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

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to begin our debate on Bill C-93, which will amend the Criminal Records Act so that individuals who have criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis can quickly clear their record and live their lives to the fullest.

This bill proposes the unprecedented and exceptional measure of eliminating the waiting period and the application fee for people seeking a pardon for cannabis possession. This means that instead of waiting five years and paying the Parole Board $631, applicants would not have to wait a single minute and would not owe the Parole Board a single cent.

Bill C-93 is the next logical step in a process that began during the last election campaign, when we committed to ending the prohibition of cannabis in Canada. The result of decades of prohibition was that Canadians were among the heaviest and youngest users of cannabis in the world. Under the former system, the illegal cannabis trade put $7 billion annually into the pockets of organized crime, and Canadian law enforcement agencies spent over $2 billion every year trying to enforce an ineffective and counterproductive legal regime.

Last October, we finally put an end to the old way of doing things, and cannabis is now legal and strictly regulated, as promised. However, one of the lingering consequences of the previous system is that it saddled many Canadians with criminal records, making it harder for them to get jobs, rent apartments, travel or volunteer in their communities. The people affected are disproportionately from minority communities.

To be sure, they broke the law. They committed what, at the time, was a criminal offence, and there were consequences for that. However, people who were convicted only of possession of cannabis for personal use, an activity that is now legal, should be able to shed their criminal records and the associated burdens and stigma as quickly and as easily as possible. That is exactly what Bill C-93 would allow. This proposed legislation would create a pardon process for people convicted of simple cannabis possession that would be streamlined and simplified in multiple important ways.

Currently, to apply for a pardon or record suspension, which has been the legal term used since 2012, a person who has completed a sentence has to wait several years before submitting an application. It can be five or even 10 years, depending on the circumstances. Under Bill C-93, there would be no waiting period at all.

Currently, the Parole Board charges a $631 application fee, which is obviously a major barrier. That is especially true for low-income Canadians who need to clear their records so that they can get jobs and earn salaries. However, without those jobs and salaries, they cannot afford the fee. Bill C-93 would eliminate the application fee.

Ordinarily, in addition to requiring police and court records, the law puts the onus on the applicants to demonstrate that they have been of good conduct and that receiving a pardon would provide them with measurable benefits. These subjective factors are considered by government-appointed Parole Board members who make a judgment call about whether to grant the pardon. Under Bill C-93, for people whose only offence was simple possession of cannabis, the good conduct and measurable benefits factors would be eliminated. Applications would be quickly processed by public servants at the Parole Board, because there would be no judgment call to make. If the police and court records showed that a person's only conviction was for possession of cannabis for personal use, that person would get a pardon.

In short, there would be no application fee, no waiting period and no need to convince the Parole Board to grant a pardon based on subjective criteria. This would dramatically simplify and accelerate the process.

However, these are just some of the measures in the bill. There are additional practical steps the Parole Board is taking to make it even quicker and easier for people to apply. For instance, it is redesigning the application form to make it simpler to understand and faster to complete. It is devoting resources to work with people to ensure that applications are properly submitted. It is updating and clarifying the information on its website and preparing a step-by-step application guide, a 1-800 number and a dedicated email address specifically to help people with cannabis possession convictions make use of this new expedited process. Plus, it is developing an outreach strategy that will involve community partners, civil society organizations and social media to make people aware of the new process and how to access it.

It should not be harder for people to work, go to school, travel, find housing or volunteer because they once committed an act that is no longer illegal.

All the legislative and operational amendments that I just mentioned will ensure that individuals who have a criminal record for nothing more than simple cannabis possession will be able to move forward in life as fully reintegrated members of society.

The process of developing our approach for dealing with criminal records for cannabis possession involved a great deal of discussion, both internally and with stakeholders, such as the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. We ultimately settled on the streamlined pardons process I have described, but we carefully examined other possibilities, such as amnesty and expungement, and I will address both approaches to explain why we did not choose them.

The amnesty approach is being used in California, where the state is proactively and automatically clearing people's records without requiring applications. I completely understand the appeal of that approach, but in Canada at the moment, it is, unfortunately, a practical impossibility.

Canadian law has never had an offence known as “cannabis possession”. The record of a person convicted of possessing cannabis might say something like “possession of a controlled substance in Schedule II”, without referring to one of the several substances in that schedule.

Therefore, to find everyone who was ever convicted of cannabis possession, we would first have to find everyone who was ever convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the same category as cannabis, and then, in each case, go through the court documents to find out what the substance actually was. That would be challenging enough if all those records were held in one central repository, but that is not at all the case. We have a patchwork of different law enforcement authorities at various levels of government, each with its own records and record-keeping systems.

Some of these systems are sophisticated and computerized, but others are literally papers in locked boxes in a courthouse basement. In other words, proactively clearing people's records for cannabis possession would require a massive amount of resources at all levels of government, and it would take a very long time. People would still be waiting to have their records cleared years from now. It is much simpler to receive applications in which people provide the specifics of their particular cases. That would allow the Parole Board to process the files much faster and would allow applicants to have their records cleared much sooner, and that is the point.

There have also been calls for expungement instead of pardons. The difference is that a pardon sequesters a person's record so that it does not show up in a criminal records check, whereas expungement eliminates any mention of the offence from all records, as though it never happened in the first place.

Expungement actually did not exist in Canada until last year, when we used it for the very first, and thus far only, time to deal with historic convictions for consensual sexual activity between same sex partners. The idea was that the laws in those cases were unconstitutional. They should never have existed, and they were, by their very nature, fundamentally and inherently unjust.

The prohibition of cannabis was bad public policy, but it did not violate the charter. Still, there is no question that in its application, it had a disproportionate impact on certain groups of Canadians, especially members of black and indigenous communities. It is in recognition of that fact that we are proposing the exceptional and unprecedented measures contained in this bill.

Practically, for the applicant, the effect of a pardon or an expungement would be virtually the same. With either approach, a prospective landlord or employer would not be able to find out about a past conviction. In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Act expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of a pardoned criminal record. The goal of letting a person move on with his or her life without the burden of a criminal record would be achieved in both cases.

The only realistic scenario in which a pardoned record for cannabis possession could be reinstated would be if a person committed a new offence, and at that point, because of the new offence he or she committed, the person would have a criminal record anyway. The impact of reinstating the cannabis conviction would be pretty minimal.

When it comes to international travel, in particular to the United States, an expungement could cause additional complications that a pardon would not. That is because the U.S. might have a previously existing record of a person's conviction, likely from when that person crossed the border or tried to cross it in the past. Even if a criminal record check came up empty today, which would happen with either a pardon or an expungement, the American border officer would have a note in the file from the last time. The officer could insist that a person get a waiver or provide more information about the conviction. If the record was pardoned, the person could contact the Parole Board and get the information needed to satisfy the U.S. border officer. However, if the record was expunged, there would be no documentation for the Parole Board to provide, and one might simply be denied entry.

The bottom line is that the approach we are proposing in Bill C-93 is a practical and efficient way of clearing the criminal records of those who were charged with simple possession of cannabis.

We would waive the fee, which is $631, and we would waive the waiting period, which is usually five years. We would eliminate the subjective factors, such as whether the applicant has been of good conduct and whether the pardon would provide a measurable benefit. We would make the application process simpler and more user-friendly.

I am proud that during the last election campaign, whether others were talking about maintaining the status quo or proposing timid half-measures, such as decriminalization, our party had the courage to recognize that bold action was needed. We made a commitment to legalize and regulate cannabis, the better to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and the profits out of the hands of criminals. We upheld that commitment, and now we have put forward a bill that would help people criminalized by the previous system turn the page so that they would no longer bear the stigma and the burden of a criminal record.

I invite all hon. members to join me in supporting this important legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, for example, we have a significant number of people who are impacted by having a criminal record. As well, racialized communities like the black community and the indigenous community have a much higher number of individuals who have been charged with possession of cannabis. In our community, if a person has to go through a process of getting a pardon, it sets up a barrier for them. Many people would not be able to engage in that process, accordingly. One of the reasons the NDP has called for an expungement of the criminal records is to simply facilitate this process.

We are now in a situation where cannabis possession is no longer illegal. Would it not make sense for the government to expunge the records of every single individual who was previously impacted? That would be a fair process to embark on. I would urge the government to reconsider this process, with particular consideration to its impact on the indigenous community and people from racialized communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her advocacy.

I think that what we are trying to do is to make this happen quickly. The Parole Board has made it quite clear that part of its plan is an outreach strategy to connect with community organizations, to connect with the people who do this kind of work and who support these kinds of changes. The member will find them in her community. They will be out there and will be active in order to help people take advantage of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the purpose of Bill C-45 was to keep some $7 billion out of the pockets of organized crime.

Does she know whether organized crime revenues have dropped or, instead, stayed the same?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen news reports that they are tracking that change. They have seen it. Of course, this is not going to happen overnight. We are only six months in, but they have already seen changes.

We still have more work to do in order to get the full effect of the bill that we are looking for. However, we are heading in the right direction.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

However, there seems to be a problem of substance and process in Bill C-93.

I will certainly have a chance to come back to the substance. As far as the process is concerned, although I am not the dean of the House, it seems to me that at the rate we are doing our work, I do not see how this bill will pass and receive royal assent before we rise for the summer.

I have a very simple question. Is this just a bill that does not go far enough or is it a smokescreen to appease the public?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite clear through the process of the legalization of cannabis that this would be one element of it. We could not introduce it before the original bill was put forward, as this is part of that process.

The way this bill was drafted, it is quite clear what we are trying to achieve. Having it come to the House for debate is an important first step. We believe there is time in the legislative calendar to make it happen.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a number of people from the Canadian Police Association last week when they were here on the Hill. They have some concerns about the bill.

My colleague mentioned waiving the fee of $631. However, on the other side of that, I think before we pass the bill we as parliamentarians need to know what the cost would be to the treasury if we totally eliminate all of the fees.

More importantly, regarding the concern of totally eliminating the waiting period, I agree the inordinate amount of time that people are currently waiting is too long. However, would my colleague not agree that simply shrinking that waiting period to at least give the board a few days to research the final outcome would be a wiser solution than simply eliminating it totally and making the waiting period less than a minute?

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

Mr. Speaker, the cost of a pardon at $631 makes it prohibitive for people, especially people who have been disadvantaged their entire lives. This is what we are trying to change. We are trying to make it so that people have access to this, so they can get a job, rent an apartment and change the trajectory they are on.

The waiting time commenced at the time of the conviction. With this bill, people who were convicted four years ago could apply today. They do not have to wait that extra year. They can move forward with their lives and shed the stigma of having a criminal record. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that, over the last couple of years, we have seen the department work with many different stakeholders to ensure that when it came time for the legislation, in essence, everyone would already have a good sense of the process.

To highlight the importance of the legislation's passing, it will have a very profound and positive impact on the lives to those individuals who require a pardon. The member across the way made reference to their being able to apply for a job, among many other things.

I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on the manner in which the bill has been rolled out, by working with the different stakeholders. That is one of the reasons why we have seen very little resistance to it. It seems to me that we have really crossed the t's and dotted the i's to make sure we got it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We understood the kind of impact this could have on the lives of people and really wanted to make sure we rolled it out well. We have talked to a lot of people and we have listened. However, we decided that this approach to a pardon, making it quick, accessible and at the community level, will have the most significant impact, not only in the short term but also the long term. The impact on the individual is the same whether it is a pardon or an expungement. We just want to make it happen sooner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question, the parliamentary secretary said that the parole officers could be in touch with the individuals to move the issue forward. However, in cases where the charge was some time ago and the person may not be connected to the criminal justice system anymore, how would that connection be made?

The truth of the matter is that this process will create a bureaucracy. It will create costs that, in my view, would be unnecessary. If the government went forward with an expungement process, it would apply to everybody who has the record, regardless of whether or not they are going forward with a pardon procedure and process. Would that not be a far more effective and efficient way of doing it to ensure that nobody is left behind? If that is the goal of the government, to make sure nobody is left behind, then it should go forward with an expungement process.

On the issue regarding the border crossing and the concerns there, the government has brought forward an expungement process in other situations, particularly for those who were faced with criminal charges in the LGBTQ community. Therefore, if we can deal with it in that instance, surely we can apply the same principle in this instance with respect to cannabis possession.

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

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to achieve something that would make this happen quickly and give people a chance to build new lives. The impact on individuals, whether an expungement or a pardon, is virtually identical and a pardon allows us to move this along a lot quicker.

We are going to be reaching out to civil society organizations, community outreach people and community partners to make sure that this information gets out there. That connection with the people who are looking after people at the community level is going to be key.

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

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

The first thing I want to tell the government is that we think this is pretty reasonable, but there are “buts”. We think most Canadians are okay with erasing records for simple possession of cannabis. We agree on that, especially when it comes to young people. A lot of young people get caught when they are just trying marijuana. They might be in a park, the police happen to be there, and they end up with a record for something that is really just a youthful indiscretion.

Of course, there are also adults who have tried marijuana or used it while it was illegal. After he was elected, our own Prime Minister admitted to smoking cannabis while it was still illegal. As we see it, that is not very good, considering what one represents once one is elected and becomes a federal MP and then the Prime Minister. Still, he admitted to smoking while it was illegal. That is not a good example to set for Canadians.

However, we understand that for younger people, minors or youth, this can fall under the category of youthful mistakes. What we are accepting with Bill C-93 is the clearing of the criminal records of people who were convicted of simple possession once in their lives. We are not talking about people who were caught many times, like 200 or 300 times, or people who have a criminal history or other offences on their criminal records. In the case of a one-time conviction for simple possession, we can accept that it was a mistake and grant a pardon.

Although we are prepared to support the idea of Bill C-93 at second reading, we would need to study the bill in detail in committee, because much of it is unclear. There is no preamble and no clear explanation of the goals of the bill or who could benefit from it and why. That is why the committee study will be important. It will be vital to dig into the details and get down to the nitty-gritty to figure out what is not being said. It is often the unspoken elements that require clarification.

Let us talk about the costs involved, for example. It is estimated that about 500,000 Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. The cost of applying for a pardon is a little over $600. If you multiply those numbers, it comes to $315 million, so that is how much would normally be paid by those taxpayers who have a criminal record. The government wants to make it free. This means that Government of Canada resources will be used to process the files of these individuals, who would normally have to pay for it themselves. If they were paying, that would cover the cost of processing these records, which amounts to roughly $315 million. That is not insignificant. We in the Conservative Party are wondering why other taxpayers should have to pay indirectly for these individuals to apply for a pardon.

It is typical of the Liberal government to believe that money is no object. The Liberals never consider taxpayers, who pay a lot of money in taxes. They never say “no”, and they throw money around left, right and centre. We have been watching them do this for the past three and a half years. This comes as no surprise. To us Conservatives, however, these are important considerations.

I want to come back to Bill C-45, which is one of the things that led to Bill C-93 currently before the House. Bill C-45 is the notorious marijuana legalization bill, which was introduced in a hurry to fulfill an election promise. However, it raised a great many questions that have never been answered. The government says it consulted experts and received information. We know that is completely false—or perhaps its did not really listen to the feedback given in those consultations. Police forces had all kinds of concerns, as did the medical community. Issues were raised but were never taken into consideration. Landlords also had questions about cultivation and use inside apartment buildings. Those issues were never resolved, and this creates uncertainty.

Given the way Bill C-45 was passed and expedited in order to fulfill the famous election promise and pander to young voters who voted Liberal because of it, we think that there will always be questions, especially since the government did not want to listen to law enforcement and doctors, among others. Even if I started out by saying that we are prepared to support Bill C-93, we must still thoroughly examine this bill, because we do not want the Liberals to pull a fast one, as the expression goes.

First of all, the legalization of marijuana was supposed to reduce the proceeds of organized crime. The parliamentary secretary spoke about it in his speech. Sales of marijuana alone by organized crime are estimated at $7 billion. The Liberals said they were legalizing marijuana to take this money out of the pockets of organized crime and put it in the government's coffers. However, this was a false argument and a public relations exercise. We know that organized crime continues to sell marijuana. It even copied the labelling of products sold in legal stores in developing its packaging. This law did not stop organized crime from continuing to do business.

Furthermore, since it is now legal, no one is afraid of getting arrested, which is kind of odd. People are still using illegal drugs and organized crime continues to profit. The concerns we raised while we were debating Bill C-45 have now proven to be valid.

Again, we do support the spirit of the bill, but we want to study the bill in committee to be sure that the final version is very clear. This is my first term as a member of Parliament, but I have been learning quickly. I learned rather quickly that the Prime Minister is not to be trusted. Recent events are proof of that. The Prime Minister raised a lot of hopes, but the promises turned out to be snake oil. He made promises to everyone, but at the end of the day, we now know they meant nothing. He claimed to be a feminist. He said that the status of women was important and that he would make it a focus of debate as much as possible. Everyone knows what he did with the three female MPs who now sit as independents.

The Prime Minister also mocked Stephen Harper, saying he did not take the needs of indigenous people into consideration. He said that he cared about indigenous people and he was going to fix the situation. Last week, however, we saw young indigenous women turn their backs on our Prime Minister here in the House. Indigenous communities in Canada heard all the lofty promises that were made, but the Prime Minister kept breaking those promises.

Getting back to the legalization of marijuana, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister was in such a hurry to fulfill his election promise that he did not listen to the municipalities, law enforcement, employers and scientists. The Conservatives are often accused of not believing in science, but the first to ignore scientists were this Liberal Prime Minister and his team. They keep shaking their heads, but they ignored scientists from across Canada regarding the problems associated with marijuana.

The government also promised to create a legal framework for derivative products and set standards for the sale of edibles and concentrates such as hashish within 12 months of legalizing marijuana. That was six months ago, and we still have not seen a plan to make that happen. This is yet another unfulfilled promise, and seeing as this session is about to end, it will probably be another broken promise.

It is easy to see why the majority of Canadians feel betrayed by this Liberal government. Much like Obama, the Prime Minister made a lot of noise but over-promised and under-delivered. All too often, we have heard the Liberals downplay the dangers of marijuana, and now that they have legalized it, future generations will think cannabis consumption is no big deal. Even my own children are now saying that it is legal and smoking it just to try it out is fine. That is not how it works though. It may be legal, but it is still very dangerous. Young people need to understand that it is hazardous to their health, not a harmless consumer product.

Experts say it is especially dangerous for young people, and everyone agrees.

In a Globe and Mail article published in April 2017, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and other organizations representing front-line health care providers express their concerns about the ill effects of cannabis, especially for chronic smokers under the age of 25.

In this article, the experts say to please keep the public health focus front of mind as this legislation is unrolled. That is a direct quote from Dr. Gail Beck, the clinical director of youth psychiatry at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. She also says that lots of people think this is harmless.

I would like to read out this article to show the House that cannabis consumption really does have consequences. These are the words of experts, not politicians. The experts quoted in this article say that the medical profession in this country has long had misgivings about medicinal marijuana, namely that there is not enough solid evidence of pot's efficacy in treating chronic pain and other ailments to warrant a doctor's endorsement. However, with the advent of legal recreational marijuana, doctors have a different set of worries.

A major concern is the potential for marijuana addiction, in particular among teens and young adults. Christina Grant, a professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, says that one in seven adolescents who start using cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder, which is significant.

Dr. Grant, a principal author at the Canadian Pediatric Society, released a statement last fall, saying that cannabis use crosses over into disorder territory when it begins to cause dysfunction in users' day-to-day lives, derailing their commitment to school or work and sowing conflict in their families.

Cannabis has also been associated with certain mental illnesses. We still do not know how the medication, depression and anxiety all connect. Science has not yet established a cause and effect relationship between the two. In other words, we cannot be certain whether people smoke cannabis because they are depressed and anxious or if they are depressed and anxious because they smoke cannabis.

Dr. Beck says there is stronger evidence that heavy use of cannabis can lead to psychosis, especially among people who have a family history of mental illness. However, the vast majority of the research involved people who use cannabis daily. The scientific literature is virtually silent on the mental health effects of occasional use.

Dr. Grant noted that we do not know the lower limit that is safe and there is no evidence to suggest that nothing will happen if a person uses cannabis once or twice.

There is good evidence that teens who smoke pot frequently suffer long-lasting damage to their still immature brains, including problems with memory, attention and executive functioning. Dr. Grant added that, for teenagers who use cannabis regularly, there are actually structural changes that are visible on MRI. She adds that certain areas of the brain are visibly smaller, there is thinning of a part of the brain called the cortex, which is very important in terms of thinking and planning and organizing.

The adult brain appears capable of recovering from chronic pot use in a few weeks. According to Dr. Beck, that is not what happens in young people. Citing concerns about the adolescent brain, the Canadian Medical Association, which represents the country's physicians, last year urged the federal government to ban the sale of marijuana to people under the age of 21 and to restrict the amount and potency of the drug available to those younger than 25.

