Debates of June 4th, 2019

Criminal Records Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, the NDP put forward a bill on expunging criminal records for marijuana possession, which the Liberals trashed and voted against. Now, instead, we have a very complicated and costly process someone would have to undertake to hopefully get a pardon. As my colleague from Drummond said a little earlier tonight, it is better than nothing, but barely better than nothing, as many witnesses testified.

I wanted to ask the member why he thinks the government has been so poor in approaching this issue. Rather than looking for something that would allow people who have criminal records to actually look to the future with some certainty, it would impose a very complicated and costly process they would have to go through.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are going to be rising in the next couple of weeks. We knew this was coming down the pipe, and quite frankly, consultations probably should have started a lot earlier. As I said, in some cases, there has not been a whole lot of consultation at all. I think that is the challenge.

We are grateful that the government accepted a couple of our amendments. It would have been nice if it had accepted a few more. In the rush to get this through before the end of this term, I feel that maybe more consultation could have happened.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member brought up a new aspect in the debate. He made reference to communities that are impacted by people growing cannabis.

Whether it is rural or urban communities, what we witnessed in the past was the substantial growth of grow-ops, which have been very damaging to communities in many different ways. I believe that with legalization, we will see the number of grow-ops diminish as the criminal element is taken out of the sale of cannabis. I think there is a silver lining.

Just to get an affirmation from across the way, I understand that the Conservative Party is actually supporting the legislation. The NDP is not supporting it, because it wants expungement. Am I then to believe that the Conservative Party supports pardoning over expungement?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the community aspect he raised. One of the issues we have seen with legalization, first with medical marijuana and then with individual licences cobbled together, and I realize that they are not necessarily illegal grow-ops, is that what ends up happening is that the standard is not set as high as it is for commercially regulated medical marijuana.

The challenge I have in my community is that there are literally dozens of legitimate greenhouses that produce a huge odour. We had a story in one of the local papers. An individual actually had that smell in his car and claimed that he was pulled over when crossing the border, because they thought he had something going on in his car or on his premises. He tried to explain. There were emails to my office and a number of other councillors.

I hope that we are able to see the illicit stuff gone. I am still concerned about whether that will happen, because of the price comparisons and what is going on. However, we are in early stages. I would suggest that as we move forward on this, we need to do something about the odour with regard to additional facilities, outdoor growing and things like that. We have to take care of that to make sure that our residents are not bothered by these smells.

Bill C-93—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-93 on record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

From the outset I would like to say a few words about Bill C-45 because it is impossible to forget. It was no great feat of the government opposite, but it was one of the Prime Minister's rare accomplishments. That should be noted.

Nonetheless, no one will forget that Bill C-45 was bungled from the start and now that it has been in effect since last October, it certainly has not been a resounding success. Many of the projected outcomes of legalizing marijuana did not come to fruition, including reducing the sale of cannabis on the black market to curb organized crime. In fact, the opposite happened. Cannabis sales on the black market have increased.

I cannot ignore the fact that the government opposite also rejected our amendment to create a public registry of investors in the cannabis industry. However, since many of them have direct ties to the Liberal Party and since the money comes from tax havens, we are not holding our breath for the government to set up a public registry. The Liberals said that they would do politics differently and transparently. Fortunately their time is coming to an end.

When the Prime Minister came to power, he decided that his 2015 election promise to pass Bill C-45 at any cost was a national priority, even though other priorities could have easily come before Bill C-45. Like many Canadians, I still have a hard time believing that there was absolutely nothing more important in Canada than legalizing marijuana. Too many people put their trust in the Prime Minister in 2015, believing that he was creating hope in many respects for Canadians. Now, in 2019, it is plain to see that he made a lot of promises and did not follow through on much.

Was legalization truly more important than the economy, safety and security, justice and the future of our children? I believe the history books will confirm that that was indeed the case in this 42nd Parliament.

Getting back to Bill C-93, I want to point out that it can lead to confusion with respect to the use of the term “suspension” in the notion of the record suspension for simple cannabis possession. I want to highlight the importance of thoroughly understanding everything about this notion because many people are surprised to learn about the consequences this could eventually have when they wish to cross the border into the United States.

As we know, U.S. customs have always been very strict when checking the records of Canadians seeking to cross the border and enter their country. They have become even stricter with the legalization of cannabis. When they see that a Canadian has a suspended record for simple possession of marijuana, I am convinced, as are others, that this will have negative rather than positive repercussions. The expungement of criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis would have avoided all of this.

This leads me to wonder about the effectiveness and the goal of this measure. If they wanted to do something about this, record expungement would potentially have been much more effective.

Furthermore, we are debating this matter because after the government legalized marijuana, many Canadians were left with a criminal record for simple possession and inevitably wanted this record expunged. They know very well that a suspension is not as good as an expungement.

