House of Commons Hansard #423 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was marijuana.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry. I did not notice there was another name on the list, so this is my fault. If the member could hold onto his thoughts, I would like to recognize another member from a different party at this point.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Madam Speaker, I am sorry for my colleague. I will try to quickly get through my speech so that he can also add to today's debate.
I am glad to speak on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to Bill C-93, which is part of the larger issue of cannabis legalization. It is important to ensure that those who have been sentenced for simple possession can erase that from their criminal records. Now that cannabis is legal, I think everyone agrees that we must prevent all injustices committed against those who have criminal records because of this offence.
All of my colleagues have probably talked to constituents who have criminal records. They are well aware of the barriers these Canadians face. Although it is important for those who violate the Criminal Code to face consequences, it goes without saying that, when dealing with a product that was once illegal and has since been legalized, such an injustice should be acknowledged in an effort to remove the barriers these people face every day. I think everyone agrees on the principle of the matter. It is on the way to settle this injustice that we strongly disagree with the government.
Over the years, the Government of Canada has tried a number of times to address similar injustices in different ways. The NDP would have liked to see the government address the injustice related to the simple possession of cannabis by expunging the records of those affected. That is what was done in the case of other historic injustices where the Criminal Code contained unreasonable provisions that no longer made any sense.
Those who still have a criminal record for this offence deserve to have their record expunged, or permanently deleted, so that there is no trace of their conviction and it is as though the crime was never committed. We need to recognize this historic injustice related to an offence that is no longer an offence today. Simple possession of cannabis is now completely acceptable and legal in our society.
Obviously, the NDP's approach is completely different from the one the Liberal government took in Bill C-93. The Liberal government chose to suspend such records, but the word “suspend” means something completely different than the word “expunge” when it comes to the application and effect of this measure. The government decided to suspend the criminal records of those found guilty of simple possession of cannabis, and we do not think that is enough. Obviously, this approach will not work very well and will not do justice to those affected. This shows a lack of ambition on the part of the government.
As my colleague mentioned, the government decided to do the bare minimum. The minister himself said that automatic suspension was too complicated a procedure for him. Imagine how complicated it would be for him and his department to expunge a record.
Simply put, the Liberal government lacks ambition. It should have corrected this injustice well before the final sitting days of this Parliament. It could have included this in a bill or, at the very least, in a parallel process, because one cannot happen without the other. Legalization should have included a pardon and record suspension process, even if the records should ideally be expunged. All of this should have been done when we decided to legalize cannabis, given how important an issue it is.
Clearly, the government failed and it is trying to remedy the situation and do everything it can at the last minute to satisfy the many voters affected by this, who also happen to be our constituents. I have seen some of them in Sherbrooke. Just last month, I heard testimony from someone who was interested in the issue because it affected her personally. She was disappointed by the Liberal government’s approach, which only implements a system for record suspensions, despite a very clear proposition in the form of a bill introduced by our colleague from Victoria. All the government had to do was pass it and everything would have been fine. Instead, it chose to stay the course and do the bare minimum. The government wants to do the bare minimum. Clearly, there is a lack of ambition.
I was reading a quote from a witness who said in committee that it was better than nothing. However, he also said that better than nothing was not a lot to ask from Parliament. We expect Parliament to do the best possible, to do everything in its power to make the situation the best possible, not to do the bare minimum and for it to be better than nothing. That is not what Canadians expect from us and our work. In light of the testimony heard at committee, the government's current approach is very disappointing. Despite all the evidence and witness testimony that it heard, it remains dead set on maintaining its approach and is unwilling to listen to anything or fix the situation. I am truly disappointed to have to say that I am opposing this bill since it is not the solution that should have been considered and brought forward by the Liberal government. The government got it wrong.
People who currently have a criminal record will continue to be marginalized. Even though this is free of charge, people may not have the capacity, the resources or the financial means to see the process through for getting their criminal record suspended. As I was saying before, the government decided that this would not be done automatically. The people involved will have to go through a process, file their application and maybe even submit biometric data to satisfy the many requirements related to getting a pardon or a record suspension. Marginalized people who may not even be aware of these changes are going to be left out. Some people do not read the news every morning and might not know that is available to them. If the government was truly ambitious and serious about marijuana legalization, it would have at least made this automatic, since it is not opting for expungement of criminal records, which was our preference.
I am really disappointed because I expected more. I expected a genuine desire on the government's part to correct this injustice. There is no reason why people who do not apply for a post-legalization suspension after Bill C-93 is adopted—if it is adopted—should continue to be saddled with a criminal record. The crime they committed is no longer a crime. Society accepts it now. This is a gross injustice, an injustice that will persist because the government did not take the right approach.
Some of our constituents, like the one I met back home in Sherbrooke, are still vulnerable. These are people who need a helping hand from the government. They are still outsiders, still marginalized, and they are the ones we should be helping the most.
