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.

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

The question is how we get the word out about this new process under Bill C-93. How do we get word out to people that there's a process that's free and simplified?

I googled using the terms “pardons, cannabis, Canada”, and the first thing that came up was New Cannabis Pardons in Canada: Get a Free Record Suspension. It advertises an agency that will charge a fee to help you get this done. It takes a little while to get down to the actual Canadian government website on this.

I have a two-part question. The first part of my question is this: How are we getting word out to communities, and can we have someone work on moving our government site to the top of that list? Then I will have a second part as well.

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

This experience with the results of Bill C-93 will undoubtedly be very informative from a public policy point of view and from a public administration point of view, so, yes, I think there could well be important lessons to be learned from how this process goes that may be applicable to other issues in relation to record suspensions.

The one thing, though, to remember is that this is largely an administrative process. If all of the technical criteria are met, then the granting of the record suspension is an automatic administrative function.

In the case of record suspensions more broadly in other cases unrelated to cannabis, there would be judgment factors and subjective factors that members of the Parole Board, not just the administrative staff, would need to be involved in. That makes the broad question of record suspensions more complex than what we're dealing with under Bill C-93. But on your basic point of can we learn from what we're doing under Bill C-93 and make improvements in the broad application of the record suspension process, I hope that is the case. We'll certainly be looking to collect those lessons and apply them wherever possible.

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

The process is different in the sense that those people who have more complicated records would need to go through the normal process, which involves the engagement of a member of the Parole Board. Under Bill C-93, dealing exclusively with simple possession of cannabis is an administrative function for staff to manage and there is a separate financial allotment to make sure we have the personnel in place to handle that administrative function without impinging on the other important work that the Parole Board has to do.

[Ian Broom]

I would start by saying that with the $631 application fee as it currently exists for record suspensions, there are service standards in place, so it would be, say, six months for a summary conviction and 12 months for an indictment.

With the proposal being discussed here with Bill C-93, it is fundamentally different because there is no fee, whereas under the current scheme there's the $631 fee. Also, there is no longer a board member decision involved. It has become an administrative decision. It is actually staff members who are determining eligibility based on the documents that have been provided through the application process. Then from that, the record suspension would be granted.

The other point about this in terms of how quickly it would happen is that, while there is no service standard that would be attached to the scheme as described under Bill C-93, we would expect that it would be an expedited process. Because it's an administrative process, it would move more quickly.

I can't give any exact metrics because we would have to see the volumes before we could fully assess, but we certainly will have the staff in place and the resources in place at the point that this legislation would come into force.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with your officials.

I have two quick things I want to get on the record before I get to my question.

The first is that I appreciate your use of the word “pardon”, and I wish that your appreciation of the word had led to actually putting it back to “pardon” in the law, as opposed to “record suspension”, which is something we discussed when the committee did that study. But we are in the eleventh hour of this Parliament, so unfortunately I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

The other thing is about the John Howard Society. You quoted Catherine Latimer's testimony from the study we did on the pardon issue. I want to say that on this particular issue.... You're obviously familiar with my colleague Murray Rankin's bill, which favours expungement. The John Howard Society did say, in a Twitter exchange on the said bill when it was being debated, “Agreed. Time to expunge criminal records for cannabis possession-not criminal: end punishment.”

I didn't want to mis-characterize what the John Howard Society thought on this particular issue, given that we're kind of mixing the study this committee did on record suspension with this issue.

I want to go back.... The whole debate between your position in Bill C-93 and what our party is calling for in expungement is couched in the notion of historical injustice. There's no actual precedent for that. There's no legal obligation. This seem to just be something that the government has used rhetorically. When I asked the Prime Minister about it in the House after legalization occurred, I raised, among other things, that in Regina indigenous people were almost nine times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. In Halifax, black people were five times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. In Toronto, black people with no other criminal convictions were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession.

Just before I get to my question and hear your answer, Minister, I want to quote Kent Roach, who of course you know very well, who says, “The history of miscarriages of justices in this country should not be equated with laws that would now violate the Charter. The Charter is the minimum not the maximum in terms of our sense of justice.”

Are you saying, unlike what Mr. Roach is saying, that your government doesn't believe that that horrendous overrepresentation of indigenous and black Canadians, among others, of course, from minorities, is not an injustice?

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

With respect to Bill C-93, or...?

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

In other words, only people with a record for simple possession of cannabis will come under Bill C-93 and will be able to apply for a pardon at no cost. However, people with a more complex criminal record will have to go through the process and pay the fees.