Many Canadians have this offence on their criminal records, which prevents them from travelling to the United States. This could be why a powerful lobby asked the Liberal government to suspend the records. Funnily enough, this demand was very much a ploy to win votes, as there are not many days left before the end of this Parliament.

Bill C-45 took effect in October 2018, and the Prime Minister chose to ignore the concerns about the legalization of cannabis expressed by municipalities, police forces, employers, doctors and a number of concerned parents. The Liberals rushed to introduce Bill C-93 at the last minute, at the end of this Parliament, just before the upcoming election. This makes me think that they are desperately trying to pad their record, which is currently light on positives.

The Liberals already promised to legalize cannabis so now they want to please another consumer group, those who were charged with simple possession of cannabis, by quickly getting rid of their criminal record. Still today, an offender with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis has no choice but to wait between five and 10 years to apply for a pardon. The application costs $631. It is important to reiterate that the cost associated with applying for a pardon was determined based on the cost to the Canadian government and taxpayers, which is fair and equitable. We always felt that is was not up to law-abiding taxpayers to pay for those who break the law.

Bill C-93 is a fait accompli. That being said, even though sound management of public funds is a Conservative priority, we agreed to make pardon applications for simple possession of marijuana free of charge. We know that some verifications were made, that roughly 10,000 people would be eligible to apply for a pardon and that the cost associated with these applications, which would be covered by taxpayers, would be roughly $2.5 million.

It is important to remind those tuning in at this late hour that the purpose of Bill C-93 is to pardon individuals accused of simple possession of cannabis. These are not people with long and colourful rap sheets. As many people have pointed out, the charges usually stem from youthful indiscretions, and in most cases, that is something we can understand.

As such, we believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension. However, as with any bill, it is vital that we ensure it is enforced intelligently, fairly and realistically so that it becomes a good law once passed.

Conservatives understand perfectly well that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not create an unjust burden for Canadians now that cannabis use is legal.

Nevertheless, as a responsible party that respects law enforcement, the justice system and public safety, we will always take it upon ourselves to closely monitor the implementation of Bill C-93.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I very much appreciated the member's speech, Madam Speaker. She indicated wanting to share her time, but she did not specify with whom. Hopefully, we will find out before too long, and when we do, what a surprise it will be.

The Liberals want to foist a highly convoluted process on people whose only offence was having consumed something that has since become legal. We have always called for expungement of these criminal records. The Liberals refused. They rejected our request, which comes from the very people who were arrested. The fact remains that this once illegal substance is illegal no more.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the Liberal approach, which is complicated and places a burden on each and every person by forcing them to initiate their own individual process even though there exists a much simpler solution that would apply to all.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As we have seen for going on four years now, the Liberals always seem to be looking for new ways to make life harder for Canadians. As the hon. member was saying, there are much simpler ways to go about drafting this type of legislation, but the Liberals have gone with a much more complicated process in order to pander to their friends. That is my analysis.

Unfortunately, it was the same thing with Bill C-45. By refusing to take the concerns of municipalities into consideration, the government made things a lot harder for them. They basically kicked the problem to the provinces. The Liberal mind will always seek to make things as complicated as possible for Canadians, who are sure to struggle as a result.

One can only hope the Liberal reign will soon come to an end so we can finally move on with our lives.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I definitely want to thank my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Official Languages with us and who does a very good job. There is no doubt about that. Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix is certainly a beautiful riding. I sincerely thank my colleague.

I am somewhat perplexed by this evening's debate. I thank you for your opinion and comments on this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he must address his comments to the Chair and not to the individual. The hon. member may now continue.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, thank you for correcting me and for allowing me to continue.

The problem is that the NDP is saying that we must do everything and pardon everything, and the Conservatives are saying that we do not really need to do anything. They are against cannabis legalization and they do not agree with it. I would like the member who spoke to explain what she believes to be the solution.

In her view, what is the best way to move forward on this issue? That is my question.

Provide us with the solution we are looking for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will not be providing the solution, but I will ask the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix to give a brief reply.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things to my colleague opposite. First, it would have been helpful had they listened to the stakeholders first and foremost. Second, the simplest solution is to elect a Conservative government.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—News Media Industry

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 11:25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #1334

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government appears set to ram through damaging changes to Canada's refugee determination system through the omnibus budget bill. Despite his self-proclaimed title of feminist, the Prime Minister has shown time and again that when push comes to shove, he will toss the ideals he claims to hold so dearly to the side for political gain.

Despite running on a promise to include gender-based analysis plus for all policies, we learned in February that fewer than half of government agencies and departments have a gender-based analysis plus plan. We certainly know that there was no gender-based analysis plus done on these changes hidden in the budget. If there had been, these provisions would not have been buried in Bill C-97. That is why 46 women's organizations from across Canada wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to call out the fake feminism and identify the danger the changes will put already vulnerable women and girls fleeing gender-based violence in.