I felt it was important to add my voice to the debate and explain why I have to vote against this bill today. The government has clearly made a bad decision and is heading in the wrong direction with this. What a huge disappointment for me and for many of my Sherbrooke constituents.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, going back to 2015, we heard the debate on the cannabis issue. I was surprised when I heard the leader of the NDP campaigning, and I imagine the member was as well, on decriminalization. We would be in a much worse situation than we are now. We would not even be addressing these issues of pardons versus expungement and that sort of thing.
I am wondering if he could go back to 2015 and explain why he supported that but at the same time is criticizing the government's approach on this particular bill.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Madam Speaker, I do not know why my colleague is bringing up a debate from 2015, when this is 2019 and the situation has evolved. Today I am speaking about Bill C-93, which is before me. As a parliamentarian, my job is to speak to what is in front of me, and today Bill C-93 is in front of me, and it is, quite simply, a step in the wrong direction. The government has made a mistake. The debate has evolved since 2015. The government legalized marijuana, but it should have created a pardon process at the same time.
I do not know why my colleague wants to dredge up the past and talk about debates that are over. We debated the legalization of cannabis for hours in the House. I do not know why he is bringing that up during our debate on Bill C-93. All he has to do is read the House of Commons Debates. All of the members and all of the parties have already spoken about the legalization of cannabis, either during the last campaign or in the House. If he wants to go backwards and dredge up that debate again, he can do so online.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague always speaks so eloquently and pragmatically in this place. It is admirable.
I am told that indigenous people in Regina are nine times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession than non-indigenous people. In Vancouver, they are seven times more likely than non-indigenous people. My colleague, the member for Victoria, has called that constructive discrimination.
When we in this place, as members of Parliament, seek an apartment, we have to sign on the dotted line as to whether we have a criminal conviction. Imagine what some of our interns must face. There are tens of thousands of Canadians who have criminal records for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
The government's argument is that it is against the Canadian Human Rights Act to discriminate against people who have a pardon. That is balderdash. It is bad enough that the government is requiring everyone to apply for a pardon. People will then have to hire a lawyer if they are denied being able to volunteer for the Boys and Girls Club, cross the border or even get an apartment, because they would have to honestly say, even though they had a record suspension, that they had a criminal conviction but had received a pardon.
I wonder if my colleague could speak to that. Here we are, late in the day, a year after this has become law, and the government is going to make people apply for a pardon, which is close to valueless.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Madam Speaker, that is the crux of the problem. The government's fundamental mistake with Bill C-93 was choosing not to go with automatic suspension.
The vulnerable and marginalized people that my colleague mentioned are nine times more likely to be arrested for behaviour that would be completely ignored by law enforcement if it were committed by people in a non-marginalized group. Indigenous peoples, such as the Inuit and the Métis, are much more likely to be arrested for the same behaviour.
Marginalized people do not have the means or ability to undertake the record suspension process and meet all of the requirements. For example, in some cases biometric data must be provided. What is more, the services of a lawyer or consultant can cost a fortune. They cannot afford to pay for that. At the very least, they deserve an automatic pardon, but the government is still refusing to give it to them. That is shameful.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I do not often rise in the House to speak, but Bill C-93 is a very interesting piece of legislation. In all honesty, I think Bill C-93 came as a result of good intentions. The government saw a problem it had created because of some previous legislation and said that it had to fix it.
We should go back to the original issue. The original issue was that the Liberals rushed a piece of legislation. They tried desperately to meet self-imposed deadlines that they should not have made. The Liberals made promises that, in all honesty, they realized they could not keep. Then, to try to keep the promises, they crafted some very poor legislation. Of course, I am talking about the bill that legalized marijuana.
As some of my colleagues have said, the jury is still out. I do not feel that the jury is out, but some people say that the jury is still out on whether marijuana is a gateway drug. I have some personal experiences in my family, and I would argue that marijuana certainly is a gateway drug. I do not think we are seeing the full ramifications of the legalization of marijuana.
We are discussing Bill C-93 this afternoon because the government is trying to come up with a quick fix for some flawed legislation to legalize marijuana. The end result would be a brand new category of record suspensions, which could not be easily revoked and could be granted automatically without any insight into an individual's history.
Let us imagine a person charged with possession of marijuana. For the poor innocent teenager who is caught smoking marijuana and charged, I am 100% in favour of striking that off his record. However, the people who are repeatedly charged, or the people who plead down maybe from a charge of selling marijuana to a charge of simple possession, I do not think should automatically be granted a pardon.
It is a good thing there is an election in October. Hopefully, what will happen in October is that there will be a change in government. The new government will be able to address some of the flaws we are seeing in Bill C-45 and Bill C-93. Hopefully, the Conservatives will form that new government, and we will bring some common sense and some pragmatic ideas on how to deal with this unfortunate happening.
