//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoyal AssentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1450)[Translation]I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend Her Excellency this day in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms—Chapter 9.C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada—Chapter 10.S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)—Chapter 11.C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting—Chapter 12.C-59, An Act respecting national security matters—Chapter 13.C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence—Chapter 14.C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 15.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter 16.C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)—Chapter 17.C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18.C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 19.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis—Chapter 20.C-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020—Chapter 21.C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act—Chapter 22.C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages—Chapter 23.C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families—Chapter 24.C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25.C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast—Chapter 26.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act—Chapter 27.C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 28.C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures—Chapter 29.(1455)[English]It being 2:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2019, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).(The House adjourned at 2:55 p.m.)The 42nd Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation on September 11, 2019.Aboriginal languagesAboriginal peoplesAccess for disabled peopleAccess to informationAdjournmentAgriculture, environment and natural resourcesBritish ColumbiaBudget 2019 (March 19, 2019)C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ActC-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-59, An Act respecting national security mattersC-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequenceC-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearmsC-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActC-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free CanadaC-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shiftingC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActC-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesC-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and familiesC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisC-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measuresCannabisCare for childrenCetaceansCoastal areasCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal record suspensionCruelty to animalsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesEnvironmental assessmentFamilies and childrenFirearmsFisheries and fishersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInternational tradeMackenzie ValleyMain estimates 2019-2020Marriage and divorceMilitary justice systemMultinationalsNational securityOil tankersPersons with disabilitiesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsRoyal assentS-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)Senate billsTax avoidance6008176BruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsControlled Drugs and Substances ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)(1550)[English]Bill C-460. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. He said: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians continue to die because of the ongoing opioid crisis. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, its most recent numbers indicate that since January 2016, over 11,000 Canadians have died. For the first time in decades, our life expectancy in Canada has stalled, and it is because of the opioid crisis. It is a public health crisis, and public health experts across the country are unanimous in calling for drug use to be treated as a health issue. That means expanding harm reduction and treatment options, which this government has done, but it also means removing the criminal sanction for low-level possession, because we know that the number one stigma associated with seeking treatment is the criminal sanction. It does not mean removing the criminal sanction for producing or trafficking, but for personal use by the very people we want to help, it means treating patients as patients and not as criminals. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do by removing the criminal sanction for low-level possession. It is a necessary next step in following the evidence to save lives. If I am re-elected, it will be the first bill I reintroduce.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-460, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsIntroduction and First readingPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' Bills599678159967825996783RachaelHarderLethbridgeColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. They are the 35th report, regarding Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, and the 36th report, regarding the main estimates, 2019-20. 8510-421-592 "Subject Matter of Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis"8510-421-593 "Main Estimates 2019-20: Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 under Canada Border Services Agency, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 under Canadian Security Intelligence Service,C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCanada Border Services AgencyCanadian Security Intelligence ServiceCannabisCivilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceCorrectional Service of CanadaCriminal record suspensionDepartment of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessMain estimates 2019-2020Office of the Correctional Investigator of CanadaParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceRoyal Canadian Mounted Police External Review CommitteeSecretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansSecurity Intelligence Review CommitteeStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5973700NeilEllisBay of QuinteMarkEykingHon.Sydney—Victoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak once more to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.As I said last week, this is a terrible bill. It reminds me of the NAFTA bill. However, sometimes a bill is better than no bill.As I have said many times in the House, I was never in favour of the legalization of marijuana, Bill C-45, which was another typically ill-conceived bill brought in by the Liberal government.I will support the Bill C-93 because there is a common-sense element to it.Although I did not support legalization, I am not naive enough to say that it was not right to look at the whole cannabis strategy in Canada. Let us face it, we are not the only ones. Many other countries have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. We only have to look at our closest and best trading partners, the good old U.S.A. The use of marijuana has been legalized and decriminalized in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, Mariana Islands and Guam. Many of these jurisdictions are looking at or have commenced programs to get rid of the old cannabis-related charges for simple possession. There are several different programs being looked at. Some are similar to this bill, Bill C-93. Some are similar to what the NDP has been pushing, which is expungement. We have heard from many of my colleagues in the House about the injustices that have taken place with respect to Canadians who have records for simple possession of marijuana. Stories have been told about people being turned back at the U.S. border. However, in my research, I have found the same things are happening in the United States. I will provide two cases. We have heard this before with respect to our people, just not south of the border. I will not to give their names to protect their identity.A 70-year-old retired carpenter in the United States, who once ran for the Senate, was convicted back in 1968 for simple possession. His conviction caused him to be refused entry into Canada and he is unable to purchase a firearm in the United States.Another gentleman, a professional lighting technician, worked for Willy Nelson for a time. Because of a misdemeanour drug charge as a youth, he was unable to accompany the band on tour to Canada.Therefore, I strongly believe we need to remove the records for Canadians who were charged with simple possession of marijuana. Clearing people's records can remove barriers to employment and housing.Many groups in Canada have become victims because of the area they live in and the environment around them. Many are good people who made the wrong choice at the wrong time. That is why I support Bill C-93, although I feel the bill did not go far enough. It should have, and could have, looked at many minor Criminal Code offences, such as public mischief and wilful damage, offences we call misdemeanours in the Criminal Code. There is always room to fix things. Maybe sometime in the future Bill C-93 coanbe fixed.I spoke about this last week. In California, Code for America has brought out a program called “Clear My Record”. It is a computerized program that allows for the expedient removal of simple criminal code records, such as the simple possession of marijuana.(1540)From the list of states I mentioned previously, nearly every one has passed laws that allow people to clear or change their criminal records. Those states recognize the impact on the economy and on the lives of families when millions are shut out of the workforce or unable to fully reintegrate into their communities because of criminal records from their past. I was shocked to learn, in my research on Bill C-93, that one in three people had a criminal record in the United States.I also discovered that those states that had a cumbersome, overly complicated system of removing one's record failed in their goals. Only a small fraction of the tens of millions of eligible Americans benefited from these laws, which was directly related to being over-complicated, costly and took too much time to do.“Code for America”, a computerized system that was adopted by California, is a modern 21st century technology that is quick, efficient and benefits the recipients. “Clear my Record” is a free online tool that assists people in California to navigate the complicate process of clearing their records. People can fill out a short, easy to understand application online that typically takes 10 minutes to get connected to a legal authority.Jazmyn Latimer and Ben Golder, who co-developed the program, realized there was a problem when they looked into how many people were taking advantage of getting their records expunged. They found that less than 8% of the people who qualified accomplished it, simply because the system was opaque, hard to understand and navigate and costly, both for the people with the records and for the government. Does this sound like Bill C-93? It very much does. I made recommendations to Bill C-93 during committee that the Canadian Parole Board look at electronic means of modernizing the way we do business. We are still following 20th century technology, trying to do too much by hand. Why? I could not get an answer for that.The state of California, which has implemented the electronic process, has plans to try to clear over 250,000 cannabis-related convictions by 2020. That is probably as many as we have in Canada, and if not, a lot more. I hope it succeeds. As well, I hope our Parole Board looks at an electronic process for Canadians with all possession charges and to expand in the future to look at other minor Criminal Code offences. We owe it to Canadians to make this system simple and free so they can get rid of their records, live better lives and be less of a burden on society.Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionUnited States of America59746095974610597461159746125974613597461459746155974616597461759746185974619597462059746215974622597462359746245974625597462659746275974628GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it quite fascinating to hear the member for Yellowhead say that Bill C-93 does not go far enough, that it should include some minor offences and that processes should be free and easier to get at. I invite him to comment on the measures taken by the previous Conservative government, a government of which he was a member. It jacked up application fees, increased the waiting time to the point where the backlog is substantial, as is the hardship for many of the people in the very situations he described. That is the record of the Conservative government.How does he square that with the position he has taken on this bill?Application processBacklogsC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597462959746305974631JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' stand was that we were trying to run an efficient government, with a balanced budget. Sometimes, governments must take hard measures, realizing that certain expenses may have to be passed down to the public. It is obvious that not many people are receiving the benefits of our parole program and pardon system. We would be naive if we did not look at ways of modernizing it. Bill C-93 tries to do that. It should have gone further. It should have been more forceful in looking at electronic means to make it simpler, less costly and more efficient for the government.Application processBacklogsC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59746325974633SeanCaseyCharlottetownGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, as my friend and friend colleague is retiring, I would like to thank him for his service. We have done some work together at the all-party climate caucus, and I appreciate his involvement there.With respect to the legislation, we have heard the arguments about record suspension and we have talked about expungement. The MP for Victoria put forward a bill on expungement, which was defeated by the government. It just does not make sense to us that everyday Canadians can go ahead now and legally use marijuana recreationally, while their neighbour, who may have been convicted for using marijuana, still holds a criminal record. Now people are being asked to go through a long process in asking for a record suspension, which is very costly. Records could be expunged. We have done this in the past with historical wrongs, such as with Bill C-66. Does the member agree that we should go to full expungement, save a ton of money and move on so people, especially those who are vulnerable, do not have to go through this process? I have 10 first nations communities in my riding. Many of these people are facing huge challenges when it comes to transportation. For them, applying for a record suspension is very unlikely, because of the costs associated with getting to where there is broadband or an office to do that important work.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974634597463559746365974637JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, I have mixed emotions. Expungement would be a quick and simple way of doing it. However, I was a police officer for 35 years. Many times when I charged an individual with possession for the purpose of trafficking, that charge got reduced. There may have been other charges. When that person went to court, the Crown and the defence lawyer would decide to plea bargain and, a lot of times, it went down to the simple possession charge. Therefore, I have a hard time with that.We need to have a way to clarify if the is the only thing relating to the charge of simple possession. I personally have dealt with hundreds of cases over the years, where I may have made the charge simple possession but it may have been a lot more serious. If the guy was polite and co-operative, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The chiefs of police have brought that concern forward. I know that technically we could do it with the press of a button, but I do not know if that would be right. We need to really look in-depth at that aspect. We need some way of clarifying it. It is not as easy as a simple possession. In many cases, there are a lot of other things relating to that charge.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597463859746395974640GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, I could just stand here and listen to the member for a few more minutes. There is so much to learn, because this debate does have so many different sides to it. We have people who have spent 35 years in the policing community, who have a voice in here. People who have had a criminal charge against them have a voice in here. There are so many different things that we need to look at, so I do respect the words that the member said. That is what makes a healthy debate in the House of Commons.I am proud to stand here and speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Although I am not 100% behind the bill, I do feel that it does what is best for Canadians.To begin, I am concerned about the cost to taxpayers. There are different ways of looking at this. In the previous Conservative government, the process was a user-pay system. This system was put in, and for many years in my experience as a constituency assistant, I would sit with people who had a criminal record and needed to get a record suspension.We would go through the list of what they needed to do, everything from going to the police station and to the courthouse and all of those different things that were necessary. In many cases, people were trying to get their criminal record suspended because they were looking for better opportunities, for better jobs, for things that would increase their livelihood. I fully respected that.For many people, although there are different ways of looking at this, what I found was that sometimes the user-pay system was very difficult. For those people who wanted to have a better life, I found it extremely difficult when I knew that they did not have the means, and all they wanted was to have a job. Sometimes this is a real difficulty.What is at the end of the day for taxpayers? The border security minister indicated that there could be up to 400,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession, but the government expects between 70,000 and 80,000 are eligible to apply. According to public safety, the cost would be approximately $2.5 million, equalling approximately 10,000 applicants.There are ways of doing this. I believe that when someone breaks the law, there needs to be some sort of penalty, but sometimes the penalties can live on forever if people do not have the opportunity to have their record suspended, because it is not going away. If people do not have the means to pay for that record suspension, they are going to continue to have that record.That is why I wish I could see that the government looked at a possible means test. The Liberals talk about means tests all the time, and about not helping the millionaires or the people who do not need it, so I do not know why they did not consider having means tests. Those people who cannot afford it could pay what they can—pay a small portion or pay for the court documents or the records or whatever it is they need. It could be very difficult, but instead we will have people who are making zero dollars and people who are making $500,000 all paying the same to make it universal. We know that this is an expensive program, so if we are looking it as a poverty reduction measure, let us make sure we are actually helping those in poverty by reducing the cost to them so that those people can have a better life.One of the discussions we had was whether it was necessary, the idea being that people would say getting a job was not a big deal and having a criminal record was okay. I lived during an economic downturn, and people who had lost their job at Ford in St. Thomas or lost their job at Sterling or a variety of other places were now looking to get a foot in another door. One of the things stopping them was their criminal record.Many people would say it is against human rights. If there is no reason to worry about that criminal record and it has nothing to do with their job, it should not matter to the employer whether they have a criminal record or not, but let us be honest: When a company is receiving 200 applications and notices there is a criminal record, it is very easy to put it into the “later” pile, because those are issues it does not want to deal with. Companies do not know that it may be a simple possession of marijuana, but it is a simple way of separating the good from the bad, even though the best employee may be lost in that later pile. Those are some of the things we have to understand. One of the key elements to this issue is poverty reduction. I believe giving every Canadian a chance to better themselves is extremely important, and now that we have legislation that allows for the possession of cannabis and the use of cannabis for people over the age of 18 in Canada, we need to be able to make sure that nothing is holding them back. Having this record suspension so that they can have better lives is key when it comes to a poverty reduction strategy, and it is one of the things that should be implemented for that strategy.