Will that be any different?

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

First of all, Mr. Paul-Hus, thank you for indicating your support at second reading. I hope the discussion in committee and elsewhere can give you the reassurance you need.

I have discussed the new cannabis legislation with a number of different police officers and police chiefs across the country. The vast majority of them have indicated to me—sometimes fulfilling what they had expected and sometimes, perhaps, surprising them—that over the course of the last number of months in which the overall legal framework with respect to cannabis has been changed, their experience in terms of law enforcement has been quite positive. They haven't seen a spike in behaviour that would cause them to be concerned.

Now, granted, it's still early days. It's been barely six months, but they're learning as they go along. They're indicating, by and large, a pretty positive experience with the new legislation.

With respect to the precise point you raised, this legislation, Bill C-93, deals with the reality of what a person was charged with. If they were charged with simple possession of cannabis or simple possession of a substance in schedule II—if that is the offence that's in the application and before the Parole Board—then this legislation applies.

Individuals with more complicated criminal records would generally not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this law. They would have to go through the normal process. For the offence of simple possession of cannabis, Bill C-93 would apply.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

First of all, I want to say that we are ready to support Bill C-93 at second reading, as we previously announced. However, the work of the committee will provide the response to the next stage.

One of our causes for doubt is the way in which Bill C-45, the legalization of marijuana, has been handled. It was rushed into place to fulfill a campaign promise by the Prime Minister. No one listened to educational experts or the police. No one educated our young people.

Today, six months later, we are already seeing that the basic idea, to get organized crime out of the cannabis market, is not working. Everyone is laughing at the government. Organized crime continues to sell cannabis, and now people are walking round with illegal marijuana with no fear of being caught.

That makes us skeptical of the way in which you want to implement Bill C-93.

One of the topics I would like to discuss with you is the process.

We know that the police often negotiate with people. When they are arrested, some people may have committed other, more serious offences. But the police can choose to charge them with marijuana possession because the consequences for them are less serious. Those kinds of negotiations go on.

Now that cannabis is legal, how are we going to make it so that people who have committed more serious crimes, but have the opportunity to get out of them by being convicted only of marijuana possession, do not slip through the net by applying for a pardon? They have other problems. We do not want this to be a free pass for everyone.

What will the process be?

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

We've thought this through extensively and had a very good internal discussion about the various alternatives for trying to deal with the issue we're advancing here. As a result of weighing all of the pros and cons of one technique versus another, I think there are six factors that argue in favour of the route that we've laid out in Bill C-93.

Number one, the pardon process is the most efficient process from the point of view of the Parole Board. It is the least expensive and can be done faster than the other alternatives. Therefore, efficiency is one of the arguments.

Number two, it's a very simple piece of legislation. Bill C-93 is not hundreds of pages. It's four or five pages. It's very simple, but we're able to accomplish two important objectives that recognize the unfairness of the situation that we're trying to correct: There's no fee and there is no wait time. That can be done in a very simple way by means of this legislation.

Number three, this approach deals with the reality of how records have been historically kept in this country in a very dispersed manner. They are not all contained in one comprehensive database where you can simply push a button and instantly alter the whole thing by one keystroke. By setting up the system that we're setting up—where people make an application—the system can deal with the reality of how records are kept.

Number four, it's an effective remedy. As I mentioned in my remarks, of all the pardons that have been issued in this country since 1970, 95% of them are still in effect today. It's the rare case when a record suspension is set aside and the record is reopened—in cases only where another criminal offence has been committed, for example. The statistics would verify that the remedy is effective.

Number five, a pardon is fully protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, which specifies, in section 2, that the existence of a criminal record cannot be used as a form of discrimination if a pardon has been granted. Interestingly enough, because the concept of expungement didn't exist at the time the Canadian Human Rights Act was written, there's no reference in the human rights act to expungement, but there is explicitly to the pardon process.

Number six, finally, is at the border. Because of the extensive information-sharing arrangements between Canada and the United States, U.S. border officers would have access from time to time to Canadian criminal records. They would make their own extraction from those criminal records.