Most of the health concerns associated with cannabis apply to heavy users. However, occasional tokers can wreak havoc if they get behind the wheel while high. For an occasional user to consume some pot and then get behind the wheel is a recipe for disaster.

According to Amy Porath, director of research and policy for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, cannabis impairs our ability to safely drive a vehicle. It impairs our reaction time, our ability to multitask and to pay attention. Police across the country are currently piloting a roadside saliva test to see if it adequately detects cannabis-impaired drivers.

Whether it is tobacco or cannabis, Dr. Porath said, there are concerns with smoking anything. Smoking can cause coughing, wheezing, sore throat and tightness in the chest. It can also aggravate asthma.

That article was published before marijuana was legalized. Major concerns were raised in this 2017 Globe and Mail article, which looks at the problems with marijuana.

I am bringing it up again and members may be wondering why I am talking about this. It all comes back to the basic concept, which is the way marijuana was legalized. The government completely ignored experts, scientists and police officers. It completely ignored the proposals that the opposition made in committee. It also completely ignored the work of the Senate. Senators proposed a lot of amendments but the Liberals rejected all of them, just like they rejected the proposals of the official opposition.

That is why we are prepared to say that Bill C-93 might make sense. Given the way the government works, we would never go so far as to say that the bill is extraordinary and that we will vote in favour of it without any debate. That would be impossible because there are always grey areas, things that are unclear.

The Liberals know what they want. They have a course of action and a way of doing things. As for us, our duty is to examine the issues, ask the right questions and propose any necessary amendments.

We are therefore prepared to support Bill C-93 at second reading. However, it needs to be reworked in committee, and I hope that the government will listen to and understand the amendments that will be proposed. I am sure that the NDP will also propose amendments.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to immediately pass the bill in its current form. We need to go a little further, to dig a little deeper. After the committee does its work and the Liberal government makes some decisions, we will decide how to move forward. At this point, we have some doubts. We will see what happens, and then we will respond accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians have been waiting anxiously to see this legislation come forward. It would put in place an opportunity for people to eventually get a pardon. This would enable them to maybe get that job, or a driver's licence or other opportunities as a direct result this. It would also be affordable.

We have seen the legislation regarding the legalization of cannabis, which has been done in a fairly holistic way. Others in the chamber have argued that we should have done more, gone further. However, the Conservatives seem to be saying that we might have gone too far.

I may have missed it, but I am curious to know the Conservatives' position on this legislation. Do they see themselves supporting it or voting against it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we are prepared to support the bill at second reading. However, there are many factors to consider, and we are not entirely confident because certain details are missing from the bill.

We will have to delve deeper in committee. We will propose amendments and hope the Liberal government accepts them.

At second reading, we will vote to send this bill to committee for further discussion. We accept the principle of the bill, but we have many questions regarding the details.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

The part where he referred to youthful indiscretion really caught my attention. There was a time not so long ago when it was illegal to use or possess marijuana. When someone was caught for possession of marijuana, most people thought it was a minor crime that did not require major investment and could be overlooked.

Today, it is entirely legal. It is no longer a matter of youthful indiscretion, since it is now possible to use or possess marijuana.

Since we are no longer talking about youthful indiscretion, does my colleague agree that we should not just suspend records, but expunge them?

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

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

We have to stop saying that what happened in the past no longer matters because it is legal now. At the time, it was illegal.

Forget about marijuana use for a minute and think about any other crime. If the crime in question becomes legal in 20 years will it no longer matter because it was committed today? No, it was a crime at the time that it was committed. The action has to be considered criminal. Just because it is legal today does not mean that the crime no longer matters.

As far as expunging records versus suspending them is concerned, I think record suspension is enough.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to my hon. colleague. Earlier, he talked about legalizing cannabis. We consulted people in my riding, and this was a major policy shift in Canada.

My colleague talked about problems associated with cannabis consumption and mental health as well. In his view, how will legalization and the government's direction on this enable researchers to do more research aimed at avoiding any links there might be to mental health?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I am trying to understand her question, but, as far as I know, legalization has not helped mental health. According to reports and comments we have been getting from medical professionals, some mental health problems are related to cannabis consumption.

As I said in my speech, people can now buy cannabis legally, but the black market is still flourishing and continues to supply cannabis to young people. Cannabis does not even make people bat an eyelid now. During our earliest speeches on Bill C-45, we said that legalization would make people think of cannabis consumption as no big deal, and that is exactly what is happening.

The goal was to implement measures to ensure that young people would not use it or would use it only once they reached legal age. That is not what we are seeing. With respect to mental health, I would encourage my colleague to check with the Minister of Health, who I am sure has more up-to-date information than I. What I have been hearing is that the situation has not improved.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles speak to this bill, which is the logical follow-up to the legislation enacted on October 17, 2018.

I especially appreciated hearing about how the passage of the previous act completely disregarded science. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles pointed out, a number of scientists, studies and doctors highlighted the real public health dangers when someone sadly uses this product.

I have a question for my colleague that touches on what my NDP colleagues were saying earlier. Naturally, once it is legal, it is legal. This does not necessarily mean that it is trivial, but it is legal, as Dr. Carmant, the minister responsible for health and social services for the Government of Quebec, so aptly pointed out. However, it was not legal in the past. The member said earlier that, in his opinion, a pardon would be the best option for those who committed what was previously an illegal act.

I would like to hear more about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for the question.

The difference between pardons and expungement, which is what the NDP is calling for, is that with a pardon, the offence is kept separate on an individual's record. That means the offence will not show up on a background check if the person applies for a job. However, if the person goes on to commit another crime, the judge may consider the fact that they had previously been charged with cannabis possession.

The important thing now is to make sure that people who have a record just for simple possession are able to work, to get a job, to be free, by keeping the offence separate. However, if they decide to commit other crimes, the offence will go back on their record.

Expungement means the offence is erased completely, as if it never happened. That is what we are opposed to. Crime is crime. We need to remember that the law is the law and must be obeyed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the conversation has been not only about record suspension for cannabis possession but potentially other criminal offences. I am hearing from many of my constituents who feel that taxpayers should not be on the hook for paying for the suspensions. They do not necessarily disagree that suspensions should be available for minor possession, but they are concerned that taxpayers should have to cover the cost to the system.

I am wondering what my colleague is hearing with respect to the cost and whether there is common ground we could arrive at that is fair to both the people seeking the suspensions and the taxpayers.

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

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

That is indeed the kind of thing we are hearing. People are asking us why they, as taxpayers, should indirectly pay for people who committed a crime in the past. Can the cost be re-evaluated? That is something we could discuss in committee. The previous government did an evaluation of the cost of applying for a pardon. It costs $631. That is the exact cost that was calculated back then. It includes the time it takes for public officials and all the bureaucracy to process a pardon application.

We realize that the fees could be too high for low-income people. We are ready to have a discussion about the possibility of changing the costs. However, to go back to what I was saying in my speech, we cannot waive all the fees for everyone, because other taxpayers would have to pay for it through their taxes, and we think that is unfair.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two things to say about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Oliver, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the laws for cannabis have changed in Canada, it is only right that people with simple possession charges have them removed, which the bill would do. It would allow a pardon and waive both the fees and the waiting period.

There is one area on which I want to challenge the hon. member. The NDP and the member for Victoria seem to want the process to be automatic rather than requiring applications. The member may not be aware that records across Canada are kept in different ways in many jurisdictions. often in boxes in courthouse basements. Therefore, a proactive automatic process could take years for all those simple possession charges to be found and reversed. An application-based process would get people their pardons much faster.

Why does the NDP favour an approach that will make people wait possibly for years for their records to be cleared when this bill would offer a much faster route for them?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, it may be that certain changes will be needed to make automatic expungement efforts happen. In the United States, it was not an obstacle in states like Delaware, where the same issues arose.

Second, if as few as 10,000 people would be affected by Bill C-93, which is according to the number we have just heard, then I do not understand why the government could not find summer students to go through those files and determine who could be relieved of that burden. I do not understand why it is such an obstacle to get a few summer students to do the work.

It is easy to overstate the administrative burden of automatic expungement, but it is also not easy to stand by and watch so many people's lives being wrecked by the government's failure to act.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay my respects to my hon. colleague from Victoria. He has served with dignity as well as a good, positive and strong attitude to defend his will, ideas and principles. I will always remember when we met almost four years ago. We worked together on very important legislation. At the committee that dealt with assisted suicide, the issue was addressed from members on both sides of the debate, with a lot of thought going into what was best for Canadians.

I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks, and I want to say two things. First, we obviously have different views on the legalization of marijuana, but we did agree on one thing. The Conservatives and NDP agreed that marijuana should be decriminalized. For the first time, on this file, I also agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that cannabis would continue to be illegal until the bill was passed. An illegal act is and will always remain illegal. Now here we are with this bill, which seeks to determine what to do about people who committed illegal acts when those acts were still illegal.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about the proposal my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles made a few moments ago. He believes that the best approach to take here is to grant pardons. That way the offence would not show up in the person's criminal record, but it would become public if the person happens to reoffend.

What does he think about that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his contributions to this place. Saying that I remember fondly would be the wrong word to use, because it was a very trying and emotional experience being on the committee that dealt with physician-assisted dying. One of the highlights of my career, and I suspect of his as well, was the spirit of collaboration and co-operation that marked that important debate.

We agree on decriminalization, which was a common policy between our two parties. The government chose legalization. Now it is choosing record suspension over expungement. Why would I say there are problems with that?

I want to make a few quick points on the subject.

First, record suspensions can be revoked by subsequent parliaments. If people's records have been expunged, they are gone. Second, if people are no longer of good conduct or have what are called administration of justice offences that go along with their cannabis possession, then they can be removed by the National Parole Board. This cannot happen if they are being expunged. Third, some police and government agencies would still be able to access those records. In other words, there could be leaks that happen from time to time. As we know, some people who claimed to have no record in fact did have prior ones. Why would we take that chance with the lives of people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the private member's bill by my friend, the member for Victoria. Certainly, it makes more sense to me to expunge a record.

However, I want to put this for the member. Now that we have government legislation in front of us that, while inadequate, goes part of the way toward what we want to see achieved, which is to remove the absurdity of criminal charges against people for an act that is no longer considered illegal, I wonder if he does not think we should work to get this bill through or, potentially, have it amended to achieve the scope of what a private member's bill cannot do and fix it at committee.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have this go to committee. I hope there would be a will on the part of the government to do the right thing and amend it.

Normally, I would agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, the problem I have found is that after months of effort, the government seems to have a closed mind to expungement. Therefore, I do not see that there will be any uptake on this. As a consequence, I am loath to simply say that. Maybe there is a procedural way with the private member's bill, if it gets to committee, and this Bill C-93 at committee, to be somehow amalgamated. Perhaps there could be a positive change out of that.

However, I cannot support a bill that does not do the job and will continue to affect the lives of so many people.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria, for his exemplary work on this file.

As we know, people from indigenous and racialized communities tend to have a higher criminal record because of the have been charged in the past with marijuana possession. Earlier I asked the parliamentary secretary why we would not have expungement in recognition of this issue. The fact that people would be required to go through a process to be pardoned already would set a barrier for them. The parliamentary secretary's response was to say that parole officers and people in the community would work with them.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member this. On the issue around fairness, with respect to ensuring everyone who has a criminal record for cannabis would no longer be faced with that record, is expungement not the best option? Does the suggestion that somehow parole officers can reach out to people to help them with this process make sense? I would also love to hear from the member about the impact on the racialized and indigenous communities as well.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people in the riding of the member for Vancouver East are seven times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession if they are indigenous. That is particularly acute in Vancouver East. The notion that parole officers will help people fill out forms when they are overburdened already is ludicrous. A new government could come in and take away those officers. It could have gigantic cuts and that would be gone as well.

The barrier for applications cannot be overstated. It is real. If one understands marginalized communities in Canada, one will know that it is real. Why will the government not recognize that and do the right thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague shot down many of the arguments presented by the Liberals, who do not want to completely expunge the criminal records of individuals who have been convicted of simple cannabis possession. One of those arguments was economic in nature. The Liberals are saying it would cost too much. However, I think that we can further refute their argument by reminding them that individuals who were convicted of simple marijuana possession and who will still have a criminal record, because it will not go away completely and could be reinstated, will find it harder to get a job and will therefore be less able to contribute to the economy than someone who has no criminal record.

Does my colleague agree that that further refutes the Liberals' economic argument?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga made an excellent point, which, frankly, I had not thought of before. The cost benefit of this is staggeringly in favour of expungement. If people cannot get jobs, they are likely to be collecting some sort of social assistance, employment insurance, or the like. Whereas, if they can get jobs, because one no longer has a criminal record and can say that truthfully to the employer, then obviously the benefit to the economy and to individuals, their self-worth and so forth, is self-evident. I could not agree more with the member's helpful suggestion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest pot plan, Bill C-93, an act to give pardons to people who were charged with possession of an illegal substance in years past.

I would like to salute the NDP members for their ability to bring pressure to bear on the Liberals and force them to address this issue. The government did not respond until after the NDP brought this forward in the House, calling for action. They need to be recognized for forcing the government into acting.

The Liberal government of course has said that it has always had a plan. However, it sure seems to have been rushed for something that was a long time in the planning.

In the public safety committee, we have the Liberal government's plans that are poorly developed, they lack consultations and they often miss the point or have negative consequences and unintended impacts on the Canadian public. The Liberal government has proven that virtue signalling is a bad way to manage a country because it creates more problems than it solves.

Bill C-93 makes its first mistake on the very first line of the bill, “An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions.” While I am sure the Liberals meant no-fee record suspension, there is no such thing as a no-cost record suspension. The process of suspending a criminal record costs the taxpayers money, $630 specifically. It is a cost recovery process in that an individual pays for the administrative costs for an application. Taxpayers will be on the hook for each pardon request, each suspension request. While providing the record suspension for an individual with historical convictions for a minor offence is not a big issue, allocating taxpayer money to the cost of that at a time when millions of Canadians are saying that everyday costs are out of reach, just shows how out of touch the government is to the everyday working Canadian.

This can hardly be called a priority for Canadians and the average Canadian family. That is the main issue I hear from many in the justice and policing community. The priorities of the government seem to be out of step with the needs of Canadians, the needs of our country and the needs of community safety, whether it is in the cities fighting gangs or in rural areas, providing police response to support and fight the rising crime rates. As I have said many times in this place, it must be the top priority of the House of Commons to put protections of Canadians ahead of political priorities, parties and election. Protecting Canadians is far more important than one's political fortunes.

Clearly, this is not the case for the Liberal Prime Minister, his senior cabinet ministers and staffers. While we can draw this conclusion from their priorities in the public safety portfolio, the SNC-Lavalin scandal brought this in clear view.

The Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Minister of Finance and senior staff, including Gerald Butts and Ben Chin, noted that elections were more of a priority than the independence of our judicial process. Intervening in a criminal prosecution, quite possibly attempting to obstruct justice, and undermining the independence of our justice system was not as important to them as helping out their friends from a Montreal-based employer. “I'm an MP in Quebec” the Prime Minister is said to have responded. Sadly, the few jobs that might have been impacted, and SNC-Lavalin says almost no jobs would be impacted, pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of jobs lost in my province of Alberta in the energy sector.

The Prime Minister is fond of suggesting his words are important, but sadly his actions are found wanting. The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about an issue that is very important and has been raised by many people in my community, and that is the issue of pardons in the context of cannabis legalization.

There is an issue of relevance here as to what the member across is speaking about, which is not at all about the bill before him. I would ask if he could be directed to speak about the bill. It is an important bill and I would like to hear his thoughts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for raising the point of order. Members will know, of course, that relevance is indeed one of those standing orders. It is a limit, if you will, on debate in the House. I recognize that the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is only about five minutes into his 20-minute speech. I will assure the hon. member that I will listen carefully, and of course, he will be reminded that this is something he will do in the course of his remarks to ensure that they are on the subject that is before the House.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and yes, I would ask my hon. colleague to be patient. I will get to my point forthwith.

The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of this Liberal Prime Minister and his government, and this could not be more clear than when two former cabinet ministers were removed from their party. They were banished last week, and there was a breakdown in trust. Sadly, the fault lies clearly with the Prime Minister and his cronies, while the penalties continue to be placed on the members who were removed.

The Prime Minister has offered one falsehood after another trying to it explain away. Quite bluntly, it has been painfully obvious to the rest of the country that he put politics ahead of the best interests of Canadians.

The Liberals have tabled their bill for taxpayer-funded records suspensions. There it is; I am back on the issue. How does this align with the needs of Canadians? In general, how does it fit with public safety? The many issues facing our country in protecting our communities and ensuring a strong, fair justice system go well beyond the Prime Minister trying to interfere with the independence of the former attorney general or the director of public prosecutions.

We know where Canada is struggling with public safety. According to Statistics Canada information, Canada has a gang problem in our cities. We have a justice problem, with backlogged courts and court appointments for judges. We have a rural crime problem. We have a sentencing and recidivism problem, with revolving doors in the justice and jail system. We have evidence-lab challenges and RCMP police-resourcing challenges. Stats Canada has shown that gang-related shootings are primarily responsible for recent increases in violent crime in this country, and to date, the only Liberal response has been unfulfilled promises.

Instead of action, the Liberals' legislative changes, like Bill C-71, for example, went after licensed firearms owners instead of criminals. As the Department of Public Safety noted in its own consultation document, the vast majority of licensed firearms owners are not involved in crime. In fact, statistics provided to the public safety committee suggest that it is under 1%. The Liberals' legislative response to gang violence and illegal weapons has been to crack down on less than 1% of the problem and to ignore the 99%.

What would help? I know a number of items that could help improve public safety and reduce violent crime. First is spending the money the government promised for policing and to go after organized crime. Second is to put more resources into public prosecutions, courts and evidence labs. These have all been shown to be under-resourced, especially with the recent court decision to limit trial length. Third is to stop softening sentences for violent criminals, as proposed in Bill C-75. Serious crime needs serious punishment for reform to work, and all these ideas have evidence to show that they are needed and would have an impact.

What will not have an impact is a taxpayer-funded pot pardon. No one would be safer because of this policy. A very small number of Canadians would benefit from it. The truth, from my experience, is that most individuals likely to seek record suspensions may have a number of other convictions as well. While they may receive a single free record suspension, their other charges may not be so free. Possession might be only one of the many charges on a person's record.

Where would Bill C-93 leave this House and Canada on the constant effort to combat crime in an ever-changing and evolving world? After three and a half years of Liberal mismanagement, we have a strained legal system that sees more and more criminals going free, rather than facing charges, or pleading to significantly less-serious charges.

Prisoners will now have access to needles whenever and wherever they want in prisons. As our correctional officers have told us and have pointed out more than once, even in Europe, which the Liberals claim to be copying, the needles are never in the general population; they are in the hands of medical staff. Rather than dealing with the cause of crime, most often addiction, the Liberal plan is to continue the addiction.

Under the current Liberal government, we have seen a horrific record of protecting communities from returning ISIS fighters. When we asked the committee how many outstanding monitoring warrants were placed on the 60 ISIS terrorists who have returned, the number was zero.

While I have no doubt that teams at CSIS and the RCMP are working to keep tabs on these individuals, and are doing a great job, limited by the legislation from the government, the red tape and oversight rules proposed under Bill C-59 would no doubt make it harder to watch known radical extremists who have participated in horrific, hate-based crimes. To me and many Canadians, a desire to join ISIS is itself an admission that someone supports violence.

The Prime Minister is happy to talk about being opposed to radicals and extremists, but none of his actions suggest that he is serious about combatting the sources of radicalization or the threat of domestic terrorism. Words matter, but actions have impacts.

We have seen a radical and damaging string of policies that have increased drugs in our communities and have not helped make anyone safer. Whether it was the poorly thought-out and rushed legislation on marijuana, which ignored reasonable requests from police and medical professionals, or the unnecessary risk of drug-impaired driving, to my knowledge, we still do not have a reliable roadside mechanism to test for drug impairment or to increase supervised injection sites.

Nothing so explains the potential harm of the Liberal approach to crime as the issue of rural crime, which we are dealing with in rural Canada. My riding has a small city and an expansive rural region. Across Alberta, Saskatchewan and other parts of our country, we have heard from Canadians about the rampant, escalating crime in rural communities committed, for the most part, by urban criminals victimizing rural Canadians where police response is minimal, delayed, or in some cases, nonexistent.

Canadians have told us heartbreaking stories of violent encounters, financial hardship and trauma from repeated thefts and victimization. Canadians have spoken of fear, alienation and abandonment. That is not Canada. That is not my Canada, but it has become an unfortunate reality in the Prime Minister's Canada.

