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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
Yes. I think my reading of it is that it's specifically talking about simple possession. If there aren't those other circumstances, then I don't see why you couldn't apply it once. But I don't think it's clear.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Okay. But as we said earlier, if you have any other record, then it's moot anyway.
In your opening remarks, you expressed concern about people who had their plea bargains down to a simple possession, but I think the underlying hint of that was that if that was the case, they probably also had an additional criminal record, and that's why there would be a concern. If that's the case, then that criminal record would make it a moot point, would it not?
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
It would just be my concern that the board wouldn't have access to that information, because my experience as a police officer is that there are often those plea arrangements made for good reason. As I said in my opening remarks, those agreements are arrived at for a reason, and this changes the landscape, obviously. To be frank, if all someone has is a simple possession charge as a result of a plea agreement from 10 years ago or five years ago and there's nothing else, I have no issue with that. But our experience, from a policing perspective, is that these people often are involved in a lot of other things. I agree with you: if that's the case, then they wouldn't be eligible to apply, but it's just giving that little bit more discretion to be able to confirm that.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
To do that, we'd have to have the Parole Board subjectively look at each record as it comes up, which is sort of the opposite extreme from what your colleague here is suggesting. Would that be a fair assessment?
4:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
I suppose what I would say is that I'm advocating for them to have the ability to do that where they believe there's a reason to do so. I'm not suggesting you create a mechanism where they have to do it in every case.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to come back to where cannabis amnesty is at, in terms of this bill, because certainly it's better than nothing but ultimately the fact remains that the best outcome for the individuals you're seeking justice and remediation for would be expungement. Is that fair?
4:40 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
Yes, that's the best outcome.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Okay. And then it's a little more than the bare minimum, but another good step would be it being automatic in some way. We're getting bogged down in how that would occur, but if the government was willing to do so...?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Even if it wasn't automatic, would a model like what was proposed in Bill C-66 be feasible? We talked about the language being used there, the historical injustice language being applied, but ultimately the Bill C-66 model could very easily have been—or still be—applied in this case, potentially, correct?
4:40 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
Potentially, but Bill C-66 is actually a little bit more complex than what I'm proposing, because the offences listed in Bill C-66 were not only used to prosecute consensual homosexual activities, they were also used to prosecute non-consensual homosexual activities. So with Bill C-66, in your application, you have to either find information that would demonstrate that it was a consensual act, or swear an affidavit to that effect, so it's actually a lot more homework with Bill C-66.
Maybe there's a mirror to what the analyst was asking me before, where you're not sure what the nature of the underlying offence may be and whether it qualifies for what the objective you're trying to accomplish is. In those cases, you may actually have to go back to not just the court documents, to find those, but you may have to order the court transcript. Because oftentimes, even the court documents won't say the nature of the substance. You have to get the evidence.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I just want to go back to a question that was posed earlier about travel at the border. I think there are domestic concerns that are important enough when it comes to things like jobs and volunteering and so forth. I just want to make sure we're distinguishing something here, because there seems to be an argument that a pardon or a record suspension is better because it provides documentation.
I have two comments about that. One is there's nothing that would prevent the government from keeping a record of records that were expunged if people so requested. It seems like a bit of a contradiction, but ultimately, that would be feasible. The other piece is that in your testimony you were referring not so much as to whether it is important or not to have documentation, but to the fact that even if you have a record suspension, it is not necessarily recognized by the Americans, so there's no guarantee even there that your travel would be facilitated.
4:40 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
At most, a record suspension would buttress your application for an entry waiver to the United States. You would still be required to make an application for an entry waiver if you've been denied entry. The pardon and the record suspension or an expungement would not prevent you from being deemed inadmissible.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
I would like to go back to the issue of the U.S. border officer. Your testimony was that a pardon and an expungement as far as that officer is concerned are equally useless.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
With either one, you're essentially in exactly the same position as the person who has a conviction or any outstanding charge because the question is the same.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Whether it's a charge, a conviction, an expungement or a pardon, it's all useless as far as the U.S. border officers are concerned.
4:40 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
Unfortunately, we can't pass laws that impact the United States.