In essence, we support expedited pardons. We think it is a good idea. There is a little good news in this legislation. I am not part of the committee, but I understand that while the Liberals did not accept all of our amendments, two were accepted that helped to improve the bill's procedural fairness. They would require the Parole Board to include a review of the program in its annual report. If the Conservatives are elected in October, and if there is any justice, we will be elected in October, we will be able to review this, because after a year, this would be subject to review.
Everyone makes mistakes. We realize that the government made a mistake when it legalized marijuana. However, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. We try to teach our children to learn from their mistakes. We should learn from our own mistakes.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, in his rush to meet self-imposed political deadlines, failed to act to adequately address the many concerns of municipalities, law enforcement, employers, scientists and doctors about this cannabis legislation. I am here to say that in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, we are feeling the ramifications of legalized marijuana.
In my riding, I have had police officers stop me and say that they do not know what to do with this. They are not sure about the equipment they were given to test whether folks are impaired, or whatever. It is the same with employers. Employers are shaking their heads and asking how they are going to deal with this terrible legalization of marijuana. They are telling me that people are going out during their breaks, smoking up and coming back to work. It is legal, so what is an employer to do about it? People are very confused about this.
Now what do we do? We would add to the problem with Bill C-93. If the government had taken its time and not had its self-imposed deadline at all costs, and instead done Bill C-45 correctly, we would not have this problem. Police officers, employers and all the labour unions told telling us how to do Bill C-45 properly; there was a lot of input. The government had to get it done and now we have ended up trying to fix the problem with Bill C-93.
As I said, Bill C-93 is well-intentioned and has some good features. We agree that a person who just had one charge should not have it on his record, and we would like to facilitate its removal.
From what members of the committee tell me, the government would not listen to suggestions. I cannot understand why it would not listen to the suggestion made on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, which I believe is a reasonable one to improve the bill, namely, calling for the Parole Board to retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and to ensure that the small number of applications by habitual offenders are vetted. This would have ensured that these individuals did not take advantage of a process that is clearly not intended for their cases.
The Canadian Police Association deals with this issue day in and day out. It has the experience and we should be listening to it. That was a wonderful amendment. I wish somebody from the government side would explain why it has no intention of including that amendment in the legislation. The amendment is so reasonable and would be so helpful, yet it was defeated at committee where the Liberals have the majority.
There were other amendments that I understand were also rejected. One of them was to restore the power to make inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of conviction. Let us say a young person made a mistake when they were 15 years old and have not had a problem since. I could understand our pardoning that person very easily. However, what if that person has had a terrible record of breaking and entering, selling marijuana and all of these other kinds of things? Would we still give that individual a pardon? Under this proposed legislation, we would not have any choice because the government did not agree to this amendment.
The bottom line is that I will be supporting this legislation, but it is not the way it should be. The truth of the matter is that the government should have taken its time. Why did we get this piece of legislation in the House at the last minute? It is because the government was too busy with other priorities and it did not seem to matter. All of a sudden, now it wants to ram this through at the last minute. I do not think that is the way this place should operate.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the legalization of cannabis referred to as a mistake that we need to learn from. However, we have been assured by the Conservatives that they would never re-criminalize it. I am curious about his mention of cannabis as a gateway drug; that is interesting. We have heard it before.
The World Health Organization came out with a study that talked about the most dangerous drug in the world, which is alcohol.
What would the hon. member do to crack down on alcohol, this evil gateway drug, or tobacco, or anything else?
Prohibition of cannabis clearly did not work under the previous Stephen Harper government or any government before that. Will it work on anything else he wants to bring forward?
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, the member opposite says that I stated the legislation was a mistake. I want to clarify for the record that I did not say the legislation was a mistake. I said the way the government rolled it out was a horrible mistake. The government did it too quickly and did not listen to any advice from any organization across Canada. That is why we have this problem. The Liberals are trying to work on the margins to save this problem.
We all know about gateway drugs. The member only has to have one person in his family get involved with marijuana and then more serious drugs to realize how much of a gateway drug it is.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps coming back to this three-year process being rushed through. The hon. minister went through significant consultations as the parliamentary secretary at that time. The minister came to my Niagara region to meet municipal officials, public safety advocates and first responders. He also met with the senior leadership of the Niagara Regional Police Service. He met with everyone throughout the community, including school boards. This happened across the country and it took three years.
The Conservatives never wanted to see this happen. Does the member really consider the three years it took as rushing this through?