Assume that a person with a conviction for simple possession of cannabis had their record expunged. They go to the border. The U.S. border officer asks them the cannabis question and they say “no,” as they would be entitled to do under Canadian law under expungement. But the American border officer, looking at his computer, sees that this person, in fact, did have a conviction for simple possession. Then the U.S. border officer would probably come to the conclusion that they're lying to him, which raises a very serious predicament at the border. The Canadian would say, “No, no, I've had an expungement.” The U.S. border officer would say, “Prove it.” You can't, because the paper doesn't exist. But if you have a record suspension or a pardon, you are able to prove your status in confronting the predicament at the border.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, once again, to the committee.

I am glad for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-93 this afternoon, legislation that will make it much easier for people convicted of simple possession of cannabis to clear their records and move on with their lives.

I am pleased, Mr. Chair, to be joined by Angela Connidis, from the Department of Public Safety; Ian Broom, who is with the Parole Board of Canada; and Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, who deals with criminal records at the RCMP.

In the old system, when cannabis was illegal, Canadians were among the biggest, and youngest, consumers of cannabis in the world, to the delight of criminal organizations. Last autumn, we fulfilled our commitment to put an end to that ineffective and counterproductive ban.

However, a number of Canadians still have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. With Bill C-93, they will be able to rid themselves of it expeditiously.

For people convicted solely of possessing cannabis for personal use, this legislation will simplify the process of getting a pardon in several ways. Ordinarily, applicants would have to pay a fee to the Parole Board of $631. We are eliminating that fee entirely for these purposes. Applicants also face a waiting period of up to 10 years to become eligible under the usual system, and we are getting rid of that waiting period too.

As the law currently stands, the Parole Board can deny applications based on a variety of subjective factors, such as whether a pardon would provide the applicant with a “measurable benefit”. Under Bill C-93, such factors would not be considered in the context of this legislation. In addition to the measures in the bill, the Parole Board is taking further steps, such as simplifying the application form, creating a 1-800 number and an email address to help people with their applications, and developing a community outreach strategy to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of this new process.

We're doing all this in recognition of the fact that the criminalization of cannabis had a disproportionate impact on certain Canadians—notably, members of black and indigenous communities. We are doing it because we will all benefit when people with criminal records for nothing more than simple possession of cannabis can get an education and a job, find a place to live, volunteer at their kids' schools and generally contribute more fully to Canadian life. They are impeded in doing those things because of that criminal record.

There were several points raised about the bill during second reading debate and in public discussion that I would like to address. Let me say also that I certainly commend the committee for taking the initiative of holding these hearings with respect to Bill C-93 to do a prestudy and to deal with this matter in as expeditious a manner as possible.

First, there is the question of why we're proposing an application-based system instead of pardoning people's records generically and proactively as has been done, for example, in certain municipalities in California. Unfortunately, doing that same thing in Canada on a national scale is simply a practical impossibility.

For one thing, Canadian conviction records don't generally say “cannabis possession”. That's not the language that's used in the records. They say something like “possession of a schedule II substance,” and then you have to check police and court documents to find out what the particular substance was. The blanket, generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way that charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database.

In reality, that is not the case in Canada. Many of these paper records are kept in boxes in the basements of courthouses and police stations in cities and towns across the country. It's not as simple as just pushing a button on a computer. We could start the process today, but people would still be waiting for their records to be cleared years from now because of the way those records are retained. By contrast, when someone submits an application for a pardon under the provisions that we're proposing in Bill C-93, Parole Board officials can zero in on the relevant documents right away, and the person can get their pardon much faster.

Another question raised at second reading was about the appropriateness of waiving the fee. There was concern that taxpayers would be footing the bill for people who broke the law.

The fact is that if we don't waive the fee, wealthy Canadians with cannabis possession convictions will be able to get their pardons quite easily, but lower-income people will remain saddled with the criminal record and the stigma. Many people with records for cannabis possession don't have that spare $631 lying about. They need the pardon to get a job and earn a paycheque. It's a bit of a vicious circle. Also, waiving the fee is a good investment. A person who gets a pardon is better able to get an education and a job, and contribute to their community in all sorts of ways, including by paying taxes.

Finally, there's the question of why we are proposing an expedited pardons process rather than expungement. I would remind the committee that expungement is a concept that did not exist in Canadian law until we created it last year to destroy the conviction records of people who were criminalized simply for being gay. In those cases, the law itself was a patently unconstitutional violation of fundamental rights and the convictions that flowed from it were never legitimate in the first place.

The prohibition of cannabis on the other hand was not unconstitutional. It was just bad public policy. There is no doubt though that the manner in which it was applied disproportionately impacted certain groups within our society, particularly black and indigenous Canadians among others. That's why we're proposing to waive the fee and the waiting period, and to take numerous other steps to make getting a pardon for cannabis possession much faster and much easier.

