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.
4:30 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
That's because it eliminates the requirement that you demonstrate good conduct and it eliminates the requirement that you have to show a measurable benefit that the pardon will give to you. They're all qualitative aspects. Often people obtain counsel to help them do that, because you're presenting a case for yourself. It's not really just running around a courthouse trying to find specific documents and putting in your fingerprints. You're making an argument for yourself. The discretionary element is no longer there in Bill C-93.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have just a minute or so left, and I'm curious to know something. I've asked some individuals that I know who are in business this question: Listen, as an employer, if someone applies for a position with you, and you ask them for a records check or they come in with it, now that marijuana is legalized, are you concerned that the individual has a previous conviction for simple possession of marijuana? The answer I've gotten back from them is that, no, they don't care.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I think most employers don't care about whether something that's been legalized will have an impact on them. I know it impacts the individual.
I don't know if you have any thoughts on that particular issue.
4:30 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
I haven't really thought about that specific issue.
The decision whether or not to hire someone on the basis of a criminal record is discretionary. My concern is about who the people are who are being most impacted as a result of the exercise of that discretion. There's always the potential for it to harm an individual and to limit them.
While a lot of employers may not ultimately care, I think we're not there yet. That may happen in a couple of years. Mr. Stamatakis mentioned that there have been sweeping cultural changes in our perception and our understanding of cannabis, and I think that's only going to continue. But until we get there we still have people who are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
Our next witness is on his way from court, and the lawyers among us know exactly what that means, so I'm going to stretch this session a little bit further. Before I ask Mr. Graham for the next five minutes, I'll take a question from our analysts with respect to testimony on the schedule.
Go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Julia Nicol Committee Researcher
You may not be able to answer this, but if I understand correctly, you said that in CPIC it will say this is a schedule II offence. Item 1 of that schedule, natural cannabis and derivatives, is no longer an issue, but item 2, the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist, remains a criminal offence. Would the item number have been listed in CPIC in every case, because if not, we have an issue with figuring it out.
4:35 p.m.
Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty
I don't think so. It's not that detailed.
4:35 p.m.
Committee Researcher
That's what I thought. That's where we have a problem. You can't tell by relying just on CPIC.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That was my first question, so thank you for that.
Mr. Stamatakis, when you're looking at an electronic record, what do you know? When you pull up somebody's criminal record, what do you see?
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
It gives you a very brief description of the offence. There's no context or additional information.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Of all our historical criminal records in this country—I imagine there are quite a few of them—how many have been digitized? Do we have any sense of that?
May 1st, 2019 / 4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
No, and I would agree with my co-panellists here that record-keeping is an issue. The other issue is that while we all rely on CPIC nationally, provincially there are different databases that capture information as well. Even if you delete a record from CPIC, it doesn't mean the record is automatically going to delete from those other databases that different police agencies use in different jurisdictions.
I say this from a policing perspective.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Are police databases generally synchronized in any way? Is there some way of doing so, or is everyone their own little island?
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
No, they're not synchronized. Policing falls under provincial jurisdiction, and each province will make their own decisions with respect to provincial databases that might be used to capture law enforcement-generated data.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
While I appreciate the sentiment, is there any way we can implement Mr. Eglinski's idea of using AI to find these data?
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
I think you could. I agree with the sentiment that in today's world, there should be some way of quickly managing records, at least with CPIC. If you came up with a process where there was a document that a person could be given that confirms that the record has been deleted or expunged, it would be helpful. If you focus just on CPIC, it's not going to solve the problem when it comes to simple possession.
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
Yes, it's a national database. All police services across the country have access to CPIC.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
So, as we were saying before, CPIC doesn't do the reverse. That's why there's no coordination. It's a one-way situation.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Okay.
If someone has multiple possession charges but nothing else, would they have to apply for each one individually? What's your take on that? Or could they apply once for the 10 or 20 times they got caught?