With Bill C-93, the government is proposing a no-fee, no-waiting-period record suspension without any enquiries or reviews of personal history or conduct. The reason we have a Parole Board, both the administration and the regional organization, appointed to conduct hearings is to exercise discretion in the review of individual cases. Parole hearings can uncover vital information about convictions, such as a plea deal with lesser charges despite the person having been involved in serious and violent crimes.

While there are likely to be a very limited number of cases like this, such cases may be separated from simple possession issues. Moreover, some plea deals may have been arranged with lesser charges but with specific instructions, such as an agreement to have no record suspension, as appropriate to the person's personal history.

This means that these pardons would be granted as a matter of process, and the board would take up no inquiry of the person and would have little or no opportunity to exercise discretion. This means that even in cases where it was patently obvious that the person continued a criminal lifestyle but did not have a conviction entered against him or her, a pardon would be granted.

The police in this country have raised some concerns about Bill C-93. They suggest that our officers need to feel confident that individuals who are a threat to public safety and the public order are going to be popping up on CPIC, even if they have been convicted of simple possession.

Here is a scenario as an example. There are many individuals who have been charged with more than one serious criminal drug offence, but once they have gone to court and worked out a plea deal for simple possession for a multitude of possession charges, these charges are then reduced for multiple reasons, such as to ease a court backlog, to save witnesses from testifying or to secure testimony for the conviction of a bigger criminal player, etc. The plea to a simple possession charge would be used by the Crown with the understanding, as I said previously, that the conviction would still be a permanent part of that individual's record, ensuring that any future investigation of a similar nature could be appropriately linked and applied to that person's own personal history.

This does not serve the best interests of officer safety or community safety. It does not promote the rehabilitation of those entrenched in the criminal element, the ones who threaten to be repeat offenders.

I appreciate the fact that we cannot hold unproven facts against individuals. That would be unfair. However, we cannot ignore the circumstances that would lead to the arrest, charging and conviction of individuals using the available laws and the discretion of the day, which is key. The Crown and the courts would not have accepted the lesser pleas knowing the proposal today. This itself would affect the administration of justice.

There are two very different scenarios at play here: one person who is stopped and charged for carrying a dime bag of marijuana versus a person who is caught up in a drug ring and pleads to a simple possession charge. They are two very different people, but the proposed changes would treat them the same way. One is not a danger to police or the community, and the other continues to pose a risk. That is what should be screened. There should not just be blanket pardons.

While the Liberals are happy to talk about there being discretion in our justice system, they have removed the discretion of the public service at the Parole Board as well as the discretion of the Parole Board itself. It is important to keep in context the arrest charges and plea deals, especially since many plea deals would never have considered the possibility of a future government legalizing drugs and imposing record suspensions without any review or context.

The House should consider that no individuals would benefit from this act who would be excluded otherwise, and I can see no way to make that happen without an appropriate review.

I hope that members of the committee are not prevented from making minor and common-sense amendments to the legislation that would ensure public safety. Already we have seen too many pieces of legislation from the Liberals that ignore common sense and public safety in favour of policy and division.

To be clear, I know, and I believe members know, that these are not the public safety priorities of Canadians. This bill would not help victims recover from the trauma of violent crime. It would not prevent criminals from victimizing rural Canadians. It would not stop gang violence or deter youth from joining gangs. It would not address illegal firearms in our country. It would not address the many concerns and challenges faced by prosecutors and police across the country.

I see Bill C-93 as a continuation of the Liberals' plan: more minor gestures without the requisite actions to combat addiction, crime and poverty to improve public safety. It is a plan that would provide a benefit to a select and small group of Canadians at taxpayers' expense, a plan that would double down on legalizing marijuana while ignoring real, serious and important threats to Canada's public safety. These are not the priorities of Canadians. This bill does not address the issues, and from what I have heard from police and prosecutors across the country, it does not address their concerns.

I can only assume that Liberal MPs will once again be called on to vote in blind faith with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, because today more and more Canadians are seeing clearly that the priorities of the Liberals are not the priorities of Canadians.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to be on the public safety and national security committee with the member across the way. At committee, we worked together on a joint report on record suspensions, which was tabled in the House in December. We all agreed in the report that a criminal record has a negative impact on a person's ability to find employment, housing and education, to travel and in the adoption and custody of children. We recognized that an applicant's financial situation and ability to pay may be a barrier to applying. In fact, we asked the government to review the record suspension system and the cost of it. Therefore, I was actually very surprised to hear the member now speak from what seems to be a position that is contrary to the report he agreed to when it was put forward in the House.

Perhaps the member could explain why it makes sense for people to face a financial barrier in achieving a record suspension for something like simple possession.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that there is no dichotomy in what I have said and what I support at committee. I fully appreciate that when moving on in life, an individual's record could limit his or her ability to acquire appropriate employment, housing and all those things. We need to approach this in a manner that is fair and just. That does not mean the taxpayer foots the entire bill. It means there is a balance that has to be struck.

Not once did I suggest that the record suspension should not be considered. I think it is something that needs to be considered. However, we need to look at this. We need to be open to amendments to the current legislation. We need to understand its implications. We need to make sure we do not give record suspensions straight across the board because someone has a minor possession. We need to have the Parole Board continue to examine each file and, where appropriate, issue those suspensions potentially, but not completely, at the taxpayers' expense. As a government, we need to look at that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen a pattern of behaviour by the current government and it is too little too late. It is a lazy approach. It is half-measures. I do not understand the concept the Liberals are proposing now, when the member for Victoria proposed a reasonable bill that had support and could have run through this House. Mediocracy and a lack of willingness to work on things is what really exemplifies the current government.

Here is an example where we have some unification in the House and some half-forward progress presented in front of us and the government has refused to do it. Housing is a good example. It is something that is serious for people. This bill is not going to help people who have been affected by this type of a record historically. I would ask the member to highlight that, because it is a very significant consequence. Again, I cannot understand the half-measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do see the impact one's past can have on one's present and future.

Although I am new to the House, at times I often wonder why as parliamentarians we cannot come together on legislation of this importance to find a common ground and to be accepting of amendments from all parties who have the best interests of Canadians in mind. I am hopeful that when the bill is sent to committee, the government members will be open to amendments that are designed to better the lives of Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There will be six minutes remaining in questions and comments when the House next undertakes this topic.

Bill C-93—Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing 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 respective stage of the bill. I hope that we can find a better way forward.

The House resumed from April 8 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Records Act

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Colleagues, 50 years ago, the imminent astronomer Carl Sagan wrote an article under the pseudonym Mr. X. He wrote about cannabis, noting that “the illegality of cannabis is outrageous”. He said, on legalization specifically, “I hope that time isn’t too distant”.

That was 50 years ago.

I am going to start by commending and recognizing the progress we have made. If someone had asked me five or 10 years ago whether I would see cannabis legalized in my lifetime, I would have been incredibly skeptical, yet in October of last year, that is exactly what the government did, following through on a significant promise to treat it as a public health issue but also to treat Canadians as the responsible adults we are.

I will support Bill C-93. It would waive the five-year waiting period. It would waive the $631 fee.

The Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction has noted that as many as 400,000 Canadians have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. That is something we ought to correct as much as possible, because we know the impact of a criminal record on one's ability to secure housing, employment and ability to travel.

I will be supporting Bill C-93, but that, to me, is obvious and straightforward. I also think the bill ought to go further, and I hope to see the committee make amendments so that it does.

First, Canadians and colleagues should understand the difference between a pardon and an expungement. According to the Parole Board of Canada, the purpose of a record suspension or a pardon is to remove barriers to reintegration that can be associated with a criminal record. The idea is that we say, “You are forgiven. Move on with your life.” With respect to expungement, the government recognizes that the conviction was for an act that should never have been a crime at all and that these individuals should not be viewed as former offenders. Instead, we say, “We are sorry. We made a mistake. We should never have done this in the first place.”

With respect to cannabis possession, and we are not talking about trafficking, it is straightforward that we never should have made this a crime in the first place and that expungement is the proper answer.

The government has made technical arguments with respect to travel. I trust that the committee will address those. There is no difference at the American border with respect to a pardon or an expungement. In the hands of the American officers, they enforce their laws as they see fit. We should be concerned with our domestic laws.

I will say this. If we can help people move forward with their lives in a more significant way, we should seize the opportunity. An expungement will help Canadians who are impacted by a criminal record more so than a pardon would.

Again, just as a clarifying note on the difference between a pardon and expungement, this really hits home when we see the great differences between governments. We are seeing this in Ontario right now, where the pendulum is swinging so incredibly hard in the opposite direction. A different government could actually restore records when people have been pardoned. The records are simply set aside. A different government could never restore criminal records if they were properly deleted through the expungement process.

I commend the member from Victoria for putting Bill C-415 forward, but I would also note that this is grassroots Liberal policy. I am going to read a resolution from the 2012 Liberal biennial convention put forward by the Young Liberals of Canada and supported by over 80% of grassroots Liberals at the time:

Be it further resolved that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto;

If we want to be consistent with our legalization promise that tracks back to this resolution, amnesty is the answer.

Most significantly, the most important argument is that we have to correct an injustice. The criminalization of cannabis was a racial injustice in original purpose and current effect.

I want to read a direct quote from Harry Anslinger, America's first drug czar. It is not a positive quote. It is an offensive quote. He warned that “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.”

Here in Canada, Emily Murphy, one of the Famous Five, an otherwise celebrated women's rights activist, led a temperance movement grounded in the belief that “aliens of colour” used drugs to corrupt the white race.

If we look at the modern application of these laws, we see a Toronto Star investigation from 2017 which found that black people with no criminal record were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis than white people. That was in 2017. There was a vice investigation subsequently that made access to information requests to police agencies across the country. It found, for example, in Regina, that indigenous people represented 41% of cannabis arrests in 2015 and 2016, but they were only 9.3% of the total population.

We see the Federation of Black Canadians and the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers stand up in support of going further for amnesty. They are doing so because it was a racial injustice. The government argues that the injustice was in the application of the law; it was not inherent in the law. However, for anyone who understands how we interpret our constitutional law and how we might find a law unconstitutional, we consider the purpose of the law, but we also consider the effect of the law. So too with respect to expungement, it is not only if it is inherently an injustice, but also if it is an applied injustice.

It is arguable whether the original purpose, as I have noted, ought not to be considered as well when we talk about the injustice. I would argue that this was inherently an injustice. I read the Le Dain commission in 1970, which said, “There can be no doubt that Canada’s drug laws were for a long time primarily associated in the minds of its legislators and the public with general attitudes and policy towards persons of Asiatic origin.”

The point is this. We fear different drugs today because we used to fear different people.

The last point I want to make is that if we set aside the most important arguments with respect to racial injustice and we consider basic common sense, almost half of Canadians have self-reported using cannabis in their lifetime. Are half of Canadians criminals? When cannabis is less harmful than the six-pack that people take to a party or a mickey of vodka, should people who possess cannabis, again not traffickers, ever be thought of as criminals? The obvious answer is no, in the same way that I do not think if people take a six-pack to a party they are criminals. In taking a less harmful substance, they ought not to be considered criminals, and we as legislators should cure that. We have the capacity to cure it. We could cure that simply by improving the law before us.

The simple question that we all have to answer is whether the conduct in question is deserving of a criminal record. Demonstrably, the answer is no. It never should have been illegal in the first place.

I support Bill C-93 for moving in the right direction, but we should do what is right when we have the opportunity. We should correct this injustice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech and his commentary. Oftentimes when we are dealing with legislation in this place, we do not do proper justice in talking about people who are impacted by the legislation we are dealing with.

This bill is an opportunity for the government to correct a wrong. That is not just a wrong that has existed for the past three years since the current government formed office, and that it campaigned on and declared its intention to decriminalize marijuana possession, but also to look at past injustices, when the evidence was before all parliamentarians as to the need to decriminalize marijuana and the hypocrisy that legislature after legislature had shown in dealing with this.

I will ask for two comments: one is on the racial component. I represent northwestern British Columbia. It has approximately 35% to 40% indigenous communities. We know, through statistics, about the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prisons. We know that part of that representation is due to possession charges. They are sometimes put together with some other charge where non-indigenous people would not face the same amount of incarceration. Therefore, I would like comment on the impact on indigenous communities. I know my friend is from Toronto, but he has studied this legislation and its impacts.

The second component is on the effects on all people. What is it to hold a criminal record? What effect does it have on the day-to-day lives of Canadians, whether they are seeking to volunteer for their kids' soccer camp or being able to cross the border for business or pleasure, to carry around this record and the threat of that record being reintroduced into their lives?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is ridiculous to think that a black person in Toronto, who is three times more likely to be arrested than a white person like me, should suffer the consequences of doing something that should never have been illegal in the first place and therefore suffer disproportionately. Simply because I, as a white person, was never caught does not mean that I am any less of a criminal than the black person. I think it is outrageous that we are not taking the opportunity to correct that injustice when that opportunity stares us in the face.

The second thing I will say is that I have personal friends who, over the course of their lifetimes, had a cannabis possession record and could not get a job even at the 7-Eleven. It is ridiculous that people, otherwise contributing members of society, such as the person who could not get a job at a 7-Eleven yet is in the public service, who make an incredible contribution to Canada, could not get a job after undergrad because of a cannabis possession record. If we could in any way cure that problem, we ought to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I opposed the legalization of marijuana. However, it seems to me to be fundamentally unjust that individuals can be burdened with a criminal record for an activity that today is perfectly legal. This legislation fails to address that. It does not provide for amnesty or an expungement; it merely suspends the record, which can be revoked in a number of circumstances. Additionally, the Minister of Public Safety has a broad statutory discretion to disclose that record. I wonder if the hon. member could address those concerns.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I trust that after hearing all the evidence, the member is now supportive of the legalization of a substance that is significantly less harmful than alcohol. If not, perhaps he might explain why we should treat the two substances so very differently.

Now that it is legal, the only thing I will say is that I agree, in part. I do not think that Bill C-93 is a failure to move forward in the right direction. Rather, I think it is a significant move forward in the right direction. It simply is not going far enough.

We see other jurisdictions, California being one of them, moving forward with expungement and then our own government says, well, it is technically somewhat complicated. If another jurisdiction can get it done in the interests of justice, we should do the same.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at the second reading of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis, and legislation doing exactly that took effect last fall. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I am proud to have been part of the committee's review of the Cannabis Act. We now have a regulated system that keeps cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the hands of criminals.

At that time, the government signalled that it would turn its attention to dealing with the criminal records created under the old regime. We now have before us Bill C-93, legislation that would make it easier for individuals who have been previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to have their records cleared.

Bill C-93 proposes an expedited process for receiving a pardon, which is also known as a record suspension. The usual $631 application fee would be waived, as would the usual waiting period, which can be as long as 10 years. The bill would reduce barriers to full participation in society for these individuals. It would allow them greater access to job opportunities, educational programs, housing and even the ability to simply volunteer in their communities. It would make things more fair. It would enhance public safety by allowing people to reintegrate into society. It would fulfill an important commitment to Canadians in delivering on this new regime.

This is the first time in history that both the application fee and wait period for a pardon would be waived. This unprecedented measure is a strong statement, recognizing that convictions for simple possession of cannabis have resulted in hardship for many Canadians and that certain populations, including members of black and indigenous communities, have been disproportionately affected.

For my part today, I would like to delve a little deeper into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. To begin with, Bill C-93 proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act. It would waive the fee, waiting period and certain subjective criteria for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis under one of three acts: the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; the Narcotic Control Act, which existed until the 1990s; and the National Defence Act.

Eligibility would not be based on the amount possessed but rather on the purpose. People would be eligible if possession were for personal use only. People would not be eligible if there were any trafficking or production involved. In order to qualify for the waived wait period, an applicant would have to demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada some basic facts: first, that the substance they possessed was cannabis; second, that their sentence was completed; and third, that the conviction was only for possession for personal use. To do so, applicants would provide standard police and court documents. The Parole Board would be available to help people through the process by email or phone.

As a way of further expediting the process, the decision to grant a pardon would not be discretionary. Usually, a Parole Board member assesses pardon applications to decide whether an applicant has been of good conduct and whether a pardon would give them some measurable benefit. Discretion based on subjective criteria would not apply here. Instead, the Parole Board would be required to issue a pardon, as long as people are eligible and have completed their sentences. There would be nothing else to consider. The application would therefore be processed much more quickly by Parole Board staff.

Once a pardon is ordered, the Parole Board would notify the RCMP to have the records sequestered in the national repository of criminal records. Once that is done, the RCMP would notify other federal agencies, and the Parole Board would alert provincial, territorial and municipal partners. For instance, it would mean that a criminal record check by a prospective employer or landlord would come up empty. As well, the records could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances. In practice, for cannabis possession, the only likely scenario in which anyone would ever see a record again would be if they commit a new criminal offence.

Bill C-93 would fulfill our commitment to creating a simplified process for people with convictions for cannabis possession to shed their criminal records, along with the associated burdens and stigma.

Work is also continuing on broader pardons reform, informed by consultations held by the Parole Board and Public Safety Canada as well as a recent study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

That study, initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, led to thoughtful and unanimous recommendations calling for pardons to become more accessible, not just for cannabis possession but across the board. I am glad that Parliament has been seized with that issue and I look forward to progress on that front.

For the moment, though, we have an opportunity to move forward right now with the targeted recourse in Bill C-93. As I have noted, this further enhances public safety by reducing the barriers to reintegration associated with a criminal record.

Many Canadians are stuck with a criminal record for activity that is no longer considered a crime. It is about time we make things fairer for those Canadians who have been living crime-free. That is why I offer my full support to Bill C-93. I encourage all my colleagues to do the right thing and join me in making sure this bill moves forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I would submit that this legislation falls far short of what is required and what is just and fair in the circumstances. It is true that the fee is being waived, but why should someone have to apply in the first place? Why would we not simply remove those records relating to an offence that today is perfectly legal? Why should someone have to complete their sentence in relation to an activity that is perfectly legal today? Why would that provision be in the legislation?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in regard to completing one's sentence, the main point of that is administrative. There are administrative challenges to removing a record in the midst of a proceeding, and this has never been done before. The barrier this could create is mostly theoretical because, as we know, the penalties for the actual offences have been short. It is very unlikely that there is anyone right now sitting in a jail cell for simple possession of cannabis, so the practical downside is likely insignificant.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are certainly interested in seeing this piece of legislation go to committee. There has been quite a bit of concern brought up from those in the legal community, but there are also some financial concerns about this measure as well. It is estimated that if just 10,000 people take up what is proposed in the legislation, it could cost roughly about $2.5 million, but in fact there could be up to 250,000 people who are eligible to take advantage of what this piece of legislation calls for, which could cost about $600 million.

I am wondering if the hon. member of the government has a plan to deal with the costs associated with this bill.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, right now the costs of our current regime are astronomical. When people are unable to get proper employment, they often will be living in poverty and they become involved in the justice system, all things that in themselves have tremendous costs to society. These costs would will no longer be borne by our society.

Second, with regard to the cost to the government as a result of the waived fee that the member talks about, we must remember that this astronomical cost for applying for a pardon was instituted by the previous government. I would argue that such a fee for any pardon is extreme, and I would like to see that cost severely reduced in the future, if not cancelled altogether.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the member's perspective on the cost. Why does he feel that taxpayers who have followed the law in the past should have to absorb the cost of a pardon for people who have deliberately broken the law, knowing full well that they could end up with a criminal record?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, as I said in my previous answer, it is because the fees put in place by the previous government for a pardon are excessive and are a barrier for people who want a productive life. Second, the fees probably cost the taxpayers more in decreased productivity, as those who still have criminal records cannot become productive members of society.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act that would provide the possibility of a record suspension for individuals convicted of possession of a minor amount of marijuana, the type of possession that is perfectly legal today.

While the legislation is better than nothing, I believe it falls far short of what is required and fair and just.

Allow me to say at the outset that I opposed the legalization of marijuana. I spoke against legalization and voted against it at all stages in this Parliament. However, I also said that elections have consequences. During the last election, the now Prime Minister committed to legalizing marijuana if the Liberals were elected. In the end, enough Canadians voted Liberal to give the Liberals 184 seats, allowing them to form a government.

It was therefore not a surprise when the government moved ahead with legalization. One might say that they were keeping an election promise. One might also say that this is about the only election promise that the government fulfilled, but I digress.

Some might ask why I, who opposed the legalization of marijuana, believe that the legislation falls short of what is required and what is fair and just. The simple answer is that I believe it is fundamentally unjust for Canadians to be burdened with a criminal record for an activity that is perfectly legal today.

The impact a criminal record can have on individuals is not an academic issue. A criminal record has a profound impact on individuals' lives and people's ability to get on with their lives. There is a profound stigma attached to a criminal record, one that can impact a person's ability to obtain employment or obtain housing and even to volunteer on a children's soccer team or hockey team or in the broader community.