(1555)Law enforcement seems to be somewhat supportive. It is off and on. However, as we just heard from the previous speaker, sometimes people had reduced charges. For instance, people trafficking on the streets or who had something else in their possession may have had a reduced charge. There may have been other petty crimes like that, but the possession of cannabis was seen and may have been the only charge laid. As the previous speaker said, it would be really nice if we could find out more, but what more do we need to do? At the end of the day, it would definitely slow down the process and would not make the process as expedient as people would wish. However, it is important, because sometimes people who have committed much greater crimes have only this possession conviction on their record. In some cases, it was the only offence for which a person could be found guilty, or it may have been a plea deal or a variety of things like that. Some Canadians, like the NDP, are asking for full expungement. However, I question full expungement because of those cases in which a person has been able to get the charges reduced to simple possession.There were several common sense amendments put forward by the Conservative Party that were defeated. Those who had fines and had never paid them would still be eligible for this program, which defeats the whole purpose of having a fine. This is one thing that I am really concerned with. If, let us say, a person has a fine from 20 years ago sitting on their record, it would also be expunged. However, if my mom had a fine, for example, she would be at the station paying it the very next day, because that is who she is. She is a very honourable person. There are some people who may forget, which is one thing, but there are people who just choose not to pay the fine, and they would have this service as well, so at the end of the day, was there any penalty? The answer would be no. I also think that the surcharge should be up to those individuals with unpaid fines and should not be laid upon the taxpayer. One thing I like is the amendment that would allow the swearing of an affidavit. Many times I have helped people who have tried to get their records. They have gone to the courthouses and police stations, but sometimes getting those records has been extremely difficult, so the opportunity to swear an affidavit is a very positive amendment. I congratulate all parties who supported it.Turning back to the legislation, a criminal record showing that charges were withdrawn or that there was an acquittal can have negative effects and can be an obstacle for people wanting to volunteer at their child's school. For years I volunteered at my children's schools in reading programs or on school trips, although not so much now that I am a member of Parliament. However, if a person has been charged with simple possession in the past—which, let us be honest, has happened to a lot of Canadians—that person is not allowed to volunteer at their child's school or for a school trip. If this was something that happened when they were 18 years old and now they are taking their 10-year-old on a school trip, it is just really out there. We have these screenings because children are vulnerable and we want to make sure that the children have the best opportunity to be with the best role models, but a simple possession charge does not make a person a horrific human being. It is so important that we allow those people to also be involved, whether it is volunteering at food banks, schools, or churches, or at many organizations where a person's criminal record must be clean. These are big concerns. This goes to the idea of where the NDP would go. What would happen if there was expungement? There are a lot of issues with that. People with a criminal record would be unable to work at a bank, at most government jobs, as insurance or real estate brokers, taxi drivers, police officers, or private investigators. They would be unable to work at restaurants where alcohol is served and, as I said, as volunteers. We have to give people opportunities, and sometimes it is as simple as giving them a second chance. Therefore, I am pleased to support the bill before us. As with any other piece of legislation, we will have to look at it and make sure that it is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. We have to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do for the people who are supposed to gain the ability to have their sentences removed. Let us do this while looking ahead and also looking behind to make sure that we have done it properly.AffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsLabour forceOpportunity for All - Canada’s First Poverty Reduction StrategyPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePovertyThird reading and adoptionVolunteering and volunteers5974641597464259746435974644597464559746465974647597464859746495974650597465159746525974653597465459746555974656597465759746585974659597466059746615974662597466359746645974665JimEglinskiYellowheadKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very balanced perspective that the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward, showing what some of the advantages are and what some of the disadvantages are. That is the kind of conversation we should be having, and I appreciate that. However, this is not finished. Everything is not done here. There is more to do.I would like to ask the hon. member this. If she could pick one thing that we were to look at in the next Parliament to make this even more effective, what would it be?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59746665974667KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I think part of it is making sure that those records are all compiled, because people have to go here, here and here. We need to make it user-friendly. That is one of the biggest things we have to lean towards, making it user-friendly.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974668KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, it is actually nice to see the spirit of the House as we are trying to move forward collectively in a way that is going to help those people who have been convicted for small possession of marijuana, especially the most marginalized persons.We hear in Regina that indigenous people are nine times more likely than non-indigenous people to be charged with small possession of marijuana or carry a charge of small possession. Clearly, that is a fundamental wrong.If we look at historical wrongs, homosexuality was illegal until 1969. There were charges laid until 1969. It took us 49 years to pass Bill C-66 to expunge the convictions of those who were charged under what was clearly a historical wrong in our society. We do not want to wait another 49 years to fix this historical wrong. We can fix it right now, and record suspension is just not enough. It is going to be a long, onerous and expensive process. I call on my colleague to support us in calling for expungement. I know she has talked about some of the rationale behind it, but this is just a much easier way. Let us not wait to fix this historical wrong, because we know that it clearly is one.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974669597467059746715974672KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I was fully supportive of Bill C-66 and the expungement. Being an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, I look at people and who they are. This is something I look at differently. When comparing cannabis to a person's sexual diversity, I find the issues to be very different.That being said, we need to make sure that we are actually focusing on people charged with simple possession. The thing is, I am concerned that we can come to an administrative barrier. Part of it is that I know the drug dealers on the street. I know there is a big issue happening here.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mrs. Karen Vecchio: I do not know them all by name.Part of the issue is that there are some bad people out there, and I do not want to just say, “Forget about it. It was a simple charge.” Some of those people have caused great angst for many families.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59746735974674597467559746765974677GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I think that there could be improvements, and I know that the Green Party requested some amendments, including expungement. We have a lot of people in this country who have criminal records based on simple possession. It has ruined a lot of good people's lives and opportunities, and it creates problems for people who want to cross the border.I think expungement is the best solution. Finding a way to make it very affordable for people to have their records removed so that they can carry on with their lives and not carry this with them for the rest of their days is very important as well.I would ask the hon. member whether she think that the bill is good enough as it is to support it. What changes would she make otherwise?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597467859746795974680KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I look at this and I am just not there yet with expungement. I need more facts to show that we are getting only the people who have had simple possession. I think that is where my breaking point is, simple possession versus trafficking. That is where the line is.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974681PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my neighbour to the north, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-93. When I spoke to the bill previously, I expressed my concern that it has been rushed to meet the Prime Minister's self-imposed political timeline. We are going to miss real opportunities to get this right, and there was a lot of runway for the government to get this done.Municipalities are going to struggle with this. There will be real costs for them. We have heard from law enforcement professionals about the challenges that the hurried legislation will present for them. Health care professionals have also expressed concerns about the timetable that came with legalization. It is fair to describe it as half-baked indeed.The issues that come from a lack of due diligence are so much more than the downloading of responsibilities to municipalities. It furthers the inequalities people will face.There is also a risk, as my colleague said, that we will not be able to have full visibility on the criminal records of the folks who will receive these expedited pardons. Perhaps the amendments that were proposed ought to have been given better and proper consideration by the government in an effort to further the interests of justice in Canada.The last time I spoke to the bill, I described issues in a very clear way for the government to give it the opportunity to understand and consider the error of its ways. I did this using the story of “The Tortoise and the Hare”. I will not retell it, as I am sure government members were captivated by my first telling of it. However, the fact remains that through the government's failure to deliver, we find ourselves here.When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety spoke on this issue, she conceded that due diligence had not been done. She said:However, not all of the fines are owed to the federal government. All the federal government can do is wipe its fines, but it has to discuss this with provinces and municipalities and encourage them to do the same. That kind of discussion is ongoing, but it will take a while to come to an understanding of how provinces and municipalities can actually contribute to this process.Further on she said:Mr. Speaker, I believe how it would work, at a provincial or municipal level, is that payment of those fines, if they are not granted amnesty on those fines, would be through civil recourse.It is pretty late in the game, as we are at quite an advanced stage, for those discussions to be ongoing or, more correctly, not happening.Concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders persist. We have heard what the risks are for municipalities. However, our law enforcement and public safety professionals continue to have inadequate tools for roadside testing and screening for impairment. That presents a grave challenge. Despite all of the time and education that has been invested in preventing and stopping alcohol-impaired driving, we continue to have issues. Authorities could run a ride check any time of day and they would find people who are impaired.It concerns me that while our law enforcement agents are out trying to do their jobs with this newly legalized substance, they do not have the tools and the tool kit to get the job done. The tool they have is error-plagued. Members may recall that the device police have been given is the same device on which folks test positive for opiate use after eating a poppyseed bagel.An hon. member: What?Mr. Michael Barrett: Madam Speaker, I share the shock and surprise of my colleague. It is unbelievable.(1610)The rush to get things done comes out of the government now realizing that it has run out of runway and it wants to have a few things on the achievement list after a pretty rough spring for Canada. The institution that we believe in, the independence of our judiciary, has been questioned. It has been weakened by the Liberal government's actions. We need to look no further than the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We need to look no further than the politically motivated prosecution and persecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.Now that the Liberals are looking to get a few accomplishments in their brochures for the election, this bill is one that they want to get done. The Liberals have broken promises that they made in the last election. The democratic reform that they promised has not materialized. Certainly, it is quite the opposite. It is very concerning that the Liberals have Elections Canada now paying the better part of three-quarters of a million dollars to Instagram models and the like to influence the outcome of the election. It is preposterous. I cannot even believe that is part of the government's strategy. It clearly is not the work of a serious mind.So much of what the Liberals have failed to do risks the future for Canadians. Failing to balance the budget, as the Liberals promised, is a huge problem. Having been given a balanced budget in 2015, they plunged us into deficit after deficit after deficit. Here we are in year four with another deficit. These deficits today will be the taxes of tomorrow. It is very concerning for Canadians.We had a promise from the government that it was going to take real action on the environment. Hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewage are being dumped into the St. Lawrence without consequence. It is not a concern for the Liberals.In the absence of a plan to help the environment, the Liberals put a tax on everything. They put a tax on driving one's kids to hockey and a tax to run a small business, those same small businesses that the Liberal government alleged to be tax cheats.Conservatives know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the real economic driver. We have often heard the government say that it created one million jobs. It is not the government's responsibility to create jobs. It needs to create an environment where jobs can be created. Canadians create jobs.The Liberals will not accept responsibility for failures but they are quick to take credit for other people's successes. Certainly they are quick to take credit on the backs of ordinary Canadians and small business owners, just as they are quick to bring in taxes to pay for their reckless spending.It is a hurried process that we have arrived at with Bill C-93, but it matches very much the chaotic nature of the government. We will monitor the implementation of this bill. We commit to reviewing its effectiveness and fairness. When we form government, we will see if any changes need to be made to ensure the reasonableness and fairness of it are applied.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCities and townsCriminal record suspensionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceSobriety testSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption59746825974683597468459746855974686597468759746885974689597469059746915974692597469359746945974695597469659746975974698597469959747005974701597470259747035974704597470559747065974707KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonAlainaLockhartFundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88357AlainaLockhartAlaina-LockhartFundy RoyalLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LockhartAlaina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie, Lib.): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have said that the legalization of cannabis would lead to a catastrophe. That seemed to be the theme of the member's speech. So far, however, the facts speak for themselves.We have seen a decline in the criminal share of cannabis from 51% to 38% in the first three months as opposed to last year. There is no sign of an increase in youth consumption, impaired driving problems or at the border.Will the member concede that the Conservatives' doomsday predictions are a bit unfounded?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsImpaired drivingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597470859747095974710MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the parliamentary secretary would say there has not been an increase in impaired driving cases. The Liberals have not even given the police the tools necessary to detect if impaired driving has occurred. The equipment that they approved is not even ready to use. It is pretty rich for the Liberals to say that the implementation has been without error. In fact, I think the chaos that the Conservatives predicted has arrived.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsImpaired drivingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974711AlainaLockhartFundy RoyalWayneStetskiKootenay—Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89281WayneStetskiWayne-StetskiKootenay—ColumbiaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/StetskiWayne_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, my riding of Kootenay—Columbia has long been a place known for generations of cannabis farmers. It has been quite interesting to work through the process over the last couple of years trying to make sure that cannabis grown under sunshine and rain is as acceptable as cannabis grown under plastic and glass, and I do not think we are quite there yet.I have consulted with constituents in my riding about this particular bill and I am personally supportive of Bill C-93. Why not go all the way to expungement now that we have started that process?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59747125974713MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of visiting the riding of Kootenay—Columbia and it is, indeed, quite wonderful, although I did not visit any cannabis-growing farms. Bill C-93, in its current form, is flawed. The amendments proposed at committee by industry in response to recommendations by industry experts would have served this piece of legislation well. With a view to fairly implementing the new legislation in what should have been lockstep with the legalization of marijuana, the Conservatives are going to support this piece of legislation, but, as I said before, like so many other pieces of legislation that the Liberals implemented, we will fix it and clean up the mess.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59747145974715WayneStetskiKootenay—ColumbiaScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, there was a discussion by a Liberal member about my party being afraid of the consequences of cannabis legalization. There was an implication that a Conservative government would want to recriminalize or put penalties in place for the use of cannabis in the future, and I thought that was an unfortunate implication. I want to give my colleague the opportunity to make it clear what the Conservative Party position is with regard to the legal status of cannabis under a Conservative government after the next election.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59747165974717MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my neighbour to the north in Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for the opportunity to say that of course, a Conservative government would make no effort to recriminalize cannabis. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974718ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague to the south, who has been representing very ably the riding that was, until very recently and for a long time, represented by my dear friend and colleague Gord Brown. Those were big shoes to fill. I know I am expressing a view that is shared by many in his constituency when I say that my colleague is doing a very admirable job, and my hat is off to him for that.This is my second opportunity to address Bill C-93 and my third to address the issue of pardons for the formerly criminal act of simple possession of cannabis. I was also able to address the private member's bill, Bill C-415, which was moved in the name of our colleague from Victoria. I want to focus my remarks primarily on the contrast between the expungement model in Bill C-415 and the record suspension or pardon model in Bill C-93. Looking at this bill and the comments raised in committee persuades me of the truth of a remark that was made in committee by a criminal defence lawyer, Solomon Friedman, who said:I should first note that Bill C-93 is better than nothing. But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament. You can do better. You must do better. Instead, I would urge a scheme of expungement along the lines already provided for in the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act.That act was, of course, passed by this Parliament at the instigation of the current government, which revealed that expungement is, at least in principle, possible for the former offence of simple possession of cannabis.Better than nothing turns out to be the equivalent, in practice, of very little at all. Parole Board officials testifying before the committee studying this bill estimated that out of the 250,000 to 500,000 Canadians with convictions for cannabis possession, only 10,000 would apply for a record suspension or expedited pardon. I will make two comments. First, I am not sure how much precision or accuracy we can expect in the prediction of 10,000 from people who said that the number of records out there is somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000. That is a substantial margin of error. Additionally, if it is 10,000, why so few? The answer, in part, is the incredibly bureaucratic nature of the process under Bill C-93. When looking at Bill C-93, one gets the impression that the government looked at all available options for dealing with this issue and selected the most bureaucratic one it could find. Let me quote from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a supporter of this bill, and my point will be made. In promotion of the bill, she said:[W]hy not just do it like some California municipalities and erase all the records with the press of a button? We do have an electronic police database of criminal records here in Canada, however, that database does not contain enough information to allow for a proactive amnesty....[The] Parole Board should explore options for moving towards a more digitized system capable of receiving applications electronically, something particularly important for Canadians in rural areas.That system would be in the future, not under this bill. That is a reference to the problems of getting access to broadband Internet in rural areas. The parliamentary secretary then said:In the meantime, the Parole Board is taking a number of steps to simplify the application process in other ways. It is simplifying its website and application form. It is creating a dedicated, toll-free phone number and an email address to help people with their applications.In other words, none of this stuff is available, and it will take some time before that happens. She continued: It is developing a community outreach strategy with a particular focus on the communities most [likely to be] affected by the criminalization of cannabis to make sure that people know about this new expedited process and how to access it...We will need an advertising campaign. This is going to be slow and complicated. By contrast, what would have happened under an expungement system? Expungement is nothing the government ever considered. Indeed, it seems not to have even thought of this possibility. Under expungement, we would simply say that the government would act as if any record that stated that a person had been convicted for possession of cannabis did not actually exist. If we found it, we simply would say there was nothing there.