of it are applied.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have said that the legalization of cannabis would lead to a catastrophe. That seemed to be the theme of the member's speech. So far, however, the facts speak for themselves.

We have seen a decline in the criminal share of cannabis from 51% to 38% in the first three months as opposed to last year. There is no sign of an increase in youth consumption, impaired driving problems or at the border.

Will the member concede that the Conservatives' doomsday predictions are a bit unfounded?

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the parliamentary secretary would say there has not been an increase in impaired driving cases. The Liberals have not even given the police the tools necessary to detect if impaired driving has occurred. The equipment that they approved is not even ready to use. It is pretty rich for the Liberals to say that the implementation has been without error. In fact, I think the chaos that the Conservatives predicted has arrived.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Kootenay—Columbia has long been a place known for generations of cannabis farmers. It has been quite interesting to work through the process over the last couple of years trying to make sure that cannabis grown under sunshine and rain is as acceptable as cannabis grown under plastic and glass, and I do not think we are quite there yet.

I have consulted with constituents in my riding about this particular bill and I am personally supportive of Bill C-93. Why not go all the way to expungement now that we have started that process?

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of visiting the riding of Kootenay—Columbia and it is, indeed, quite wonderful, although I did not visit any cannabis-growing farms.

Bill C-93, in its current form, is flawed. The amendments proposed at committee by industry in response to recommendations by industry experts would have served this piece of legislation well. With a view to fairly implementing the new legislation in what should have been lockstep with the legalization of marijuana, the Conservatives are going to support this piece of legislation, but, as I said before, like so many other pieces of legislation that the Liberals implemented, we will fix it and clean up the mess.

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

Madam Speaker, there was a discussion by a Liberal member about my party being afraid of the consequences of cannabis legalization. There was an implication that a Conservative government would want to recriminalize or put penalties in place for the use of cannabis in the future, and I thought that was an unfortunate implication.

I want to give my colleague the opportunity to make it clear what the Conservative Party position is with regard to the legal status of cannabis under a Conservative government after the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my neighbour to the north in Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for the opportunity to say that of course, a Conservative government would make no effort to recriminalize cannabis.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague to the south, who has been representing very ably the riding that was, until very recently and for a long time, represented by my dear friend and colleague Gord Brown. Those were big shoes to fill. I know I am expressing a view that is shared by many in his constituency when I say that my colleague is doing a very admirable job, and my hat is off to him for that.

This is my second opportunity to address Bill C-93 and my third to address the issue of pardons for the formerly criminal act of simple possession of cannabis. I was also able to address the private member's bill, Bill C-415, which was moved in the name of our colleague from Victoria.

I want to focus my remarks primarily on the contrast between the expungement model in Bill C-415 and the record suspension or pardon model in Bill C-93. Looking at this bill and the comments raised in committee persuades me of the truth of a remark that was made in committee by a criminal defence lawyer, Solomon Friedman, who said:

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.

That act was, of course, passed by this Parliament at the instigation of the current government, which revealed that expungement is, at least in principle, possible for the former offence of simple possession of cannabis.

Better than nothing turns out to be the equivalent, in practice, of very little at all. Parole Board officials testifying before the committee studying this bill estimated that out of the 250,000 to 500,000 Canadians with convictions for cannabis possession, only 10,000 would apply for a record suspension or expedited pardon.

I will make two comments. First, I am not sure how much precision or accuracy we can expect in the prediction of 10,000 from people who said that the number of records out there is somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000. That is a substantial margin of error. Additionally, if it is 10,000, why so few? The answer, in part, is the incredibly bureaucratic nature of the process under Bill C-93. When looking at Bill C-93, one gets the impression that the government looked at all available options for dealing with this issue and selected the most bureaucratic one it could find.

Let me quote from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a supporter of this bill, and my point will be made. In promotion of the bill, she said:

[W]hy not just do it like some California municipalities and erase all the records with the press of a button? We do have an electronic police database of criminal records here in Canada, however, that database does not contain enough information to allow for a proactive amnesty....

[The] Parole Board should explore options for moving towards a more digitized system capable of receiving applications electronically, something particularly important for Canadians in rural areas.

That system would be in the future, not under this bill. That is a reference to the problems of getting access to broadband Internet in rural areas.

The parliamentary secretary then said:

In the meantime, the Parole Board is taking a number of steps to simplify the application process in other ways. It is simplifying its website and application form. It is creating a dedicated, toll-free phone number and an email address to help people with their applications.

In other words, none of this stuff is available, and it will take some time before that happens. She continued:

It is developing a community outreach strategy with a particular focus on the communities most [likely to be] affected by the criminalization of cannabis to make sure that people know about this new expedited process and how to access it...

We will need an advertising campaign.

This is going to be slow and complicated. By contrast, what would have happened under an expungement system? Expungement is nothing the government ever considered. Indeed, it seems not to have even thought of this possibility. Under expungement, we would simply say that the government would act as if any record that stated that a person had been convicted for possession of cannabis did not actually exist. If we found it, we simply would say there was nothing there.