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, the member says there was all of this planning for three years. I have the budget for the Parole Board and there is not 5¢ in it to deal with this issue. If there were so much planning over the last three years, one would think there would at least be a nickel or so in the Parole Board's budget to deal with this problem.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Speaker, I did a survey in a high-school class. Alcohol has been legal in Canada for years. I asked these 16-year-olds how many of them had consumed alcohol in the past year. All of them raised their hands. I asked the same question about cannabis before it was legalized and only four or five of them raised their hands.
Legalizing cannabis does not necessarily mean that fewer young people will use it. We saw that with alcohol. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake with marijuana.
Does my colleague agree with me?
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the government's proposal to provide pardons for people who have criminal records for simple possession of marijuana accrued prior to the legalization of marijuana. We felt that the legislation that legalized marijuana was something that the government could probably have done a better job at overall, but we did support it ultimately because we thought it was time to move on from the approach to marijuana this country has had for a long time. We believed that making it a product that could be regulated and avoiding situations in which people's lives have been being ruined over simple pot possession was a good thing overall.
The question that comes up now is what do we do with the over 400,000 Canadians who have records for simple possession, some of whom got those just prior to marijuana's becoming legal, versus the people who now may have the same small amount of pot in their possession and who do not have criminal records? There is a question of fairness for those people who have extant records for something that is now completely legal and not a problem.
We know that criminal records present all sorts of barriers. They present barriers to people being able to access housing in some cases. They present barriers for people to be able to volunteer in their community and support local organizations that depend on volunteers. They present barriers to travel, which can be important for employment purposes, particularly if they present a barrier to travel to the United States. It is very clear that authorities may ask at the border whether people have smoked marijuana. If the answer is “yes”, they may be turned away. Not only can that be a problem for people who have a job that requires them to cross the border, but it can also be a problem for people to get a job in the first place. We know that criminal records, even for something like simple pot possession have been and are barriers to people getting employment. When we talk about wanting people to be able to get a job and support themselves, it does not make sense that they would not be able to do that because they were caught with a gram or two of pot at some point in the eighties or nineties, or even a couple of years ago when it was still illegal.
Part of the idea behind the bill is to try to do away with that. The question is whether or not it uses all of the right tools at the government's disposal and whether or not it is going to succeed. This is where we think the government has seriously failed to adopt an approach that will get the job done, not just get it done in the right way for the people affected, but also in a way that is most efficient and cost effective overall. The government has proposed to try to reduce some of the burden of having that simple pot possession charge on people's records by expediting a pardon, sometimes referred to as a “record suspension”.
There are a few problems with that. One is that we are talking about a lot of people and an offence that really is not very serious. This approach requires that people initiate this process themselves, which means that they have to know that it is available to them. Then they have to initiate it themselves. They may need legal advice along the way, which can be expensive and, frankly, out of reach for certain people, including some of the most marginalized.
When we talk about people being affected by simple pot possession charges, I think we have to acknowledge that in many cases we are talking about some of the most marginalized people in the country, particularly racialized people. We know that the statistics for convictions in the black and indigenous communities, for example, show that the rate of conviction is far higher for them than other communities and racial groups within Canada. We are talking about marginalized people, and yet this process will require Canadians who have those pot possession charges to have the resources to be able to seek legal advice, particularly if they do not get a favourable decision in the first place.
It does not make sense from that point of view. What would have made more sense is an automated and automatic process so that people do not have to apply. They would not then have to know this were available to them if they wanted it, but that the government would know that if somebody has one of these charges, they would no longer apply to them.
There is another problem with record suspensions besides the cumbersome process. However, on the point of the cumbersome process, I would add that the Standing Committee on Public Safety recently released a unanimous report, so all parties agreed, saying that the pardon process in Canada is needlessly convoluted, takes a long time and overall is not going well. Now we are talking about over 400,000 people in the country who have simple pot possession charges who may want to be accessing that system, adding a further burden. As the member for Edmonton West rightly pointed out, and he may ask me a question about this afterward, if we go through the departmental plan and the budget, there are no additional resources being allocated for this projected increase in the demand for pardons.
It is needlessly cumbersome. It is going to take time. It requires these people to know about the option and to take the initiative themselves. They may have to pay for legal advice. At the end of the day, if they are asked pointedly, whether it is at the border or by an employer or someone else, whether they have such a conviction, they still have to answer yes, because although a pardon removes the charge from the most commonly used database, that conviction, that record, remains in a number of other databases. That information may be shared with other countries. It may be shared in other ways between government agencies or police services. Therefore, there is still the possibility that the existing record will be shared in some way, shape or form that prevents people from travelling or gaining employment.
What my colleague from Victoria has rightly proposed as the alternative in his private member's bill is an expungement regime. If the government were to expunge the record, it would actually be gone. It means that if people were asked whether they had ever been convicted for simple pot possession, they could truthfully say no, because that is the power of expungement.
