Evidence of meeting #160 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 offences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—in this case a young black person you've dealt with. They've gotten the pardon, under this government's bill, and the employer would be informed that there is something on their record, but we can't tell you what it is. It's left to the imagination, essentially.
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
That is correct. The way it's reported is that “We can't tell you what it is.”
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And again, it's left to the imagination of the employer.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was just going to go Ms. Finestone, because I saw her nodding during that piece.
Could you help the committee by giving more information in response to that last question?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
When someone has received a pardon, there is information given to an employer that “There is a charge out there; we just can't tell you what it's about.”
4:10 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
What I know most about is the fact that a pardon doesn't take it away, so the moment someone commits another offence, like an administration of justice offence, it pops right back up.
I think I can speak to that piece. While the intentions are very good, it still ends up showing up.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay. I think we'd need to get more information about how that appears, because everything we've heard until now has been that there is a difference between pardons and expungements, but a pardon does not show up when people get their searches. I just need clarification from someone at some point on that point.
A lot of this has been about the process—pardon or expungement, either way. Right now, one of the big issues that keep coming up is that people have to apply. I believe in 1996 there was a change in the way the charges appeared and in the way they're recorded. If it were automatic to 1996, and anything post-1996 were an automatic pardon or expungement, would that help?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'll ask the same thing of Mr. Cudjoe. Going back to 1996 when there was a change in the way the charges appeared and were recorded, if, from 1996 to now, be it a pardon or an expungement, it were automatic, would that be helpful?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
It would be very helpful.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
All right.
I understand that pre-1996 there were other record-keeping issues that might change, so that might be something else. But if it were automatic from 1996 onwards, how would we get word out to people to let them know this has happened? That's my other concern. It's a great thing that we've done this, but they might not know. They might be answering questions based on incorrect information. What's the best way for us to let people know this has happened?
4:15 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
I think a great way is to keep engaging with organizations like NWAC and CABL so that they can tell the people they serve that this is possible. Our organizations do a lot of public legal education and our work is about engaging people in the laws that affect them.
If you keep organizations like ours in the loop, that will really be helpful to our constituents and, subsequently, yours.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
I was thinking that an automatic mailing to the address once the automatic suspension is done would be really helpful.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Automatic mailing. Okay. Thank you.
As a procedural point, it's helpful to get some ideas as to how that could work.
I was quite taken with something that was on page 7, I believe, of your submission, Ms. Finestone. It deals with the issue of wiping out the need to complete sentences. Right now, simple cannabis possession is legal, and yet there might be people who still have unpaid fines or outstanding probation they still need to serve based on that.
We heard evidence during a previous study on record suspensions that outstanding fines were in fact one of the main hindrances, because your time would start accumulating. Now, here there is no time-accumulating issue. Can you speak a bit to that point, about why it's important to get rid of the need to complete a sentence?
4:15 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
Absolutely.
There was one thing that came to mind. I was looking at that report you're discussing when we made that recommendation. There are people who will never be able to afford to pay their fines, because they simply don't have the money and have to pay their rent or buy food. They would never have access to Bill C-93. As you said, if it's now legal, why aren't we giving people the opportunity to apply?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Cudjoe, do you have any thoughts about the need to wipe out in legislation the requirement that people have completed their sentence related to the simple possession before they can qualify for the pardon?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
Ms. Finestone said it best. We are aware of many people who will never be able to pay those fines.
May 6th, 2019 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thanks.
Both of you have raised the administrative offences. It's complicated, because not everyone is in the position of the scenario that Ms. Finestone has drawn, but it's a compelling scenario.
It's a compelling story about why somebody might not have been able to be in court or might not have received notices and all of that, but that's certainly not the case for everyone who has those offences.
Do you have any idea whether there is a fine-tuned way? Say we went to an automatic process. Now we're on an automatic process and the first layer is easy. Post-1996, for everyone with just simple possession, it's gone. Then you have the people who have administrative offences related to that simple possession. It can't as easily work automatically at that point, because now we have other parts to look at, so I guess you need almost a secondary process.
Have you thought about that? How do we parse that out?