(1625)This is done by the courts all the time. Any correspondence between lawyers done on a without prejudice basis, whether or not the words “without prejudice” are put at the front of the various pieces of correspondence, is automatically disregarded by a court. They have no ability to present it as evidence in a proceeding.Similarly, we could do the same thing with records. This would overcome the problem of having different records kept in different ways, some on paper and some electronically, in different jurisdictions. They would simply have no existence in law. Because it is such a common conviction, when one was accessed, we would understand that it simply did not exist for the purpose of being used by any law enforcement official. That is how we could introduce expungement. This would eliminate all the bureaucracy, all the application fees that are necessary, which would still exist under this proposal, all the time, all the work and all the money that would have to be expended. There is a cost estimate, which I find hard to believe, attached to this bill. There would be zero cost with an expungement system.In all fairness, the bill is better now than it was before it went to committee and came back with amendments. This is thanks, in part, to an amendment proposed by the member for Toronto—Danforth. I will again read from the parliamentary secretary's words to give members an idea of what was done. She stated:thanks to an amendment at committee from the member for Toronto—Danforth, people will be able to apply [for a pardon] even if they have outstanding fines associated with their cannabis possession conviction. Due to an amendment we voted on at report stage...people whose only sentence was a fine will not be required to submit court documents as part of their application.Finding these court documents was part of the supposedly costless, expedited process until this amendment was made.On the other hand, a further suggested amendment, put forward by the Conservatives, was accepted at committee and then subsequently rejected by the government. I will quote from our Conservative critic on this issue, who stated, “We proposed a measure to allow applicants whose records were destroyed to swear an affidavit explaining their situation and certifying that they are eligible”, which of course creates some paperwork but is less complicated than what we are left with. He went on to say, “This would have made the process even more fair. The Liberals agreed to this amendment in committee but changed their minds at report stage and decided to reject it.”That would have helped relieve some of the bureaucracy. There are certain costs that continue to exist, and this prompted one person to quip, I think very appropriately, that the bill should not have been entitled an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, but rather, an act to provide for lower-cost, somewhat expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.In the remaining minute and a half of my time, I want to deal with another important issue. Getting a pardon essentially equals getting forgiveness. People have done something wrong, we forgive them, and we move on. Expungement is a way of saying that what they did was not wrong in the first place. There are some offences for which this might not be true, even if we eliminated them retrospectively. I think, in the case of cannabis possession, it is clear that our ancestors, those who came before us, did not make it legal because they felt it was morally wrong to ingest or use marijuana. They thought it was the best way to protect people from their own unwise instincts. It was a wrong move. It did not work. It ruined a lot of lives, but those people were not put in prison because they had done something that was evil or wrong or would harm the rest of society. Therefore, removing this is entirely appropriate. We need not save expungement, as the government has proposed, only for the righting of historical wrongs based on laws that are now prohibited under the charter. I suggest that, in this case, it is also appropriate, and I urge all of us to consider, as we look forward to the future, the expungement model, perhaps in a second piece of legislation in the 43rd Parliament.AffidavitApplication processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsInformation disseminationInformation technologyPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974719597472059747215974722597472359747245974725597472659747275974728597472959747305974731597473259747335974734597473559747365974737597473859747395974740597474159747425974743597474459747455974746MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he spoke briefly about this, but I would like to go back to the issue of making the process automatic. When the bill was in committee, we heard that giving it a title that implies the process would cost nothing is misleading. My colleague briefly mentioned this at the end of his speech.In reality, not only is there a cost associated with obtaining the documents required to apply, but these costs also vary widely from one region to the next. Furthermore, people living far from major urban centres may have an even harder time obtaining these documents.I also want to add that the Conservatives proposed an amendment, which I supported. In Canada, we have a serious problem with storing and maintaining criminal records, so this amendment would have allowed people whose documents have been lost or destroyed to swear an oath and receive a sworn statement that they could use to apply. This amendment was rejected by the Liberals at report stage.I would like to know what my colleague has to say about this. Does he believe that we should be a bit more flexible and make the process automatic?AffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59747475974748597474959747505974751ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, I thought the amendment was a good one. The decision to remove it I will not say was unwise, but I think it was inexplicable. I really do not know the reason for removing it.My colleague is entirely right that it is harder for people in some parts of the country to get access to these kinds of records. It is harder for people who do not have ready access to a lawyer or the ability to pay for a lawyer or the services of a lawyer's office to hunt through court records. Citizens are not easily able to do this on their own.The same people who were victimized too much initially, those who are poorer, those who are suffering from mental illness, those who are less able to manoeuver their way through the byzantine legal system, will have the same problem at this level. I think we will discover that the same groups that faced too many arrests and convictions will face too small an ability to right these wrongs, relative to the population as a whole.AffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597475259747535974754MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has an interesting background on this particular issue. He was not always on side with his Conservative Party when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. I respect that of the member opposite.Listening to the Conservatives speak on this particular bill is a little confusing. The NDP members seem to have taken the position that they are not going to be voting for this bill, because they want expungement. If I listen to the Conservatives, some of them stand up and say that it should be expungement as opposed to a pardon. Others stand up and say that the pardon is good. Overall, it looks like the Conservatives are voting for the bill. It is hard thing to tell for sure.Could the member give a clear indication of the Conservative Party's position on this bill? Do the Conservatives favour it, or are they inclined to vote against it?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597475559747565974757ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I can only speak for my own position. I am in favour of the bill. It is better than nothing, but it is not much better than nothing, in my opinion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974758KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I hold my colleague in great esteem, and I appreciated his speech.One of the questions I am hearing is, “What is the cost going to be for this?” More importantly, many of these convictions were plea bargained. In other words, a more serious offence was pleaded down, and now these people may have these options available to them, as well as the people who have convictions for simple possession.Could the member comment on that issue? The government really has to look at this carefully, because no prosecutor would have accepted a plea bargain knowing that it was going to be washed away in the future.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597475959747605974761ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, this is an issue on which I disagree with many colleagues in my own party. Some people, no doubt, were convicted because it was part of a plea bargain; others were not. I do not know the percentage. I suspect the majority who faced simple possession charges and were convicted did not plea bargain.Blackstone, the great author and authority on the common law, said in the 18th century that it was better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be hanged. Everybody knows this saying. The same principle ought to apply here. It is better that some people be able to get a pardon even though their conviction was the result of a plea bargain, than the alternative, namely that others who had simple possession charges be unable to get a pardon.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59747625974763ColinCarrieOshawaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1640)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again speak to Bill C-93. This bill has a number of flaws and perfectly illustrates why Canadians' trust in the Liberals has been broken. On the eve of the election, the government is settling for half measures that are not even guaranteed to pass.As the parliamentary secretary said, we oppose this bill. We are not here to give the Liberal government a free pass for measures that very few people will be able to access. For example, I will talk about Bill C-66, which established an expedited procedure for expunging criminal records of LGBTQ community members sentenced for behaviour that is no longer deemed criminal. This objective is commendable and we support it, but an automatic process would have been preferable.We can look at the numbers for the sake of comparison. When Bill C-93 was in committee, we learned that of the approximately 9,000 people who were eligible for the procedure established under Bill C-66, only seven had applied. In committee, we asked government officials for an explanation, but naturally, they were unable to respond. I would certainly be able to provide some, just as the experts did in committee. I will come back to that.Meanwhile, the government said that it would advertise through non-traditional means. Is it talking about tweets, Facebook posts or pretty hashtags? I have a hard time believing that these ads will be seen by the right people, who are often in precarious situations. We are talking about vulnerable Canadians, racialized people, indigenous peoples and low-income Canadians. Factually and statistically, these people are the most likely to have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana.This is easy to prove. Here in the House, the Prime Minister publicly stated that he had once smoked marijuana recreationally, as did other politicians. There is nothing wrong with that. Black people in Toronto, however, cannot get away with it that easily. They are the most likely to have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. This is a serious problem and is one of the reasons we oppose this bill. It is clear that the people who need this process the most are the same ones who will not benefit from it.I would like to talk a little bit about the study in committee in order to explain why the NDP does not support this bill. First, a criminal lawyer told us that this was the least Parliament could do and that it was better than nothing but that parliamentarians have a duty to do much better than that. I could not agree more.The NDP's commitment to Parliament involves doing our best to help those who need it most. We do not want to settle for taking a tiny step in the right direction. The lawyer I mentioned, Solomon Friedman, also raised several problems with the record suspension system. Those problems are not an issue in the NDP's approach of expunging criminal records. He mentioned two factors.The first is good conduct. Those who apply for a criminal record suspension, whether under the process proposed by Bill C-93 or the usual process, must demonstrate that they are being good citizens. For the average Canadian, that means refraining from robbing a bank or murdering someone, for instance, as farfetched as that may sound.(1645)Actually, Mr. Freidman explained that it could include getting a speeding ticket or causing a minor accident with another vehicle by turning onto a one-way street and the police is called in. These actions would be considered bad behaviour. Fortunately, the leader of the Green Party and member for Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced an amendment to fix the problem. We introduced a similar amendment that went even further. I will come back to that in a moment.The government's amendment appears quite good, but if the government acknowledges this flaw and the distinction between record suspension and expungement, why did it not simply agree to expunge the records from the outset? That was what my colleague from Victoria's bill called for. Incidentally, some Liberal and Conservative members supported it.There are other differences between the two approaches, but I want to come back to the amendment. The Liberals moved a sub-amendment to the proposed amendment, which then lost an important element that was found in one of my amendments, which was rejected. Simple possession of a reasonable quantity of cannabis, just like its consumption for recreational, medical or other purposes, is now permitted under the law following the passage of Bill C-45 earlier in this Parliament. An individual who obtains a record suspension for simple possession of cannabis could subsequently commit another crime for all sorts of reasons. I am not excusing the crime or stating whether it would be justified. This is a hypothetical situation.Under Bill C-93, if an individual with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana has his criminal record suspended and subsequently commits a crime, no matter how minor or insignificant it may be, the record is reinstated. That makes no sense. I do not understand that. If the member for Sherbrooke, the member for Saskatoon West, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, or even I, or anyone else, were in possession of cannabis, that would not be considered unlawful under the act. An individual can get a record suspension through a government-approved process because the offence they committed is no longer an offence. That individual might go on to commit a crime, perhaps due to being marginalized, as the vast majority of people burdened with the injustice of a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis are. This bill is an attempt to repair that injustice. The individual might be struggling with very difficult circumstances. We do not know all those circumstances.The government says it wants to help these people, but its new system is flawed. If these people trip up at any point in the future, their criminal record will be reinstated and they will no longer benefit from the Liberals' system.If their records were expunged, as the NDP and all the committee witnesses except for the minister suggested, the records would no longer exist. No matter what future difficulties people might encounter, that record would be gone for good.[English]I also want to speak about other vulnerable individuals whom this bill does not help. I want to speak about the issues raised by the Native Women's Association of Canada, which came to committee and said that one of the groups that would benefit the least from this legislation is indigenous women, because of all the barriers that would still exist despite this process. (1650)Earlier, I asked the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston about the fact that, by not making the process automatic and calling it “no-cost”, the government is misleading Canadians who may want to benefit from this process. Why is that? As every witness said in committee, there are sometimes enormous costs associated with obtaining the necessary documents to apply in the first place, especially for the individuals who seek to benefit from this process.The application no longer has a cost, but people have to pay to get their fingerprints, pay to go to the court to find their old records, if they even still exist, which is something I will come back to in a moment, and they have to pay for any other documents they might need. The costs could be hundreds of dollars, and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.If people live far away from an urban centre, in a region that is already underserved and where vulnerable Canadians, indigenous people and others are already victims of a system that is fixed against them in many ways, they are even more disadvantaged by those barriers that would remain in place despite this legislation. That is unacceptable. What could have been done? We proposed an amendment that was unfortunately ruled beyond the scope of the bill, which is interesting. I challenged the chair and the Liberals voted with the chair, which is not surprising, but the explanation that was provided by the law clerk in committee was interesting, when he argued why the amendments were beyond the scope of the bill. He said that all the bill seeks to do is take the existing record suspension process, which everyone agrees is fundamentally unequal, and make it a bit easier in some aspects. However, by making it automatic, we would get rid of those barriers. It was pointed out to us by the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Native Women's Association and others that many of these individuals do not even think they have criminal records anymore because they paid their fines, which is considered time served, and have moved on to other things. They do not even know.Anyone in this room who has dealt with government, and certainly we have, in our offices, by the very nature of our work, knows that if it is hard enough for those of us within government to deal with the government apparatus and to have the proper knowledge, then certainly it is true for the most vulnerable Canadians.[Translation]Even the idea of making the system automatic was a compromise. We initially wanted criminal records to be expunged, but we said we could live with record suspensions. We were not happy, but we wanted the government to at least make the process automatic. It refused. It will not even accept a compromise.I said earlier that I would come back to the issue of documentation and poor records management in Canada. It is madness. Ask the police about the Canadian police database. Ask about a crime being committed in Ontario and having to search for records in Alberta, Quebec or elsewhere. It is crazy to see how poorly managed these records are. One of the things that needs to be done is a digital upgrade.The Conservatives proposed an amendment that all committee members supported. If a person could no longer locate documents because they had been destroyed or lost, they could sign a sworn statement explaining the lack of documentation. The Parole Board of Canada would be able to accept this sworn statement, this letter or declaration, so that the person could move forward with the process.Everyone was happy. It was a step in the right direction. When the bill came back to the House at report stage, the amendment was quashed. The government turned it into an option the board could choose to make available in very specific cases. The amendment might as well not have been adopted, because it will not help anyone.That brings me to my next point, which is about the most shameful and frustrating part of the whole process. I have been an MP for eight years. I have great respect for the public service and for public servants who work very hard with very little in the way of resources, despite what the general public might think. What I saw during the committee's study of this bill was unbelievable. (1655)When we asked the minister why this process could not be made automatic and why the records could not be expunged, he flat out said that it was too much work. I swear that is what he said, and I invite my colleagues to read his testimony. We heard the same thing from the representatives of the parole board and during clause-by-clause consideration. When I proposed amendments to make things easier for the people this bill is meant to help, the Liberals asked officials to provide a reason for rejecting my amendments. What did they say? They said that they did not have the capacity, that they did not know how they would do that and that it would be too much work.The government says that better is always possible. It introduced a bill to help people in our society who are caught in a tough situation, but it refuses to accept a better approach, one supported by everyone who testified at committee. It seems it is too much work for the parole board. According to police, civil society and every expert in the legal community, the parole board has been mismanaging records for far too long. It is far from being the best system. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is unacceptable.It is even more shameful given that the committee conducted a study. When the minister was appointed, he came in with great fanfare, much like the rest of the government. He said that the government was going to address all of the injustices created by the previous government and all of the injustices in society. To hear him talk, this was going to be the best government in the history of the universe. According to him, there was no need to worry.Four years later, what is happening? It costs about $650 for a person to have their criminal record suspended. I do not have the exact number in front of me. There are some disadvantages to giving a speech without any notes. People are being asked to pay about $650 to apply for a record suspension. That measure was put in place by the previous government. Some of the wording has been changed. Now, we talk about record suspensions instead of pardons. As the former Conservative government would have said, a criminal can never be pardoned. The minister said that there was a major injustice in the system and that he was going to fix it.What happened then? Following in the footsteps of several other members, a Liberal member who, I have to believe, had good intentions, hopped on the bandwagon and ordered a committee study. Most people will have only one opportunity in their entire life to introduce a motion or bill in the House. The member called for a study of criminal record suspensions.I think he could have asked the committee to conduct the study. It would have gladly done it, but let us put that aside. The member's intentions were good. The member for Saint John—Rothesay appeared before the committee and said that an automatic process should be considered for minor crimes, such as simple possession of cannabis.We did the work and produced a report. The committee presented its report to the House. The government said it would look at it. Incidentally, Public Safety Canada had already commissioned an Ekos survey that found that three-quarters of Canadians supported simplifying the process for applying for a criminal record suspension, because it would allow individuals to reintegrate into society and get a job. Indeed, 95% of people who are granted a pardon or record suspension do not reoffend.What did the government do? If I were sitting down, I would fall out of my chair. The government presented the same recommendation that had already been made, which would have been a footnote to our study of the bill, based on what the minister said.It really fuels cynicism when a government says it will do one thing when it comes to power, but then does not do it. One of the government's own members orders a study. The government says it will do it, and then it does not. Then, a month before the House of Commons' last sitting before the election, the same Liberal members say in committee that we did not really have enough time to do the study and that perhaps it should have been done or will be done with the next government.This is why we oppose Bill C-93. In the justice system and the public safety system, people were far too often penalized for the colour of their skin or the place they lived. We truly want to help these people. We do not want half measures that fuel cynicism. AffidavitApplication processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGay and lesbian personsGovernment billsInformationInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivistsThird reading and adoption5974765597476659747675974768597476959747705974771597477259747735974774597477559747765974777597477859747795974780597478159747825974783597478459747855974786597478759747885974789597479059747915974792597479359747945974795597479659747975974798597479959748005974801CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, as I understand, the direction we are going in is to allow people to apply for pardons at no cost. Cost is an issue I would like the hon. member to reflect on a bit.For the longest time, police were enforcing cannabis possession, and the only tool they had at their disposal was to charge somebody, who would end up with a criminal record. At some point, the police stopped enforcing it. At the 4/20 events in Vancouver, the police would stand there and watch people use cannabis.Does the member not think that the process going forward contributes to equity and fairness, to ensure that basically everyone will be treated the same way?