In this place, certain things are sometimes stipulated. Even though it is just after 4 p.m., if the House deemed it 8 p.m., we could adjourn. The House can do that. In the same way, an expungement essentially deems the offence never to have occurred, which is not true of a pardon. If we truly want to make it the case that people who are guilty of simple pot possession do not ever have to worry again about what that charge, whether it is from the eighties, nineties or a couple of years ago, will mean for the rest of their lives, the way to do that is through expungement.
It is frustrating that the government did not choose that approach. It is still unclear to me why it did not choose to go down that road. Frankly, I have not heard a reason I find compelling. To be honest, I am not sure who gets the win in this either. I do not know who benefits from having an expedited pardon regime that will really only do half the job and present real administrative challenges for the Parole Board, versus expungement, which would not produce those same challenges or require extra resources and would do a job better for Canadians who are affected by a conviction for simple pot possession. If this option is cheaper, more efficient and would get the job done in a way that expedited pardons would not, I do not understand why the government is not interested in going down that road. That is why it is very difficult for me to support this. It would not do the job. It would cost more money. That sounds like bad policy when we say it out loud. Unless I hear a compelling reason why expedited pardons are better than expungement, I do not know why we would not do it that way.
It is not for lack of forewarning. Right from go, when the government first introduced its legislation to legalize marijuana, the NDP brought up the need to deal with all the people with existing convictions who will be in a position of fundamental unfairness. Someone who did the exact same thing after the law was passed does not have any problem. Canada has now said that it is legal and not a problem, yet there are people who did it just a couple of years ago who are in trouble. The government knew this was coming down the pike. We asked it to deal with it properly in the legalization package. It did not. I wonder why we need to do something that is going to cost more and be less effective for those who need it.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, the discussion we had in previous debates in the House regarding expungement had to do with the complications that would affect people who have records in the United States if there was no match up of paperwork or a paper trail when they crossed the border. If expungement took their records out of the system, there would be a disconnect between the legal records in Canada and the legal records in the United States.
Could the hon. member comment on expungement for travellers going to the United States and how that might be a risk for them, as they would have to get additional pardons to get across the border?
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, first of all, if we want to make a case for people not getting in trouble at the border, then their not having a criminal record in Canada would be the right start. The proper approach would be to advocate to our counterparts in the United States to also delete the records, letting them know that as cannabis is now legal in Canada, and as these people have not, in the eyes of Canadian law, committed any crime, they should not be in any U.S. database for having committed a crime in Canada.
That was part of our frustration in regard to not only USMCA negotiations but other international negotiations between Canada and the United States. This issue was not being brought up, and the Liberal government did not get any guarantee or any reassurance from the United States government that it would not unfairly penalize Canadians who either have a record or have simply smoked pot.
We think the United States policy on this is completely unreasonable, and the answer is not to try to cohere better with the unreasonable policy of the Americans. The answer is to have a clear, consistent policy that makes sense here and then advocate for our American counterparts to reflect that.
The current plan is a sign of the attitude of contrition we so often get from the Liberals when it comes to the United States.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague is probably the only person other than me who actually reads departmental plans. I am pretty sure that the Minister of Public Safety does not read them.
The member commented on the lack of resources put forward for this. The minister figures that about $2.5 million will be spent. That works out to about 2% of eligible Canadians who can actually ask for a suspension.
Does the member believe that perhaps the Liberals are just not taking this seriously? Perhaps they will make this process incredibly difficult for average Canadians. Why does the member think they have only put aside enough resources to help just 2% of Canadians affected by pot convictions?
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, it is somewhat perplexing, and it is something we have seen with respect to other issues, such as pay equity. The Liberals have said that they will move ahead with pay equity in the federal civil service, finally, after being told many times that it is something they are required to do, but then there is no money for it in the budget. If they really mean it that they are going to do something, they have to resource it. It does not make sense to not put the money in the budget.
This raises the concern that we will see a backlog. People who are entitled to this will not be able to access it. That is just as much an issue of justice as not being able to access it under the law. It is great if the law changes, but if we do not resource things, then the rights and possibilities we have under the law are not meaningful and real. Of course, in cases where resources are required, what is an ordinary Canadian going to do?
The Liberals could have proceeded with a mass expungement of records, in a more efficient way that needed less money, and not subjected people to a process that required them to apply and go to the Parole Board, which we know is already overburdened. This could have been done automatically. Doing it automatically would have been a way to do this a lot more cheaply. Not only would that be okay from the point of view of allocating fewer resources now, it would mean that overall, the process would be cheaper for Canadians. That makes sense. Where we can save money, we should save money. This is a way I believe they could have, and they are not.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, I am joining the debate on Bill C-93 today, and the clock has been pushed out. I was originally supposed to speak some time ago, but as happens often in the House, we were delayed. Therefore, I am delayed in my phone call with my friend Wolf Solkin, a 96-year-old veteran at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Quebec. If Wolf is watching, I will be calling him after these remarks.