It is within that context that I believe it is fair and just that individuals burdened with a criminal record for an activity that today, as a result of a policy choice made by the government, is perfectly legal should have that burden lifted from them.

However, that is not what Bill C-93 does. It does not provide for an amnesty and it does not provide for an expungement; all Bill C-93 does is suspend the record. In other words, the records go from CPIC into another place, but it always remains. The record never goes away.

Indeed, a suspension could be revoked if an individual is convicted of a future offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It could be revoked at the discretion of the Parole Board if the board determines that an individual is no longer a person of good character.

The Minister of Public Safety has broad statutory authority to disclose that record when the minister deems it to be in the interests of the administration of justice or when the minister deems it to be in the interest of public safety of Canada or a country allied with Canada.

Bill C-93 would impose a burden on the applicant to obtain a suspension. Why should someone have the burden of obtaining a suspension for an activity that is perfectly legal today, an activity the government itself made perfectly legal? How is that fair? How is that just?

Bill C-93 would require an individual to complete their sentence before they would be eligible to apply for a record suspension. Again, why? Why should someone have to complete a prison term or a lengthy period of probation or pay a fine for an offence that is perfectly legal today? How is that fair? How is that just?

Bill C-93 would render ineligible any individual who has been convicted of a minor possession offence plus any other offence, which would appear to include administration of justice offences that arose from the initial laying of the minor possession offence.

Now, do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that individuals who are convicted of other offences should be pardoned or have those records expunged. My only point is that I do not see a connection between being convicted of other offences and an offence consisting of an activity that is perfectly legal.

I can tell members from a practical standpoint what this provision would mean in terms of the ability of Canadians to obtain a record suspension. There are approximately 500,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for minor possession. According to figures from the Department of Public Safety, this provision would remove literally half of Canadians from being eligible to apply, bringing the number down to 250,000 people.

Therefore, instead of providing for a mere suspension and instead of imposing a burden on the applicant to apply and instead of requiring someone to complete a sentence for an activity that is perfectly legal today, what the government should be doing is moving forward with expungement. Those records relating to minor possession should be removed from CPIC. They should be removed from all government databases. They should be deleted. They should be made history.

Do not tell me that this cannot be done. It has been done in other jurisdictions. Indeed, of the 23 U.S. states that have either legalized or decriminalized minor possession, seven states provide for some sort of pardon or amnesty, and six of those seven provide for expungement.

Instead, we are left with a poorly thought-out half measure that in the end will leave the vast majority of Canadians who have records for minor possession with those criminal records intact. The bill falls far short of what is required.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that we have already had both the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Beaches—East York, members across the party divide here, arguing that the bill does not go far enough, and there will be other opinions expressed on this matter before the day is out.

I would like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton to comment on the original bill itself and the shortcomings in it that have led us to these unanswered questions and the realization that the bill will need much work at committee, if it is the will of the House to send it there. Is this not part of the general sloppiness and the poor thinking behind the bill in the first place?

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

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the comment made by the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

Wherever one stands on the issue of legalization, it is very clear that, from the start, the Liberal government completely bungled the implementation and enforcement of legalization legislation. On that basis alone, I was against Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, which contains a number of provisions.

Quite frankly, this issue should have been part of the legalization bill. It should have been part and parcel with the legalization bill. Instead, we are left in a situation where we have a flawed half measure that very likely may not make it through this Parliament. It is another example of the failure of leadership on the part of the government.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to welcome our colleague to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His stellar reputation and professionalism precede him, and our discussions are always constructive.

When he appeared before the committee, he received a response from departmental representatives. They explained to him that eliminating criminal records involved more than a simple click of a button because of the complexity of the files. Certain procedures are required. It is not as automatic or as easy as he suggests.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that we do not have a uniform database. There is CPIC, there are digital provincial databases and there are paper records stored in courthouse basements.

In terms of the effect that records have on individuals in getting a job, in getting housing, in volunteering, it is largely those digital records, CPIC records, that are the source where employers would go, for example. When they go to the RCMP, the RCMP gets that record from CPIC.

What the government should be doing at the very least is going through CPIC and deleting all of those records relating to minor possession. It would be a cost-efficient measure that would relieve the vast majority of the stigma and issues arising from a criminal record. In an age of artificial intelligence, I see very little argument as to why it could not be done.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising some important concerns and issues with respect to this piece of legislation.

He spoke specifically about the suspension of the records and that the bill does not deal with expungement or pardons. He already talked about this being a flawed piece of legislation. I am curious as to why he thinks the government did not go far enough with respect to expungement or pardons.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know why the government has not moved forward with expungement or at the very least with the deletion of records from CPIC. As I said in my previous answer, that would be a far more cost-efficient way of moving forward, rather than requiring the Parole Board to hear all kinds of applications. It would be fairer and it would have a positive impact from the standpoint that the government clearly believes that it is a good thing that individuals convicted of these offences be relieved of having that record.

I do not know why the government did not move forward with that, and I also do not know why it has waited until the 11th hour to introduce this half—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

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

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

This bill follows on Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, which has been in force since October 17, 2018. Bill C-93 seeks to make changes to the pardon process and provide no-cost record suspensions for Canadians found guilty of simple possession of cannabis in the past. It also seeks to help Canadians who were convicted of using a drug that is now legal, since they will no longer have to go through the usual waiting period or pay the fees associated having their record suspended.

For this type of application, an offender would usually have to wait between five and ten years, depending on the conviction, after serving the sentence to obtain a pardon. Furthermore, the cost of the application is $631. The measure introduced by Bill C-94 would amend the Criminal Records Act and makes reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act. It goes without saying that this new legislative measure must be properly drafted or else it could potentially mislead many Canadians who could one day avail themselves of it.

For example, if this legislative measure were adopted as written in Bill C-93, the administrative costs would be grossly underestimated. Also, it would result in criminal information about offenders being maintained and remaining available, as in the case of pardons granted in a system parallel to that of the RCMP. This information would be available to foreign police services. This would allow U.S. customs officers, for example, to bar a Canadian convicted of simple possession of marijuana from entering the United States.

If a criminal record is not completely erased, it can have a life-long impact. This is counter to the purpose of the bill to ensure that all Canadians who have been convicted and have a criminal record will be able to travel to the United States without any problems.

My speech on this bill will focus primarily on one topic that is very important to all Canadians, specifically the sound management of public funds, which has never been the hallmark of a Liberal government. The Liberals have always been champions of debt. I think that the current government is a perfect example of that, here in the House. Accordingly, it is only responsible and even advisable to ask such important questions about Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money.

I have a serious concern about how much Bill C-93 will really cost. Based on our estimates, it could cost $315 million. The minister and his officials have said that it would cost around $2.5 million, because they expect that just 10,000 of the 250,000 eligible Canadians who have been convicted of one sole possession offence will apply.

Since we are talking about estimates, let us recall the boondoggle created by a Liberal government with the implementation of the national firearms registry in 1995. Let's talk about Liberal spending estimates.

I would like to remind members about how much the Liberals estimated it would cost to set up the infamous registry. At the time, it was supposed to cost $2 million. Do my colleagues remember how much the implementation of this very expensive and useless Liberal registry ended up costing? Surprise, it cost an estimated $2 billion. That is a far cry from the $2 million projected. So we can put this in proper context, I will say this: the cost was nearly 1,000 times the initial estimate. The Liberals are clearly not very good at estimates. In fact, I would say that they are the worst.

My concern, which is very justified and shared by many colleagues and taxpayers, makes it hard for me to believe the government's estimate of $2.5 million. It is obvious to anyone who has read the bill that even the government is not sure about this amount. Considering the significant bureaucratic effort required to analyze, validate and confirm the profile of each applicant, we are convinced that the Liberal government's cost estimates are well off the mark.

It is only natural for Canadians to find the government estimates set out in this bill rather dubious. It is important to remember that the Liberals promised to balance the budget in 2019. However, the only thing members will remember about the Liberals' legacy to our children and grandchildren is another $90 billion in debt. How long will it take us to pay that back? It will take at least 25 years. So much for the Liberals' estimates.

Given the painfully obvious past and present failures of Liberal governments as well as the government's claims that middle-class Canadians are its priority, I have to say that making the middle class bear the tax burden of this measure, the cost of which the government has obviously once again under-estimated, is unfair to honest people who have never had a criminal record and likely never will. Canadians work hard to earn a decent living to feed and house their families and to try to give them a decent education so that their generation will be richer than ours.

I will find it very difficult to support this bill if significant amendments are not made to ensure that justice is served for honest taxpayers and for the offenders who would benefit from a privilege paid for by said taxpayers.

I agree with expedited record suspensions for simple possession in principle, but we need to consider the cost. Canadian taxpayers deserve the truth when it comes to their money. I will always stand up for their right to demand transparency and accountability in the government's management of public funds. Once again, that does not seem to be the case with this bill.

There are so many problems with this legislation I hardly know where to start. The only way to make it worthwhile is to sit down together and go through it in detail to make sure Canadian taxpayers are treated fairly and are not made to foot the bill. Normally, pardons come at a cost, but these will be handed out for free. We need to look at all the ins and outs of this bill to make sure it is fair to everyone, and, most importantly, to make sure the government's numbers are accurate and costs will not end up ballooning like they did with the gun registry.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say I disagree, in many different ways, with the member opposite. One of the things I would like to highlight is that there is a difference in the Conservative approach to the issue versus this government's or the Liberal Party's approach to it. We heard from a number of them that they are against the legalization of cannabis, yet they are in favour of allowing fines to continue on. In other words, we can decriminalize but not legalize it. That seems to be the consensus on the Conservative benches. Let me make a suggestion to the member. The only individuals who would benefit by that would be the criminal element. We have to recognize that one of the advantages of moving forward with this is to make our communities safer.

I have a tangible example. Instead of gangs and criminals selling marijuana or cannabis to the degree to which they have been selling it in the last many years, it is now going to be done through regulations and governments working in co-operation at different levels of government. That should minimize or have a positive impact on the criminal activities within our communities. At the very least, would the member not acknowledge that, and acknowledge that it would be a good thing for Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question.

It is a good thing our vision differs from the Liberals'. We voted against legalizing marijuana and it is now legal. That said, Bill C-93 highlights the bill's shortcomings.

The government was improvising, and Bill C-45, its marijuana legalization bill, was rushed through Parliament. It did not have unanimous support. With this bill you told the provinces that they would have to figure things out. We will have to work together on Bill C-93.

I was indeed against the legalization of marijuana. If the government wants this bill to pass unanimously, we are going to have to review it carefully, because it creates a large number of inequalities, and I do not like inequality.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that she must address the government through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite just finished saying that the Conservatives voted against the legalization of cannabis. That is what the opposition decided to do. If the Conservatives were ever provided another opportunity to govern, would it be her and her party's intention to make it a criminal offence again? Would they bring back legislation to recriminalize cannabis?

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

Madam Speaker, that is not the issue. I was against marijuana legalization, but it is legal now.

Bill C-93 needs to be reworked so it no longer creates inequality. This bill needs to be revised because many elements of it are not working, not least of which is the astronomical price tag of $2.5 million.

We remember the long gun registry all too well. The Liberal government of the day promised it would cost $2.5 million. It ended up costing $2 billion. When we check the Liberals' math, we see that they keep getting Canadians further and further in debt. I am not going to take any lessons on economics from the Liberals.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I am delighted to have a chance to speak at second reading of Bill C-93. This important bill would amend the Criminal Records Act to allow persons convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to apply for a record suspension, more commonly known as a pardon, without being subject to a waiting period or to the $631 fee once they have served their sentence.

This is a important step in the implementation of Canada's new cannabis legislation, following the entry into force of the Cannabis Act on October 17, 2018.

As we know, criminal records can seriously impact people's lives. It can make it harder to travel to foreign countries, restrict job prospects and housing options, and prevent people from going to school and upgrading their skills or education.

Another way of looking at it is that a criminal record is a useful public safety tool, including for landlords or employers.

People have to take responsibility for their actions. People have criminal records because they broke the law and their actions had consequences. However, those who serve their sentence should have a way of getting back on track without the burden of a permanent criminal record. That is especially true for the offence of cannabis possession, which no longer exists in the Criminal Code and had a disproportionate impact on minority communities.

The Canadian pardon system gives people this opportunity to move forward. A pardon is almost like a reset button that erases all criminal convictions from a person's record. When the parole board grants a pardon, federal files about the conviction are immediately set aside. Given that the provinces and territories also have their criminal records, the board informs them and they generally comply with the request to set aside the record.

When a pardon is granted, convictions are deleted from the RCMP national repository of criminal records. Pardoned convictions are not generally disclosed when undergoing a background check to find a job, rent a home or obtain a passport or a loan.

A pardon also eliminates any prohibitions associated with a criminal record, including eligibility for Canadian citizenship. Only the Minister of Public Safety has the authority to disclose information about pardons based on exceptional circumstances, such as when a person convicted of a sex offence applies to work or volunteer in a vulnerable sector.

Pardons are almost always permanent, unless the individual breaks the law again. Additionally, pardons are fully protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on convictions for which an individual has received a pardon.

Similar laws already exist in many provinces and territories. Another important consideration related to pardons has to do with crossing international borders. If a pardon has been granted, American border officials will not find any evidence of a criminal record when they search the Canadian databases to which they already have access. Of course, we cannot control what questions border officials might ask Canadian travellers. An official might ask travellers whether they have used cannabis, and if the answer is yes, neither a pardon nor expungement would allow them to respond honestly in the negative.

However, the advantage of pardons over expungement is that the documentation remains accessible as needed. For example, if a person's cannabis conviction was previously logged at the U.S. border, that person can provide documentation about that conviction on request. Once a criminal record is expunged, there is no longer any documentation for the person to present at the request of U.S. border officers, in which case the person can be denied entry into the country.

Under the current system, a person can wait up to 10 years before being able to apply for a pardon. Bill C-93 proposes to waive that waiting period, making those found guilty of simple possession of cannabis immediately eligible to apply for a pardon after serving their sentence.

The bill would also eliminate the $631 application fee. The applicant will have to show that he or she was found guilty of simple possession of cannabis, that this was the only crime on their record, and that the sentence was served.

Why is it important to provide a no-cost expedited process to the specific group of individuals targeted in this bill? This is about fairness. For Canadians convicted of simple possession of cannabis, having a criminal record for a relatively minor infraction can have major long-term consequences.

Those consequences are disproportionately severe considering that cannabis is now legal in Canada. Members of minority, ethnic and indigenous communities are overrepresented among those with criminal convictions for simple possession of cannabis. That can seriously hinder their ability to find work and succeed in their endeavours.

The measures proposed in Bill C-93 would open up better opportunities for them and other Canadians. They would not have to put their lives on hold for 10 years before they can apply for a pardon. They would not have to worry about the financial stress of saving up for the $631 application fee. Bill C-93 would do away with those fees.

Now that cannabis is legal in Canada, pardons should be accessible, affordable and available to anyone who has a criminal record just for simple possession. A pardon will help them reintegrate into their communities as productive, law-abiding and contributing members of society. This will also improve public safety for all Canadians.

I would also like to point out that a broader review of our pardon system is under way. Public Safety Canada and the Parole Board of Canada have held public consultations, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security published a report on the issue of pardons as part of a study initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay.

These measures are part of the efforts being made to ensure that our pardon system is fair and proportional and that it helps people who are not breaking the law reintegrate into society.

For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-93 at second reading, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with some interest and increasing concern. This bill is being introduced very, very late into the parliamentary process. The government came in with a mandate three and a half, almost four, years ago about legalizing marijuana, certainly possession. The Liberals have known for many years the injustices that possession has had on indigenous communities and people of colour. They know that simple suspension removes back into a much more dangerous place because a future government could reintroduce those criminal records, starting the whole process back again.

Is my friend not concerned about any of this as he looks to support this very hasty and last-minute piece of legislation?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. His many concerns are warranted.

However, the answer is fortunately much simpler. It is too bad that my colleague's party is forcing him to take the position that the bill does not go far enough. The NDP voted against the legalization of cannabis. Decriminalization was not the answer. One cannot seek a weaker measure and then complain that this one goes too far or is not adequate.

One side is saying that we moved too fast and the other side is saying that we did not move fast enough. I think the time is right. After cannabis was legalized, steps were taken in a timely manner to help applicants by eliminating the wait time for submitting an application and the fees associated with doing so.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think we have underestimated the value of, in terms of the direction the government is going with regard to the legalization of cannabis, is that it really takes away significant activities from gangs or the criminal element.

I want to get my colleague's thoughts about how the legalization of cannabis will actually make our communities safer places because, at the end of the day, it means less criminal activity in our communities. A good example of that would be individuals going into high schools to sell marijuana, which actually has been in existence for many years or decades.

There is a very strong positive in terms of that aspect. I wonder if my colleague could add some thoughts to it.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first initiative, legalization, sought to put an end to the stigma associated with the recreational use of cannabis. Whether people use it or not is not the issue. It is something that some people choose to do recreationally and it has no adverse effects. Accordingly, in order to minimize the negative impact on these people, we must undertake the correct and proper procedure set out in the bill we are examining today. In my opinion, it is time we did that. We should have done it as soon as possible after cannabis was legalized.

This bill goes above and beyond what is legal today. In other words, it will eliminate the stigma faced by those with a criminal record by granting them a pardon and suspending their criminal record. This will help restore the reputation of honest citizens who want to continue their lives in society—both those who want to integrate into society and those who already have a place in it—in a healthy, suitable and friendly environment.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, the committee is already hearing from witnesses about this bill. I would like to know what my colleague found most interesting in the testimony.

What ideas did he hear in committee that could help us understand why this bill is so important?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we heard that in spite of the logistical concerns about obtaining a pardon, such as the fact that the records cannot automatically be electronically suspended because the information is scattered all over, this bill fulfils the very specific objective of reintegrating people into society.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-93 at second reading.

This bill will make things fairer for Canadians and their families. There was an ineffective prohibition of cannabis for far too long and, as a result, many Canadians ended up with a criminal record after being convicted of simple possession of cannabis.

Criminal records can make it hard for people to get jobs, find housing or even volunteer in their communities. The associated stigma can create the impression that the individual is a criminal who has nothing to offer Canadian society.

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

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

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-93, which would streamline the process for getting a pardon, also known as a record suspension, by waiving the waiting period and the application fee. The waiting period for people convicted of cannabis possession is generally five years, although it can be as high as 10 years. With Bill C-93, applicants would be immediately eligible. There would also be no application fee, which has been $631 since 2012.

On top of that, usual criteria like determining whether people have been of good conduct and whether a pardon would bring them a measurable benefit would also be waived. On top of that, the Parole Board would take additional steps, like simplifying application forms and doing community outreach, all with the goal of allowing people with past convictions for cannabis possession to clear their records and move on with their lives as quickly and easily as possible.

This is one of the final chapters in the unfortunate story of cannabis prohibition in Canada that goes back almost a century. It has involved billions of dollars wasted in enforcing an ineffective legal regime, and many more billions lining the pockets of organized crime. In spite of prohibition, Canadian youth became some of the heavier users of cannabis in the world. Some of them, especially members of marginalized communities, became saddled with criminal records that severely limited their educational and economic opportunities.

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

During the last election, we committed to ending the ineffective and counterproductive prohibition of cannabis. The NDP, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the prohibition of cannabis, with a decriminalization system that would have seen police issuing fines to people in marginalized and low-income communities.

As for the Conservatives, they still think that people who possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use should be thrown in jail.

Canadians gave us the opportunity to enact our proposal last October, and we did exactly that. With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we put in place a system of legal, strictly regulated cannabis production and distribution, designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep profits out of the hands of criminals.

With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we implemented a production and distribution system for legal cannabis that is rigorously regulated and designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and to take the profit out of the hands of organized crime. At that time, the government announced that it intended to provide recourse for individuals who had been convicted of simple possession of cannabis only.

Once again, we have delivered on our commitment. Providing no-cost, expedited record suspensions is effective. Criminal records of pardoned individuals are sealed and segregated. Background checks by prospective employers or landlords would yield no results, as would a search of the Canadian police database.

The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on a pardoned conviction. Similar protections already exist in several provinces and territories.

Waiving the waiting period and application fee are unprecedented measures. By doing so, we would be removing the major obstacles in the path of Canadians seeking to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record for possession of cannabis, allowing them to participate fully in society.

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

Now that a legal framework is in place, it is in our collective interest to allow people with criminal records for cannabis convictions to wipe the slate clean of records imposed under the former system.

Bill C-93 does that. I strongly support Bill C-93 and I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious. The Liberals have had three and a half years. They knew this day was coming when the legalization of possession for marijuana would be in place. We know the approximate number, 400,000, of Canadians who have criminal records. In 2004, the NDP started talking about the need to expunge these records because of the impact of carrying around a criminal record.