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597480259748035974804MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not think the bill would contribute to fairness, and this is why. I already mentioned some of this in my speech, but it bears repeating with regard to the member's question.First, there is a cost. Yes, the Liberals have removed the $600 cost, but they have not removed it for record suspensions at large, even though they promised to do that. As I said, there has been study after study, but it has not been done.The government said it has removed the cost, but it really has not. Every single witness who came before committee, including lawyers and others in civil society, agreed that the costs are still there. People have to pay to get their records, and get to the courthouse to get them.Representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada asked whether we really thought that indigenous women with a record for simple possession of cannabis have the means to make their way to a courthouse in an urban centre, to pay to get the records, if they even still exist, and then take them back home and apply for the process the government is putting forward. They do not. Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer, said this is true of most of his clients.In fact, it gets worse than that. If we google “Canada pardon” or “pot pardon”, we get a bunch of Google results for some of the most disgusting and unsavoury people, who are taking advantage of these individuals, charging them thousands of dollars, much like we see in the immigration system. They take advantage of these people and give them bad and erroneous advice, making sure they get strung along at a high cost.What is going to happen? Will we get a social media campaign from the Parole Board that will fight back against those unsavoury actors? That is not the case. All of the witnesses told us as much.While I appreciate the hon. member's good intentions, the fact of the matter is that the title of the bill does not reflect the reality of what the bill would do.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974805597480659748075974808597480959748105974811KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71553Pierre-LucDusseaultPierre-Luc-DusseaultSherbrookeNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DusseaultPierreLuc_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): (1700)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for his expertise. I also thank him for his outstanding command of his files. I know that he has worked very hard on this.In his speech, he mentioned that government officials, and even the minister, claimed that providing for an automatic system would be too difficult and too much work. I find it somewhat hard to believe that that was the excuse that the department and the minister himself came up with, considering the billions of dollars they have at their disposal. The Parole Board of Canada may have a hard time managing its workload, but I still believe that the Government of Canada, with its $360-billion annual budget, should have the means to set up an automatic system.Can my colleague elaborate further on this surprising, absurd answer from the government, namely, that it does not have the means or the capacity to grant automatic pardons? I find that hard to believe. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597481259748135974814MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1700)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We are paraphrasing what was said. They obviously did not use the words “we can't”, but they made it clear that it was too much work for them and that they did not feel as though they had the capacity to do it. In spite of that, in response to one of my amendments, they said that there were privacy concerns. However, the Parole Board of Canada benefits from Privacy Act exemptions that apply specifically to this type of case. It is important to recognize that, if the political will had been there, this could have been accomplished.The best example is that of San Francisco. After cannabis was legalized in California, a process similar to the one being offered by our government was proposed. As members can imagine, as in the case of Bill C-66, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, very few people benefited from this process, particularly because it mainly impacts people in vulnerable situations.What did they do in San Francisco? They decided to invest in artificial intelligence, a sector in which our governments like to invest, allowing them to sort through records, identify those who are eligible and develop an automatic process for expunging their records.If a municipal government like that of San Francisco can be innovative, I do not see why the federal government of a G7 country cannot do the same.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59748155974816597481759748185974819Pierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeAlainaLockhartFundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88357AlainaLockhartAlaina-LockhartFundy RoyalLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LockhartAlaina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I know Liberals have differences of opinion with the NDP on how to proceed to clear people of their criminal records for possession. However, when the head of the campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, who shares a lot of the NDP's views, was asked in committee whether Bill C-93 was a positive step, she said it absolutely was. We can talk about the differences of opinion in the House, but would the NDP see fit to help the people impacted by existing convictions to get jobs, housing and education, and support us by voting for this bill?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59748205974821MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, there were many witnesses who said the same thing, but I take the words of Solomon Friedman, who said that “better than nothing” is a mighty low bar for our Parliament, and that is what I believe.The fact of the matter is that in my speech and throughout the study in committee, it was made clear that many barriers remain. In particular, the process that has been put in place will not be accessible to those who need it the most. We just need to look at Bill C-66, which had laudable objectives that we supported, with regard to the historical injustice committed to the LGBTQ community. Only seven people applied out of the 9,000-odd who could have. New Democrats have asked these questions of officials and the minister in committee, with no one able to answer us in any kind of substantive or real way. What cause would any member of this House have to believe that it would be any different? Quite frankly, and I say this with all due respect to those who were so wronged, I do not expect any more uptake on this particular measure than there was then. In some cases I expect even less, for a variety of the reasons I enumerated with respect to the barriers that still exist for many vulnerable Canadians. I will say in closing—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59748225974823597482459748255974826AlainaLockhartFundy RoyalCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting process, at the very least. We have seen a dramatic change in social policy, and it is a positive step forward. Providing pardons with this piece of legislation is going to assist a lot of individuals in being able to take further steps in employment and other aspects of life. Parties may disagree with regard to expungement versus pardons, but there is no doubt that it is a step forward, just like the legalization of cannabis itself. Would the member not agree?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5974829CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is precisely the problem. Very few people will benefit from the system proposed under Bill C-93.The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said that it had a lot of clients who did not even know they had a criminal record. If a person does not know that they have a criminal record, how are they supposed to apply to have their record suspended?There are so many inconsistencies and barriers. That is why I ran for the NDP in 2011 and that is why we are opposed to this bill. We did not come here to give a blank cheque to a self-proclaimed progressive government that proposes half-measures that do not go far enough. We want to truly improve people's lives.If I thought that Bill C-93 was the best way to do that, the government would have my support. We could have done better. The hon. member for Victoria introduced a bill but the government voted it down.The Liberals rejected a better solution so why should I give a blank cheque to a government that is not doing enough when I am here to represent people who need us?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59748305974831597483259748335974834KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1710)[Translation]Resuming debate.Is the House ready for the question?Some hon. members: Question.The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: On division.(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption597483559748365974837597483859748395974840MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88384MélanieJolyHon.Mélanie-JolyAhuntsic-CartiervilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JolyMélanie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Mélanie Joly (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2115)[Translation]moved 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.Bill C-93. Third readingC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGoodale, RalphGovernment billsMinister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965282GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (2115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start off the debate at third reading of Bill C-93. This measure will make the pardon process simpler and quicker for Canadians convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. This is the next logical step in our efforts to establish a safer and more efficient system for cannabis.[English]During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis. We did that last fall. At that time, we committed to establishing a way for people to get their records pardoned with no waiting period or application fee. Now we are on the cusp of passing legislation to do just that.I am very appreciative of the members of Parliament who have participated in the debate on the bill in the chamber. I would especially like to thank all the members of the public safety committee for their usual thorough analysis. My thanks go out as well to the witnesses and to those who provided written briefs.Ordinarily, to apply for a pardon, people have to serve their full sentence, wait five or up to 10 years, collect and submit police and court records, and pay a $631 application fee. People also have to convince a member of the Parole Board that they meet certain subjective criteria, namely, that they have been of good conduct, that the pardon would give them a measurable benefit and that granting them a pardon would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.It is an expensive and time-consuming process, but people go through it because of how valuable a pardon really is. The public safety committee has studied pardons at length, not only in the context of this bill, but as part of a broader study initiated by Motion No. 161 from the member for Saint John—Rothesay.During that study, a witness from the Elizabeth Fry Society said that a pardon is like “being able to turn that page over” and allows people “to pursue paths that were closed to them.” A witness from the John Howard Society testified that pardons “allow the person to be restored to the community, as a contributing member without the continuing penalization of the past wrong.”Getting a pardon means that when a person undergoes a criminal records check, it comes up empty. That makes it easier to get a job, get an education, rent an apartment, travel, volunteer in a community and simply live life without the burden and the stigma of a criminal record.Clearly, now that possession of cannabis is legal, people who have been convicted of nothing but that should be able to shed their criminal records. Given the reality that the prohibition of cannabis had disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities, it is important for the process to be as simple, straightforward and accessible as possible.That is why, with Bill C-93, we are taking the unprecedented step of completely eliminating the $631 application fee and completely eliminating the waiting period. We are also completely eliminating the possibility that the Parole Board could deny such an application on the basis of subjective criteria like good conduct.Also, thanks to an amendment at committee from the member for Toronto—Danforth, people will be able to apply even if they have outstanding fines associated with their cannabis possession conviction.(2120)Due to an amendment we voted on at report stage yesterday, people whose only sentence was a fine will not be required to submit court documents as part of their application. That is because the main purpose of court documents for those applicants would be to show that the fine was paid, and that just will not matter anymore. Taken together, these measures remove many of the expenses and obstacles that could otherwise prevent people from getting pardons and moving on with their lives.I was glad to see that the bill received overwhelming support from hon. members in the House yesterday. We have a process that will be created by Bill C-93 that is simple and straightforward without unnecessary obstacles placed in the path of applicants.One of the issues that has come up over the course of the study of Bill C-93 is the question of why it proposes an application-based system. Some have asked why not just do it like some California municipalities and erase all the records with the press of a button? We do have an electronic police database of criminal records here in Canada, however, that database does not contain enough information to allow for a proactive amnesty.For one thing, it generally does not contain information related to summary conviction offences, which is how cannabis possession is most often charged. And for another, it generally does not say whether a person possessed cannabis or an entirely different substance.Information is entered into the database by individual police officers right across the country. Most of the time for a drug possession charge, the officer just enters “possession of a controlled substance”. It could be cannabis but it also could be cocaine. To get the details and to find out about summary convictions as well as indictable offences, police and court documents have to be checked. Unlike in California, those documents are kept by many different jurisdictions. They are housed in provincial and municipal repositories across the country, each with its own individual record-keeping system. Many Canadian jurisdictions have not digitized their records. They exist in boxes and filing cabinets in the basements of local courthouses and police stations. Without applications that enable the Parole Board to zero in on the relevant documents, it would take a huge amount of staff and many years to go through it all. Quite simply, a flick of a switch option that we have seen in California would be wonderful and we would like nothing better than to do just that. In Canada however, that is simply not physically possible in any reasonable time frame. Nevertheless, we are certainly aware of the importance of making the application system under Bill C-93 as simple and accessible as we possibly can.The public safety committee has made recommendations to continue seeking ways of further reducing the cost to applicants. We have responded with a report stage amendment removing the need for court records for some applicants, and we will keep working to this end.The committee also encouraged the Parole Board to explore options for moving towards a more digitized system capable of receiving applications electronically, something particularly important for Canadians in rural areas.(2125)For the reasons I mentioned earlier, enabling a truly electronic system would involve technological enhancements not only at the Parole Board but in provinces, territories and municipalities as well. That is a considerable undertaking, but I think we all know that one day it must be done. Our grandchildren should not be breathing the dust off the paper records that we use today. Therefore, I agree with the committee's recommendation to make that advancement happen sooner rather than later.In the meantime, the Parole Board is taking a number of steps to simplify the application process in other ways. It is simplifying its website and application form. It is creating a dedicated, toll-free phone number and an email address to help people with their applications. It is developing a community outreach strategy with a particular focus on the communities most affected by the criminalization of cannabis to make sure that people know about this new expedited process and how to access it, because accessibility is the most important element of this. The goal is for as many Canadians as possible to take advantage of this opportunity to clear their criminal records and to move on with their lives. It is to their benefit and to the benefit of all of us that they be able to do so.I would like to conclude by reminding the House just how far the cannabis file has come during this Parliament, from the blue ribbon panel chaired by Anne McLellan, to the massive cross-country consultations in communities from coast to coast to coast, to the passage of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, both of which received extensive study in both chambers of Parliament, and the coming into force of Bill C-45 this past October. We legalized and regulated cannabis, as promised, with the goal of keeping it out of the hands of children and keeping profits out of the hands of criminals, and early signs are encouraging. In the first three months of 2019, according to Statistics Canada, the criminal share of the overall cannabis market dropped to just 38%, which is down from 51% over the same period a year before. Reporting on those numbers recently in L'actualité magazine, journalist Alec Castonguay said, “Organized crime no longer has a stranglehold on the cannabis market. It is in decline”.The prohibition of cannabis was counterproductive. It was a public policy failure. The new regime we put in place last October is already showing encouraging signs, and Bill C-93 is the logical next step. I encourage all hon. members to join with the government to pass this bill so that the Senate can begin its consideration, and so that Canadians can begin benefiting from this new simplified, expedited pardon process as soon as possible.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCrime and criminalityCriminal record suspensionData banks and databasesFeesGovernment billsInformation disseminationInformation technologyOffendersParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceStatisticsThird reading and adoption596528359652845965285596528659652875965288596528959652905965291596529259652935965294596529559652965965297596529859652995965300596530159653025965303596530459653055965306MélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (2130)[English]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-93 recommends a no-cost pardon and waiver for cannabis convictions, but there are still going to be potentially those who have fines still owing. I want to know if the government has consulted with the provinces where those fines would be owed and roughly what that cost would be. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965307KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2130)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is indeed one of the challenges, because we wanted to eliminate administrative fines related to these same convictions. However, not all of the fines are owed to the federal government. All the federal government can do is wipe its fines, but it has to discuss this with provinces and municipalities and encourage them to do the same. That kind of discussion is ongoing, but it will take a while to come to an understanding of how provinces and municipalities can actually contribute to this process.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965308ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (2130)[English]Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, I have been receiving correspondence from my constituents who raise this issue. They are particularly concerned that Bill C-93 does not go far enough and that what is needed is for the criminal records to be expunged. They have said very clearly that record suspensions do not erase a convicted offence but merely set it aside. Therefore, without an expungement, individuals convicted of possession remain vulnerable to having their convictions reinstated. My constituents are saying we should be permanently eliminating rather than merely suspending the harms that stem from a previous cannabis conviction. To that end, I know the NDP tried to move such amendments at committee, which the government rejected. I think there is one more chance to do the right thing here. Will the parliamentary secretary consider what I think thousands of Canadians are calling for, which is for the government to do it right and move forward with expungement?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653095965310KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2135)[English]Mr. Speaker, this really was a very key part of the debate. We came up against a couple of challenges that would make that avenue particularly difficult, one of them being the technological challenges, in that all of our records are not held at the federal level in a federal database. Many of them are held at provincial and municipal levels and are not digitized. Therefore, we have no way of knowing where all those convictions are. For us to go and do that, we would have to go and search for each and every one of those records. Some of those people might have already passed on. Some of these records are so old they could be from 50 years ago and that would take a lot of time and staff effort. We thought that if we made it inexpensive, easily available and we worked with the non-government organizations on the ground that work with these communities that were particularly hit with these kinds of convictions we could do as good a job by using an application method.