Debates of April 11th, 2019

Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned earlier the existence of separate databases. How will the government separate the convictions for simple possession from convictions relating to other offences? I would like an answer to that from the minister of broken borders and the backdoor gun registry.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will give a reminder to hon. members that creating new titles for a minister is usually something we recommend the House stay away from.

The hon. Minister of Border Security.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the insulting remarks by the member opposite, I am happy to answer the question.

In Bill C-93 there is already a clear articulation that a cannabis conviction would be subject to expungement, provided it meets certain conditions. If there are other criminal convictions within the same period of time, they would not be impacted by this legislation. However, we also know that very many Canadians have it as their only conviction.

As I said, I personally know, as I think everyone in this House likely knows, people who have otherwise led exemplary lives, but perhaps as a result of a youthful indiscretion have been caught. I have heard a number of members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, acknowledge that as youths they broke the law and used this drug. They were just fortunate enough not to get caught. For those who were caught, the consequences of that criminal record can have a lifelong impact upon them.

We believe it is appropriate to move forward on a system of making pardons accessible to them, regardless of whether they can afford it—to make sure they can have this remedy, a fresh start, and receive a pardon so that they can move forward with their lives in an appropriate way.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that during question period this week, members of the Liberal government repeatedly asked why we were not asking questions about the budget. Today we were supposed to be asking questions about the budget, but the Liberals have thrown this on the table, so obviously they do not really want to talk about the budget either, because it is that bad. They are avoiding their budget as much as the rest of Canadians are, because a $20-billion deficit and $41 billion in new spending is not something that even the Liberal government wants to talk about.

In the debate we are having today, the minister talked about what he is trying to accomplish. One of the comments he made was that one of the goals is to eliminate the criminal and black market aspects of this. However, every study we have seen over the past year is that the black market is thriving as a result of the legalization of marijuana.

One of the questions that comes from that is about those who might have been convicted of a more serious crime but who had that crime, perhaps as a result of a plea bargain, reduced to simple possession. As they go through the process of granting these pardons, are Liberals going to look at whether the charges were simple possession charges or pleaded down from more serious charges, and will that be included as part of the discussion and the criteria around receiving a pardon?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have finally met somebody on that side of the House who would actually like to speak about the budget. I point out to the member that in the 2019 budget, $2 million is allocated to support the provisions of Bill C-93.

In addition, with respect to the pardon system, the member may know that the pardon deals with the record that was registered as a result of our judicial processes. Therefore, the offence for which a person was found guilty is what constitutes the record.

By the way, that has been the way with the record suspension system, as implemented by the previous government. It has been the pardon system in this country for over a century. The pardon system deals with the record as it exists, and that is what we are talking about.

The only records that are included in Bill C-93 are those records for simple possession of cannabis. That is clearly defined in subsection 3(2) of the old Narcotic Control Act for those who have convictions prior to 1982, and then in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Those are the records that are dealt with in Bill C-93, and only those records.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year now since we followed through on our commitment to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis possession.

Speaking as a former police officer, could the hon. member speak about possession charges and how a pardon could move a life forward, add to human potential and see communities thrive?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this system, it is really important to talk about the people who are actually affected by it. I am very grateful for my hon. colleague's question.

We all know individuals who have been impacted. Some of them are adults my age and a lot of them are young people. Many have carried the burden of that criminal record, the stigma of that criminal record, throughout their entire lives. It limits their ability, for example, to travel into the United States, to be bonded for certain jobs, to get access to housing and to get access to education opportunities.

When they go looking for a job, they always have it in their mind that they have that conviction. If they do not have a pardon, they have to disclose that conviction to a potential employer. That can limit not just the individual's opportunity to realize their full potential, but their own view of themselves.

By lifting those convictions, by pardoning those individuals and giving them an opportunity for a clean state and a fresh start, we can change lives, and that makes it worth doing.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate on cannabis legislation, New Democrats have advocated for full expungement for all convictions for offences that the new law no longer considers a crime.

We have already seen that the government has gone for the half measure of pardons versus expungement, and it has also limited the scope to simple possession. The law now is that a people can grow up to four plants in their house; there are people who were convicted who were growing a plant or two in their house and who still have criminal records. This legislation will continue the stigma of a criminal record on those people.

What is shocking to me is the confusion this member has about expungement versus pardon. I am going to read the definition of expungement. It is a ”process in which the record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is...erased in the eyes of the law.” When a conviction is expunged, the process may also be referred to as “setting aside a criminal conviction”. That is as if the conviction had never occurred.

A pardon maintains the presence of the conviction; it just states that the individual has received a pardon. Those individuals always have to say, “I have have a conviction, but I have received a pardon.”