In the last five weeks left in the parliamentary sitting, when the Liberals have had three and a half years, the Liberals are introducing this bill, Bill C-93, for suspension rather than expungement. Under the Liberal plan, could a future government, simply by introducing another piece of legislation, reattach criminal records to Canadians, which the Liberals right now say they should not have? Under expungement, the record is removed. No future government can reimpose those criminal acts upon persons. That would be abolished by the government.

We see future governments change course from one government to the next: Ontario would be a good example. There are many government examples we can draw upon that change ideology and change the approach to these fundamental human rights issues. There is overrepresentation of indigenous people and people of colour under marijuana convictions. Could convictions be reintroduced to people because of the Liberals' suspension process rather than expungement?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of components to my hon. colleague's question.

With regard to the introduction of this law in the last year of our mandate, Canadians expect us to continue to work until the end of our mandate. Some of the laws and bills we have put in place came in the first several months, and some are going to come in the last several months. We are going to keep working until the minute prior to when elections are called in this country, because that is what Canadians expect from us.

I would also like to add that expungement brings with it several challenges. One challenge is that if Canadians who had this record were to travel to other countries, particularly the United States, and the countries had in their database that the persons had been convicted of simple possession, they could refuse them entry. If the individuals said that their record was expunged, they would ask for proof of that. Unfortunately, with the expungement process, there is no way that other countries could get access to those documents showing that the individuals' criminal record no longer exists. We chose to go with a record suspension process to ensure that if they needed it, people would have access to those documents to allow them to travel as they see fit. It is something that came up significantly in the consultations we had with Canadians. We listened; we put this law in place, and we are very proud that we delivered on that promise.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, many people are asking about the cost of this bill and the information that the government relies on for assessing the costs. As members know, Conservatives will support this bill to go to committee, but we would like the government to be able to provide us with good information and be accountable to the House in that way.

Indications from the minister are that the Liberals expect only 10,000 applicants, but there are 250,000 eligible Canadians. Therefore, the government seems to expect that the vast majority of people who have simple possession convictions would not apply and that is baked into its cost estimates.

Why is the government assuming that such a small number of Canadians would apply for this? Is the member concerned that many of those disadvantaged Canadians he talked about may be less likely to access the resources to make these applications?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously with anything that we do, we have estimates. We are estimating that a certain number of Canadians will come forward to access the new tools we are giving them for a record suspension. If we see that those numbers are higher than expected or lower than expected, we will adjust and we will make the changes necessary. That is what any good government does.

At the end of the day, what we have done over the last four years is that we have looked at a failed system, one that the previous Conservative government refused to even look at. The Conservatives were okay with the fact that we were spending billions of dollars every year on a failed system. We had some of the highest rates of cannabis use in the entire world for our youth. Billions of dollars were flowing into the pockets of organized crime. That was okay.

We looked at that. We consulted with Canadians, with law enforcement, with experts. We put in place several bills that would bring us through a process that would deliver lower use rates of cannabis among youth, less money flowing into the pockets of organized crime and a safer Canada for our kids and future generations of Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-93 and also to share my time with our excellent shadow minister for health, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who I know has done a lot of work on issues related to marijuana and will have thoughtful comments on them, I am sure. My comments will, hopefully, be somewhat thoughtful as well.

I would like to talk about some of the questions we have with respect to this bill. As I mentioned during my previous question, Conservatives will support this bill to go to committee, and we will see what direction the committee study and amendments go, and what kind of clarifications are offered by the government in the context of that discussion.

I will just note at the outset that the content of this bill is to make some changes with respect to the pardon process to facilitate the expedited application for pardons for those who have a conviction for simple possession of marijuana. The changes would involve the expedited opportunity to apply, as well as the waiving of the pardon fee.

Some of the context for this discussion, as well, is that we had a bill proposed by the member for Victoria, a member of the NDP, that proposes expungement of these offences. Expungement would be to automatically and immediately remove the conviction, effectively to say that it did not happen, whereas the government process would be more complex and more arduous and would require the adjudication of individual applications for pardon. It would not eliminate the cost of the pardon process; it would simply move the cost from the individual who is receiving the pardon, to the taxpayer.

Although I have some concerns about the direction of expungement as well, it is interesting that the government has chosen this process. If one believes in the process, the best that could be said about it is that it gets to the same place that the expungement process does, but the expungement process does not involve the significant cost to the taxpayer.

In the process of waiving the fee for the pardon, the $631 fee, the government has considered its costs for this. Internal cost figures suggest that the bill would run at $315 million. People on the government side have tried to argue that the figure is lower, because they anticipate that only 10,000 people will make applications. As I noted earlier, 250,000 Canadians are eligible to apply under the system, having a simple possession offence, and yet the government believes only 10,000 would apply.

It is hard for me to understand why the government has such low estimates for Canadians who would take advantage of an opportunity to get a free expedited pardon and all the benefits that are associated with getting that pardon. It makes me wonder, almost, if the government's plan is to advertise this bill as a great legislative act but then try to keep it as quiet as possible that this opportunity is available.

To the extent that people might not make application, it might only be because they do not have the information or because they struggle to access the process, perhaps as a result of being disadvantaged in some way.

I would observe that it is passing strange that the government trumpets this as a solution for potentially marginalized people who are held back as the result of a past criminal conviction, and yet tells us it is only going to be a very small percentage of the overall total that it will see as making this application.

One might also consider the appropriateness in general of offering a free pardon process. The reason people need to access the pardon system is that they broke the law. The fact that it is not against the law to smoke marijuana or to possess marijuana today does not change the fact that if somebody carries a criminal conviction, it is because they broke something that was, at the time, the law.

Regardless of one's views on whether marijuana should be legalized, I think we should, in general, seek to encourage compliance with the law. People who faced a marijuana conviction were not the victim of some great injustice. They did choose to break the law. Again, the fact that this Parliament has chosen to legalize marijuana does not change the fact that the law was broken.

The counter-argument might be to point out that the pardon fee, although in some sense just and fair to those who have broken the law, does present a particular barrier to people who are struggling financially. We would want to encourage a situation in which people who maybe have committed criminal behaviour in the past but want to turn their life around, who want to be able to access legal employment, have the ability to access pardons and are not held back because of their situation, are not held back from moving forward in a way that is legal and desirable for them and for society.

We recognize the need to help people who are struggling financially and also the inherent justice of people paying for their pardons in most cases. One could say it is possible to have one's cake and eat it too, by having a pardon system that gives allowances for people who are not able to afford that.

I personally think it is reasonable for people who have the resources and are able to pay the pardon fee to be asked to do so. It is quite possible and reasonable to say that those who can afford to pay for a pardon, and it is a response to a criminal behaviour that they did, should have to pay for that pardon. Then those who are not able to pay should be given those allowances.

It is reasonable for the government to consider that and to study the impacts of that, to explore that across the board, because it is not just a question of those who have cannabis-related convictions. It is also about anybody who has a criminal offence hanging over their head and is seeking a pardon and has turned their life around but cannot complete that process because they are struggling financially. Regardless of their past conviction, we would want to ensure that they have the opportunity to do that. In other words, this issue of whether people are able to access the pardon system if they struggle financially is not just an issue uniquely related to the particulars around cannabis. It is a discussion that we can be having across the board.

This bill, in offering free pardons for one category of offence—not means tested—without considering the broader issues around pardons and their impact on low-income people and how those impacts are different from those on other people, in that respect, does slice the pie in the wrong direction.

Let us try to support those who say, reasonably, that they want to find regular employment, they have turned their life around and they are ready to go through the pardon process but cannot afford the pardon fee. Let us help those people while recognizing that there are plenty of people who have past cannabis-related convictions who are of reasonable means and for whom the cost of $631, though not nothing, is quite reasonable. Hypothetically, if there were a prime minister who had a family fortune and happened to be convicted of marijuana possession, it would be reasonable for that person to pay for a pardon. That speaks to the fairness issues and the broader discussions around the pardon system.

I would welcome a debate here about broader questions around reforming how we approach pardons, but that is not what we have in Bill C-93.

I spoke earlier about the costs. In general, we are concerned about the costs that the government's agenda is imposing. The government seems to really be off so often when it estimates what the costs of things are going to be. The Liberals said we would have a balanced budget by this year, and yet we are still running very large deficits. Any time we see more spending bills with estimates that seem very suspicious, it raises some further questions for us from the perspective of our obligations to taxpayers.

The parliamentary secretary made a strange comment. He said that, under an expungement regime, it would be harder for people to access the United States than under a pardon regime. I do not at all follow the logic of his arguments, because if the Americans have a record, it is up to them what kind of questions they want to ask and what kind of documents they want to seek at the border. It would be perfectly possible to provide people who have received expungement with documents supporting the fact that they have had expungement of their convictions.

On that basis, we support the bill going to committee but we have many continuing questions.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's submissions on this. First of all, as to Canada's criminalization of cannabis previously, what people have been raising is that it was a historical injustice in its application. It has come up frequently at committee that it was not applied in the same way to all people in our country.

I want to point out that our committee did a unanimous report. All parties agreed when we studied Motion No. 161, which was about pardons and record suspensions, that we should look at the pricing for record suspensions, and this included Conservatives. The stories we heard over and over again said that the cost of getting a record suspension, at $631—and that increased when the Conservatives were the government—prevents people from being able to get a record suspension. That is a problem for people because then they cannot work.

The thrust in most of the argument I have heard is about this being taxpayer dollars and it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Is there not a value, something that pays back on that investment when we allow people to enter the workforce, be able to have accommodations and actually be a part of our society actively?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, with due respect to my colleague, I think she misstated the thrust of my argument. I recognized explicitly in what I said that there is a legitimate concern about the prohibitive cost of record suspensions for some Canadians. That is why I said we should be looking at addressing that prohibitive cost, not uniquely for one type of conviction but for all convictions. At the same time, there are Canadians who can afford to pay the record suspension fee, whether we are talking about cannabis-related convictions or other convictions.

My view would be that we should put in place a structure that ensures that any Canadians who can make a meritorious application are not obstructed in their ability to seek a record suspension by the cost, that any Canadian can move forward with that type of application regardless of ability to pay, but that those who are able to pay do pay, that the taxpayer is not subsidizing the record suspensions of those who are doing well financially. I think that is the reasonable way of proceeding.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as had been noted earlier in debate today on this topic, the legalization of marijuana may well be the only election promise that the government has successfully kept, as we get to the very end of this Parliament. That bill, even then, took longer than the Liberals' promised deadlines for which it was to take place.

There are still a number of loose ends to this that were not properly contemplated under Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. I would ask the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan if he would like to comment on the late hour, literally down to the final weeks of this Parliament, still trying to deal with the sloppiness of the entire legalization rollout?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate about the question of the legalization of marijuana, but even many of those who supported legalization in principle identified the fact that the devil was in the details of this legislation. There are many problems with the way the government approached it, and residual concerns about impacts.

My colleague is right that we are here at this late stage debating the bill. A member of the government, in response to a question from the NDP about this, said they are going to work right until the end. That is all well and good, but the reason we are concerned about the timing is that it raises questions about whether the government is actually serious about getting it done. When a bill is started this late in the process, it increases the likelihood that it will not actually get done. The marijuana legalization legislation was so extensive that it could have contemplated issues around this.

Again, we continue to have concerns about various aspects of the application of the bill. There are aspects of the bill that require significant study and that will, I suspect, require study in the other place as well. Starting late has real consequences. It is not just a question of the arbitrariness of the calendar, but it does have consequences for those who are impacted in some way by the bill.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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

This bill would make changes to the pardon process and eliminate fees for Canadians previously convicted of marijuana possession. Today I want to talk about the existing fee elimination process, the difference with the NDP's plan in favour of criminal record expungement, and the current situation surrounding cannabis possession in Canada.

To begin with, I want to talk about the fact there is an existing process for people who have been convicted of cannabis possession to have those offences pardoned. It has been stated already that the cost is $631.

One thing I would point out about the existing process is that it takes a look at what exactly the criminal history was. In many cases, when a crime was committed, there may have been a violent action or something that could not be proved, so people ended up with a charge for possession when in fact multiple crimes could have been committed that could not be proved at the time. It is important to keep that in mind.

I heard some discussion about the fact that this $631 is very burdensome for people. However, let us look at the price of weed in Canada today. There is actually a website now, and depending on the quality of cannabis, we are talking about $200 an ounce, which for those members who do not convert to metric, is 28 grams. That is about the amount that is allowed for personal possession under the current legislation, meaning it is about $200 for the amount that someone might normally possess. If someone is caught for possession, we would assume that the person had possessed this amount more than once, so I think the affordability issue is a red herring.

One of the important things to consider when looking at whether or not to pardon or to grant an expungement of the record is what is going to happen. People want a pardon because it is difficult to find employment if they have a criminal record. One of the concerns I have heard is that people who are given a pardon still have to answer “yes” to the question on the employment form that asks if they have ever had a criminal record, even though they have a pardon. People might think that means that expungement is a better option, but I would tell them it is not.

I am in a border city, living close to the U.S., and we have dealt with lots of cases of people wanting to get a pardon so they will be able to go to the U.S. It is important to know that there is a different process. Just because people have been given a pardon in Canada does not mean they would be allowed to go to the U.S. In fact, they need to get a U.S. entry waiver. As part of the process to apply for a U.S. entry waiver, they have to have a copy of their Canadian pardon. Since 2010, Canada and the U.S. have been exchanging information on crimes committed, so the reality is that the U.S. knows who has a criminal marijuana possession charge on their record, and without evidence of a pardon, an expungement of that record would not allow them to go to the U.S.

I want to read what it says on the web page. It states:

I Have a Canadian Pardon, Do I Still Need a US Entry Waiver?

Yes! Many Canadians incorrectly believe that as long as they have received a record suspension (formerly called a pardon), their criminal record is entirely erased and they can travel to the United States of America without problems. After all, once a pardon is granted by the National Parole Board it is only with written permission from the Minister of Justice that the sealed criminal record can be viewed.... The fact is, though, as of 2010 our neighbors...have access to...Canadians criminal record, and since the United States does not recognize Canadian pardons, they keep the conviction on file even when an individual is pardoned. A lot of the inaccurate information around this topic is...being disseminated by non-licensed individuals....

Canadian Pardons Do Not Help with Entry into USA

American border officials use the United States National Crime Information Center...database, which is maintained by CJIS and the FBI and interlinked with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as with the RCMP and their CPIC database.

What does this mean specifically? It continues:

Now that marijuana has been legalised in Canada, the Liberal Government has announced that it will expedite the processing of pardons for any Canadian with a minor cannabis-related criminal conviction that involved less than 30 grams of marijuana. More than 100,000 Canadians have a criminal record for having cannabis on their person, and the Government has pledged to waive the $631 pardon fee and eliminate the waiting period typically required for record suspensions. Even after receiving an official pardon, however, these Canadians could still be denied entry at the US border. According to...the assistant commissioner of field operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), “we do not recognize the Canadian amnesty....” Consequently, even after being granted amnesty by the Government of Canada, a Canadian with a conviction for simple possession of marijuana may still require a USA Waiver in order to cross the border successfully.

It is for this reason, with regard to pardons versus expungement, that those who want to go to the U.S. will have to produce a document showing a Canadian pardon in order to get a U.S. waiver to enter the U.S. That is certainly something to consider.

With respect to the pardon process, I hope that in addition to considering the individuals who apply, the government will address our current judicial queue, which, as we know, is overburdened. In fact, under the Liberal government, we have not appointed enough judges to stop cases involving murderers and rapists from being thrown out because of the Jordan principle, which means they have been in the queue for longer than two years. I hope the government is looking into the backlog to make sure that people in line with a simple possession charge will have their cases thrown out, as this will avoid all the bureaucracy that goes along with those charges.

I have also heard commentary today that the legislation has come late in the process. I agree with this commentary. It was an election promise to legalize marijuana. There was lots of consultation and a comprehensive report. I was at the health committee when the bill was considered. There, many things were pointed out that were talked about years ago, and this issue was one of them. The bill has been left to the last minute and will likely not be passed, which means that the government is not sincere in its efforts to pass it.

The legalization of marijuana was itself a similar exercise. Some pointed out to the government that it needed to put public education in place a year before legalization. Again, that did not happen. What was needed to support police officers and municipalities was clear, yet the timeline was rushed and too short.

What is happening today?

Although marijuana is legal, edibles are not yet legal. There is still much confusion about what is to come in that respect, and there has been no clarification.

Also, we have seen many of the things that were predicted. There has been an increase of 32% in the number of people consuming cannabis. This is the same kind of increase seen in Colorado. This increase is problematic in the context of impaired driving. Canada already had a substantial problem in that regard. As MADD noted, in 2014, 42% of fatally injured drivers tested positive for cannabis. At that time we already had a big problem, and certainly under this government it does not seem to be getting any better.

There are issues with Bill C-93, and with respect to the pardons, we have to be clear about who is going to pay for them. I am not sure why a taxpayer who did not commit a crime should have to foot the bill for a crime someone else committed, especially given that the person committing the crime would have had to spend $200 an ounce on marijuana. I certainly think that needs to be looked at.

The pardon versus expungement argument is a valid one, and we should take it forward, but we should make sure that we do not pardon en masse. We should consider each case on its merits to make sure there were no other criminal offences that could not be proven but were documented in the files of those who received a conviction for possession.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this idea of charges that have not been proven has come up in a few of the speeches today. However, we just call those “charges”. The person has not been convicted of them. It is not a conviction and it is not what we base our pardons on or what they seek pardons on, because it is not what they are sentenced on. I think we really need to be clear. A person may have been charged, but if the charge was not proven, it means the person was not criminally convicted. It concerns me when we slide that line in our conversations in this place.

I want to underline that we are missing the point about why pardons or expungements are important. In fact, I voted in favour of expungement and I have no problem with that, if that is what we are speaking about. When we studied it at committee, we saw that people who do not have a pardon in fact cannot get jobs as easily, cannot rent homes, cannot adopt and might have problems with custody arrangements. Does my friend not see the value of a pardon in the case of simple possession, if that is what they were convicted of, and is that not something we should be doing as quickly and cheaply as possible?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact there is a process today to get a pardon. We are not creating something that does not already exist. We are just talking about how fast we are going to do it and who is going to pay. I would argue that the person who committed the offence should be responsible for paying for it. I do not think the taxpayer should have to pay extra money to give a pardon to someone who committed what was at that time a crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can forgive Canadians trying to follow this debate who might not know the distinction between an expungement and a pardon. Pardons exist right now within the legislation. We also know that pardons can simply be revoked at some future date. A future parliament can decide that it was a mistake and bring those convictions back onto people's records.

Liberal colleagues, time after time, have said that they think expungement was probably a better idea but that they just could not get around to it. We have about four or five weeks left in the parliamentary sitting. For a piece of legislation this important, this significant and this complicated to come this late expresses the government's lack of priority for the issue.

There are 400,000 Canadians wondering what is going to happen to their criminal charges for possession, which is not trafficking or anything else. We know indigenous communities and people of colour are overrepresented in this group. They are wondering where they sit in the Liberal priorities for justice. They know any pardon they get can be reversed and that the legislation has been introduced so late that it may not actually pass into law prior to the election in October of this year.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that this proposed legislation has come so late that it does call into question the sincerity of the government in wanting to get it passed. However, I hope he was listening when I talked about why expunging a record is not going to work.

For example, for people who live in my community who may want to go to the U.S., the U.S. already has the information about who has a criminal record for possession in Canada. If they do not get a U.S. entry waiver, then they cannot get into the U.S. However, they cannot get a U.S. entry waiver unless they have a copy of their Canadian pardon, which they would not have if their record was expunged. I think this is a very important point, and I look forward to discussing this aspect further at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate thus far, I am a little confused in terms of what the Conservative Party's position actually is. Could the member be clear on whether they are in favour of a pardon over expungement?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to a full discussion at committee. I am not sure that we can see from the comments today that we have jelled on where our position is. We will have to have more discussion on it.

However, I am personally very much in favour of a pardon over an expungement for the reasons I have stated. People would not be able to go from my riding across to the U.S., which is a daily event, if their records were expunged. I think that the pardon process that exists is tried and true and is the correct path. We should see if we can streamline that path and make it more accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House. Once again, today, we have in Bill C-93 another progressive piece of legislation that is going to have a very positive outcome at the end of the day, from coast to coast to coast.

I have heard a number of members across the way ask why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time. I can tell people who may be following the debate that, in the last three or three and a half years, we have had a government that has taken very seriously issues such as cannabis, tax breaks, or a wide selection of different areas of concern. We have been introducing legislation from virtually day one, all the way. I would suggest that we could see even more legislation.

Canadians have an expectation that the government, and in fact hopefully the opposition too, will recognize that every day is a good day to be sitting, and when we are sitting, we should be doing work on behalf of all Canadians. This is just another good day. We are debating legislation that ultimately will have a very positive impact on Canadians.