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653115965312JennyKwanVancouver EastElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2135)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns about the pardons and the way they are structured in the bill. One thing I tried to do at committee, which was based on advice from a number of witnesses, is this. There is a condition that a pardon cannot proceed until the sentence has been fulfilled or the fine has been paid. The people who are the most marginalized would be those very people who cannot afford to pay the fine so the pardon becomes out of reach. I do not know if we can pursue this at this stage. I tried to at committee. However, I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary's thoughts on whether we can deal with this so that the people who are in the greatest need of having the pardon applied are able to get a job to pay the fine to have this limitation removed.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653135965314KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2135)[English]Mr. Speaker, again the challenge comes down to whether those fines are owed to the federal government or not. If they are owed to the federal government, then it is easy for us to say those fines do not need to be paid. If they are fines owed to another level of government or another jurisdiction, then it is not as easy for us to forgive those fines. However, if the fines are only owed to the federal government, those fines will be forgiven and that person can proceed with the pardon. However, when a criminal records check is done on people who have been pardoned, those fines at the provincial or municipal levels may not even appear. Therefore, the federal government is forgiving those federal fines that need to be paid, but there is a challenge at the provincial and municipal levels.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653155965316ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (2135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hon. colleague's candour and honesty in answering questions.One of the questions I have goes back to the fines that are owed, specifically in terms of municipalities. The number one cost to municipalities is policing. With the passing of Bill C-45, there have been additional costs that have been downloaded to the municipalities. They are still trying to work out how they recover those added costs between the provincial governments. There is still a lot of what-ifs up in the air. One of the ways municipalities would be able to actually mitigate some of the costs would be the fines that would be owed to them through these convictions. If they are left owing, there is still another what-if. Is the federal government prepared to step in and assist these municipalities in terms of the offloading, paying or assisting with the payment of those fines?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCities and townsCriminal record suspensionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596531759653185965319KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2140)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe how it would work, at a provincial or municipal level, is that payment of those fines, if they are not granted amnesty on those fines, would be through civil recourse.I know that the federal government wants to help the provinces and the municipalities succeed in this, because we do want this pardon process to be a success. We believe it is really important for our society as a whole, not just for the individuals who are carrying this burden. There have been discussions and I imagine there will be more in the future.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCities and townsCriminal record suspensionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653205965321ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (2140)[English]Mr. Speaker, for people watching, I just want to make a point about pardons and expungement in Canada.If a person has a record in the United States, it does not really matter what Canada does, expunge or pardon, they still have a record. The Americans do not often erase that. Expungement, in some cases, could actually hurt a Canadian. When Americans call Canada to say that this person had a record and ask whether it is still a problem, and Canada says that we cannot find any records of it, because it was expunged, the Americans may say that person has committed a crime and there is no evidence that it is not a problem. If the crime is pardoned, Canada can then say that it was pardoned and it is not a problem for us anymore. That may help the person who has had a problem with the United States records, which they can keep forever. They might be better off.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCanada-United States relationsCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596532259653235965324KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2140)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my hon. colleague.When people are entering another country, they might not be asked if they have a criminal conviction. They could be asked if they had ever been in possession of cannabis. That would actually make that difficult as well. If people have a pardon, they actually would have paperwork to prove that they have been pardoned. There is no guarantee that this would make a difference to the border officer, but they would have that paperwork.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653255965326LarryBagnellHon.YukonPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (2140)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.Before talking about Bill C-93, I have to say a few words about Bill C-45, because Bill C-93 builds on it. One of the Prime Minister's rare accomplishments from the past four years is a completely botched bill. From the start, Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, was not well received, especially because of the way the bill was originally put together. Bill C-45 was poorly received because marijuana legalization was by far the most pressing national issue for the Prime Minister. Instead of addressing organized crime, violence against women, or the economy, the government chose to focus on Bill C-45 to legalize marijuana. It was very urgent.In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness mentioned information obtained from journalist Alec Castonguay of L'actualité. According to Mr. Castonguay, organized crime has experienced a drop in sales. I wonder if my colleague could provide more information that could be verified with police forces like the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association, which are on the ground and must receive much more technical information that is also available to the government. Unfortunately, we cannot consult that information. Mr. Castonguay is an excellent journalist, but I think the government could provide us with more specific information. What mattered most to the Prime Minister was giving Canadians from coast to coast to coast access to cannabis. The House may recall that that was his first campaign promise. Now that Bill C-45 has become law, the Prime Minister is realizing that he forgot a step. That is why, at the end of this session of Parliament, we now have to study Bill C-93. In 2015, the Prime Minister promised an open and transparent government. He promised to save Canada from the bad Stephen Harper. He made many, many promises. Many Canadians put their trust in him and voted for him. Some of them believed so strongly in his message of hope that they decided to run in the last election “because it is 2015”. Today, in 2019, after becoming disillusioned and witnessing the Prime Minister's many mistakes, many Canadians and even some Liberal members have basically thrown in the towel. Canadians are tired of seeing the Prime Minister dance around when it comes time to work. They are frustrated with seeing the Prime Minister talk when he should be taking action. They are worried that the Prime Minister is welcoming terrorists, contract killers and other criminals without lifting a finger to help victims of human trafficking and our veterans who gave everything for Canada. They are sick of seeing the Liberals go after law-abiding citizens and ignoring organized crime and ISIS traitors. They are sick of it.They saw the Prime Minister go after women in his cabinet because they resisted. What was their crime? They simply wanted to obey the law. Canadians and the Liberal MPs who have decided not to come back are sick of seeing the Prime Minister refuse to take responsibility for his blunders, and this October, Canadians will take action. A number of Liberal members have already taken action, in fact. Several have quit the caucus, and others have already announced that they are leaving politics. The Toronto Star is already touting a potential replacement for the position of leader of the Liberal Party. They are sick of all this too, but that is another story. Bill C-93 would change the pardon process and eliminate fees for Canadians previously convicted of marijuana possession. With cannabis legal as of October 2018, this bill would help Canadians who were convicted of something that is now legal by allowing them to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the usual waiting period or fees. Offenders usually have to wait five to 10 years after serving their sentence, depending on the type of conviction, and the application fee is $631.(2145)This legislative measure seems to be another proposal that was hastily brought forward for political purposes. It is obvious that the Liberals did not take the time to do a thorough analysis. As it stands, this bill proposes a new type of record suspension that cannot be easily revoked and that can be granted automatically without any knowledge of an individual's past history. As with Bill C-45, we are committed to fixing this bill in October, when we form the next government. We want to ensure that we maintain the integrity of our record suspension system.We support the idea of an expedited pardon process, but we want to ensure that it is a fair process. That is why we proposed amendments. We very quickly realized that the bill could be improved. However, the Liberals have a majority in committee and in the House, so they no longer feel the need to listen to Canadians. For example, we proposed that applications for a record suspension be submitted through an online portal. My colleague spoke about this earlier, and I would like to thank her, because this is new to me. The Liberals have finally listened to the Conservative MPs, but the fact remains that the amendment was rejected. Not only would this measure have saved taxpayers money, but it would also have made it easier for Canadians to apply.We proposed a measure to allow applicants whose records were destroyed to swear an affidavit explaining their situation and certifying that they are eligible. This would have made the process even more fair. The Liberals agreed to this amendment in committee but changed their minds at report stage and decided to reject it. Once again, I remain doubtful.Why would they refuse a measure proposed by the Conservatives that would help the public? We do not agree much on the process overall, but we tried to improve it. Our Liberal colleagues agreed with this change in committee. Why, then, did the government reject the idea at report stage? We still do not understand why this amendment was rejected.We also proposed to restore the Parole Board's discretion to conduct inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of the conviction. Obviously, someone who has committed other crimes since the original conviction should not be eligible for a pardon like someone else who did not commit another crime. The Liberals also rejected this proposal.Another one of our amendments would have restored the Parole Board's discretion to conduct an inquiry into all of the factors it could consider to determine whether granting a record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Liberals obviously defeated this amendment. Our proposals were therefore serious and balanced, but the Liberals, with their majority on the committee and in the House, did what they wanted. They agreed to only one of our amendments, the one requiring the board to include a review of the law's success rate and the associated costs in its annual report. Of course that was only to appease us. I thank them, but it is still a little insulting to have those amendments rejected, considering how we worked in committee.Ideological fights often erupt in the House. The NDP thinks one way, the Liberals think a certain way, the Conservatives think a certain way and the Green Party thinks a certain way. However, during the committee study, we managed to set ideology aside and come up with technical amendments that had nothing to do with ideology. If we try to co-operate and that does not work, the members opposite should not be surprised when there is some friction on certain issues.There are many examples to show that the Liberals do not take crime seriously. The amendments we proposed would have improved the bill's procedural fairness and given the Parole Board of Canada better tools to enforce this new law more effectively.(2150)As currently worded, this bill allows for a pardon before the fines are even paid. That seems to be very bad accounting to me. In other words, the fines will remain on the individuals' records, but the provinces will have no way of collecting them. We see that Bill C-93 is poorly crafted, just like Bill C-45. These are aspects of a bill that was rushed in order to fulfill a promise at the last minute. In her speech, the parliamentary secretary said that all this would be fixed later. In trying to rush things, the government is taking shortcuts.In October, when a new Conservative government is elected, we will have to redo all this work to ensure that all the actors involved, the agencies, organizations, and the provinces, have the answers to their questions. There are many, many questions that remain unanswered.With respect to the record suspension process, the Department of Public Safety estimates that this measure will cost roughly $2.5 million. Jean Chrétien said that the gun registry would cost $2 million and it ended up costing $2 billion. We know that likely will not happen, but we know what those evaluations are worth. Moreover, while approximately 250,000 people have previously been charged with simple possession of marijuana in Canada, officials estimate that only 10,000 people will apply, possibly less. That is puzzling. To come up with the figure of $2.5 million, it was estimated that this would cost the government $250 per person. That is less than the current amount of $631 per application because there will be no need to do a background check, as is normally the case.That being said, the 10,000-people estimate does not seem very high to me. At first, the information we had indicated that 500,000 people had been charged with simple possession of marijuana. In the end, officials told us that it was in fact only 250,000. It is also surprising that they expect only 10,000 people to apply. Based on various assessment criteria, the government does not expect more people than that to apply for a pardon. The other option, expungement, would involve minimal cost, but it would not apply to individuals charged with more serious offences who negotiated lesser charges or who were in possession of a quantity above the current legal limit. That could be problematic. Judges, Crown prosecutors and the police negotiate deals with individuals who are guilty of other crimes to speed up the process, but if we do not take people's criminal records into account in the pardon process, they could be let off the hook for a different crime.In that regard, Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said the following: In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.That is why, after hearing the testimony of the Canadian Police Association, we proposed an amendment to the bill to delete clause 6. In his haste to deliver on his self-imposed legislative agenda, the Prime Minister failed to consider the many concerns of municipalities, law enforcement, employers, scientists and doctors regarding the legalization of cannabis. Similarly, the Liberals adopted this bill related to cannabis legalization in the last few weeks of this Parliament without consulting the main stakeholders, including law enforcement.Now that cannabis is legal, Conservatives understand that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not place an unfair burden on Canadians, but we will be monitoring the implementation of this bill, and we promise to assess how well it is working and how fair it is when we take office in October. (2155) As with Bill C-45, the Conservatives will also amend Bill C-93 in order to ensure that it effectively provides appropriate access to no-fee record suspension. We believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension and we will ensure that the law upholds the integrity of the Parole Board of Canada so that Canadians can have their records suspended. Come October, when we form the government, we will have a lot of cleaning up to do. Our priority will be the real needs of Canadians, including their safety and their prosperity. Everything we do will be for Canadians. When we go to India, it will not be to dance and wear costumes. When we go to Washington, it will be to work and to clean up the mess made of the new free trade agreement. When we invest taxpayers' money, I guarantee it will not be to reward murderers, terrorists or dictatorships that are detaining our citizens on bogus charges. We will also clean up the mess at our borders. We will prioritize new Canadians who obey Canadian laws, and we will crack down on those who cheat and jump the queue. As a government, we will show compassion to those in need, as well as taxpayers. We will take action to improve the environment, but not by dipping into taxpayers' pockets.AccountabilityAffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionDiscretionary powersExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsInquiries and public inquiriesInternetOrganized crimeParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965327596532859653295965330596533159653325965333596533459653355965336596533759653385965339596534059653415965342596534359653445965345596534659653475965348596534959653505965351596535259653535965354596535559653565965357KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (2155)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate that has been taking place on this issue and the whole legalization issue about cannabis. It is a major change in public policy with the way in which it has evolved to where we are today. It is quite interesting that back in 2015 it was only the Liberal Party talking about the legalization of cannabis. The NDP wanted to decriminalize it and I think the Conservatives were somewhat for decriminalization, but not really advertising it. In fact, they were sending out a lot of misinformation about the legalization of cannabis. Now we are talking about that issue having been resolved as it is legalized.My understanding is that the Conservative Party now supports legalization of cannabis. If that is not the case, maybe the member can provide a little bit more information on that aspect from his party. Second, if he could clearly indicate where he stands as an individual on the idea of the pardon, given the comments he just made.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596535859653595965360PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that was a long question, but my answer will be brief.Regarding the legalization of marijuana, we had a debate and we voted against the bill. We had our reasons for doing so. One of the main reasons was that the bill was botched. It had nothing to do with any philosophical idea about whether cannabis should be legalized or not. The government's approach was sloppy. I would still argue that today. Certain aspects are still causing problems in our society. Police are having problems, and medical professionals are having lots of problems. That is another debate. Today we are debating pardons.Do I support granting pardons to people who have done something that used to be a criminal offence? That is what we are debating. Some people are claiming today that we should erase the past, since those acts are no longer considered a criminal offence. Some people agree with that, while others, including myself, have certain reservations in that regard. People cannot be criminals one day but not the next. The fact remains that even in the case of simple possession of marijuana, some young people have tried marijuana and gotten caught. People can separate these things. They are not dumb. We are not talking about another crime on an entirely different level.Our position is as follows. We were willing to decriminalize marijuana, but we felt that legalizing marijuana was more about creating an industry that would primarily benefit the Liberals' friends. All the government's goals, such as keeping profits out of the hands of criminals, are nowhere near being met. Nothing about the health of young people has been improved in any way.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965361596536259653635965364KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): (2200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this evening and I thank him for shedding some new light on this debate.The NDP thinks that this is too little too late. I know my colleague does not agree that this is too little, but we would have preferred an expungement instead of a simple record suspension. It is too late, because the government was in a rush to legalize marijuana and open shops across the country, but it forgot many things, such as prevention, public safety and the fact that the provinces and municipalities were left to deal with difficult situations with no resources. It is also too late because there are just three weeks left in this Parliament. It will be very difficult to properly bring clear legislation to fruition.Does my colleague agree that it is too late and that the government botched this legislation, for the reasons I mentioned or for any other reasons he can think of?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596536559653665965367PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, in all matters, there are ways of doing things.The past four years have been intense, for example, with Bill C-45, the most botched bill that the House has ever had to deal with. It nevertheless has a big impact on Canadian society.The same is true with Bill C-93. Time is running out. As I mentioned in my speech, we proposed simple, intelligent amendments, but the government rejected them. It is also still not listening to police officers.Lastly, the government has had no idea what it was doing all along.