As for the practical effects of pardons as opposed to expungement, criminal record checks come up empty in both cases. The effect of a pardon is protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and pardons are almost always permanent. Since 1970, more than half a million pardons have been issued and 95% of them are still in force today.

It's important not to minimize the effect of a pardon. Some of the debate in the House has made it sound as though a pardon is an insignificant thing. It's worth remembering that when this committee studied the pardon system in the fall, it heard from witnesses who emphasized just how consequential a pardon can be.

Louise Lafond, from the Elizabeth Fry Society, testified that a pardon is “like being able to turn that page over” and allow people to “to pursue paths that were closed to them.”

Catherine Latimer, from the John Howard Society, testified that pardons “allow the person to be restored to the community, as a contributing member without the continuing penalization of the past wrong.”

Rodney Small testified that for years he wanted to apply to law school, but couldn't for want of a pardon.

In other words, making pardons more accessible, with no fee and no waiting period, will have life-changing impacts for people dealing with the burden and the stigma of a criminal record for cannabis possession. We will all reap the benefits of having those people contribute more fully to their communities and to Canada as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. I'd be happy, along with my colleagues from the various departments and agencies here, to try to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I am calling this meeting to order.

I see that the minister has his coffee, so clearly he is ready to provide his testimony.

This is the 158th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

With that, I want to welcome the minister on behalf of the committee, and I would anticipate that he will introduce his colleagues.

Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate on Bill C-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions, 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.

I have favoured the legalization of marijuana since I first sought elected office. My views on the subject were first expressed at a policy conference in 2001 and were published in Policy Options the same year, but I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than in abstract terms.

Here today, I can express my underlying belief. I believe today, as I did when I first published on the subject 18 years ago, that it is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the said use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any person other than the user himself or herself. When no person is victimized other than the person who is 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 were true.

The principle would apply even if it were not true, 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 the abusive behaviour of parents or partners, or the trauma of war, or fetal alcohol syndrome, or 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 which 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 at the time was himself a former 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,…

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 and prosecuted and saddled with a criminal record, are far likelier to be members of social or racial groups that appear to be marginalized in other ways too. Two widely cited statistics in this regard are from Halifax, where black people have historically been five times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession; and Regina, where indigenous persons have been nine times more likely than white people to be arrested for this offence. This would appear to be the very definition of systemic racism, regardless of the proximate cause for 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. That 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 that is not the issue, but simply the case that a law was fundamentally wrong.

To be clear, the retention of criminal records for persons who used marijuana when it was a criminal offence represents an ongoing injustice that ought to 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. Why it was not, particularly given the heartfelt civil libertarian sentiment that must have been the motivation for the Prime Minister to share the story about his father and brother, remains a mystery to me.

I note that in other jurisdictions that have legalized the non-therapeutic use of cannabis, such as California and Vermont, provisions expunging the records of those convicted under the repealed statutes are a part of the repeal legislation itself. It is now too late for Canada to make a perfect copy of this enlightened example, but it is not too late for us to correct the oversight. Bill C-415 is an effective and well-designed instrument for achieving an end to this lingering injustice.

About 500,000 Canadians, which is somewhere between 1% and 2% of our adult population, have criminal records for the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. The bill would expunge their records.

An expungement is not quite the same thing as a pardon or record suspension. It differs in a number of ways. For one thing, a pardon must be formally requested. Any person can apply for a pardon, but only after waiting for a period of not less than five years, and only upon the payment of a fee of just over $600. Expungement would be immediate and costless.

I am aware that the government recently proposed a measure of its own in an apparent effort to supersede Bill C-415. The government bill, Bill C-93, has a title that tells the entire story of what the government is proposing: an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis. In short, Bill C-93 would remove the five-year waiting period and would eliminate the $600 fee.

As far as it goes, I think this is good, and if the bill comes up for a second reading vote, I will vote for it in principle. However, Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement.

Let me show members how they differ.

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. Everybody should know that if people answer this question untruthfully and lie to an official of the immigration service while on American soil, as people are when at a land crossing, as opposed to the Toronto or Vancouver airport, they can be arrested on the spot.

If records are expunged, but not if pardons are issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they do not have a criminal record for this former offence. This is a meaningful distinction.