The question I just posed to the member opposite, the Conservative shadow minister, is something that I think Canadians are very much interested in. The New Democrats very clearly want expungement. Let us make this so that it really makes sense to our constituents.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, any one of our constituents living in Canada who want to go down to the States today. If they were to go to the States and the government said they could have an expungement, as opposed to a pardon, what we would be telling our constituents is that it is as if the act never took place. They can go across the border and if the issue is ever posed to them, they could say it never took place. They do not have to say anything about it.

That would be a huge mistake, I would suggest, because they could find themselves in a position where an immigration or customs officer in the U.S. could make accusations of misrepresentation or possibly even accusations of lying. If they attempt to do that, they could be in a great deal of trouble, especially if they want to enter the States that day or in the future.

That is just one example that I think has to be talked about of why an expungement is not necessarily what the NDP is trying to portray. A pardon does the job that is being requested. It allows our constituents to cross the border in a legitimate fashion.

There have been consultations between border controls in both nations. Most importantly, we know that we can actually implement this policy for those individuals. We are talking about providing a pardon for an estimated 250,000 Canadians. That is a quarter of a million Canadians in all regions of our country who would now be eligible to receive this pardon. Some members asked why we expect only 10,000 Canadians to actually go through the process. We have confidence in our civil servants and believe these are the numbers that we have been told. If in fact they are too high or too low, the government can adjust, much like I can adjust to my time having expired.

I will continue my speech at the end of question period.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes and 45 seconds remaining in his speech when the House next deals with this subject.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

As I indicated before question period, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have 15 minutes and 45 seconds remaining in his comments, which he had already begun before I so rudely interrupted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share thoughts on important pieces of legislation the government brings forward, such as Bill C-93.

During the last federal election, the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the third party, made a commitment to legalize cannabis. Today we are discussing the second part of the legislation, which I believe will fulfill the commitment we made in 2015.

I have had the opportunity to go over a couple of our election commitments, and I have been listening to the debate today on the matter of legalization, as I have done previously. I want to highlight at the outset what the NDP said in the last federal election when Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the New Democratic Party. When asked about the NDP's position on this issue, he said that the NDP did not favour the legalization of cannabis.

That is why I find it interesting that today, NDP members are saying that we should expunge the records of those who were found in criminal violation of our former cannabis laws. On the one hand, prior to the election, NDP members said no to legalization. They were okay with decriminalization but not with legalization. Fast-forward a couple of years and now they have changed their minds. In fact, I recall that in one article, the current leader of the New Democratic Party took the position that everything should be legalized. He believes that any sort of illegal drug should be legal. Only now is this something NDP members want to talk about.

If we were to look at the the way the Liberal government has managed this file, I believe we would see that Canadians, in general, have been very supportive of it.

It has been interesting to listen to members of the opposition parties talk about the issue. The NDP has made a complete flip-flop, even suggesting now that the government can do more. Then there is the Conservative Party. One of the questions I posed to members across the way was whether the Conservatives, if they were in government, would make cannabis illegal again and retract the work the government has done over the last couple of years. They completely waffled on the question. In fact, they have implied that they would not change the law. Even though they voted against the legislation, they are not going to change it.

[An hon. member]

That is correct.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member across the way just said that is correct. Even the Conservative Party has recognized that the idea the Liberals had back when we were the third party is solid and progressive, and one that is necessary at this stage.

Indirectly, on behalf of the government and Liberal caucus members, I would like to thank members of the Conservative Party and the NDP for recognizing that we have brought forward sound legislation. I would encourage them to continue to follow the direction that we continue to provide on this very important topic.

Bill C-93 would allow for pardons. Pardons are the best way to deal with the issues facing about 250,000 Canadians. I think that is the number.

All we are talking about is simple possession, not possession and other issues, but simple possession of cannabis. What can we do to assist those individuals who have a criminal record based on simple possession of cannabis? The government's response is to issue a pardon and ensure that the finances are not going to be a part of the issue so that anyone who has a simple possession of cannabis conviction will in fact be able to get that pardon if that is what he or she would like to see happen.

I am encouraged because the critic from the Conservative Party indicated that her personal position is favourable to what the Liberals are suggesting, which is a pardon. However, there have been some speakers in the Conservative Party who are saying that they are not convinced as of yet, but at least they are approaching it with an open mind on whether it should be expungement or a pardon. I suspect that once this bill gets to committee and they hear follow-up information, the Conservative Party will see the value in the recommendation that has been provided by science, experts and the department, which will clearly demonstrate that in fact a pardon is the best way to go.

I do not know about my New Democratic friends. I am not sure where they will go on this issue. They always try to come up with something different, something unique. They seem to be on the expungement bandwagon, even though we have come up with an explanation as to why it would not do what is necessary for us to advance this further. They do not want to talk about that. If we listen to the New Democrats, we would think it is absolutely unanimous throughout the country that it has to be expungement and that the government does not necessarily know what it is talking about. I would highly recommend that we do not listen to New Democrats in the House.

The best example I can give is that of a constituent crossing the border into the U.S. What are we telling people when we say that their record has been expunged? We are saying that the act they went to court for, were convicted of and got a criminal record for never existed. Therefore, when a U.S. border agent asks them if they were ever prosecuted and had a criminal offence dealing with cannabis, they might say no. Why? The government said that the record was expunged. That could lead to all sorts of problems for an individual. A pardon does not do what an expungement does. Millions of Canadians travel to the U.S. A pardon would allow a constituent the opportunity to go to the U.S., and the individual is not going to be misinformed. This is just one of the more blatant examples that I can provide.

Of the 250,000 people we are talking about, it is expected that about 10,000 or so will go through this pardon process. In the questions and comments from across the way, members are asking why it is 10,000 and what happens if there are more than 10,000.

Our civil service is one of the best of any country in the world. We have professional civil servants who have a very good understanding of our systems. I would suggest that the numbers that are being provided are not just coming out of the dark. The numbers come from individuals we have entrusted. If the number is higher or lower than 10,000, the government will adjust, but the predicted number is around 10,000. We have the flexibility to make the adjustment, if it is necessary.

The idea of providing a pardon is of great value to Canadians and to society. People do get themselves into situations. Someone will be found in possession, but by pure luck another individual who also is in possession is not found to be in possession. The individual found to be in possession gets a criminal record. That does not mean the individual is worse than the thousands of others that were never found guilty of possession.

Many would argue that the consequences are unfortunate. We have listened to many speeches as this has been going on for the last couple of years. We often hear of individuals not being able to get a job because they have a criminal record based on the simple possession of cannabis. As a parliamentarian, I find that is a hard thing to ignore and not do anything about.

This legislation is good for Canadian society, especially now when we recognize that when we passed Bill C-45, the legalization of cannabis legislation, it only makes sense that we do what we can in regard to those who were found guilty of simple possession to enable them to dispose of that record via a pardon process.

Once this legislation is passed, thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country will apply to get their criminal record pardoned. This will assist many of those individuals in applying for a job or performing charity work. Canada is very dependent on volunteers. There are many ways society can benefit, such as an individual having a job and being able to participate more fully. These are the types of things we are going to witness. All one has to do is talk to some of those individuals. There are plenty of them, a quarter of a million of them. That is a lot of people. These individuals will directly benefit and there are many more that will realize an indirect benefit.

One of the things that is really important from the government's perspective, and even from a member of Parliament's perspective, is that we have to work towards making our communities safer for all of us. Individuals should feel safe in the communities in which they live. They should feel safe walking on the sidewalks in their neighbourhoods. They should feel safe being a part of their community and not be scared to walk down the street. We need to look at ways to reduce the amount of crime in our communities.

I was pleased when the minister responsible for crime reduction came to Winnipeg North and joined me on Selkirk Avenue, where we met with James, a fellow from the Bear Clan Patrol and one of the board members. We were able to check out a bit of Selkirk Avenue. The minister used to be the chief of police for the city of Toronto.

We understand how important it is that we strive to have less crime on our streets. With Bill C-93, working along with Bill C-45 and the legalization of cannabis, at the end of the day there is going to be less crime in our communities. These are the types of actions that are important for us to act on.

Today we have a second bill on a very important issue, an issue that we made a promise about in 2015. We are fulfilling yet another commitment to Canadians.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a friendly comment for my colleague on his explanation of the logic between expungement and record suspension at the border, he might not want to post that on YouTube. I was totally lost on the logic of how one would explain to a border agent in the United States the difference between an expungement and a record suspension.

If there are a quarter of a million people who could benefit from a record suspension, I would like to know all the reasons why the officials think only 10,000 will apply. One of my concerns is that if people do a Google search right now for “pardons Canada”, the first half-dozen are private organizations that charge a fee for individuals to get a record suspension. They could easily go to Service Canada, but Service Canada's site is way down below.

Why does the member think that a record suspension that would create all kinds of bureaucratic delays is better than an expungement? A minister could do that, I believe, if I am not corrected, by regulation and simply eliminate these because the whole charge has been eliminated anyway.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my comments, I made reference to the critic for the Conservative Party. In listening to what she had to say, we find that at least the critic for the Conservative Party seemed to be indicating that she prefers the pardon over the expungement. I suspect that she might be able to provide more details to the member opposite.

He made reference to my example in terms of the U.S. border. Let me try to better explain it. One of the member opposite's constituents goes to the border, believing that, because he or she had an expungement, there is no obligation for him or her to say “I have a criminal record.” If it has been expunged, it means it has been wiped off the record books. However, they cannot say that when they go to the border because that might not be what shows up in system of the U.S. border officer or immigration official. That MP's constituent might think he or she can get away with saying that when in fact that is not the case. His constituent could get into a great deal of trouble. That is just one example.

If we tell people that they have a pardon, generally speaking, people have a better sense of what a pardon is. That does not mean that they go across the border and say, “No, I have never had a criminal conviction.” They have been pardoned. I suspect that the likelihood of complications would be greatly diminished. That was just one example that I was using.

In regard to the overall numbers, it depends on the individual in question. I suspect that our civil service and the people who maintain these records have a better sense, not only of how many people are eligible, but also of how many would be applying. Some people might have more of a vested interest in wanting to apply. Many others would have no interest in applying, for whatever reasons. They could be at a stage in life. It could be in terms of occupations. Who knows what the rationale is. However, I have trust and confidence in the system, and if there needs to be an adjustment, I have confidence in the government of the day making that adjustment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to need some time to fact check all the erroneous things that the member said.

First of all, the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, like health officials in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, wants to decriminalize drugs, recognizing that these are dangerous substances, but also recognizing, as we would have hoped the government would, but it does not, that these are now public health issues.

I want to walk the member through the NDP's position, since he seems to have had some trouble understanding it. The NDP advocated for decriminalization in the lead-up to legalization. Why? We understood that it would be a complicated process. We were right, because the government threw provinces under the bus while trying to get this process going.

That being said, the NDP supported Bill C-45, supported legalization, and through that whole process asked government members why they would not decriminalize simple possession of cannabis, as Canadians continue to be taxed with criminal records. These are young Canadians, vulnerable Canadians, racialized Canadians.

What do we have now? We have an eleventh-hour, half-baked, no pun intended, solution. Despite what the member thinks he is telling us to look forward to at committee, we are already at committee studying this bill before it is even out of the House. It is getting eviscerated by officials who cannot tell us where the numbers are that the member is quoting from, with the Minister of Border Security who said that this is a great injustice, and if we consider it a great injustice, maybe we should go toward expungement.

The member would also know that lawyers have come before the committee to speak about expungement. Please stop saying “pardon”, because the government did not respect its promise to change a record suspension back into a pardon. A pardon means something else in the United States, so a pardon and expungement are equally worthless at the border.

Does anyone know what one can do in Canada with a pardon or record suspension? Potential employers can ask if people have a criminal record for which they have obtained a record suspension. People have to say “yes”. With an expungement, they do not have to, so if they are racialized or vulnerable Canadians who want to get a job, expungement is the way to go. That is why witnesses at committee are telling us that it is the solution. That is why the member should get on board and stop believing his own hot air about this issue which the government has dropped since day one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is attempting to mislead in his statements. If we stop and think, it was very clear. In 2015, in the last election, the NDP did not support legalization of cannabis. Instead, its members argued for mere decriminalization. If they had their way, if we followed what they advocated for in 2015, cannabis possession would still be against the law.

In late 2017, in the Canadian Press, there is a quote from their leader of today which says that the NDP leader is urging the Prime Minister to consider decriminalizing all illegal drugs.

The member can fact check all he wants, but everything I have said is factual. I would suggest that the NDP members, because they have such a progressive government on a number of social fronts, find themselves out of place, as if there is no room inside the chamber for them. They are trying to create opportunities. If they want to radically change their 2015 platform, good for them. I hope they do.

They also advocated for balanced budgets back then. Today, they are advocating for a house for everyone in Canada, possibly gifting it to them. Who knows what we are going to see coming from the NDP. I anxiously await that platform.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment more than anything. We have heard so much from the member in this Parliament, I am not sure I really need an answer from him. It is a shame that other members will not allow their voices to be heard and simply allow the member to do all the talking on that side. It is a lot of work to be elected to the House of Commons, and members should use their own voices.

Be that as it may, the member spent a large portion of his speech dissecting opposition reaction to it, and castigating both the Conservative opposition, but not all Conservatives, and the NDP. Some Conservatives have spoken in favour of expungement. One of the NDP members had a private member's motion on expungement that they all supported.

I noticed during both the vote and debate on the NDP's private motion, and in the debate earlier today on this bill, that a substantial portion of the Liberal backbench also favour expungement. This is not a matter of the member's party being unified in their approach; there are many Liberals who do not agree with the party's approach. If we must have a comment or answer, I would like him to address that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, in regard to the amount of speaking, I am here to advocate and that is what I do. I take a great sense of pride in that. If we add up their words, a couple of the Conservative members have spoken more than I have in this chamber.

We have a very strong, healthy caucus. All members of this caucus are engaged in different ways. I see that as a very strong and positive thing. I also see it as a positive when we have diversity in a caucus and where members can have differing opinions. It might not be unanimous regarding expungement versus pardon, just like it is not unanimous in the Conservative Party either. However, we are able to come to a consensus and move forward, and that is something this government has consistently done since day one of being in government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see two problems with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting toward the end of the member's speech when he said that the Liberal Party is trying to do something just to be boisterous without really any meaning. That is what I took from that.

However, I also found it very interesting that right toward the end of the member's speech, he said that the New Democrats wanted to decriminalize before legalizing. I find that very interesting because that might be their position now, but it certainly was not in 2015. As a matter of fact, they were against legalization. All they wanted to do was decriminalize it. I find this very interesting, and I wonder if the member can clarify this for us.

In addition to that, the member's leader, in 2017, right after the NDP convention, said that he wanted the Prime Minister to look at decriminalizing all drugs. Is the position of the New Democrats still that they do not support legalization and that all they want is decriminalization of cannabis, specifically? Further, are they extending that to all drugs? Are they suggesting that all drugs should be decriminalized, as their leader said in 2017?

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

Mr. Speaker, I voted for Bill C-45. I think that is pretty simple for the member to understand.

However, while the Liberals continue to try to relitigate the last election, I am standing in this House saying that what they could be doing is expunging records for indigenous Canadians, black Canadians and young Canadians, in places like Halifax, Toronto and Regina, who are disproportionately affected by these absurd criminal records for something that is now legal.

New Democrats, both in the House and at committee, proposed to expunge criminal records for simple cannabis possession. With no offence to my colleagues to the right of me, I am sad to say that more Conservatives than Liberals voted for the bill that we proposed. While that member may want to live in 2015, I am fighting for those individuals who just want to get jobs and move on with their lives and not live with a black mark on their file because the government could not think on a bigger scale and more outside the box than what it is doing here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was one of the Conservative members who voted in favour of the excellent bill that was before the House last week. I am very proud to have done so. I did so right after returning from Washington, D.C., where we were talking to American congressional officials about the merits of various proposals to legalize or reduce the penalties on cannabis in their country. One of the issues that arose is that there is currently a proposal being put forward by some members of Congress to remove the ability of their own border officials to stop Canadians from crossing the border for having used cannabis in Canada in the past, when it was not lawful.

There is a fundamental distinction between the Liberal proposal that we are debating today and what was proposed in the private member's bill last week. It is that a person would never have to lie to an American border official if asked, “Have you been convicted for carrying cannabis? Do you have a record for that?”

I want to ask the member this, and I would enjoy hearing a Liberal member answer it too: What happens to a person if he or she lies to an American border official while crossing the border, if that person is on American soil at that time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his support for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Victoria.

In fact, I cannot answer his question specifically. Part of me believes that we are better off not knowing. It is true that the minister himself often said throughout the process that he wanted to ensure that Canadians were well aware that they should not lie at the border. Often, as Liberal MPs have acknowledged, the process is so complicated in a bill like this that Canadians travelling abroad are not always clear on what they should and should not say.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding why the minister could not simply say to his U.S. counterpart that Canada adopted legislation and all criminal records for simple possession of cannabis have been expunged.

There is something else I want to talk about. The member went to Washington. The American example is very interesting. In jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis, like in San Francisco, where the initial process was similar to what the government is proposing today, almost no one availed themselves of the process. A dozen or so people out of hundreds of thousands of people with a record went through the process. California decided to institute an automatic process to expunge the records. People did not even have to request that it be done.

Other jurisdictions similar to ours have been through this and they managed to do so. If I am not mistaken, the research we did even showed that artificial intelligence has been used to process cases.

In conclusion I would say that the government simply wants to revive the last election campaign. It wants catch phrases and talking points. It has clearly decided to just throw us a bone, but there is not much meat on that bone. It is pretty bare at the moment, which is unfortunate. Jokes aside, actual Canadians are affected by this.

I am proud that we are standing up for them. It is unfortunate that the government is not doing the same.

I thank my colleague for his support.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Beloeil—Chambly colleague for his enlightening speech, which was based on evidence and explanations provided by experts on the subject. I am really concerned about the fact that the record suspension the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-93 means that individuals would still have criminal records.

We know that most of the people with criminal records for simple possession are young people. They start out in life with a criminal record that prevents them from getting a job, finding a home, doing volunteer work or getting involved in the community. They are stigmatized for the rest of their lives because the bill will not expunge their record or help these young people.

The Prime Minister loves talking about his youth council, but he does not give its members a say on public policy issues. Young people really should have their say on a bill that does nothing to destigmatize them.

My colleague from Beloeil—Chambly talked about public health benefits, but I think this approach is just going to make things worse because of anxiety and stress. I think young people are struggling with that. There is no solution. Plus, this debate is happening in May, with just five or six weeks to go in this parliamentary session. That means no bill will be forthcoming as a result. This bill is a disaster. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

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

I think if it were not for my colleague asking questions about young people, there would be little to no discussion about it in the House even though we have a minister responsible for youth, namely the Prime Minister.

However, one thing is clear, and I talked about it in my speech. Imagine a young person who has a criminal record or a record for failing to appear in court, to attend a hearing or to pay a fine of $50, which is a lot of money for some. Imagine that young person not being eligible for the process the government is proposing because they failed to pay a $50 fine. That person would be disqualified for not serving his sentence, which was to pay a fine. That is outrageous because, as my colleague said, that person is just getting started in life. People do not seek to have their records expunged or, in this case, suspended, just for the fun of it. This can truly affect people's ability to get a job, rent an apartment, do volunteer work here at home.

I will conclude with this. Is it illegal to discriminate against a potential employee, even when we know perfectly well that discrimination sadly exists in our society? Yes. It is illegal for an employer to ask whether a candidate has a criminal record that was suspended? No.

I would ask the following question of all members. Why should Canadians who have criminal records because of a law that discriminates against the most vulnerable and racialized Canadians have to pay the price for something that is now legal and because of this government's failed policies?

I am still looking for the answer. No one has been able to answer me that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the great member for St. Catharines.

I would like to start by picking up on a comment that was made in response to one of the questions by the previous member. He referred to what this government had done on the cannabis file as trying to relitigate the last election and as throwing a small bone, yet Canada is one of a few countries in the world that have actually legalized cannabis, with the intent of heavily regulating it so that we can make sure it stays out of the hands of people who should not have it. We are now taking another step, which is to put a pardon system into place whereby those with simple possession charges and convictions can be pardoned. The members opposite in the NDP are referring to this as throwing a small bone and as being a relatively ineffective measure, which is extremely unreflective of what is actually going on here.

What this bill does propose is to make pardons, also known as record suspensions, much more readily available to people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Normally there is a waiting period of up to 10 years to apply for a pardon after a sentence is completed. Under Bill C-93, the waiting period would be eliminated for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis.