This is not the only time the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have, without hesitation, moved away from their self-professed titles and claims when politically convenient.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, received royal assent on December 12, 2017. Despite being in law nearly 18 months, the government has failed to bring into force all its provisions. This has allowed sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act to continue, and it is entirely unacceptable.

On May 15, the leader of the NDP and member for Burnaby South rose in the House to seek unanimous consent for a motion calling on the government to bring into force the remaining provisions in Bill S-3 to remedy this situation prior to June 21, 2019. It is absolutely astounding to me that it appeared that the government members in this place did not support that motion. Perhaps the politics of the day once again meant that those feminist ideals needed to be cast aside.

Yesterday Canada had a historic moment. The final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was made public and provided to the Prime Minister. This historic report lays out a path for transformative justice for indigenous women and girls to, as the title states, “Reclaim Power and Place”. Within the report are 231 calls for justice.

Call for justice 1.2 reads:

We call upon all governments, with the full participation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, to immediately implement and fully comply with all relevant rights instruments, including but not limited to:...All the recommendations of the 2015 UN CEDAW Inquiry Report and cooperation with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on all follow-up procedures.

That UN report recommends quite clearly the following: “To amend the Indian Act to eliminate discrimination against women”.

Bill S-3 has received royal assent, and the UN has called on Canada to do this work. The NDP has pressed the government to do this work, and now the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report is calling on the government to do this work. Is it not time for the government to do what is right and eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous women once and for all?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Vancouver East and outline investments that our government has recently announced to enhance the integrity of Canada's border and asylum systems.

Recently, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction met with Amnesty International, as well as with representatives of various women's organizations to provide an overview of our proposed changes.

First and foremost, I assure the member opposite that we are committed to a fair and compassionate refugee system that provides protection to those who need it most, and despite her accusations, a GBA+ analysis was in fact conducted.

Through budget 2019, we are proposing to provide the necessary investments to our border enforcement strategy to process an increased number of asylum claims and to provide timely protection to refugees. Our goal is to encourage those truly in need to seek asylum at the first possible opportunity in order to receive it quickly and efficiently. Let me be clear: No person will be turned away if they are deemed to be at risk, and nobody will be removed without an opportunity to be heard.

As Jean-Nicolas Beuze, a representative from United Nations human rights commission, has stated, we are upholding our international and domestic legal obligations as well as a welcoming approach, as claimants will still have access to a robust oral hearing, subject to appeal, whereby they will receive Canada's protection if found to be at risk of danger or prosecution.

My hon. colleague often discusses the need to support the most vulnerable. However, the NDP's actions sometimes do not match their words. The NDP voted against providing additional settlement supports to visible minority newcomer women to reduce barriers to employment. The NDP also voted against resettling a higher number of women and girl refugees after our government moved to increase the number of permanent resident admission spaces for government-assisted refugees. The NDP also voted against five days of paid leave for victims of domestic violence.

We have listened to the concerns that were raised, and strengthened our proposed legislation by voting to ensure that the right to an oral hearing, as requested by many, is guaranteed and will be enshrined into law.

Whereas the member opposite expressed concerns with our bill, it is worth noting that the NDP was the only party not to offer any amendments or proposals to strengthen the bill, despite having been given the opportunity to do so.

Global migration is responsible for the largest number of displaced people since the Second World War, and Canada has obviously also been impacted. Unlike the New Democrats, who seem to want to drastically reduce our borders, our government seeks to maintain the integrity of immigration and asylum systems, which are based on rules and orderly migration.

We will always provide due process and uphold international law for those seeking asylum, because that is what Canadians expect from us.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP sought to actually strike out every one of those provisions within Bill C-97 that undermine the refugee determination process. Witnesses at the committee were clear in saying that it was beyond fixing. That is what we did and the government failed to listen.

Back to Bill S-3, why has the Prime Minister, who claims that he is a feminist, not taken action to eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous people? It has been 18 months. All the government needs to do is to bring in an OIC to enact that, yet it has not done anything with respect to that. Where is the feminist Prime Minister who says that indigenous peoples and reconciliation is the number one priority? Where is the real action?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate, getting back to the point about asylum seekers, as Jean-Nicolas Beuze, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in Canada clearly stated, the measure is “in line with international law”, because asylum seekers are still entitled to an oral process that considers whether they will face persecution in their home country.

Through budget 2019, we are proposing to make targeted investments for our border enforcement strategy to process an increased number of asylum claims, provide timely protection to refugees and remove those found to not be in need of protection in a timely manner.

Our proposed approach will allow Canada to process 50,000 asylum claims per year. I just want to reiterate that this is the balance that Canadians wanted us to achieve and that is what we are finally achieving.

