Yes.
Evidence of meeting #159 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 conviction.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #159 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 conviction.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
—and then maybe have to do something else for those when you have perhaps different items and schedules and it's different legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
Yes, exactly. One of the things we proposed in one of the documents we sent to the government was a multi-tiered system that responded to different kinds of offences.
For example, it makes sense if you have only one conviction for simple cannabis possession that's over 40 years old and you've never done anything since then. Who cares? Just expunge it. It's so useless to have that.
In terms of the risk of it being anything more serious than simple cannabis possessions, if they're 40 years old, why don't we just get rid of all those ones? Different tiers of types of offences can attract different responses.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
You have outlined what that would look like. At this point, we're looking at legislation, and I guess you would agree with me that it's important that we pass this legislation quickly.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It would be helpful, then, if you have any suggestion as to proper wording.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I don't know if you've already provided that to the committee.
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
I have not. I think we have a draft piece of legislation. However, I can provide that to the committee.
May 1st, 2019 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
That would be wonderful. I'd appreciate that, if you'd be able to send in what you would propose as a draft.
The other question that has been on my mind is when we'd looked at record suspensions previously with a motion—I think it was M-161—one of the witnesses mentioned that one of the largest barriers was outstanding fines. The time didn't start clicking for a lot of people because of it.
Here, the time isn't a factor anymore under this bill, but my understanding is that you can't qualify under Bill C-93 if you still have outstanding fines. How do you feel about that piece, about the outstanding fines? Would it be helpful if people were not required to pay their outstanding fines to qualify for the pardon or record suspension?
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
I actually thought there was no relationship between the presence of an outstanding fine and eligibility for Bill C-93, so I'm—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
My understanding was that all penalties, any time that had to be served, if there was time that had to be served, or any outstanding fines, would have to have been completed before you would be able to quality.
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
Yes, completed. That's right.
That was a difficulty in access on this issue. Many times the people who don't pay their fines are unable to do so. These are the same people who are unable to afford pardons, ultimately. We're trying to target those people who have, as a result of their criminal convictions, become marginalized and are unable to be gainfully employed and contribute to society. Then we're doubly punishing them by preventing the only mechanism by which they can actually go out and be employed and contribute to society and gain the type of income that would allow them to pay the fine. It's a contradiction in terms to not have contemplated a way to go around that.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to continue on with the issue of fines. I think it's important to appreciate that if you have an outstanding fine, and if there's a significant timeline, it's turned into a warrant. You have a certain amount of time to pay your fine, and if you don't, it goes to warrant. The moment you start dealing with that, then, you have an outstanding warrant. Generally, if it's for minor possession, with a $150 or $200 fine generally, you get picked up and you're released, because really you've paid your fine. That's kind of how things generally work for minor possession.
I want to also talk about CPIC for a second. CPIC is a database that identifies to law enforcement that an individual has been dealt with with a record. I'm splitting hairs here, but CPIC doesn't actually contain the record.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The way the government has looked at Bill C-93 is that there's still a requirement for the department to go and verify through fingerprints and the actual record, not just CPIC. It's not as simple as hitting a button and removing it off CPIC. Now you can do that on the database that contains the actual criminal record.
But that's a different story. I want to ask you specifically about the fact that right now, the process from the department's perspective is to try to do it inexpensively from.... It's free for an applicant. It's not free for the department. They figure it will cost a couple of hundred dollars per person if their numbers are accurate in terms of the number of people who are going to be applying. I still have questions as to how well that might be done. If I'm applying for a record suspension because of a minor possession of marijuana, the onus is on me to go to “a” jurisdiction; it's not multiple but one conviction. That's all I'm allowed to deal with.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have to go back to that place of jurisdiction and I have to go and find the actual conviction from the courthouse.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have to give my fingerprints, to verify that I'm me, and confirm that I have that record. Then I submit that as part of the package that the Crown has put together for people to apply for this.
I mean, do you think that's an efficient way of doing this? Really, in terms of what we're asking, I have to apply through a process online. I have to follow a sequence where I check the boxes. The onus is on me to do those things. Then the department, the Parole Board, has a clerical function where they might say, yes, this person's fingerprints match up through the C-216Cs or the new systems now, or, yes, this is the record, and there's nothing else that impedes this person from becoming or being.... They only have one conviction; they've qualified. To me, that seems like a really long process, potentially, and it will limit people who want to get this conviction.... I'm wondering whether this will actually benefit the people we're expecting it to benefit—those who are prohibited from getting the type of job they want because of a simple possession charge.
What are your thoughts on that?
4:30 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
I think your instincts are correct. Even today, the largest number of applications for pardons.... The process that you describe, which is the Bill C-93 process, is better and less onerous than the process we currently have for record suspension.