There would also be no associated application fee. It is worth pointing out that the usual fee for a pardon is $631, and this fee would be waived entirely. The goal here is to help rid people of the burden and the stigma that comes with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and to do so as quickly and as early as possible.

Since the Cannabis Act came into force in October of last fall, the simple possession of lawfully obtained cannabis is no longer a criminal offence. With this new legal framework in place, the time has come to address the lingering legacy that came before. Simply put, there are many Canadians who are saddled with criminal records only for simple possession of cannabis. These are relatively minor offences, especially when we consider the recent changes to the law, but the real-life consequences they carry can be severe and long-lasting.

We know those consequences have disproportionately affected vulnerable and marginalized communities in Canada, including the black and indigenous communities. Studies have shown that rates of cannabis use are relatively similar across racial groups, and yet in 2017 a study conducted by the Toronto Star showed that Canadians of African descent with no criminal convictions were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than were white people with similar histories.

A criminal record can represent a real roadblock when it comes to trying to cross an international border, applying for a job, looking for housing or volunteering in a community. A pardon removes that roadblock. The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as laws in many provinces and territories.

The Parole Board of Canada is the agency that would handle the administration of streamlining and expediting the pardons process proposed in Bill C-93. The board's website would function as a primary window for applicants. A step-by-step application guide and forms with a full set of instructions would be made available online. In addition, there will be postings to assist applicants, including a 1-800 information number and a dedicated email address. Usually Parole Board members consider subjective criteria, such as whether the applicant has been of good conduct or whether the pardon will bring him or her measurable benefit. Under Bill C-93, those criteria would be waived. The decision would be based on an administrative review by a staff member, further speeding up the process. The administrative review would simply confirm that the only convictions being pardoned are for simple possession of cannabis, that there are no convictions for other offences on the applicant's record and that the sentence is complete. This streamlined process would give more people a chance to make a fresh start and to move on with their lives.

To meet this important objective, it will be essential to reach out to as many interested people as possible and as early as possible. That is why I am pleased to note that the Parole Board is in full planning mode for the future outreach efforts with stakeholders.

These stakeholders are community organizations and advocate groups, as well as courts; police forces; provincial, territorial and municipal partners; and the law societies of Canada. The purpose of these outreach efforts is to raise awareness of the proposed reforms so people with criminal records for cannabis possession know that the streamlined process exists and know how to avail themselves of it.

People who have been convicted only of simple possession of cannabis should be able to play a meaningful role in their communities and Canadian society. They should have access to good, stable jobs and adequate housing for themselves and their families. They should not face continued burdens and stigma for having committed a crime that is no longer a crime. That is why I support Bill C-93 and the specific recourse the government is proposing.

Waiving the fee and the waiting period are unprecedented and extraordinary measures, but they are appropriate in this instance. The government originally announced its intention to introduce legislation to this effect on October 17 of last year. On that day, Canada became only the second country in the world to legalize and regulate cannabis.

I am proud that we had the courage during the last election to recognize the problems with cannabis prohibition and commit to changing things. I am proud that we upheld that commitment. I am proud the legislation we have today is before us and paves the way for law-abiding Canadians to turn the page on convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Allowing them to contribute to society to their fullest potential is not only good for them, but good for all of us. That is why Bill C-93 is so important and that is what it is all about. I urge all hon. members of this House to join me in supporting this very important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's words very carefully. We know that the Canadians who are affected by this situation are particularly indigenous, marginalized and racialized Canadians, who have been long affected by marijuana laws. In particular, regarding the idea of pardons or expungements, I just came from the committee studying this bill. We heard from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and the Native Women's Association of Canada, two groups that are particularly focused on representing those Canadians. Neither of them was consulted by the government in drawing up this legislation.

What is devastating to me is this. In putting this bill together, not only did the Liberals not consult with the people affected, but they also ignored a particular condition that both witnesses brought up today, which is that if there is an administrative penalty or charge against someone—for example, a “failed to appear” charge—and they have a simple possession charge, they are omitted from this bill. They cannot seek a pardon.

Where I live in northern British Columbia, failures to appear, particularly for the marginalized, poor and indigenous people, are unfortunately quite common. We had a case last year of a young indigenous woman charged with simple possession and failure to appear. It was eight hours from her community by road to the courthouse. She had to hitchhike because there is no Greyhound or public transport service. All she could do was beg, borrow or steal a ride to get to court. She did not, and now she has an administrative charge, which my friend would know disqualifies her from receiving a pardon.

We agree with his comments about returning to society and being able to be a fully participating member. However, does he not understand the need to amend this bill to make the changes to help those whom the government claims to be seeking to help?

I do not understand why the Liberals did not consult. It is obvious now in this bill that their failure to consult has produced a flawed bill for Parliament.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, there are many people who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis. We are talking about thousands of people throughout the country. The intent of this bill is to streamline the process and put a process in place that allows a staff person to be able to assess and use the criteria in the bill to decide very easily if this individual who is applying can be pardoned. I think the process that would be put in place is going to move the needle forward very quickly to make sure we can get as many people as possible through the process so that we can get as many pardons completed as possible.

At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. It is about recognizing that simple possession is no longer a criminal offence. I think a lot of people in this House would agree that it should not have been for quite a while. This is about making sure we can get as many people pardoned as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister, then only leader of the Liberal Party, indicated that we would move forward with the legalization of cannabis. Through Bill C-93 and C-45, proposed a few years after we were elected, we are fulfilling a commitment we made in the last election. I see that as a good thing.

I believe Canadians consider this a major change in public policy. It is a significant change. There have been relatively few bumps since its implementation. It has gone over relatively well.

Does the member not believe that we should be giving a gold star to the civil servants who assisted in getting us where we are today?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member brought up a very good point. I believe that the vast majority of NDP members, if not all of them, support legalization. However, what they were not able to do in 2015, whether for political expedience or whatever the reason of the day may have been, was actually say that. What the Liberal Party and this government did was stand up for what it believed in, not what it thought would be politically palatable to the public. We put that commitment forward, and then we came here and delivered on exactly that. As a result, cannabis has been legalized. Canada is now only the second country in the world to legalize and regulate it.

We are now taking another very important step, which of course the NDP wants to oppose as well. This step would ensure that those who were charged and convicted under the old law could now be pardoned.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands touched a nerve in the NDP. We are still hearing about it. The NDP members keep chirping, and I am happy to keep rambling on while they keep chirping. We will get into it further. I am sure there will a question or two.

It is an honour to rise at second reading of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis and to legislation doing exactly what took effect last fall. At that time, the government signalled that it would turn its attention to dealing with the criminal records created under the old regime. Now we have before us Bill C-93, legislation that would make it easier for individuals who were previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to have their records cleared.

Bill C-93 proposes an expedited process for receiving a pardon, also known as a record suspension. The usual $631 application fee would be waived, as would the usual waiting period, which could be as long as 10 years. The bill would reduce barriers for full participation in society for those individuals. It would allow them greater access to job opportunities, educational programs, housing and even the ability to simply volunteer in their communities. It would make things fairer.

It would enhance public safety by allowing people to reintegrate into society. It would fulfill an important commitment to Canadians in delivering on this new regime.

This is the first time in history that both the application fee and the wait period for a pardon would be waived. This unprecedented measure is a strong statement recognizing that convictions for simple possession of cannabis have resulted in hardship for many Canadians and that certain populations, including members of black and indigenous communities, have been disproportionately impacted.

For my part today, I would like to delve a little deeper into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. To begin with, Bill C-93 would amend the Criminal Records Act. It would waive the fee, waiting period and certain subjective criteria for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis under one of three acts: the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act, which existed until the 1990's, and the National Defence Act.

Eligibility would not be based on the amount possessed but rather on the purpose. People would be eligible if possession was for personal use only. People would not be eligible if there was any trafficking or production involved. To qualify for the waived wait period, applicants would simply have to demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada these basic facts: first, that the substance they possessed was cannabis; second, that their sentence was completed; and third, that the conviction was only for possession for personal use. To do so, applicants would provide standard police and court documents. The Parole Board would be available to help people through the process by email or by phone.

As a way of further expediting the process, the decision to grant a pardon would not be discretionary. Usually a Parole Board member assesses pardon applications to decide whether an applicant has been of “good conduct” and whether a pardon would give them some “measurable benefit”. This discretion based on subjective criteria would not apply here. Instead, the Parole Board would be required to issue a pardon as long as someone was eligible and had completed his or her sentence. There would be nothing else to consider. The application would therefore be processed much more quickly by Parole Board staff.

Once a pardon was ordered, the Parole Board would notify the RCMP to have the records sequestered in the National Repository of Criminal Records. Once that was done, the RCMP would notify other federal agencies. The Parole Board would alert provincial, territorial and municipal partners. That means that a criminal record check, for instance, by a prospective employer or landlord, would come up empty. The records could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances. In practice, for cannabis possession, the only likely scenario in which anyone would ever see one's records again would be if someone committed a new criminal offence.

Bill C-93 would fulfill our commitment to create a simplified process for people with convictions for cannabis possession to shed their criminal records along with the associated burdens and stigma.

Work also is continuing on broader pardons reform informed by consultations held by the Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety as well as in a recent study by the public safety committee. That study, initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, led to thoughtful and unanimous recommendations calling for pardons to become more accessible, not just for cannabis possession but across the board. I am glad that Parliament has been seized with the issue, and I look forward to progress on that front.

For the moment, though, we have an opportunity to move forward right now with targeted recourse in Bill C-93. As I have noted, this would further enhance public safety by reducing the barriers to reintegration associated with a criminal record. Many Canadians are stuck with a criminal record for activity that is no longer considered a crime. It is about time we made things fairer for Canadians who have been living crime free. That is why I offer my full support for Bill C-93. I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and join me in making sure that the bill moves forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again. A Liberal is a Liberal, so let us talk to this Liberal about the idea that the Liberals talk about the two large groups of Canadians who have been impacted and overrepresented in our criminal justice system and overrepresented by criminal charges when it comes to marijuana possession. That is indigenous Canadians and black Canadians.

The two largest representative groups were before committee just 30 minutes ago. When I asked if they were consulted, they said no. When we asked what the flaws were in this process, they both argued for expungement, which is what the NDP has suggested, which the Liberals voted against and killed. In fact, more Conservatives than Liberals voted for expungement, because they understand, perhaps, the effects of this on a person's life.

The Liberals keep talking about wanting to reintegrate people and not having them drag around a criminal record for the rest of their lives. We agree. We have suggested an amendment, so I would like my friend's thoughts on this. If someone has an administrative charge, such as failure to appear, which all would consider a low-level crime, in combination with a simple possession charge, that person would be excluded from the bill. He or she could not get a pardon under the Liberals' proposed system.

I would argue that the bill, introduced so late in the session, did not have proper consultation with Canadians who would actually be impacted by it. That is one of the reasons the Liberals did not understand why this was so important. For marginalized, low-income or indigenous Canadians, these administrative charges are common along with possession charges.

Would my friend agree that we need to have some discretion in the application so that with administration charges along with simple possession of marijuana, someone might also be able to obtain a pardon under the bill? Would that not be a welcome change for those Canadians we are looking to help out?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passion on this topic. I can assure him that marginalized Canadians have been consulted. I will acknowledge that it may not have been the groups that appeared before committee today, but this government moves forward on evidence-based plans and consults individuals who are impacted.

The issue of an automatic system, though it may be ideal, would not necessarily work in this case, because the records are not detailed enough. Records may just say that there was a violation, that there was possession of a narcotic. They do not necessarily, especially post-1996, list the schedule the person was charged under. It would not work. It is a great idea in theory, but it would not work in practice.

This is what happens when we engage in evidence-based decision-making. We ask questions across the board. We ask people from marginalized communities, but we also ask the individuals who are holding the records about what can be done to make life fairer for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have misunderstood my colleague's question. He was referring to a specific example in which an individual was unable to come to a hearing and therefore had an administrative charge.

If there is some evidence the member has that there is no record that this was the further charge that occurred, I would be interested to hear it. Those people now face an injustice, a real injustice, that really messes up their lives, maybe forever, and they cannot get rid of those records because of a purely administrative charge, a charge that is more likely to be faced by people who are disadvantaged, people who are racialized or indigenous. Those people are going to be excluded, and I want to hear why the member thinks it is okay to leave those people permanently unable to get pardons for something that was never wrong in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this passion from the other side, from two parties that did not support the legalization of cannabis. That being said, with the legal aid system we have in place, individuals are entitled to representation. One can appear on an individual's behalf. I have appeared in criminal assignment court. People can have their lawyers appear on their behalf; that is something that happens.

I can appreciate that a breach of condition may be minor, but it may be more serious. This bill is targeted at individuals who have that one charge under their belt, and it would make it fairer for Canadians. That is the way forward. These charges can be avoided.

There are some issues, and the hon. member and I have discussed this before. One issue that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has looked at is with respect to administrative charges. However, this is another criminal offence that was committed; it is a charge that has been dealt with. If it were something that was minor in nature, someone can petition to the court to deal with the judge and the situation that comes up.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Natural Resources.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I would like to go back to the discussion we were just having. My two colleagues who just spoke supported the legalization of cannabis, and the discussion we have had over the last few minutes about these administrative charges was interesting.

When talking to prosecutors about past charges around simple possession, they will tell us that many times people go into court charged with multiple offences, such as perhaps other drug offences or trafficking. Those kinds of things are tied in, and the charges are often pleaded down to simple possession. In that kind of situation, the offender would qualify for the Liberals' proposal; whereas, a teenager from a rural area who is charged and does not have the capacity to get to a court hearing, or who fails to appear and gets this administrative charge, would not qualify for that kind of hearing.

Right from the beginning, we see the unintended consequences of poor legislation, and this is not the only bill where that has happened with the Liberal government. The present Liberal government will be known in the future as the government that brought legislation in without having thought through much of it. When bills come back with 25, 30 or 40 amendments, we know that the government has not done its job with respect to preparation.

We have seen that all over the place. We have seen it with respect to a million different issues. We are seeing it at home right now in my area, on the canola issue. We found out early on that the Chinese government wanted us to do something about tariffs on steel, and our government refused to do that. It was more interested in kowtowing to the Chinese government than dealing with our biggest trading partner, the United States. As a result of not moving on it, we ended up with tariffs. Now we have further tariffs on canola. We have tariffs on pork. We have these tariffs because the government does not consider what it is doing. It does not take into account the consequences of its activities, and then we see all kinds of secondary effects. This legislation, when I get around to talking about it, indicates that as well.

We see it on carbon taxes and other taxes imposed by the Liberal government. It has had the highest impact on Canadian people with the least effect of any type of carbon program that one could put in place.

Aboriginal affairs would be another good example. We heard this afternoon about the fact that the government failed to consult the aboriginal community with respect to another bill. The government has not asked the aboriginal community what is best for its people. The Liberals claim that the majority of people who would be impacted by that legislation are aboriginal and those with a very low income, but they have not asked them what would work for them. Often aboriginal peoples do not have access to urban centres or easy access to the Internet and those kinds of things, and the Liberals do not ask them what would work for them. Instead, they come with a plan that for many people would not work.

With respect to aboriginal affairs, the Liberals have divided communities. Many bands want to participate in the energy projects in our part of the world. They want to have a part of the prosperity that comes out of energy projects, and the government has basically divided those communities. That seems to be what the Liberal government does most effectively.

The government talked about having consultations on this legislation, but it failed to do that. It also claimed to have had consultations at its firearms meetings in the last few months. It set the meetings up to make them work as well as possible for itself, but that did not quite turn out. There were 135,000 online responses, and basically it was 75% to 80% opposed to the government making a move and changing things. I guess the government did not anticipate that, but that was the reality of the Canadian population. Once again, the Liberals misread it.

We see unintended consequences around energy disasters such as the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline. There was no need to do that.

Probably the place where we have seen the most obvious set of unintended consequences is around financial management. We have seen those folks just blow through people's tax money.

It was interesting. Last week, we were talking about the budget implementation bill. The deputy House leader, at every point, talked about the public purse. However, rarely did he talk about taxpayers and the fact that there is only one place that the government gets money, and that is out of the pocket of the taxpayers of Canada.

On each of these things, whether it is budgets that are running deficits that are two and three times what were promised, or the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that no one wanted to sell and no one wanted to buy, the government has not thought about taxpayers. The proponents themselves were willing to spend the money on the project. However, now we have Canadian taxpayers who have dived into it to the tune of about $5 billion so far. If the government is going to get the project done, it will be another $10 billion. The government has committed that kind of money to it without even thinking about taxpayers.

The Liberal government has also failed to spend its infrastructure money fairly and equally.

Another area where there has been unintended consequences, probably one of the most obvious ones, was the summer jobs program. The Liberals completely misread Canadians, trying to force them to follow the Liberal ideology. Anyone who had a different perspective from the government was then pushed to the outside.

I would argue that we are back here again. We have the late introduction of Bill C-93. It looks more like a public relations project than anything else. Again, this follows in the footsteps of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, bills that the Liberals passed without an understanding of many of the consequences of what they were doing. I was not one of the people who supported those two bills.

The Liberals find themselves in a situation right now where they do not have the capacity to meet the demand. They did not prepare for that. They do not have capacity to set a realistic price. Those folks who are happily selling on the private market are doing just fine, in spite of the government's attempt to try to stop that.

The messaging across the way has been that the government is going to keep this out of the hands of people who should not have it. When I am talking to junior high-school students, for example, they are telling me that this is more accessible to them than it has ever been in their lives.

There is certainly no solution at the border either. I heard Liberal members say earlier today that they have had discussions and this is not going to be a problem for Canadians. We know full well that it is. We have a small crossing near my home. I went down to Montana a couple of weeks ago, to the post office down there, and came back. U.S. Customs agents are now stopping Canadians on the U.S. side of the border before we come into Canada.

As members know, people stop at the U.S. side on the way down, and when they come back, typically they drive to the Canadian side and then out. They are now stopping everyone prior to being allowed to exit to Canada. I asked why they were doing this, and I was told that they have direction from on high. I asked when it happened and was told that, coincidentally, when Canada legalized cannabis. There is another problem here that the Liberals never thought of at all.

I have another thing I want to talk about today as I am wrapping up. It seems like time flies very quickly here. We have talked a lot about the difference between pardons and expungement, and those kinds of things. The government has made its choice; others have very different ideas.

One of the things I want to bring up goes back to the taxpayers. There is a bill here of somewhere between zero and $600 million to do this process. I have a question as to why the taxpayers should be stuck with this bill one more time. The government seems comfortable spending everyone else's money.

This morning, we heard a Liberal member talking about his friend who, when he graduated from university, could not get a job at 7-11, but now he is a public servant. He is a public servant and is probably doing really well. Why should the folks who are now working at 7-11 be expected to pay for his pardon or expungement, whichever direction the Liberal government finally goes in with this legislation?

We have gone so far away from considering where money comes from. The government takes it out of the pockets of average people and does not think a thing about it. We have a situation here where people have broken the law, and they typically broke it knowing what the law was and that if they got caught there was going to be a punishment.

The law is now changed, and I do not have any problem with people getting pardons or expungement of these records. The question is, why should the taxpayers, those folks who are working for an hourly wage, be expected to then pay that bill?

I suspect that this is going to be much less successful than the Liberals said it will be. I was surprised a little earlier when one of my NDP colleagues talked about the pardons that have been made available to the gay and lesbian community. He said that only seven people so far have applied to the process. That probably means the process is too complicated for people to be bothered with and people have not done that.

Today I have heard figures that 10,000 people will apply, that there are 200,000, up to 400,000, who will be impacted by this. My question to the government today would be, why does it expect that the taxpayers of Canada would once more pick up the cost for a government bill that has a number of unintended consequences that were not considered ahead of time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with some of the closing remarks from the member opposite. I do not now know whether the Conservatives support or do not support a pardon or an expungement. It is becoming more and more difficult. I think we are hearing a lot of personal opinions, but Canadians would be interested in hearing the official position of the Conservative Party on this important piece of legislation.

It has been an interesting process, which dates back to the last federal election back in 2015. As members know, the NDP did not support the legalization of cannabis, and the Conservative Party also did not support it. Now, from what I understand, the NDP supports not only the legalization of cannabis but the legalization of everything else, and the Conservative Party would not retract the legislation, which I think is a good thing. My question for the member opposite is related to that.

Over the last few years we have been evolving this progressive social policy. It has been going relatively well, and many would argue that it is going exceptionally well. Would the member not agree that when we look at Bill C-93 and Bill C-45 combined that in fact we are on the right track? Even the opposition critic's personal opinion indicated that she is in favour of a pardon.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member did not touch on the issue that I raised at the end of my presentation, which is the cost to Canadian taxpayers.