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965368596536959653705965371FrançoisChoquetteDrummondTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (2205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, began his speech by talking about all the work done by the committee.Some of his comments are the same ones we often hear when undertaking studies in committee. The Conservative members proposed amendments during the process. Our approach is very technical. We do not play political games when we move amendments. We really try to improve the legislation and how it will apply in real life.The member started to speak a little about how this bill was treated in committee. I would like to hear more about the Conservative amendments that were rejected.I also think that this bill should have been introduced along with Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. In fact, the three issues should have been dealt with in an omnibus bill.As a member of Parliament, I voted in favour of the expungement of criminal records. At the time, I believed that it would be the best approach. Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 were passed and received royal assent, and the Liberals have had plenty of time to try to find a technical solution to the problems faced by people with a criminal record who are applying for a pardon, while addressing criminal records at the provincial and municipal levels and the associated costs. I would like my colleague to talk about the work done in committee. Which Conservative amendments were rejected by the government, even though they would have reduced the impact on people on the ground and made this bill better?AffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596537259653735965374596537559653765965377PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.One amendment the government agreed to covered situations where an individual who wants to apply does not have information about the arrest, such as the name of the city and the province. The documents relating to the criminal record exist only on paper, so the information might be in a drawer at some police station or courthouse. Sometimes the individual in question is somewhere else in Canada and does not have access to the documents or may not even remember where the arrest took place.To simplify things, our amendment suggested that applicants could submit a sworn statement attesting to the details of the arrest and the individual's inability to obtain the documents. We were prepared to accept a sworn statement in order to process applications without proper documentation because accessing documents is very complicated. The Liberal committee members agreed to the amendment, but the government rejected it, and we have no idea why.Now people have to fill out forms. Those 10,000 people with criminal records I was talking about earlier are marginalized and do not really have much in the way of resources. That makes it hard for them to know where to go to get the forms. Accessing the forms online is easier, so we suggested that systems should be digitized to improve the situation. The government rejected that idea too. If the government had agreed to that amendment, it would have made things easier.Our requests were practical.AffidavitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653785965379596538059653815965382TomKmiecCalgary ShepardFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): (2205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.As I mentioned earlier, I do not think this bill goes far enough. It is too little, too late. Let me explain. It is too little because this bill was not introduced until after cannabis was legalized. The government dragged its feet on record suspensions. It waited too long. The legalization of cannabis came into effect, but people still have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. We are not talking about trafficking marijuana here, just simple possession. These people have a criminal record for simple possession, when it is currently legal to use marijuana.By the way, just because something is legal does not mean it is a good idea. I want to say that even though it is legal to use marijuana, it is not really a good idea to do so. I also want to say that the legislation legalizing cannabis should really have included a major public health campaign to make people aware of the effects and risks of using marijuana. Marijuana is like any other substance. It is legal to drink alcohol, for example, but it can be addictive. I know what I am talking about. I know people who are addicted to alcohol. Marijuana can also be addictive. That is obviously the case with tobacco as well, which is also a legal substance. Cigarettes are a terrible product that can be addictive. These are legal products. The government can legalize these products, but it also needs to inform the public of the risks associated with using them.We are talking about people who have a criminal record for simple possession. This has nothing to do with trafficking. It is really about people being caught for simple possession. These people therefore have a criminal record for something that is now legal and has been legal for a few months. Drug use should never be criminalized. Instead, it should be regarded as a public health matter. I am thinking of the opioid crisis raging across Canada, for example. We should be taking a public health approach.This bill is too late because legalization came into effect several months ago, yet we are only just debating this legislation today. This legislation allows for criminal records to be suspended. This means that criminal records are set aside, but they are not expunged.As a result, people who are granted a record suspension will still have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They will always have to wonder what might happen when they try to rent an apartment, find a job or apply to volunteer. They will be asked if they have a criminal record, and they will have to answer that their record was suspended. Their criminal record will not be completely expunged. The same will be true when they want to travel. What will happen when they want to travel? If the government really wanted to do things right, it would have passed the excellent bill introduced by my colleague from Victoria.(2210)His bill was introduced a long time ago. In October 2018, my colleague from Victoria introduced a good bill. We were ready. We had done our homework. Instead of using that fine bill, the Liberals showed that had no regard whatsoever for Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, something that is no longer a crime, and who face barriers to things like employment and housing.It is far too late to wake up now. There are less than three weeks left before the end of this Parliament. Now the government is waking up and introducing this bill. We are at third reading stage. We are moving quickly, but unfortunately we are cutting corners. We are not being thorough, and it is truly worrisome. There is a not-for-profit organization in my riding or in the central Quebec region that does very important work. As others have mentioned, the problem with the Liberal philosophy is the lack of emphasis on resources.I would like to talk about an extremely important resource. The organization is called Action Toxicomanie. This community-based organization was founded in 1991. It provides services in the central Quebec and Drummond region.The organization serves a significant number of young people through its addiction prevention programs, which are also offered in schools. Action Toxicomanie is a community-based not-for-profit organization that promotes healthy living and addiction prevention and is geared to young people from 10 to 30. As I was saying, the organization takes a holistic approach that focuses on promoting physical and mental health as well as social skills development. Interventions can be individual or group-based and seek to develop individual knowledge and abilities.Action Toxicomanie's website details the organization's mission, which is to prevent addiction, provide accurate information about substances and related addictions, support the development of social skills, inform and support parents and adults, intervene with teens and adults with emerging substance abuse issues, and support teens with clear substance abuse issues and refer them to specialized services.I would like to congratulate the entire Action Toxicomanie team on the excellent work they are doing with our young people. As I have always said, resources like this are extremely important. When the government legalized cannabis, it put the cart before the horse. In their rush to legalize cannabis, the Liberals forgot to safeguard public health in this country, implement a comprehensive public education and prevention campaign, provide provinces and municipalities with the right resources to prepare for this major social change, and make sure organizations working to educate youth and prevent addiction were ready to deal with the change and properly equipped to go into schools and communities to inform people. That is why I find it virtually impossible to support the bill.I just want to digress for a moment if I may. We are talking about physical and mental health. I just talked about a very good organization, Action Toxicomanie.(2215)I would like to talk about the book N'oublie jamais by Gregory Charles, which my mother gave me. She may have been giving me a message to never forget to think about her, never forget to call her or never forget to go see her. Mothers send subtle messages like that. This book talks about Alzheimer's.Gregory Charles comes from Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, in my riding. He grew up there. He recently visited École Jean-Raimbault in Drummondville to talk to the children about his passion, his faith in music and his strong values. He did this for the children. He came to visit the children who are studying music and spent over an hour playing music with them. I simply wanted to acknowledge the time he spent with these children.His book highlights the importance of hard work and strong values and talks about how crucial it is to take care of those around us. I think that is what my mother was trying to tell me when she gave me this book. I thank her for that.I thank Gregory Charles for what he did for the community of Drummond, and I congratulate the team at École Jean-Raimbault, especially Denis Lambert, who spearheaded this initiative.I would like to give some other examples.When it comes to the legalization of marijuana, the government is only taking half measures. Before I talk about them, I want to give an example of another issue on which the government is only taking half measures, and that is the housing crisis.Drummond is experiencing a housing crisis. The vacancy rate is 1.7%. The vacancy rate for three-bedroom homes is 0.4%. What is more, prices are going way up. Over 15,000 renter households in Drummondville are being forced to spend more than half of their annual income on housing. When households have to spend half of their annual income on housing, they do not have much money left over to meet their other needs. David Bélanger, the chair of Drummond's municipal housing board, said:When people have to spend nearly one-third of their income on housing, there are obviously other needs that are not being met. We are developing projects to create more affordable housing. The housing crisis has two dimensions, namely accessibility and affordability.Associations, institutions and organizationsC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseGovernment billsHealth educationHousingInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59653835965384596538559653865965387596538859653895965390596539159653925965393596539459653955965396596539759653985965399596540059654015965402596540359654045965405PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about pardons for simple possession of cannabis. The member is talking about the issue of housing and a housing strategy. I would ask that he be a little more relevant to the legislation before us.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPoints of orderPossession of a controlled substanceRelevancyThird reading and adoption5965406FrançoisChoquetteDrummondGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (2220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will explain the context to my hon. colleague, who was obviously not listening very carefully to my speech because I clearly said that I was going to digress a bit to explain how the pardon bill was a half measure. I was giving another example of the Liberal government's half measures. I will obviously be coming back to the subject of pardons momentarily. I was trying to say that the government is also taking half measures with housing. It is another example. If I can finish my point, it needs to be said that one in five Canadians spends more than 50% of their income on housing. Even though the Liberal government has a national housing strategy, 90% of the funding will not come until after the next election. The government was not announcing a national housing strategy. It was making an election promise. In February 2019, the Liberal government voted against an NDP motion to act quickly and create 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing within 10 years. The government could have taken our suggestion, and this measure would have provided some much-needed accessible and affordable housing in Drummond. Too many Canadians are spending more than one-third of their annual income on housing. Too many Canadians are spending half of their annual income on housing. They are struggling to find housing and grappling with a housing crisis. Housing is hard to come by, but affordable housing is even more difficult to find. I want to come back to the topic at hand, the government's lack of ambition with respect to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Why is there such a lack of planning and lack of ambition?As I mentioned, in October 2018 we were ready to introduce a bill that would have completely expunged criminal records, not just suspended them. That would have reassured people who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis but not for drug trafficking. These were people who had a health problem and consumed a substance that, at that time, was illegal but today is legal. We had a plan.In closing, I will talk about another example, and that is climate change. The Liberal government is implementing half measures. It will meet Stephen Harper's weak targets for 2030 a full 200 years too late. The government says that it will take action to fight climate change. It is putting a price on carbon but has left out the largest emitters.Last Friday, we tabled the plan called the courage to act. Not only will it create jobs, but it will address climate change. This is an ambitious and courageous plan. That is what the constituents of Grand Drummond and Canadians across the country want from their government. They want ambition and courage. Therefore, I will close my speech with a quote that sums up everything I have said about the bill: I should first note that Bill C-93 is better than nothing. But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament. You can do better. You must do better. Instead, I would urge a scheme of expungement along the lines already provided for in the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act.That is what Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence attorney, said in committee to explain why this is important.(2225)In closing, let me repeat his words: “But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.”Unfortunately, the same standard seems to apply to social housing and the environment, and that is why we need to do more and be ambitious and courageous.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSocial housingThird reading and adoption59654095965410596541159654125965413596541459654155965416596541759654185965419GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (2225)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, we were discussing Bill C-93, the act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis, just to frame my comments.The practical effects on pardons and expungements are virtually identical. It is important for our constituents to know that pardoned records are sealed and segregated and they can only be reopened under extraordinary circumstances, such as committing a new criminal offence. The effect of the pardon is protected by Canada's Human Rights Act, so it is not something that can be used in the terms that he mentioned of getting rental agreements signed. A record is available when it needs to be available.Expungement did not exist until Bill C-66 last year and really it was only intended to be allowed for criminal records of offences that can constitute historic injustices.The separation here for our constituents to understand is that a pardon maintains a record when we need it. Could the member maybe comment on the difference between pardons and expungements?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965420596542159654225965423FrançoisChoquetteDrummondFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (2230)[English]Should we maintain our records only when we need them, Mr. Speaker? [Translation]Why would we need them? We do not need that criminal record. That is why it should be expunged. My colleague just suggested that records should be kept if they are needed, but there is no need because this substance is legal now. Criminalizing people for simple possession of cannabis was extreme in the first place.That is why we introduced a bill. We wanted to decriminalize cannabis. It is appalling that people got a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That kind of record has ruined people's lives. That is why we need to more forward with this.You may choose not to believe me. I admit I am no expert on the subject, but Solomon Friedman was absolutely right when he said that, while this bill is better than nothing, better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965424596542559654265965427LloydLongfieldGuelphKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (2230)[English]Madam Speaker, the member tried to tie in the idea of half-baked. I could tie in the idea of hypocrisy.It is interesting to hear NDP members talk about expungement versus a pardon. In the last federal election, the NDP said they were in favour of decriminalization, so the whole issue of expungement or a pardon would not even be a part of what we have been debating today, for the NDP platform.I am glad that the NPD members have changed their opinion. I am glad they have decided to support what Canadians have been telling the government to do and what the government has done, and that is to legalize cannabis. Why did the NDP come to the conclusion that the government's approach to the legalization of cannabis was a much better way than what the NDP were proposing in the last federal election?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965428596542959654305965431FrançoisChoquetteDrummondFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (2230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague, who has a lot of experience in the House.If we had decriminalized marijuana use, we would have introduced legislation to expunge criminal records, that is certain. That is what we have been saying from the beginning. We oppose the criminalization of drug use. Of course we would have expunged criminal records, but we would have done so in a structured and carefully planned manner. We would not have waited until we legalized cannabis, as the Liberals did, only to scratch our heads afterward because we had forgotten those with criminal records. We would not have then rushed a bill through the House of Commons and send it to committee, so we could finally say that we were moving forward, despite the sloppy work, less than three weeks before the end of the session. We would have done things properly. Moreover, in October 2018, the NDP member for Victoria introduced his bill, which was already ready. Unfortunately, the government decided not to support that legislation.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596543259654335965434KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (2230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, who is a strong advocate for the people of Drummond. We had never heard so much about the people of Drummondville before he came to the House. This experienced member is doing an excellent job.I would like to ask him a question. There is a choice to be made between imposing a complicated and expensive process for granting people individual pardons and expunging people's criminal records.If Canadians choose the NDP on October 21, when we come back to the House, would the NDP be willing to expunge all these criminal records, or will it continue to force people to go through a very complicated and expensive process to get a pardon?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596543559654365965437FrançoisChoquetteDrummondFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (2235)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his excellent work, his kind words and his visits to Drummond. He came to Drummond several times to lead sessions on tax credits for people with disabilities. I thank him very much, as do the people of Drummond. Thanks to him, they ended up receiving a few thousand dollars. They were entitled to that money, but this was not well advertised by the previous governments.The member's question is very important. Of course, if the NDP takes office in October 2019, it will remedy the current situation. The NDP will not only implement a process to permanently expunge criminal records, but it will also work on addiction issues and treat drug use as a public health issue. The NDP will be sure to organize public education and awareness campaigns and invest both the human and financial resources necessary to deal with this issue. It must be said that addictions are a serious social problem that has to be taken seriously. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59654385965439PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/54434AdamVaughanAdam-VaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/VaughanAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.): (2235)[English]Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I am quite astonished. I went back and looked at the NDP platform to see what it wanted to spend in this year if it had been elected into government back in 2015. This party quite clearly must not have understood the seriousness of the housing crisis in this country because, when we look at its platform for homelessness, it was going to spend an extra $10 million a year. That is it. I can walk through Vancouver and find $10 million of new investment spent in that city by this government alone. We did not spend $10 million more; we spent $100 million more. The numbers that really get me are the three zeros for the last three years of its housing program. There are zero dollars for new affordable housing. That is how the party addressed the crisis in its platform. Thank God it did not get elected.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSocial housingThird reading and adoption5965440FrançoisChoquetteDrummondCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (2235)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting to see the Liberals rise in the House to demand that I not talk about social housing, even though there is a very serious housing crisis in Drummond, and then ask a question on that topic. I am happy to answer that question because, in this Parliament, we moved a motion to quickly call for the creation of 500,000 housing units. The entire country, including Drummond, is facing a housing crisis. We need to take action.