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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The way the bill is proposed right now, if people have an administration of justice offence, would they even be able to apply because of the restriction being only—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
There is one thing I want to clarify. You gave a very good explanation of why people in some communities are unable to present in court and so forth. However, should somebody who deliberately doesn't jump to court, who just says, “That's the system”, also have that automatic withdrawal of the other related offences?
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
I think we need to go back to the fact that this is now something legal, and if this had been legal a few years ago, people wouldn't be ensnared in the criminal justice system. We know that people who are trapped in this system are often marginalized, so I guess the answer is yes—because we need to take this off the books.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
How can you connect those files?
Sorry, how can you relate those obstruction files?
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
How can I.... I'm sorry—
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Your time is up.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
How can you relate your obstruction files and administration files specifically to the cannabis position file? Is it mentioned on the record that this obstruction has been applied because of the cannabis file, or is there nothing on the administration file that we can read that says it is related? Therefore, how could I take a chance to erase them?
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
My understanding is that there would be the charge for simple possession of cannabis and then the person would be summoned to appear in court related to that charge. Perhaps Mr. Cudjoe can expand on this. Basically, there would be a timeline. All of these administration of justice offences would come after the initial simple possession of cannabis charge.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you to both witnesses for being here.
Were either of your organizations consulted prior to this bill? Do you see that your objections.... Obviously, I know the answer to my next question, but your objections are obviously not reflected in the current legislation.
4 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
No, they are not. I was invited to a meeting with Mr. Matthew Dubé and Mr. Murray Rankin to discuss Bill C-415 and because Bill C-93 is related, we were also invited to speak on that. However, it was simply in tangent, so no, not really, and no, they are not reflected.
4 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
In fact, I'm the chair of the advocacy committee for the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. The first time this came to our attention was when the notice for this hearing came up.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. Thank you.
You brought it up, Ms. Finestone, and I just want to cover it off. I'm struggling to combine administration of justice charges and the record suspension related to them because they speak to a different issue. We appreciate that marijuana possession is legal now. However, the fact that you have the administration of justice offence means somebody basically gave the finger to the justice system.
I appreciate from experience that some of the “marginalized” communities, as you termed them—or those with mental health challenges—in the past didn't appreciate the gravity of their actions. I get that—or they're in a spot where they don't comply. There are some pretty serious offences here that impact their moving forward, and currently—this is more a statement than a response—I'm really having trouble seeing how the connection would work.
One of the things the officials told us last week was that there are about 250,000 Canadians, according to their estimates, who have a record for minor possession of marijuana and who might be eligible for these suspensions, yet only about 10,000 of these people might consider this process. Do either one of you have any thoughts on the accuracy of those numbers, based on your experiences?
4 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
Mr. Cudjoe, do you want to start?
4 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
To be truthful, there's no experience for the numbers, but I think Ms. Finestone has mentioned that point as well. If it's automatic, that changes the number dramatically. If the suspension of the record is automatic and you don't actually have to start the process, that changes the numbers dramatically—