Poverty

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, too many Canadians are suffering because of our government's lack of initiative to eradicate poverty. The measures in the Liberals' proposed bill are insufficient and do not go far enough. A thousand organizations and citizens from across the country are saying this, including some from my riding.

Ms. Denise wrote to me to say that she cannot find affordable housing that is accessible for her son, who uses a wheelchair. This mother is worried that she cannot properly care for her son, since housing costs are too high. Ms. Denise's concerns are shared by many others in my riding, who are asking for affordable housing units to be built. Affordable housing should be a right, not a luxury. It is a right that many Canadians do not have access to.

I could also mention Ms. Francine, who said that she cannot believe the government's inaction on social housing, especially to help retired Canadians. Pensions are still too low for our seniors to enjoy a decent standard of living.

I heard from Ms. Lyette, Ms. St-Pierre, Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Fournier, Ms. Nicole, Mr. Réjean and many others who want the pension benefit to go up because people who have worked their whole lives should not have such a hard time making ends meet. Estelle and Yvan's only priority is the old age pension, which they wish were higher. The OAS benefit is too low to help our fellow citizens achieve financial security, particularly if they have no other source of income.

The Liberal bill in no way reflects the reality of poverty in Canada. We still have a long way to go, not least when it comes to health care. Many of my constituents talk to me about that.

Mr. Houle, for example, has trouble managing his health because the cost of prescription drugs is more than he can afford on his pension.

Ms. St-Pierre has told me how hard it is to get hospital care because of the lack of equipment and personnel. Yes, I realize health care is a provincial responsibility, but the government needs to increase federal health transfers. Such an increase would considerably improve our health care system and help ensure better care for our patients. Much like housing, health care must not become a luxury. We need to focus on the progress that remains to be made.

The difficulties encountered by my constituents are the same ones encountered by thousands of other people across the country. The federal government needs to show leadership on fighting poverty or certainly regard it as a public relations exercise. After a four-year wait, the Canadian poverty reduction strategy still seriously lacks ambition and basically duplicates existing measures.

Did Canadians really need to wait for years for that, especially with the election just months away? It is smoke and mirrors. When will the Liberals finally stop ignoring Canadians, my constituents and everyone living in poverty, and finally introduce legislation that will really wipe out poverty?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question, because it gives us an opportunity to provide some clarification.

My colleague is calling on our government to bring forward “concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty”. The truth is that since the first day of our mandate in 2015, we have brought forward many concrete measures to lift as many Canadians as possible out of poverty.

One example is the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift more than half a million people out of poverty, including 300,000 children. To put this in context, in Toronto, the city I represent, poverty among single mothers has been reduced by 52%. That is an astonishing statistic. I do not think it has ever been recorded in parliamentary history. It is a remarkable achievement. However, we are not patting ourselves on the back, because 48% of single mothers are still living in poverty. We have more work to do.

The Canada child benefit, in and of itself, would be a wonderful achievement alone. However, the reality is that we have also done a bunch of other things that are equally important for other segments of the population that face poverty as a lifetime challenge.

For example, the Canada workers benefit is a new measure we put into this year's budget. Starting this tax year, it will provide low-income workers with even more support. Thanks to the Canada workers benefit, a single person with no children could receive more than $1,300, while a single parent or a worker in a couple could receive up to $2,300. This is a concrete measure to support people's incomes, which is one of the quickest ways to eliminate poverty. It means these people will have more money to cover costs related to buying healthy food or clothes.

We have also worked on CPP, reforming it for a lifetime and making changes that other parties said were not possible. This was done, again, in our first year. We also increased the guaranteed income supplement and restored the retirement age from 67 to 65, which will prevent hundreds of thousands of people from falling into poverty.

Our other substantial contribution to reducing poverty is the national housing strategy. Throughout debate today, the party opposite suggested that federal housing dollars were not being spent. I can assure members that since we took office, the $7 billion we invested in housing have been delivered to Canadians right across the country. More than one million distinct investments in repairs, construction and subsidies have been made to Canadian families since we took office. Those dollars were set to disappear and we have restored them.

We tripled transfers to the provinces, and now they are starting to build new housing. Also, we doubled money for homelessness. Money for the reaching home program and HPS has been doubled, from $100 million to over $200 million, to provide front-line services.

The reason we have lifted close to 800,000 people our of poverty is that we made investments in this in our first budget, second budget and our third budget. We continue to look for ways to alleviate the situation facing too many Canadians.

Pharmacare is coming next, which is another important step toward eliminating poverty.

This government has committed to reducing poverty in every corner of the country in every form it takes. We will not stop making those investments until we have eliminated poverty. We have already reached our 2020 goals. We look forward to eliminating poverty even more, perhaps with the co-operation of the NDP.