The member talked about progressive social policy. The Liberals will spend Canadians' money until it is all gone. That is what the Liberals specialize in. It is not a progressive social policy that works. They specialize in taking money out of people's pockets, spending it and then not being accountable for it. It started with a trip to the Bahamas. It certainly has continued with massive spending with deficits they cannot control and with very little interest in accountability for that money as well. This is just one more place where that kind of carelessness has shown up. They do not plan ahead of time. They do not think about the consequences.

He mentioned Bill C-45. They were told that the bill would be taken to court pretty much immediately in terms of the impaired driving components of it. The people who said that were right. We see that has been challenged in multiple places across Canada, because the Liberals did not consider the charter in the application of that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, hon. members can be forgiven because it just happened a little while ago, but we just heard testimony from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, as we did from the Native Women's Association of Canada. Neither were consulted about the bill. This is kind of shocking and hypocritical of the government, because those are, in particular, two of the groups of Canadians that have been identified historically and presently as being discriminated against, particularly on marijuana laws and particularly when seeking a pardon. The Liberal system has been set up very well for middle- and high-income folks, folks who are white, folks in the suburbs, but not for folks who are overrepresented in our prisons and in our justice system.

Mr. Cudjoe, a representative for the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, said that in his community, this will be seen as a token gesture. Why? When it comes to a simple possession charge combined with any charge of administrative justice, which is a failure to comply, a false identity presentation, and what Liberals themselves have said are very low level discriminate crimes, the combination of those two things will exempt people from this pardon process. They simply will not be able to get a pardon under this system.

I ask Liberals consistently, if the whole target of the bill is to help people get back into the system, particularly those who are marginalized, racialized, low income, if those people will not be able to qualify under the rules that the Liberals have set down in the bill, then what is the point of this exercise and who is it actually going to serve?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention. He asked if it is a token, and I think it is. When we take a look at the timing of the bill, it comes at the end of a long session with very little time to get it implemented. We can look at the lack of consultation that was put in place with those very communities, which we have heard all day today are the concern of the Liberals, and when we see the content in the bill, we have to take those three things, put them together and say that the Liberals are not really serious about this. This is one more of those public affairs exercises that they want to do to try to make themselves look good in front of people without actually having done the work.

In regard to the consultations, the Liberals have a lot of consultations, but it is typically with the people they want to meet with, who say the things they want to hear. That is why so many of their other initiatives have gone badly, because they find out what Canadians really think, which is that they reject the leadership the government has provided.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93. The bill has come forth from the lack of foresight from the government. The Liberals have tried to hurry this legalization through on a self-imposed political timeline of the Prime Minister's own making. This is done in spite of concerns which municipalities, law enforcement, health care professionals and other stakeholders have had with the legislation around the legalization of recreational marijuana in the first place. As issues arise with the recreational use of marijuana going forward, there have to be due diligence and proper steps taken to protect Canadians. Because of this, I will be very cautiously supporting this bill to see amendments come forward at committee.

By its very nature, the process and rollout of marijuana legalization draws parallels with prohibition and re-legalization of alcohol in Canada during the first half of the 20th century. Prince Edward Island was the first province in Canada to successfully enact an alcohol prohibition statute and the last to repeal it. As such, there are some similarities to draw between the government's re-legalization of alcohol and the government's legalization of marijuana.

In 1900, Prince Edward Island banned the possession or sale of alcohol except for sacramental or medical use. It could be prescribed by a doctor for a variety of ills. If a person were to be charged and found guilty of violating prohibition, he or she would face a $100 fine or two months in jail. This was a stiff sentence at the time, and the premier would often see many letters from convicted persons and their families asking for a pardon or an adjustment of the sentence. By the mid-1930s, Prince Edward Island saw some 1,700 convictions for possession, consumption or sale of alcohol, but after that point, attitudes began to shift on the subject of prohibition and it seemed to be rejected by a growing number of the population. This is very similar to how the social thought on marijuana use has changed over the last decade. Following the shift in social acceptance in both cases, enforcement efforts began to wane.

In the last few years of prohibition, many bootlegging operations were running openly, quite similar to how we saw many illegal marijuana dispensaries openly operate all across the country in the last few years before the legalization of recreational marijuana. Even after the legalization rollout, there are still many illegal dispensaries operating, unlicensed and unregulated, across the country. There seems to be little being done about them. These illegal dispensaries are making it much easier for minors to get their hands on marijuana outside of the particular provincial regulation schemes, either provincially run stores or private businesses.

The island's prohibition era ended with the Temperance Act effective in 1948 which established government liquor stores and regulated sale to residents and tourists through a system of permits and quotas. Many of the arguments we heard in favour of legalization of recreational marijuana were also used back then with the re-legalization of alcohol, everything from combatting the black market to collecting revenue. In both cases, the government's effort to mitigate the black market sale of these substances has had little effect in reality. Bootlegging operations still ran in P.E.I. until a massive crackdown in the mid-2000s, and today the black market accounts for 80% of marijuana sales, making for billions of dollars every year.

In the wake of legalization, there are still so many questions that remain. It is clear that the government was hasty in its rollout of this legislation.

Many groups, including law enforcement, were concerned about an increase in drug-impaired driving after legalization, but the Liberals assured the public that this would not be the case and they would equip police forces properly to deal with and enforce the new law. Now it has come out that the roadside marijuana testing devices that the Liberals quickly approved in time for last year's legalization rollout are giving regular false positives. This failure is taken right out of an episode of Seinfeld.

During testing, these roadside testing devices were giving false positives for subjects who had recently eaten something containing poppyseeds, like a bagel or poppyseed loaf. All of these people tested positive for opiates in their saliva and in their urine. If someone ate a poppyseed bagel and then was pulled over and was tested positive by the police, the person would be arrested and taken to the station for a urine test. If that tested positive, then that person could be charged with impaired driving, all for having eaten a bagel or a slice of lemon poppyseed loaf with his or her coffee at Tim's that morning. This is just one of a long list of failures for the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

In 2015, we heard the Prime Minister say, as he was looking Canadians right in the eye, that he was going to balance the budget. It was in the same time frame that he admitted the budget would perhaps balance itself. We have learned that neither were true: promise made, promise broken. This will affect Canadians for a generation or more with deficits projected past the year 2040.

The carbon tax is nothing more than a tax grab. It is a tax plan dressed up as an environmental plan. Hopefully, with enough HST charged on that new tax, the Liberals will be able to pay for some of the reckless spending by the Prime Minister.

The same Prime Minister promised transparency and to bring a new level of ethics to politics. However, scandal after scandal has proven that to be a failure. With the illegal vacations on a billionaire's island and giving lucrative fishing contracts to family members, the Prime Minister is anything but ethical. That is not to mention him interfering politically in the criminal prosecution of his friends and Liberal donors at SNC-Lavalin, where he was caught pressuring the attorney general at the time, and when she talked, he fired her.

Most recently, the Prime Minister has continued his string of failures on the world stage with his actions, or lack thereof, on China. Two Canadians have been arbitrarily detained. We have recently heard of an additional Canadian being sentenced to death. China has blocked billions of dollars' worth of Canada's world-class canola and we are adding pork exports to the list. All of this has been going on while the Prime Minister has been absent. He has not even replaced his hand-picked ambassador and we see the effects it has had on Canadian interests and security.

With the Prime Minister's track record of failing to deliver on his commitments, it is important to be diligent and cautious when we are dealing with any piece of legislation that the government has put forward, particularly at this stage in this Parliament, when we know that the Liberals are looking to deliver on at least one of their campaign promises. However, when it concerns the safety of our children and the safety of the driving public, we need to be very diligent in ensuring we get this right.

We hope that at committee we will be able to have the good work done that is necessary to implement a strategy that protects Canadians. I will be very cautiously supporting this bill to see it amended in the best interests of Canadians. We are hopeful this promise, having been made in the best interests of the safety of Canadians, is one promise the Prime Minister is willing and able to keep.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's speech encapsulates a great deal of the Harper style of planning or strategy employed by the current leader of the opposition for the last couple of years. That is to try to make as personal an attack as possible on the Prime Minister, or if not the Prime Minister, another minister. It is to make it as personal an attack as they can. That has been the official opposition's mantra. That is what they have to do.

While the opposition wants to focus on the character assassination of members of this government, we on the other hand have been saying that we will continue to be focused on Canadians and bringing in policies, legislation and budgets that are going to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That is what Bill C-93 is really all about. It not only delivers on an election platform issue but also delivers something that is going to make a very positive difference in every region of this country, I dare say even in the constituency of the member who just spoke.

My question to the member across the way is this. Would he not agree that sometimes it might be nice to recognize legislation that is so progressive in its nature that it is going to be helping Canadian society and just leave it at that, as opposed to taking on the Harper style of personal attacks against the government?

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a specific question to the Liberals who know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give just one real-world example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I certainly would not classify that as a victimless crime.

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

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for supporting and mentioning my colleague, the member for Victoria, and his private members bill, Bill C-415, that calls for the expungement of all criminal records for people charged with simple cannabis possession.

The member mentioned the fact that the Liberals have said that the reason they do not want expungement is that it is very special and is only for crimes that we now think, through the charter, should never have been crimes. Yet most of the charges of possession of cannabis have come about from arguably charter-related incidents, where racialized Canadians, Canadians of colour, poor Canadians and indigenous Canadians have been vastly overrepresented in these charges. This could be easily related to our charter.

I am just wondering if the member could comment on that aspect of it. These are crimes that we do not believe are crimes anymore, and we should just expunge these records so that people do not have records anymore and we can let them get on with their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me say something about Bill C-415. After it was over, the member for Victoria, who is always a gentleman, sent out letters to members who had voted in favour of the bill to thank them. I wrote back to him and thanked him for having raised this issue in such a thoughtful, intelligent way and that the entire country owed him a debt of thanks for having done so. I am glad to get that on the record. I feel quite strongly about what a service he did for all of us.

With regard to the issue of these being charter-related incidents, this is a matter that was before the House. There was a committee struck to deal with the issue of systemic racism, Motion No. 103, in the name of the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills. That is to say, as one witness put it, the racism that exists when the racists are gone.

The shadow of administrative racism exists, and it is very hard, as a practical matter, to address these in the form of charter challenges. We can see why this would be the case. There is a pattern of arrests, for example, a statistical phenomenon, but no one act has caused this. It is very hard to engage in charter litigation on it, although better minds than mine have been put to that question.

This is fundamentally a civil liberties issue, and I use that advisedly. However, it is important to point this out. If the member heard all my remarks, he will be aware that I mentioned two examples of racial groups, indigenous people in Saskatchewan and blacks in Nova Scotia, who have been arrested at several multiples of times as the rate for whites in those areas.

This is also an issue in an electoral district like my own, which is almost entirely white. Those who are poor, who are members of the social underclass, who suffer from mental illnesses, who have fetal alcohol effect, have genetic disorders, a gene that makes people more prone to becoming addicted, or an impulse control gene, are more likely to face prosecution and therefore institutional persecution. It is inherently unfair to them as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the March 1 press release. Within it, the Government of Canada sets out a basic standard referencing the charter issue in terms of expungement versus a pardon. That provides a great deal of clarity.

If one contrasts that to what the member across the way is suggesting, he is saying that in this legislation a charge should be expunged as if it did not ever happen. However, for all intents and purposes, a future government could make cannabis illegal again. If one looks at the debates in the last federal election, I think there is significance in terms of the difference between a charter and a non-charter issue and using that as a reference.

I am going to go specifically to the example that the member gave. He made reference to crossing the U.S. border and how it would be inappropriate for someone to lie. If that person is told that their record has now been expunged, in other words, it is as if it never happened, when the person goes to the border, he will say that he does not have a record. Does the member not recognize that the U.S. border control might still have the record and that could lead all sorts of issues? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the example that the member offered and I referred to in my comments, by definition, there would have to be some form of record or else the border control agent would have no basis on which to execute an arrest, which is what happens to people who lie to a border guard. The person can answer truthfully, “I have no criminal record. I have broken no Canadian law.”

If the border agent asks it differently and asks if the person has used marijuana before, the person should also not lie. When I cross the border, I have the advantage of never having used marijuana. It comes in handy to be able to tell truth.

However, everyone I have spoken to thinks that the danger is much greater for the scenario I am describing than the one the member is describing. After all, the Americans are not trying to gratuitously arrest people. If we adopt this expungement, it will ensure that those people will not find themselves in a situation where, when an American border official is making inquiries, it causes them, if they choose unwisely, to lie to that official.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, following up from the previous member, I would like to say that I too would not have to lie at the border, as I have never used marijuana or even inhaled a cigarette. I am happy to make that task easy.

I want to comment on several items that have come up in debate. The first is that one of the members suggested that one of the goals of legalizing marijuana was to take money away from organized crime and that it had not occurred. That is, of course, patently false. The facts are totally different. There have been a lot of legal sales of cannabis, so huge amounts of funds have been taken away from organized crime. I do not think anyone in this House would argue that is not a benefit to our community.

There was another point by the same member, that there was a danger of pardoning someone who had a more serious offence than simple possession of marijuana for personal use. That was a good point. The bill has been crafted to make sure that in the investigation of that pardon, it was not for some other crime. Sometimes the records may be vague and not specify exactly what substance was involved in the offence, or it may not be clear at the outset that the possession was not for personal use but was for the purpose of trafficking. That is one of the reasons that the bill was crafted the way it is, so that these things are investigated.

I have to agree that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley brought up a good point. I hope that is looked at by the committee when witnesses are brought forward. The effects of an administrative offence coming out of the possession offence needs to be investigated, especially in difficult circumstances, to see how that should be dealt with.

One of the big points which was brought up quite well by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques related to crossing the border. Before I address that, I want to say that I have great respect for that member and the way he comports himself. I was hoping to meet him in the halls in the next few days to tell him this. He is very positive. He does not attack people personally. He makes his arguments in a very rationale, positive and diplomatic way, the way that parliamentarians should. I want to commend him for that.

However, on the point about crossing the border, expungement would make it easier. This is where some members might be confused. It could be more difficult. As members know, with an expungement, the record disappears. When crossing the border, a person could think that if the Americans ask if they have had a record for the use of marijuana, they could say no, thinking the record has totally disappeared. The record has totally disappeared in Canada. However, unfortunately, when there are pardons, expungements and things in Canada, the Americans do not erase their records. Something could show up in the American records that the person had an offence for marijuana, but they said no because they thought it was erased. That person is then caught not telling the truth to the border agents, and, of course, we know the serious results of not telling the truth to an American border official.

Expungement does not necessarily make crossing the border easier. In some ways, it could make it more difficult, especially if an American border agent wants reaffirmation from Canada of a record suspension and an assurance that everything is fine. If a Canadian official cannot find the suspension, then the American border agent will wonder whether this is because there was no record originally or because Canadian officials cannot find it because of poor administrative practices. This may, in some cases, make things more difficult under certain circumstances.

I will begin by noting that I will be referring to record suspensions as pardons, even though they are technically called record suspensions.

Bill C-93 is about making things fair for Canadians and their families. For far too long, many Canadians have had the burden of a criminal record simply for possessing cannabis. Imagine trying to apply for a job, only to be turned down due to something like this. Imagine being unable to find housing or even to volunteer in the community just because of a conviction for simple possession of cannabis. Imagine the stigma of a criminal record, which can be difficult to navigate even when the burden is removed.

Indeed, a pardon would help many Canadians get back on their feet. That is why the government wants to do the right thing and the fair thing.

Bill C-93 would streamline the pardons process by waiving the wait periods, which could last up to 10 years, for applicants whose only convictions were for simple possession of marijuana. This means that they will be immediately eligible to apply for a pardon, provided they have completed their sentence and have not incurred any other convictions.

An interesting point was brought up by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley related to administrative convictions of simple possession. I hope the committee will look at this issue, should the bill pass second reading.

Previously I made another a point related to administrative provisions. I would like to remind members that the private member's bill I brought forward related to FASD. People with fetal alcohol syndrome disorder have brain damage, through no fault of their own. They do not necessarily understand that it is important for them to show up for their appointments and that there are ramifications for not doing so. As a result, they get into a never-ending spiral, going into and out of prison through a revolving door. This should never occur.

Although I was not able to get that bill through during this Parliament, I hope that someone will move that concept through the next Parliament so that people with FASD are not unreasonably convicted for things they do not even understand are crimes.

In the past, there were barriers to applying for pardons. Not only could getting one take a huge length of time, but there was also a cost. The $631 Parole Board application fee was definitely a barrier for many people, especially because many of those convicted were earning low incomes.

Under Bill C-93, this fee would be totally waived. This would allow people to turn their lives around, as they would no longer have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That is the approach the government has determined to be the fairest and most sensible.

Of course, there has already been a robust debate and conversation about how best to approach this issue. Much of it predates the introduction of the Cannabis Act itself. In fact, it goes back decades.

Recreational use of cannabis has been unlawful in Canada since the prohibition era of the 1920s. However, its use was not popular until the 1960s.

In 1961, following the enactment of the Narcotic Control Act, convictions for simple possession of cannabis began to rise. The Narcotic Control Act was replaced with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which remains in force today.

We know that charges and convictions for simple possession have disproportionately targeted marginalized groups in society, including indigenous and black Canadians, which is definitely a point that should be dealt with at committee when this bill is discussed.

All of this underlines the fact that, in understanding that a legalized cannabis regime would someday be a possibility in this country, the debate about pardons for those convictions has been around for a long time.

Fast forward to the royal assent to the Cannabis Act in June of last year, and its coming into force in October, at which point we made the public announcement of our intent to provide recourse for those convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. We promised and we delivered.

On the topic of pardons, the debate has largely centred on amnesty in the form of either pardons or expungement as a possible recourse. A number of parliamentarians had also expressed public support for granting amnesty for simple possession. We now have a variety of experiences to learn from and a wealth of ideas at our disposal as we move forward. What we do now must be in the best interest of Canadians to make things as fair as possible, in the most sensible and practical of ways.

The government has chosen to allow Canadians who have served their sentences for convictions related only to simple possession of cannabis to apply for a pardon with no Parole Board application fee or wait period. This is a fair approach. For instance, we could have authorized the expungement of convictions for simple possession of cannabis, as was suggested earlier. However, possession of illegally obtained cannabis continues to be unlawful today. That is why a pardon, which we are proposing under Bill C-93, is a very effective remedy.

Under this proposal, it bears no extra waiting time following completion of the sentence, and it bears no $631 Parole Board application fee. Under this proposal, an individual's record would be sealed and sequestered. This record could be examined again only in extraordinary circumstances, for example if some other offence is committed in the future. The suspended record could be disclosed in those exceptional circumstances only with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety. As we can imagine, anything that needs the approval of a minister of the Crown would not occur very often, and the suspended record would be disclosed only in these very extraordinary circumstances.

The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that the crime previously committed but pardoned cannot be used as any form of discrimination in areas of federal responsibility. Most provinces and territories have similar legislation that protects against discrimination. Usually, when the federal government issues a pardon or a record suspension, the province or territory will do the same.

Waiving the wait period and application fee is unprecedented, and it carries the impact we want, which is helping to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record from many Canadians and allowing them to participate meaningfully in society. We can imagine how many members of society are affected. There are tens of thousands of people in Canada who have used marijuana for personal reasons. Therefore, the procedure of legalizing cannabis for personal use that is not harming anyone, and then granting pardon to those who were criminalized in the past for such use, is a very important thing for our society. People can feel good about themselves and be able to compete in society for jobs or houses or for anything else on a level playing field with everyone else.

The practical effect and purpose of a pardon is to reduce the barriers to reintegration so that people can apply for jobs without being discriminated against or so they can become involved in a number of NGOs, things which they could not participate in if they had a criminal record. Sometimes housing is not allowed for people who have a criminal record. When they apply for any of these things, if they have a pardon, people would not know their past because the records would be sealed and would not be available to the people asking about them. We believe it is the most effective tool at our disposal to achieve the result we want for those people who have been carrying that record and that stigma around for too long.

The first step is to get the pardon in place. Bill C-93 would allow Canadians who have been previously convicted of simple possession to apply for a pardon. Once their sentence has been served, there would be no application fee or wait period. Barriers to reintegrate into society would be reduced for those individuals.

I look forward to the tens of thousands of people who were unjustly harmed by these rules and considerations in the past now being treated the same as anyone else in society. I commend Canada's leading role in this. I think a previous speaker said that we are only the second country in the world to do this. It will be another example of how Canada has provided some examples for the world on how to provide true justice for individuals who really did not harm anyone but were charged with simple possession of the substance for their own use and enjoyment, which in and of itself has certainly not been harmful to other people. There are other substances that could be more harmful to people and society because of what people do while under the influence of those substances, some of which are legal, some of which are not.

Certainly, this has had such a massive effect on Canadian society and I think it is really uplifting that it is now legalized and many Canadians will be able to get a pardon so that it will not have a negative effect on their lives.

I thank those who are looking at this as a positive change.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 11, 2019, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1307

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.