Wolf would inspire all Canadians. He is 96. He helped liberate the Netherlands. Now he is an advocate for veterans and his comrades at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, which is a hospital I helped transfer to the Quebec government as minister. However, the service is not living up to the standards we expected. We are trying to work on Wolf's concern and solve that, so I will be with Wolf in a moment.
The only time I dealt with cannabis as veterans minister was as a form of treatment for veterans. With Bill C-93, we are looking at the expedited record suspension route for simple possession of cannabis, but this is actually an example of another fumbled element of the cannabis legalization from the government. As the Liberals approach the election in the fall, that is literally the only issue I think the Prime Minister can look to and say that he kept his promise.
However, we have actually had to deal with the aftermath of rushed and often ill-conceived timelines and consequential public policy moves with respect to the Prime Minister's election promise. This is an example. That is not to say that we are going to turn back the clock when the Conservatives form government in the fall. Marijuana will remain legal, but we will try to address some of the public safety concerns, such as some of the concerns that pediatricians, the Canadian Medical Association and others have had.
It may have come as some surprise to some of the Liberal MPs who were not here in the last Parliament that I, and many MPs in the Conservative ranks, including my colleague from Kootenay, David Wilks, a former RCMP officer, supported the legalization step of decriminalization. It was not a full legalization rushed in this fashion. It was a ticketing approach by law enforcement, which the Liberals suggested would be a big problem, but it actually would not. In many ways, it was an unofficial way law enforcement could deal with it while still keeping the substance a controlled drug and illegal and keeping our international treaties and things like that in line. That was the approach many of us were advocating, because it was time to look at a new approach with respect to cannabis. Many of us recognized that. We did not want to see serious criminal sanctions for young people, but how could we also still talk about the public health risks associated with this drug? It is a minor drug with fewer complications and harms than many others, but let us also not kid ourselves. There are public policy and public health challenges with it. Therefore, I want to thank my former colleague, David Wilks, and other people for a serious discussion on this.
We are not going to turn back the clock. The leader of the Conservative Party has said that clearly, but we will try to address some of the concerns that have been raised on border issues by the CBSA, on public health and particularly on youth and the impact of cannabis on the developing brain. I was a little disappointed, personally, as a father and someone who has delved into this issue for many years in Parliament, that there was not any guidance with respect to the age of 18 or perhaps a higher age. These are the debates we should probably have rather than the rushed, often misguided public policy we have seen with the government.
I am going to raise a few concerns I have with the bill. Nothing shows the poor planning of the government more than how many pieces of substantive legislation it has on the docket with literally fewer than 20 days of Parliament left. The Liberals now have us sitting literally until midnight every day to try to rush through things that they say are priorities, such as Bill C-93, such as child welfare for indigenous Canadians and a whole range of other bills. That shows that they are not a priority, when after four years, they are in the final weeks of Parliament.
The main public policy concern I have is that the bill would actually create a new category of record suspension. Where there is a normal sort of pardon record suspension process, this would accelerate it and have no cost for a certain provision.
I do not think Liberals have raised a public policy rationale for why that is done, particularly when they defeated the bill from my colleague and friend in the NDP, the member for Victoria, on expungement. There were a lot of Conservatives who voted for the NDP bill and wanted more of a discussion of expungement within the context of record suspension. Why? It is because one of the major problems with the Liberals' rush on marijuana has been the border issue.
Canadians may not realize, and this is acute in places like Windsor and British Columbia, that if they are asked by an ICE agent, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the United States, whether they smoke marijuana, they can be barred from entry to the United States. If they need to go to the United States for work, that hurts their economic liberty and job prospects. Even with President Obama, the Prime Minister's bromance friend, as he has described it, the government could not get an assurance that ICE would take that one screening question off its list. That would have been a modest proposal.
In light of that, expungement is actually a superior route, because a record suspension is not recognized by the United States. If we are talking about creating a special category, we should have a wider discussion of expungement because of the risk that the U.S. would not agree. Maybe the Prime Minister brought it up with the vice-president today. He certainly did not bring up a whole range of issues, but that is still a big miss, because people's liberty could be impacted. The member for Victoria put forward some very thoughtful proposals. He is a member who will be missed for the public policy input he has.
A concern the Canadian Police Association has raised, which is very on point, is the fact that there is no ability to distinguish simple possession cases that were initially more serious cases that had been pleaded down to simple possession. In criminal cases where the Crown pleaded down a charge to simple possession, at the time the Crown did that because there would still be a criminal charge and a criminal record associated with this, so the Crown was satisfied with pleading down the charge, saving the judicial system money and that sort of thing. We should probably try to pull those cases out of a one-size-fits-all approach to record suspension.
