Evidence of meeting #134 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cost.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Brampton North, Lib.
I don't know if I have any more time, but 96% of those you said had received a pardon didn't reoffend. You also indicated that getting a pardon is quite difficult.
Could you say that maybe those people were on the right path and motivated to turn their lives around? They went through the process of getting a pardon and hence fit a profile of those who would not reoffend.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Yes, absolutely. I agree with you 100%.
However, the $631 was like throwing a blanket over so many of these people who came in. It was just a non-starter.
Brampton North, Lib.
Is that your biggest issue with the changes that have been made, the cost?
Liberal
Liberal
Yellowhead, CPC
Thank you.
Thank you, Wayne.
Wayne, Pardons Canada has major centres in every one of our major cities across Canada from coast to coast. They advertise quite extensively that they will help people. I have to wonder at one of the last lines that they have in here:
We can help you today. We will track and collect all of the necessary documents to help you with your case. If you meet the eligibility requirements, we will help you clear your criminal record. Proof of your criminal record removal will also be provided to you in an official written document.
Now, people have been able to get a pardon in Canada. It has to be 40 years now from when that first legislation came out. A lot of people just ignored it. At the time, there was almost no cost. I think it was $50.
I have a problem with having a uniform statement that the government is going to pay for the cost of doing it. There is already a cost for the bureaucracy, and any government bureaucracy is expensive.
Could we not say that people with special needs would go to a separate file and it would be reviewed, and if it looks like they do not have the means, then we would pay for it, rather than saying that the government pays for the whole thing?
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
As I said earlier, I believe there's a model there. I fully respect that there are budgets, and government only has so much money and so on. One of my proposals was for a model, if you will. Again, instead of $631 across the board, for the sake of argument, it would be zero for one group and it might be $900 for another group, depending on ability to pay.
The bottom line is that the cost is a barrier to so many people. You asked why the government should pay. I don't have the economic proof in front of me, but there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that for $631 or $150, or whatever that number is, to pay that small amount on behalf of somebody who is trying to make their life better, and to have them get off the system....
We all know the cost to the system of people who need a hand. I don't think it's even close. I think there's a multiplier there of 10 times.
Yellowhead, CPC
Why don't we look at the Criminal Code and say that with a summary conviction offence, after five years that record is automatically removed? Wouldn't that be simpler? Why not?
You're saying that everybody should not have a criminal record. If a person commits a minor summary conviction offence, and after five years—
Liberal
Yellowhead, CPC
—there has been no repeat, it is automatically rejected out of the system.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I would say this: You can call this a tax on our most vulnerable.
Yellowhead, CPC
Oh, yes. You're trying to double or triple it, because I can pay and he can't.
I don't think that's fair.
Yellowhead, CPC
I might have been lazy for the last 20 years, and didn't do it and I should have done it. Now I can do it, and I have to pay for it.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I believe this has gone after our most vulnerable. It's deliberately keeping people on the system. Sure, there's partisanship. I get it. But this one, to me, is a no-brainer. Why are we keeping these people on the system? Why?
Yellowhead, CPC
I agree with you. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit that there is a cost to do it. Right?
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
There's a cost to do it, but there's a cost to not doing it. It's a bigger cost to not doing it.
Yellowhead, CPC
All right.
What do you expect the outcome will be five years from now when we get roughly 350,000 Canadians applying to have their marijuana convictions removed? What type of cost do you think there will be to government? Should we pay for that just to be nice?
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Obviously, I think what's happened over the past month has happened. I don't think the sky has fallen in. I think everybody's good. Yes, I think it's the duty of our government to right wrongs.
I will add also that I think there's a gendered impact on this too, not on the marijuana thing, but a gendered impact on having that $631 there because, again, this affects women more than men.
Yellowhead, CPC
No one's arguing with you there. That could be easily corrected, but I don't think we should dump it for everybody.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I'm glad also to hear that you feel there should be some changes to this. I'm encouraged by that.