I hold no remit for marijuana itself. I never used it unlawfully when it was banned and I have never used it since. I care only about sensible, generous laws and about doing all that we can as lawmakers to make Canada a place where nobody is punished for actions that hurt no one else, and where no person faces long-term penalties for actions that we now think should never have been unlawful in the first place.

I congratulate the sponsor of the bill and I plan to vote in favour of his excellent proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on Bill C-415, an act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions. I thank the hon. member for Victoria for his involvement in this file.

I know that we have different points of view on the terms, but we agree that people with criminal records for possession of cannabis should no longer have to deal with obstacles when it comes to employment or housing or any other aspect of their life.

We committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis as part of our platform for the last election. We upheld that commitment, and last October the new system took effect. At that time, we said we would introduce legislation to make it easier for people with criminal records left over from the old regime to have those records cleared. We have upheld that commitment too with Bill C-93, which was debated earlier this week.

It is worth remembering that while we were advocating for legalization, the NDP was merely calling for decriminalization. In other words, if the NDP had had their way, cannabis prohibition would still be in effect, and people found to be in possession of cannabis would be getting hefty fines. That would obviously be a bad idea, because many of the people who have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition are from marginalized and low-income communities.

Instead of adding to their financial burden, we have proposed legislation that will eliminate the fee to the Parole Board to apply for a pardon, which is normally $631. As well, we have proposed eliminating the waiting period, which can be as long as 10 years. Under our proposal, the pardon application will be reviewed and decided expeditiously by Parole Board staff, rather than being referred to an appointed Parole Board member for review, as is the current process. The usual subjective criteria, like evaluating whether the applicant has been of good conduct and whether the pardon will bring them a measurable benefit will not apply. Plus, the Parole Board will implement an outreach strategy that will involve community partners and civil society organizations to help people take advantage of this new process.

Once a successful pardon is issued, the relevant authorities will be notified and the record will be sealed. It will not show up during a criminal record check, and can be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances, such as the commission of a new criminal offence.

The bill proposed by the member for Victoria would use the mechanism called expungement rather than expedited pardons. As I said during debate on Monday, the practical effect of expungement is for all intents and purposes the same as a pardon, unless the person commits a new offence. At that point, they are going to have a criminal record again anyway, so the reinstatement of the old cannabis possession conviction will have minimal impact.

When it comes to international travel, expungement may cause unnecessary complications. For example, if the United States had previously noted a person's conviction in its records, they could still have that information, despite one's pardon or expungement. If U.S. authorities ask someone to provide evidence of their pardoned conviction, they can get that from the Parole Board. With expungement, there would likely be no Canadian records to provide.

We created expungement as a concept in Canadian law last year as a way to deal with historic convictions for consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners. That was a situation of grave injustice, where the law at issue itself was a violation of fundamental human rights and contrary to the charter.

That is distinct from the situation we are discussing today. The criminalization of cannabis was a bad idea, but it was not a charter violation. Nevertheless, because of its differential impacts on racialized communities, we have proposed a dramatically expedited pardons process. The NDP has also called on us to follow the example of some American jurisdictions that have moved to automatically clear past misdemeanour convictions for possession of cannabis.

In Canada, while federal records are held by the RCMP, there are also records, including paper records, held by provinces in local police offices and local courts. Going through all those records to find all the drug possession convictions and then digging into the details of each conviction to determine whether the substance involved was cannabis is a process that would take years.

There was a suggestion on Monday that we hire an army of summer students to go through hundreds of thousands of police and court records in cities and towns across the country. I could not tell whether it was serious or not. The fact is that an application-based process will result in people getting their records cleared much faster.

After careful and deliberate consideration, we chose a streamlined pardons process as the best approach. Under the bill that we have proposed, Bill C-93, there would be no waiting period and no application fee. Applications would be dealt with through an expedited administrative process, with no subjective criteria. People who have served sentences for simple possession of cannabis with nothing else on their records would get their pardons, full stop.

Once again, I want to thank the member for Victoria for his work, his contributions to this discussion and his thoughtful concern for the people of his riding and across this country. I know we have a difference of opinion about the modalities, but we share the objective of letting people who have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis move on with their lives. Those individuals should be able to get jobs, find places to live, study and travel without the burden of a criminal record for an activity that is now legal. We are all better off when people living law-abiding lives can put their criminal records behind them and contribute fully to our communities. I look forward to the passage of the government's bill, Bill C-93, which would allow for exactly that.