A lot of us want expungement or some sort of ability to recognize that since marijuana is legal now, people's job prospects and other things should not be encumbered by a criminal record. However, we should also say that if the Crown could really only guarantee a conviction on simple possession, but the person was culpable or guilty of many other things and there was a plea deal, those cases are very different from the typical case of a young person or someone not causing any harm, not dealing, not doing any associated criminal acts and being caught for simple possession. This rushed one-size-fits-all approach does not allow that to be distinguished, and that is what the Canadian Police Association has raised as a serious concern.
As we are in the final days of Parliament, the Liberals crushed the expungement bill of my colleague from Victoria getting to committee. We really have not had a serious discussion of the issues underlying expungement versus record suspension and why the government seems to suggest that expungement is open for other former crimes from the past. We are really glad to see some of the past violations for sexuality and things like that removed and expunged. That is good, but we should also have a debate on why that route was not chosen in this case, because of the impacts on people's ability to travel to the United States. Until the government deals with that issue bilaterally with the United States, that will remain something Canadians should be very concerned about.
I have a final few words about the rush here. The Canadian Medical Association, physicians, pediatricians, the provinces themselves and law enforcement have all asked at various times in the government's marijuana agenda for input and slowing down the process. After 100 years of one way, we should make sure we get the balance right. I can assure Canadians of one thing: We will try to get the balance right when the Conservatives are on that side of the floor in the fall.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, we have heard a few Conservative members talking about the rush on Bill C-45. It was three years from the time of the election and commitment. There were consultations across the country, including in my own community in Niagara, which is four ridings. We heard from mayors, fire chiefs, the police chief and senior officials at the police station in Niagara Falls. We had a meeting there. We met with the District School Board of Niagara. We met with Public Health. That was just one consultation in Niagara. I know the hon. minister did that across the country.
How can the hon. member stand there and call Bill C-45 a rush after three years? It sounds like, after 100 years of prohibition, Conservatives would like to wait another 100 years for this change to happen. If the member could explain how three years is a rush, I would like to hear it.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the member for St. Catharines, because it allows us to remember what his leader said when he was running for office.
Let us remember that most of the Liberal promises have since been broken or stepped away from. A critical one is that the Prime Minister said he was going to respect provincial autonomy and respect the provinces. In this area, several provinces asked the Prime Minister to slow down.
Collaborative federalism, which the Prime Minister promised in opposition, was not respected, whether it came to the carbon tax or whether it came to marijuana. I believe both the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario asked him to slow down. The premiers asked because they were putting the retail structure in place. We now have huge shortages, not enough supply and demand. No one was ready. We had communities, probably including his, saying that they did not want retail stores. Municipalities and provinces said to slow down.
However, there was no collaborative federalism as promised. “Sunny ways” has turned to “My way or the highway”. The member knows that. He has probably thought at times about joining the Liberal ethical caucus, over in that corner, who have not liked the way the Prime Minister has conducted himself in terms of all issues.
If a province, one of our partners in Confederation, asks the government to slow down a bit on a critical piece of public health and public safety, the Prime Minister should respect that. This one did not.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member across the way and also the member for St. Catharines for pointing out the consultations that happened on Bill C-45, which is not exactly the legislation we are debating. However, I can echo that we had consultations in Guelph, Wellington and Kitchener-Waterloo. The Waterloo Regional Police Service was there. There was a lot of work that went into the legislation.
Now we are talking about how to make it fair for people who were convicted under a previous crime, and the idea of expungement. I asked the hon. member from the NDP a question on expungement. When people are going to the States, where there is an existing criminal record on file, if we remove the file in Canada, there would be a disconnect between the two countries. The member's answer was that we should go to an expungement regime in the United States, as if we could enforce that from Canada.
Would the hon. member across the way comment on the idea of expungement and the negative effects it would have on Canadians travelling to the United States, where the regime not only does not have expungement but also considers this a crime in that country?
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, the member for Guelph is highlighting why we need a proper debate instead of the Liberal whip saying no to the MP for Victoria.
Actually, expungement is the superior process. It is the record suspension that is not recognized in the United States, particularly because the government provided information sharing at an unparalleled level with the United States, including entry and exit information and the ability for U.S. customs officials to search Canadians on Canadian soil, unprecedented powers given to the United States by Canada.
What did we get in return? Nothing. It has been a one-way relationship between the United States and the Prime Minister, whether with President Obama or President Trump.
We should be looking at the simplest route. The member for Guelph should tell the public safety minister that the simplest route is to get immigration and customs in the United States to take the marijuana screening questions out of the border questions. The Liberals could not even get that assurance.
Do we think they will get the U.S. to respect modernizing the safe third country agreement? We cannot get anything done under the Liberal government.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-93, which aims to provide record suspensions for simple possession of marijuana.
