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.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
—which could generally change after this bill is implemented, and people and employers know that perhaps the best questions to ask are, “Have you ever smoked marijuana?”, “Have you ever plead guilty?” and “Have you ever been charged?”
You do raise some very good points. I never thought about that very alarming CAS incident. That's true. People grow up with very different situations and, therefore, have different challenges. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, in the past, there have been other crimes that are no longer on the books, and the pardon process has always been undertaken and used. I hope we're able to improve it to some degree, but would you agree that this is a step in the right direction and that it will help some people?
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
I do agree that it's a step in the right direction and will help some people. For many of our constituents, given their level of education, how much they read and what they do in life, I think it would be a lot more helpful if it were automatic.
I've had people in court ask if they had a criminal record. They had gone to court and paid a fine, for example, for possession of marijuana, and thought they did not have a criminal record, because they didn't go to jail.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
It would help if it were automatic, and they can learn later on.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I want to go back to a series of questions asked by both sides. We've seen your suggestions and recommendations, Ms. Finestone, but Mr. Cudjoe, we didn't have an opportunity to have yours.
If I had asked a question previously about the design process—which seems to be something of a hindrance to those who might need it most.... If you were to design the process based on the clients you deal with, sir, what needs to be done so that those who need it might be able to use it in the manner intended?
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
My experience is that for many young people, a possession of marijuana charge began their criminal career, and that led to so many things.
The administration of justice charges linked to those marijuana charges are crucial for our community, because of the link between those charges and what followed. Unfortunately, if you went on and robbed somebody after that, that's your issue, but the young people facing strictly administration of justice charges are the ones we're concerned about.
So many times—and I do want to go very quickly to the fail-to-appear comment about people showing their finger to the court—we're talking about 14-year-olds who received a ticket, put it in their pocket and may have lost it. That happened very often. The 14-year-old gets arrested for the fail-to-appear charge, goes to jail and has to go for bail. The Crown offers him a deal and says, “Plead guilty to your possession of marijuana, and all this goes away today,” or “Plead guilty of fail to appear, and you can go home today.”
If they had a chance to go to trial, they would have been able to say, “Not guilty”, because they did not intend to give their finger to the court. You're 14 years old, and you lost a slip of paper in your pocket.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
You're referring to youth, and I appreciate that their understanding of the jeopardy they face is sometimes wanting, at best, but I am concerned that there are some gaps that will continue with this legislation. To me, one of them is the inconsistency that exists.
If someone were charged with minor possession prior to this offence, minor possession would have meant exceeding 30 grams. If they've been charged since October 2018, it's an offence to have over 30 grams.
Other witnesses have told us they have some concerns about that inconsistency. Are you seeing that being a challenge moving forward—that the group with more in their possession than 30 grams will get suspensions immediately, and others will now have to wait five years to qualify for a suspension?
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
I have to admit that the number of grams is not my area of expertise. I don't know where the 30 grams came from. From court, I know police experts have stood up and said that normally, if it's over 30 grams, it means you had it for the purposes of trafficking.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
To be honest, I can't really comment on that. There are too many stories to be able to give a comprehensive answer.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have one last comment or question before my time is up.
Regardless of the government telling us that this is going to be of no cost to those who apply, we do know that the...not counting the hours it's going to take to go around to the jurisdictions where your offences were committed and maybe take fingerprints, confirm your identity, ask for your record and all the things that are going to be required in the legislation. There will be a cost associated with that. There will continue to be a cost associated with that. Will those who would benefit the most from this record suspension still be precluded from even applying for it based on those costs?
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
My understanding is that there are even other costs, like the fingerprinting and collecting all the documents, so yes—
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That's what I'm saying. It's potentially $200.
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
Right, so it's still not nothing, and it's not going as far as I think it should go.
Liberal
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you both for being with us, and for your expertise and advocacy.
I have developed a few categories, just thinking about the issue. They include the impacts of the problem, the cost of the problem and who pays for it, and then there are the legal mechanics. I want to focus my questions on the first two, the impacts on the people you deal with—your clients, the people you're protecting and advocating for—and the question of cost.
I'm wondering if we could start out by dispelling a couple of myths, just for the record. I think it's happened in other conversations the committee has had, and in our understanding it has certainly been dispelled, but I'd just like to have you on the record as well.
The first point is that nobody really cares about single possession convictions anymore because cannabis is legal now, and employers really aren't going to be concerned if that comes back on an employee check. What's your response to that?
Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada
We can't control what other employees think, so we shouldn't leave it to their discretion. If the government makes a law, then everyone has to abide by the same law. It's not at the discretion of employees who don't understand the injustices we're talking about.
In terms of the impact, it's not just youth. If indigenous women are in jail—and they're often single parents—they can't be with their children. That means their children are more likely to be apprehended by the children's aid society. They're also going to be more likely to plead guilty, and they're also going to be more likely to be enmeshed in the criminal justice system.
Vice-President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
I agree with that answer. The question is whether you will make it to the interview stage if you have anything on your record. If the only thing on your record is the possession of marijuana, how sad that you don't get the interview.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Right.
If I have time, I'll get to some of that in subsequent questions.
The other point is in terms of who pays. There was debate this morning in the House of Commons on Bill C-93, and one of the lines of argument was, “Well, the median taxpayer really didn't do anything wrong here, and why should she or he pay for the cost of either expungement or a record suspension?”
I wonder if you could go on the record and just tell us not only why is it important for your clients that these costs be covered by the taxpayer but also why it's an economic advantage for the taxpayer to cover those costs, because of the empowerment that takes place vis-à-vis your clients and their ability to become competitive in the job market and on other fronts as well.