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSocial housingThird reading and adoption5965443CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (2235)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara West.I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions to individuals for simple possession of marijuana. As I said last week, the bill is deeply flawed and will not help the people the Liberals have set out to help. This was clear from the limited testimony at committee, the information provided by departments and agencies and answers to our questions about the process and system. This record suspension, much like the Liberals, is really not as advertised.Bill C-93, based on what we heard at committee, was rushed, lacked consultations outside of the government and would fail to help those the Liberals said it would, in particular, racialized communities and those who live below the poverty line. The Liberals suggested the bill would provide a no-cost simple process for those with convictions for simple possession of marijuana to provide a record suspension and it would remove the stigma of a criminal conviction for this offence. After committee hearings, this bill clearly should have been called “lower cost”, not “no cost”.No one should have been caught off guard by this legislation, least of all government departments and agencies that have been working on this for years. When the Prime Minister announced his plans for marijuana legalization in 2015, clearly some kind of amnesty or consideration would have had to take place to balance the old and the new realities. The issue was raised in the House and by media as legalization was occurring and after the legislation had passed. The government repeatedly said it would bring in amnesty after legalization.On October 18, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety said that he would make things fairer, removing the stigma. That is why it was so confusing. No one had a clear idea of how many people would be eligible or benefit, how it would be implemented or how much it would cost. When we asked officials how many people would be eligible, officials and the minister provided a best guess. Why? It is because the work to know who would be eligible would have been a challenging and time-consuming process. Convictions are not listed as simple possession of marijuana. In order to know who would be eligible, officials would need to know who had a record for possession of an illegal substance, which falls under a specific category, schedule II, and then which of those was the simple possession of marijuana, meaning under 30 grams. That may or may not have been listed.According to testimony at committee, Canadian conviction records generally do not say “cannabis possession”. That is not the language used in the records. They say something like “possession of a schedule II substance”. Then one has to check police and court documents to find out what the particular substance was. The blanket, generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian records system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database. Additionally, many older records are paper copies kept in boxes in courthouses and police departments across this country. We also do not know how many individuals the government expects to apply for record suspension. Public safety officials said:[I]t's very difficult to know who has possession for cannabis offences, so we can't just go into a database and say this is how many offences there are. We've extrapolated from statistics collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and their figure is upwards of 250,000 convictions for the simple possession of cannabis. That is a starting point. The number of people expected to apply is much lower.... Let's remember you can only get that pardon if your only offence is for possession of cannabis. While you may have that offence, if you have others on your record, you would not be eligible. It's not an exact science but we've extrapolated from the figure of 250,000 and estimate 10,000. Outside experts have told us a significantly higher number, approximately 500,000 who have a record for minor possession. Those who will actually benefit, however, remains unknown. (2240)How much will taxpayers pay to provide a record suspension to someone who has committed a minor offence? The minister and officials have guessed about $2.5 million, a nice round figure for an unknown number of people with an unclear amount of work involved. We asked the minister to provide the committee with details of how the costs were reached. The minister committed to provide it before we had to vote on the matter. As we still do not have the breakdown of that cost as it was calculated, we could just add it to another long list of broken promises from the public safety minister.As of yet, there is no clear mechanism to deal with higher costs. Will it be passed on to other applicants or will taxpayers pick up the difference?One thing we heard from almost all our legal witnesses was the challenges of obtaining a record suspension, especially for individuals who could benefit the most. The application process can be quite challenging for those with limited legal or administrative skills. It requires getting a record of conviction from the court of jurisdiction, meaning people may need to travel to the courts to get the records removed; proof that fines and all sentencing conditions have been met; and a records check from a police agency, along with an identity confirmation by way of fingerprints. All of this will cost potentially several hundred dollars. Therefore, the no-cost application suggested in the bill's title is clearly misleading. It became quite clear that the people the minister and his colleagues say they are trying to help could continue to face potentially insurmountable hurdles.What we heard at committee supported that statement. The Native Women's Association of Canada said, “the effects of the bill will go unrealized for many indigenous women with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. Simply put, the bill remains inaccessible for indigenous women who are poor.”The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said, “The suspension of the record will almost seem like a token gesture...for many who are coming from extremely poor areas and families who don't have the means to push them forward, this is a huge stumbling block.”This is yet another promise that is not as advertised.To deal with this issue, legal experts advised the committee that convictions should be expunged. Expungements eliminate the records while record suspensions mean they can be reversed. An expungement would certainly be more closely aligned to the what the Liberal government promised in its statements. It would be simpler than this process, cost applicants less and ensure that whatever barriers they experienced would be eliminated. However, the Liberals voted against the NDP's private member's bill to do just that. Ironically, the Liberal members introduced amendments to make these record suspensions as close to expunged records as possible.This is like the Liberals' claims about how legalizing marijuana would remove the black market, decrease use by children and reduce consumption, all of which is not actually happening. We also know Bill C-93 would not accomplish anything the minister claimed. I believe in redemption, but I know that redemption is not earned through the generosity of the minister; it is earned by the person who seeks it. I am not sure that the redemption in these cases will result in any benefit for many Canadians. I was pleased that the committee agreed to make some minor improvements to deeply flawed legislation. Originally, a Conservative amendment addressed what could happen if the court records were lost, destroyed or otherwise not found. The Liberals chose to amend this issue and provided the ability for the Parole Board to review when information was missing. However, that is not much help to those who can not get information to apply in the first place. The Liberals continue to put in processes that serve the government, but not the people intended to benefit from the legislation. Ultimately, we were not able to eliminate clause 6, which would limit the considerations by the Parole Board when examining these applications. We should not be giving records suspensions to people who do not deserve them. The only way to accomplish that is to ensure a thorough review. That was the only request of the Canadian Police Association, to ensure that anyone who received these record suspensions met the criteria. That aligns with good administration and instills the trust of Canadians that the system works effectively. The Liberals sadly disagreed with that. This is not a good bill. It only makes things slightly better for a very small number of Canadians who will benefit. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59654445965445596544659654475965448596544959654505965451596545259654535965454596545559654565965457596545859654595965460596546159654625965463596546459654655965466596546759654685965469596547059654715965472FrançoisChoquetteDrummondMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.): (2245)[English]Madam Speaker, in his statement, the member said that our new policy on the legalization of marijuana had done nothing. I want to remind the member that according to Statistics Canada, one out of every 10 young people between the ages of 15 and 17 will smoke cigarettes. The reason for that is that we injected a lot of money into educating our youth on the effects of smoking, the harms of it and the reasons it was bad for their health. It has been drilled into young people at schools. This is exactly what we want to do with the legalization of cannabis. We want to ensure that the money we receive from that is invested in education programs to make safer consumption for youth. Often cannabis has been mixed with other products. We want to ensure we educate youth so we bring the consumption rate down to the numbers I just mentioned. Those are Statistics Canada numbers from 2011. We want to ensure we reduce the consumption and this is the way to do it. Does the hon. member agree that if we use the example of smoking cigarettes and apply that to cannabis we can reduce the rate?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionYoung people596547359654745965475GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (2250)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree that education is a critical component of any sort of public policy. I unfortunately would have to disagree that in this case the desired outcomes from what the government has proposed or expected from the legalization of marijuana have not played out in reality, as was proposed in policy or in principle.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionYoung people5965476MarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (2250)[English]Madam Speaker, what is my colleague's perception and what feedback has he heard from stakeholders, including police associations and other groups, about the ability of police to do their jobs and for law enforcement agencies to protect against drug-impaired driving? As we have seen in jurisdictions with the legalization of cannabis, robust methods were required to equip the police to do proper roadside screening. My understanding is that the equipment that has been approved is insufficient and produces many false positives.Could my colleague speak to that, based on the study of this legislation and also based on his professional experience?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsImpaired drivingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59654775965478GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (2250)[English]Madam Speaker, in conversation with law enforcement officials over the last year or thereabouts, since the legislation was put in place, significant challenges continue to exist with the application of the law as well as the inability for officers to have the equipment necessary to perform the required roadside screening tests. It is an issue of public safety and those challenges continue to exist at this point in time.We knew when this legislation was proposed that there would be significant court challenges for a lot of the aspects of the legislation. The results hopefully will play out soon and we will get some resolution to it. Right now, there are challenges with law enforcement and the ability to enforce this across the country.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsImpaired drivingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59654795965480MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesDeanAllisonNiagara West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): (2250)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that Conservatives will be supporting the bill.Bill C-93 would make changes to the pardon process and waive the fee for Canadians with a past conviction of simple cannabis possession. It would allow people convicted of possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis to apply for free to have their record suspended. It typically costs $631 for someone to apply for a record suspension. In light of the legalization of cannabis in October of last year, the bill seeks to assist Canadians who were criminally charged for something that has now been rendered legal.Having said that, it is important to discuss some concerns we have had with the bill along the way.The government has received significant criticism as to how it has handled matters relating to cannabis in the aftermath of legalizing it. For example, last year, the government confirmed there is no conclusive way to determine if someone is driving high. This left our law enforcement officials in limbo, with several police forces across the country refusing to use government-approved testers.In addition, the safety concerns of employers, workers and indigenous communities have not been addressed. To add to that, the Prime Minister has failed to explain how his plan would keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. Also, the lack of public education has left many Canadians unsure of the new rules and how this would impact border crossings between Canada and the United States. The uneven rules by the government for every province, territory, and municipality have created uncertainty and confusion from coast to coast. The bill is an attempt to address the record suspension issue that was left outstanding since the legalization of cannabis, but there are still many other aspects of the legalization of cannabis that need the government's attention. However, I am glad to see it is finally starting somewhere.With respect to these issues, the end result the government has come up with is a new category of record suspensions that cannot be easily revoked and can be granted automatically without much insight into an individual's history. To be more specific, if an individual were to reoffend, the record suspension received for the charge of simple possession is difficult to reverse.On this side of the House, we support the idea of expedited pardons, but we want to ensure that the process is fair and accountable.We are also happy the government accepted two Conservative amendments, which help to improve the bill's procedural fairness and require the Parole Board to include a review of this program in its annual report. This review process would allow the legislation to be improved upon if necessary.I would like to note a specific concern expressed by law enforcement agencies about the bill that I find to have a lot of merit. Although they generally support the bill and what it aims to achieve, law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns that an individual could have been charged with a more serious infraction but pleaded it down to simple possession. This makes the individual still eligible for record suspension, making the process very problematic.The President of the Canadian Police Association has expressed his opinion on this, saying:In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.Committee members are aware of this. At their appearance, officials said they could not discern between plea deals to lesser charges and people convicted of the genuine offence. This is one of several issues the government has encountered in its rush to meet the Prime Minister's own self-imposed political deadline. It is also strange that the Liberals have left this consequential legislation to the final weeks of our Parliament and have failed to consult key stakeholders.The concerns are still very real and need to be dealt with. I would like to highlight some of them here.At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Conservative members asked officials about how unpaid fines would be dealt with at the provincial level when a record suspension can be granted under this law at the federal level, while those fines are still outstanding. They could not answer. This needs to be dealt with since the provinces could lose money if they cannot enforce the payment of fines once these records have been deleted. It is an important detail of this legislation that needs the government's attention.I am also concerned as to why the government changed this law so that a record suspension could not be revoked on the grounds of bad conduct. Does it want record suspensions or expungement? It is very unclear.The bill lacks the public safety considerations that come with a proper record suspension and the accessibility of an expungement. It is almost as if the Liberals got lost somewhere along the way in the creation of this legislation and did not think of several important details.(2255)There is also a cost to this legislation that needs to be considered, which officials have estimated would be around $2.5 million. The calculation is based on the idea that over 250,000 people are eligible for record suspensions but only 10,000 would make use of it. What if all 250,000 apply; does the government have a plan for that? The cost would then be around $62 million and not the anticipated $2.5 million, which is a big gap that needs to be accounted for. It is an amount that the government does not seem to have a plan for.In addition, the government has overlooked another important cost, which is the full cost estimate of the process for the Parole Board to to run a query of its database to determine who is eligible for record suspensions while providing it with the necessary information. This is a process, like any other bureaucratic one, that will require significant resources depending on how many people submit a query.Another area of concern was brought up by witnesses who testified that this law would impact different communities differently. Generally, those less well-off and those with lower education levels are more likely to have convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Legal experts have said that the people who do not have record suspensions today are unlikely to be able to sort through the challenging paperwork needed just to apply. In addition to the paperwork, to make matters worse, the government calls this a no-cost bill when that is not the case. There would be a $2.5-million price tag for taxpayers and likely between $50 and $200 in fees and complex paperwork for applicants. This process seems designed to ensure as few people as possible apply. It does not look like the government is interested in making it more accessible either. It took out a proposed Conservative amendment that would have made it easier for individuals to access these pardons. As with other types of government applications, this could be complex and time-consuming to fill out. In these cases, we have also seen the emergence of predatory application experts online, who charge up to $1,600 for their services. There are also no meaningful protections in this bill that would prevent this sort of predatory behaviour in order to protect those who are trying to get a record suspension. The Liberals have said to Canadians that smoking marijuana should be accepted and accessible, and they have implemented legislation to that effect. That is why it seems odd that they are not interested in making the record suspension process just as accessible. The last concern I would like to bring up on the topic of cannabis is one that is very relevant to my riding of Niagara West, and that is the smell produced by cannabis cultivation facilities. This is especially an issue in the town of Pelham, where families avoid opening their windows in the summer due to the extremely strong odours coming from two cannabis-producing facilities located more than five kilometres away from their houses. David Ireland, a resident of Pelham, recently said that on hot, humid days it is worse because the production facilities have to vent more often. Because of this, he cannot open any windows without his whole house smelling like cannabis. The situation has become so bad that the Town of Lincoln in my riding has temporarily halted new cannabis-production facilities and put existing operations on notice. At a special council meeting earlier this year, councillors approved a staff recommendation to pass an interim control bylaw that will effectively stop any new cannabis facilities until the town can update its zoning bylaws. The bylaws come at the behest of local residents, who have complained about cannabis greenhouses popping up where they should not and causing light and odour concerns in residential communities. Kristen Dias, a resident from the town of Jordan, was quoted in one of our local papers saying, “Daily, my kids ask about the dead skunks.” Ms. Dias has since moved her children to a different school, saying that the cannabis odour from the production facilities is part of the reason for the move. My constituents have made dozens of complains about the odour coming from these factories to no avail. Health Canada has not been helpful because it says it is the town's jurisdiction, while the town says it is Health Canada's problem. We have been caught in this constant loop for over a year now with no resolution in sight. Our community of Niagara West needs to be clear as to who is responsible for regulating the odour because something needs to be done. Cannabis odour issues produced by production facilities are yet another oversight of the government with respect to rushed marijuana legislation. To get back to the bill in question, we will monitor the implementation of it and commit to reviewing it for its effectiveness and fairness. Now that cannabis is legal, Conservatives understand Canadians should not be unfairly burdened by criminal records for something that is no longer illegal. On this side of the House, we agree that Canadians should have expedited access to record suspensions at no cost. That is why we will be supporting this bill.Application processBureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionData banks and databasesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFeesGovernment billsGreenhouse growingParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivistsSobriety testThird reading and adoption596548159654825965483596548459654855965486596548759654885965489596549059654915965492596549359654945965495596549659654975965498596549959655005965501596550259655035965504596550559655065965507596550859655095965510GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (2300)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59655115965512DeanAllisonNiagara WestDeanAllisonNiagara West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Dean Allison: (2305)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59655135965514PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (2305)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsGreenhouse growingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596551559655165965517DeanAllisonNiagara WestDeanAllisonNiagara West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Dean Allison: (2305)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsGreenhouse growingPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596551859655195965520KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNotice of time allocation motionInterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (2305)[English]Madam 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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsNotice of motionPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionTime allocation59655215965522DeanAllisonNiagara WestSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (2305)[Translation]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.