I would like us to focus on the word “suspension” and the effect said suspension could have when people try to cross the border. During border controls, if American customs officers do background checks on Canadians and find record suspensions for simple possession of marijuana, I wonder what value they would have when compared to expungement, which would certainly be more effective.
As everyone knows, many Canadians have this type of criminal record and so cannot travel to the United States. That may be the reason why a major lobby was pushing the Liberal government to provide record suspensions, which it did in a clear attempt to win votes, seeing as there are only three weeks left in the 42nd Parliament. I am not really sure that this will result in more services or freedoms for Canadians abroad.
I would like to come back to Bill C-45, which is what led us to Bill C-93.
The 42nd Parliament will no doubt go down in history as the one that made legalizing marijuana the top priority. It was done under a Liberal government. I am still wondering why it was considered more important than the economy, the environment and our children's future.
When I made the decision to run as a Conservative candidate in the 2006 election, I was hoping to leave the world a better place for future generations through public policy. This hope is what really motivated me, because I felt that, in my riding, which was a Bloc Québécois riding, there was not enough collaboration with the federal government, and there were not enough federal programs and services. I also thought that the Liberal government of the day was undermining the Canadian economy through its interventions in other countries. These interventions were sometimes hard to understand, and they were impeding international trade. I owned a small business at the time, and I exported hay. Some of the decisions made by the Canadian government were having practically immediate repercussions on my American customers.
That said, I do wonder why such a powerful lobby had such a strong influence on the Liberal Party. When I say lobby, I mean market. The market for marijuana, for drugs, is worth billions. I never understood why the Liberal members did not brush off this powerful lobby.
Political parties often make policy decisions at biennial conventions. They make decisions for the future based on the votes of delegates from each riding and province. Some 2,000 to 3,000 delegates present policies to be voted on.
I do not understand how a party with 2,000 delegates managed to adopt policies to legalize marijuana. Nevertheless, that is what happened. The Liberal Party's hands were tied by its own policies. The Liberals voted, and they kept their promise.
At the last Liberal convention, they also promised to legalize all drugs, which I find quite concerning. They kept their promise to legalize marijuana, and now they must keep their promise to legalize all drugs. It makes me worry about our country's future.
I have always believed that we enter federal politics to make things better for future generations. In my humble opinion, things have taken a disastrous turn. When we regain power and return to the other side of the House, we will have an unprecedented mess to clean up. The Liberal Party has been running amok for four years, and the bills will start to come in. The credit card is maxed out. The government has not started paying it off, and it is going to saddle future generations with this debt, keeping society from moving forward.
We deal with very important matters, and Canadians will have to choose a vision for the future of their country. The Liberal Party tried to impose a vision on Canadians with its promises, but Canadians will remember that, of all the promises made by the Liberals in 2015, the only one they kept was legalizing marijuana. That is the only promise that led to major change in our country, but not for the better.
Today, we are beginning to feel the effects of that change. I recently spoke with the chief of police in my riding. He talked to me about the problems and adverse effects of cannabis legalization in our high schools, including an increase in consumption. We do not yet have the data to prove this, but it is being compiled. It is not legal cannabis consumption that is on the rise in our high schools.
A study published this week in the media reported that a teen's first use of marijuana unfortunately leaves permanent cognitive damage. A father's greatest hope for his children is that they will grow up in a healthy environment so they have more choice and opportunities, which must lead to a better life.
I am 55 years old and I still have some years left. Throughout my life, I have seen people from my generation grow up. Those who used marijuana did not necessarily get the opportunity to achieve their full potential. It can be the difference between earning $14, $28 or $50 an hour. We are practically all equal at the start, but on life’s journey, some people stand out, others stay where they are and there are those whose lives fall apart. All too often, what they share is an addiction to illicit substances such as marijuana and possibly hard drugs.
This week, one of my constituents called me in a panic, once again because of marijuana and other drugs. She was looking for her daughter, whom she had not seen in a month. She is well aware that her daughter uses drugs—she admitted it. She is desperately looking for her daughter, who is in a city somewhere. When people disappear like this, it has a lasting impact on all their family members and friends. Unfortunately, this is happening more and more, because of the decisions this government made under the influence of a powerful lobby seeking only to legalize its market.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we look at the legislation and do a comparison. From day one, I have made numerous references to Bill C-2, which has given the middle-class of Canada a substantial tax break while at the same time increasing the tax level on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Today we are debating Bill C-93, which is in essence going to provide a pardon for simple possession of cannabis. Whether it was day one or today, this is a government that believes we should work hard every day.
Would the member agree, as we look at the next 14 or 15 days of the House's sitting, that we have a responsibility to do what we can to support legislation and see it come to a vote, believing that Canadians will benefit from members of Parliament who are prepared to work all the way to the very last day?