Public Safety Committee on May 1st, 2019

[Solomon Friedman]

I think that any time Parliament decriminalizes activity that was previously criminal in the code—in other words, now it's no longer criminal—people shouldn't suffer the stigma of a criminal record for having engaged in that behaviour in the past. If Parliament today says it's not illegal, I don't understand why you should suffer the effects of it.

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

We looked at a study—I think it was M-161, which Mr. Long brought—where we talked about how there are some individuals who we all know who have conviction for other offences, like theft and whatever else.

[Solomon Friedman]

Those offences won't be suspended. The cannabis possession—

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

Right, under this legislation.... What I'm referring to is, should there be some mechanism whereby we can make that easier? Do you see this process maybe impacting that conversation?

[Solomon Friedman]

Like I said, if somebody has multiple criminal convictions, this legislation is only going to suspend the possession of cannabis.

That's not insignificant, by the way. If a criminal record is disclosed to someone, where before it had theft under $5,000 and a drug possession, now it will just have a theft under $5,000. That changes the conversation about what kind of criminal history you have. It's not a drug conviction you have anymore; it's just a theft under $5,000. To me, what—

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

If you have both of those convictions, you don't qualify for a suspension.

[Solomon Friedman]

Yes. That's fair enough, right? I hear that. My view is that all of these should disappear. Whether you have one or five or 10 other convictions, why should you have the stigma of this conviction when it's not a crime anymore?

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Picard, you have four minutes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I will pass my time to Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Friedman, thanks very much. It's great to have you back.

I have two questions before I pass it to my colleague.

Can you zoom in a bit more on the vulnerable persons section under current current law and describe what kind of checks are being done beyond those of an average criminal record check?

Secondly, do you have any other jurisdictions in mind, other than the U.S., that have gotten this right or have taken us, in your mind, as close to the answers as we should be?

[Solomon Friedman]

If you take a look at the Criminal Records Act, there's a link to section 6.3, which defines “vulnerable person”. In section 6.3, it provides that, at the request of a person who is responsible for the well-being of a vulnerable person, they can essentially disclose these records through a request process.

Then there's schedule 1. Schedule 1 sets out the kinds of offences that would still be disclosed even when you've received a record suspension. They're largely sexual offences, and that makes a good deal of sense. You're talking about somebody who is applying to work in the care of vulnerable people. Even though they may now be of good character, I certainly understand that.

There are, however—and I'm sure you have studied this—what are called non-conviction records. That is, even though you don't have a conviction, you can be barred from certain opportunities because you've been in contact with police, you have provincial offences, you're on bail conditions or a whole number of things.

This offence, however—the possession of cannabis—is not listed in schedule 1. It wouldn't fall under that disclosure mechanism for vulnerable people set out in section 6.3.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Very briefly, are there other jurisdictions that we should look at that have gotten this right, beyond the U.S.?

[Solomon Friedman]

I'm not in a position to comment beyond the U.S. I'd comment specifically on San Francisco, where it was automatic. No application was done; they went through the database and just erased the records of conviction.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks very much.

Michel.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, sir.

Let's say that a pardon—or whatever name we use under this bill—resulted in the fact that, since it's no longer illegal, past experience doesn't count because it's supposed to be suspended. When someone goes for a job interview and all that, since it's not illegal now, do you think that a company should look for past experience related to cannabis? For example, have they been sentenced for cannabis possession? Whereas somewhere, in fact, it's no longer illegal and they should not be concerned about that.

[Solomon Friedman]

You and I might agree they shouldn't be concerned about it, but the government is not in a position to set internal company policies. If a company has a policy that if you have a drug conviction then you're not getting hired, if they get that record, you're not getting hired.

There are also other factors at play. Some of this has to do with bonding or insurance issues. Their insurance provider might say that they can't have somebody working on a job site if they have a conviction record. There's nothing—at least that I can see—that Parliament could do about that. The simple thing to do is to remove that record.

While we may all have a very enlightened view, saying that it was in the past and it's now legal, so come work for me—I'd probably feel that way about a prospective employee—you can't legislate that, other than removing the record of conviction.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Yes, but let's say, for example, in the trucking industry, you couldn't care less whether they have been convicted or not. The concern is whether the driver is using cannabis or not. Legal or not, the industry cannot have a driver under the influence of cannabis while he or she is working and for a certain period of time there should not be any traces of it. This is, as you said, in our policy for companies.

It comes to a point where people who will obviously really need this suspension will ask, with the process we propose, to get this result, because they need a paper to prove that they don't have a criminal record. So, using a system that already exists, where you have a paper confirming that the pardon has been obtained, what is the need to go much further, based on your testimony, since the objectives have been achieved?

[Solomon Friedman]

I look at the nature of the population that's disproportionately targeted by these convictions. Those are not people who may have the sophistication or the education to know about the record suspension process or to be able to go through it without undue hardship, like engaging the services of one of these predatory companies for thousands of dollars.

If what we are trying to ensure here is justice and fairness for people who are convicted of an offence that no longer exists, then surely there is no need to have them jump through the hoops, the same hoops that we've put someone through minus the fee and approval process. We'd have to go through the hoops for people who are convicted of an offence that is still on the books.

Remember, it is not a crime anymore, so, in my view, the government should do everything it can to remove every obstacle, every burden, that's put on someone for having committed something that is no longer illegal.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I adjourn, do you have an opinion with respect to an individual who has multiple convictions for possession over a number of years? Is that one application for all, or is it one application for each conviction?

[Solomon Friedman]

My view is these should happen automatically. If you're going to do an application process, then it should be one application for all of these. It should apply to people regardless of what other history they may have. These convictions, in my view, should simply disappear.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.