The other thing that this member is misleading Canadians about is that when people go to the border, American border guards have access to CPIC and other Canadian record databases. A pardon in no way obligates them to erase their records or to not deny entry to a Canadian seeking entry into the United States. A pardon will not have that effect for Canadians.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but acknowledge that there is a little inconsistency here, because I recall that during the last federal election campaign and also during nearly a year of debate on the cannabis bill, the member opposite and his party strongly advocated not for legalization but for decriminalization. The effect of decriminalization is to maintain the prohibition. It is to maintain the prohibition and simply swap out a criminal penalty for a civil one. Maintaining the prohibition is worse than a half measure, and it would not have enabled us to come forward and deal effectively and appropriately with these records.

By the way, just as another minor correction for the member opposite, under the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what is actually protected is that an individual Canadian can say “I do not have a conviction for which a pardon has not been rendered.” The pardon is in fact protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Canadian Human Rights Act is silent on the issue of expungement.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I am listening today, I am hearing perspectives on different types of people who are in the scenario. We have marginalized people who need jobs and we have exemplary lives of people who have just had a single offence, yet have not paid the cost to remove this charge.

I am wondering if the government has done its due diligence in coming up with the numbers and the costs related to those two groups. Taxpayers will be paying for these pardons. How many of those individuals are in marginalized situations? Can the minister give me a number, please?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of estimates with respect to the total number of people who have been convicted of this offence in the history of Canada. I have seen numbers. I do not have the data, because, quite frankly, as I said, these are not indictable records and they are not kept in a central national database.

We have seen estimates of 400,000 or 500,000. We believe that the overwhelming majority of people who have these convictions received an absolute or a conditional discharge, which did not have the effect of removing the conviction but discharges the record. Therefore, it is still important for those individuals who may not understand that they have a record to know that there is an opportunity for them to come forward and have a pardon issued for that record that in fact does exist.

One of the challenges, as I have mentioned, and one of the reasons we believe the pardon system as articulated in Bill C-93 is so important, is that these records do not reside in a single national database and are not verifiable by fingerprint. They reside in provincial and territorial databases, and it is therefore necessary for an individual to come forward and make application under the proposed system in Bill C-93 so that we can properly identify that record and deal with it in an appropriate way through a pardon system.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, continuing with this line of questioning, the minister knows that we in the official opposition are concerned that the Liberals are forcing Canadian taxpayers to pick up all the costs of these pardons. We recognize that certain disadvantaged groups perhaps should be given some relief in requesting and receiving pardons.

I would like to ask the minister why, in the interest of fairness, he and the government have not considered the application of a means test. We know that the many thousands of individuals who have been convicted of breaking a very serious law that existed until now have the full capability to cover the costs, which should not be imposed on Canadian taxpayers across the board.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to talk about costs and saving, so I will speak about that briefly.

From experience, I know that the amount of work, and therefore the cost, to process an individual charged criminally with simple possession of cannabis was quite expensive. It was a great deal of work for the police, involving analysis, retention, chain of command for evidence, prosecution, conviction and record-keeping. It was a substantial cost and a substantial amount of work.

We have replaced this with something far more proportional. I will give members an example.

Prior to October 17, if a police officer saw a young person on the street in possession of cannabis, the officer basically had two options: do nothing, which was not a very good outcome for the kid, or charge the kid with a crime, which took, in total, 22 hours of work by officials to take that to conviction.

Now police officers have the ability to enforce an absolute prohibition for the possession, purchase and consumption of cannabis for that child, but they can do this by administering a ticket and a fine. They can also seize the drug. In appropriate circumstances they can take a child home. It is about 18 minutes of work versus 22 hours of work.

Therefore, we have saved time by implementing a far more effective and proportional way of managing and controlling the substance, which creates substantial savings for Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know of individuals who, in their early years of life, made the mistake of using marijuana and were charged with the offence of possession. In order to save court costs and save themselves money in legal fees, they pleaded guilty. Outside of that charge, they have a completely unblemished record. Individuals like this are justly considered for a pardon.

However, an RCMP officer spoke to me about situations in which a plea bargain was reached with individuals who had committed much more serious offences, like trafficking and the use of different substances, and had agreed to settle for a lesser conviction of simple possession of marijuana. If we are offering a pardon to those types of individuals, I have grave concern as do many other individuals. The problem is that the records indicating the original charge are difficult to ascertain.

Does the minister have any idea how the Parole Board will filter out those two different scenarios?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. As I have said, a pardon system deals with conviction. The Parole Board is able to see if there was a criminal conviction and see the offence for which the individual was convicted. If it was simple possession of cannabis, the individual would be eligible for a pardon under the provisions of C-93.

I have taken thousands of these cases to court, and plea bargains do take place. However, the criminal record is part of our law. It is an acknowledgement of a charge for which an individual has been convicted in a court of law. We are dealing with those convictions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time allocated for questions has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1294

Criminal Records Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-92—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families—