This is done by the courts all the time. Any correspondence between lawyers done on a without prejudice basis, whether or not the words “without prejudice” are put at the front of the various pieces of correspondence, is automatically disregarded by a court. They have no ability to present it as evidence in a proceeding.

Similarly, we could do the same thing with records. This would overcome the problem of having different records kept in different ways, some on paper and some electronically, in different jurisdictions. They would simply have no existence in law. Because it is such a common conviction, when one was accessed, we would understand that it simply did not exist for the purpose of being used by any law enforcement official. That is how we could introduce expungement. This would eliminate all the bureaucracy, all the application fees that are necessary, which would still exist under this proposal, all the time, all the work and all the money that would have to be expended. There is a cost estimate, which I find hard to believe, attached to this bill. There would be zero cost with an expungement system.

In all fairness, the bill is better now than it was before it went to committee and came back with amendments. This is thanks, in part, to an amendment proposed by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

I will again read from the parliamentary secretary's words to give members an idea of what was done. She stated:

thanks to an amendment at committee from the member for Toronto—Danforth, people will be able to apply [for a pardon] even if they have outstanding fines associated with their cannabis possession conviction.

Due to an amendment we voted on at report stage...people whose only sentence was a fine will not be required to submit court documents as part of their application.

Finding these court documents was part of the supposedly costless, expedited process until this amendment was made.

On the other hand, a further suggested amendment, put forward by the Conservatives, was accepted at committee and then subsequently rejected by the government.

I will quote from our Conservative critic on this issue, who stated, “We proposed a measure to allow applicants whose records were destroyed to swear an affidavit explaining their situation and certifying that they are eligible”, which of course creates some paperwork but is less complicated than what we are left with. He went on to say, “This would have made the process even more fair. The Liberals agreed to this amendment in committee but changed their minds at report stage and decided to reject it.”

That would have helped relieve some of the bureaucracy. There are certain costs that continue to exist, and this prompted one person to quip, I think very appropriately, that the bill should not have been entitled an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, but rather, an act to provide for lower-cost, somewhat expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

In the remaining minute and a half of my time, I want to deal with another important issue. Getting a pardon essentially equals getting forgiveness. People have done something wrong, we forgive them, and we move on. Expungement is a way of saying that what they did was not wrong in the first place. There are some offences for which this might not be true, even if we eliminated them retrospectively. I think, in the case of cannabis possession, it is clear that our ancestors, those who came before us, did not make it legal because they felt it was morally wrong to ingest or use marijuana. They thought it was the best way to protect people from their own unwise instincts. It was a wrong move. It did not work. It ruined a lot of lives, but those people were not put in prison because they had done something that was evil or wrong or would harm the rest of society. Therefore, removing this is entirely appropriate. We need not save expungement, as the government has proposed, only for the righting of historical wrongs based on laws that are now prohibited under the charter. I suggest that, in this case, it is also appropriate, and I urge all of us to consider, as we look forward to the future, the expungement model, perhaps in a second piece of legislation in the 43rd Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he spoke briefly about this, but I would like to go back to the issue of making the process automatic.

When the bill was in committee, we heard that giving it a title that implies the process would cost nothing is misleading. My colleague briefly mentioned this at the end of his speech.

In reality, not only is there a cost associated with obtaining the documents required to apply, but these costs also vary widely from one region to the next. Furthermore, people living far from major urban centres may have an even harder time obtaining these documents.

I also want to add that the Conservatives proposed an amendment, which I supported. In Canada, we have a serious problem with storing and maintaining criminal records, so this amendment would have allowed people whose documents have been lost or destroyed to swear an oath and receive a sworn statement that they could use to apply. This amendment was rejected by the Liberals at report stage.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about this. Does he believe that we should be a bit more flexible and make the process automatic?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thought the amendment was a good one. The decision to remove it I will not say was unwise, but I think it was inexplicable. I really do not know the reason for removing it.

My colleague is entirely right that it is harder for people in some parts of the country to get access to these kinds of records. It is harder for people who do not have ready access to a lawyer or the ability to pay for a lawyer or the services of a lawyer's office to hunt through court records. Citizens are not easily able to do this on their own.

The same people who were victimized too much initially, those who are poorer, those who are suffering from mental illness, those who are less able to manoeuver their way through the byzantine legal system, will have the same problem at this level. I think we will discover that the same groups that faced too many arrests and convictions will face too small an ability to right these wrongs, relative to the population as a whole.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has an interesting background on this particular issue. He was not always on side with his Conservative Party when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. I respect that of the member opposite.

Listening to the Conservatives speak on this particular bill is a little confusing. The NDP members seem to have taken the position that they are not going to be voting for this bill, because they want expungement. If I listen to the Conservatives, some of them stand up and say that it should be expungement as opposed to a pardon. Others stand up and say that the pardon is good. Overall, it looks like the Conservatives are voting for the bill. It is hard thing to tell for sure.

Could the member give a clear indication of the Conservative Party's position on this bill? Do the Conservatives favour it, or are they inclined to vote against it?

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

Madam Speaker, I can only speak for my own position. I am in favour of the bill. It is better than nothing, but it is not much better than nothing, in my opinion.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hold my colleague in great esteem, and I appreciated his speech.

One of the questions I am hearing is, “What is the cost going to be for this?” More importantly, many of these convictions were plea bargained. In other words, a more serious offence was pleaded down, and now these people may have these options available to them, as well as the people who have convictions for simple possession.

Could the member comment on that issue? The government really has to look at this carefully, because no prosecutor would have accepted a plea bargain knowing that it was going to be washed away in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an issue on which I disagree with many colleagues in my own party. Some people, no doubt, were convicted because it was part of a plea bargain; others were not. I do not know the percentage. I suspect the majority who faced simple possession charges and were convicted did not plea bargain.

Blackstone, the great author and authority on the common law, said in the 18th century that it was better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be hanged. Everybody knows this saying. The same principle ought to apply here. It is better that some people be able to get a pardon even though their conviction was the result of a plea bargain, than the alternative, namely that others who had simple possession charges be unable to get a pardon.

[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 Kootenay—Columbia, Housing; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, Sport.

[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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, as I understand, the direction we are going in is to allow people to apply for pardons at no cost. Cost is an issue I would like the hon. member to reflect on a bit.

For the longest time, police were enforcing cannabis possession, and the only tool they had at their disposal was to charge somebody, who would end up with a criminal record. At some point, the police stopped enforcing it. At the 4/20 events in Vancouver, the police would stand there and watch people use cannabis.

Does the member not think that the process going forward contributes to equity and fairness, to ensure that basically everyone will be treated the same way?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think the bill would contribute to fairness, and this is why. I already mentioned some of this in my speech, but it bears repeating with regard to the member's question.

First, there is a cost. Yes, the Liberals have removed the $600 cost, but they have not removed it for record suspensions at large, even though they promised to do that. As I said, there has been study after study, but it has not been done.

The government said it has removed the cost, but it really has not. Every single witness who came before committee, including lawyers and others in civil society, agreed that the costs are still there. People have to pay to get their records, and get to the courthouse to get them.

Representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada asked whether we really thought that indigenous women with a record for simple possession of cannabis have the means to make their way to a courthouse in an urban centre, to pay to get the records, if they even still exist, and then take them back home and apply for the process the government is putting forward. They do not. Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer, said this is true of most of his clients.

In fact, it gets worse than that. If we google “Canada pardon” or “pot pardon”, we get a bunch of Google results for some of the most disgusting and unsavoury people, who are taking advantage of these individuals, charging them thousands of dollars, much like we see in the immigration system. They take advantage of these people and give them bad and erroneous advice, making sure they get strung along at a high cost.

What is going to happen? Will we get a social media campaign from the Parole Board that will fight back against those unsavoury actors? That is not the case. All of the witnesses told us as much.

While I appreciate the hon. member's good intentions, the fact of the matter is that the title of the bill does not reflect the reality of what the bill would do.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for his expertise. I also thank him for his outstanding command of his files. I know that he has worked very hard on this.

In his speech, he mentioned that government officials, and even the minister, claimed that providing for an automatic system would be too difficult and too much work. I find it somewhat hard to believe that that was the excuse that the department and the minister himself came up with, considering the billions of dollars they have at their disposal. The Parole Board of Canada may have a hard time managing its workload, but I still believe that the Government of Canada, with its $360-billion annual budget, should have the means to set up an automatic system.

Can my colleague elaborate further on this surprising, absurd answer from the government, namely, that it does not have the means or the capacity to grant automatic pardons? I find that hard to believe.

[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.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism]

Madam Speaker, I know Liberals have differences of opinion with the NDP on how to proceed to clear people of their criminal records for possession. However, when the head of the campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, who shares a lot of the NDP's views, was asked in committee whether Bill C-93 was a positive step, she said it absolutely was.

We can talk about the differences of opinion in the House, but would the NDP see fit to help the people impacted by existing convictions to get jobs, housing and education, and support us by voting for this bill?

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to allow for one more question. Perhaps the hon. member could hold on to that thought and add it to his next answer.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting process, at the very least. We have seen a dramatic change in social policy, and it is a positive step forward. Providing pardons with this piece of legislation is going to assist a lot of individuals in being able to take further steps in employment and other aspects of life. Parties may disagree with regard to expungement versus pardons, but there is no doubt that it is a step forward, just like the legalization of cannabis itself. Would the member not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the problem. Very few people will benefit from the system proposed under Bill C-93.

The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said that it had a lot of clients who did not even know they had a criminal record. If a person does not know that they have a criminal record, how are they supposed to apply to have their record suspended?

There are so many inconsistencies and barriers. That is why I ran for the NDP in 2011 and that is why we are opposed to this bill. We did not come here to give a blank cheque to a self-proclaimed progressive government that proposes half-measures that do not go far enough. We want to truly improve people's lives.

If I thought that Bill C-93 was the best way to do that, the government would have my support. We could have done better. The hon. member for Victoria introduced a bill but the government voted it down.

The Liberals rejected a better solution so why should I give a blank cheque to a government that is not doing enough when I am here to represent people who need us?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so that we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.