(2310)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.(2315)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.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSmugglingThird reading and adoptionUnited States of America596552459655255965526596552759655285965529596553059655315965532596553359655345965535596553659655375965538596553959655405965541BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (2320)[Translation]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption596554259655435965544SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher: (2320)[Translation]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965545596554659655475965548PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.): (2320)[Translation]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption59655495965550SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMr. Darrell Samson: (2320)[Translation] 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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965552596555359655545965555CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersThird ReadingInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher: (2320)[Translation]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5965557CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1515)[English]Motions Nos. 1 and 2 agreed toI declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 carried.[Translation]The question is on Motion No. 3.The hon. member for Ajax is rising on a point of order.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageReport stage motions5960727GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkHollandHon.Ajax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25508MarkHollandHon.Mark-HollandAjaxLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HollandMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Mark Holland: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberals members voting against.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960730GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservative members voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960731MarkHollandHon.AjaxRuth EllenBrosseauBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71357Ruth EllenBrosseauRuthEllen-BrosseauBerthier—MaskinongéNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BrosseauRuthEllen_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the result from the previous vote, with the NDP voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960732MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the result from the previous vote and we are voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960733Ruth EllenBrosseauBerthier—MaskinongéMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35309MaximeBernierHon.Maxime-BernierBeaucePeople's Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BernierMaxime_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Maxime Bernier: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960734LucThériaultMontcalmElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply, with the Green Party voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960735MaximeBernierHon.BeauceJanePhilpottHon.Markham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88835JanePhilpottHon.Jane-PhilpottMarkham—StouffvilleIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PhilpottJane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jane Philpott: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, this member agrees to apply, voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960736ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, this member agrees to apply and will be voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960737JanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleHunterTootooHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1665HunterTootooHon.Hunter-TootooNunavutIndependentNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/TootooHunter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Hunter Tootoo: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to agree to apply, and I will be voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960738JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleDarshan SinghKangCalgary Skyview//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89144Darshan SinghKangDarshanSingh-KangCalgary SkyviewIndependentAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/KangDarshanSingh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Darshan Singh Kang: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960739HunterTootooHon.NunavutErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31796ErinWeirErin-WeirRegina—LewvanCo-operative Commonwealth Federation CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WeirErin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Erin Weir: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply, and will be voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960740Darshan SinghKangCalgary SkyviewTonyClementHon.Parry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/15975TonyClementHon.Tony-ClementParry Sound—MuskokaIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClementTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Tony Clement: (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka agrees to apply, and is voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5960741ErinWeirRegina—LewvanGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1520)[Translation]Motion No. 3 negativedI declare Motion No. 3 defeated.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageReport stage motions5960743TonyClementHon.Parry Sound—MuskokaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25508MarkHollandHon.Mark-HollandAjaxLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HollandMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Mark Holland: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote.Liberal members are voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage59607545960755GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960756MarkHollandHon.AjaxRuth EllenBrosseauBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71357Ruth EllenBrosseauRuthEllen-BrosseauBerthier—MaskinongéNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BrosseauRuthEllen_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the result from the previous vote, with the NDP voting no.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960757MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result from the previous vote and is voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960758Ruth EllenBrosseauBerthier—MaskinongéMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35309MaximeBernierHon.Maxime-BernierBeaucePeople's Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BernierMaxime_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Maxime Bernier: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the People's Party of Canada agrees to apply the vote and is voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960759LucThériaultMontcalmPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply and will be voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960760MaximeBernierHon.BeauceJanePhilpottHon.Markham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88835JanePhilpottHon.Jane-PhilpottMarkham—StouffvilleIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PhilpottJane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jane Philpott: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960761PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960762JanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleDarshan SinghKangCalgary Skyview//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89144Darshan SinghKangDarshanSingh-KangCalgary SkyviewIndependentAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/KangDarshanSingh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Darshan Singh Kang: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I am voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960763JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31796ErinWeirErin-WeirRegina—LewvanCo-operative Commonwealth Federation CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WeirErin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Erin Weir: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply the vote and is voting in favour of the motion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960764Darshan SinghKangCalgary SkyviewTonyClementHon.Parry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/15975TonyClementHon.Tony-ClementParry Sound—MuskokaIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClementTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Tony Clement: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, Parry Sound—Muskoka agrees to apply and is voting yes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRecorded divisionsReport stage5960765ErinWeirRegina—LewvanGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1520)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 28, later this day.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HousePossession of a controlled substanceReport stage5960767TonyClementHon.Parry Sound—MuskokaGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88784FilomenaTassiHon.Filomena-TassiHamilton West—Ancaster—DundasLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TassiFilomena_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Filomena Tassi (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (1015)[English]Motions Nos. 1 and 2 moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-93, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:(4.11) For the purpose of an application referred to in subsection (3.1), the Board may not require a person who makes the application to provide a certified copy of information contained in court records in support of the application unless the certified verification of the applicant’s criminal records and information contained in the police records or Canadian Armed Forces records provided in support of the application are not sufficient to demonstrate that the person has been convicted only of an offence referred to in Schedule 3 and that the only sentence imposed for that offence was payment of a fine or victim surcharge or both.(4.12) For the purpose of subsection (3.11), a person re-Motion No. 2That Bill C-93, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 30 on page 4 with the following: (1.2) A record suspension ordered under subsection C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGoodale, RalphMinister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage motions595408159540825954083595408459540855954086GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1015)[English]Motion No. 3 moved:Motion No. 3That Bill C-93 be amended by deleting Clause 6.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage motions59540875954088FilomenaTassiHon.Hamilton West—Ancaster—DundasPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): (1020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised to legalize and regulate cannabis. In October, we kept that promise.The goal was to be more effective in keeping cannabis away from our kids and reduce the illegal profits of organized crime. As L'actualité journalist Alec Castonguay recently noted, “Organized crime no longer has a complete monopoly over the cannabis market. It is losing its footing.” That is great news.That is not all. Bill C-93, which was strengthened by a few amendments made in committee, will enable Canadians with a criminal record for simple cannabis possession to have their record quickly suspended so they can move on with their lives.[English]Bill C-93 would allow Canadians with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis to get pardons from the Parole Board with no application fee and no wait time.Getting a pardon means that if a prospective employer or a landlord runs a criminal record check, it will come up empty. That makes it much easier for people to find a job or a place to live. It also makes it easier to get an education, to travel or just volunteer with a kids' hockey team.Members of certain communities, particularly people of African descent and indigenous Canadians, have been disproportionately affected by the counter-productive criminalization of cannabis that we finally ended last fall. That is why we have taken the unprecedented steps of waiving the fee and the waiting period.[Translation]Without this bill, applicants would have to pay a $631 fee and wait five to 10 years to have their criminal records suspended. Bill C-93 will completely eliminate those obstacles.Bill C-93 also eliminates the usual subjective criteria applied by the Parole Board of Canada. Usually, the Parole Board member who examines an application for pardon must take into consideration the good conduct of the applicant and determine whether a pardon would bring that individual a measurable benefit. However, no discretionary factors will be taken into account in applications submitted under Bill C-93.[English]Everything I have mentioned thus far, from the elimination of the $631 fee to the elimination of the waiting period of up to 10 years and the elimination of subjective criteria, was in the original version of this bill. The public safety committee has studied the legislation and sent it back to us with several additional provisions that make it even stronger.Thanks to an amendment from the member for Brampton North, a cannabis possession conviction will not count against an individual if that individual is applying for a pardon for other prior offences.An amendment from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands ensures that cannabis possession convictions pardoned under Bill C-93 cannot be reinstated simply on the basis of the person no longer being “of good conduct”.Incidentally, it is important to mention that when it comes to the permanence of pardons, it is worth remembering that half a million pardons have been issued in Canada since 1970, and 95% of them are still in effect. Records are reinstated only in exceptional circumstances, such as the commission of a new offence, and the amendment from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will make sure that for people pardoned under this legislation, that will no longer apply.The bill also now includes an important amendment from the member for Toronto—Danforth, allowing people to apply for expedited pardons for cannabis possession even if they have outstanding fines associated with their conviction.Why is that important? One of the main reasons people apply for pardons is to be able to get a job and earn a paycheque. That can be a catch-22 for people who need a pardon to earn money but need money to get a pardon. We were already waiving the $631 fee and now, even if people still owe a fine or a surcharge, they can get their pardon anyway.(1025)[Translation]That brings me to the report stage amendments the government is presenting today.The first relates to the amendment made in committee, which I just mentioned. As things stand, the applicant has to provide the board with police and court documents demonstrating the nature of the conviction. Under Bill C-93, the applicant must demonstrate that the substance in question was indeed cannabis and that there is no outstanding sentence associated with the offence. Information about sentences can usually be found in court documents. Given that unpaid fines will no longer matter, we propose amending the bill such that court records are no longer required from applicants whose only sentence was a fine. That would address the committee's recommendation that the government find more ways to make pardons for simple possession of cannabis even more accessible. We continue to work with the Parole Board of Canada to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from this new system. [English]There was another amendment that was made at committee, and I thank the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for proposing it. It won the unanimous support of the committee, and I understand why. It is possible in certain cases that relevant police and court records simply will not be available, especially if a lot of time has passed. In those cases, the member's proposal was to let applicants submit sworn statements saying that their only conviction was for simple possession of cannabis. The Parole Board would then make inquiries and could issue a pardon if it were ultimately convinced. The principle of this amendment is in line with other measures in Bill C-93 that aim to make pardons for cannabis possession as accessible as possible. The problem is that, unfortunately, it is not likely to work in practice. If someone has a criminal record that says “possession of a controlled substance” but there are no police or court records available to prove that it was cannabis, that person would submit a sworn statement. The Parole Board would then make inquiries, and the only inquiry it could really make would be to go back to the police and the court and ask them to double-check. When the response comes back saying, “We told you the first time, we don't have those records”, there would be no way for the board to be sure what the substance was. The person could still get a pardon, but he or she would have to follow the usual process.Unfortunately, therefore, the use of sworn statements in this context would result in more work for Parole Board staff, as well as for local police and court officials, but not more accessible pardons for Canadians, which is the goal of this piece of legislation. That is why we are proposing to remove it from the bill.[Translation]This bill is a major step forward that will change the lives of Canadians who have been stigmatized by convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Four years ago, when some people wanted to maintain the prohibition on cannabis or just wanted to decriminalize it, which would have meant fining marginalized people, we proposed legalizing it, period. We made legalization happen. I encourage all my colleagues to support Bill C-93 so that people weighed down by a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis can rid themselves of that burden quickly. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationExpungement of convictionsFeesOathsPossession of a controlled substance595408959540905954091595409259540935954094595409559540965954097595409859540995954100595410159541025954103595410459541055954106595410759541085954109595411059541115954112PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the article by Alec Castonguay that appeared in L'actualité. In his article, the author wrote that legalizing marijuana has ultimately helped take drugs, or drug sales, out of the hands of criminals. I believe Mr. Castonguay, who is an excellent journalist.However, I wonder whether the member, who is in government, has any additional information from the RCMP indicating the opposite, in other words, that organized crime has only become more organized and is doing even more business.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance59541135954114PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.To be very clear, our government's goal is to keep cannabis out of the hands of young people, and out of the pockets of criminals and organized crime. This has worked in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and elsewhere. That is exactly what we are doing here in Canada. I am confident that, in the months and years ahead, we will see the same positive results that have been recorded elsewhere. It is based on science, on the best research and on the experiences of other jurisdictions. I am confident that this is the best approach to take for our youth and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance59541155954116PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesAlexanderNuttallBarrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88679AlexanderNuttallAlexander-NuttallBarrie—Springwater—Oro-MedonteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/NuttallAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alexander Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I have met with various communities over the years with regard to not just the records themselves, but the inequity in terms of the prosecution related to cannabis offences. Over the years, we know there has been inequity in terms of when it has been applied and when it has not. God knows that if it had been applied 100% of the time, I would be one of the people asking for an expungement at this point.As I look forward, one of the questions I have heard from numerous people in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is whether the pardon would help when they try to cross into the United States. I was wondering if the member knows whether there has been any communication with the U.S. on this and whether a pardon would actually open the border to those who have been penalized for a cannabis offence, in some cases 25 years ago.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationPossession of a controlled substance59541175954118PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his honesty in the House. I appreciate that very much. Over the last four years, he has been a steadfast supporter of initiatives aimed at bettering the lives of youth all across the country, so I want to thank him for that.One of the things I am really happy he brought up is that one main focus of the legislation is the fact that certain communities, particularly indigenous youth and racialized youth, have been overwhelmingly negatively affected by the previous regime that was in place. That is why it is necessary for us to put in place these changes, and also to choose the method of record suspension versus expungement. The reality is that, with record suspension, we would be allowing people to travel to the United States and other countries and have access to documentation that would allow them to show that the records were suspended, vis-à-vis an expungement, where after six months the records are completely destroyed.I can reassure the member that we have been in contact with our American counterparts, and this would actually help travellers who have a record suspension on file.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595411959541205954121AlexanderNuttallBarrie—Springwater—Oro-MedonteMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1030)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for eight years and I have never been angrier studying a bill. Let me explain why.The Liberal government did the bare minimum because Parole Board of Canada officials balked at the idea of doing more work, claiming their files were unreliable and not up-to-date, and the Board had yet to adopt 21st century technology. That is a sorry way to support marginalized people.I have a question for my colleague and I thank him for his speech. He acknowledges that people were disproportionately targeted by laws that existed before cannabis was legalized.In Bill C-66, the Liberals expunged the criminal records LGBTQ people received in the past in our country. Why not do the same here? Why create an arbitrary standard instead of doing right by everyone who was discriminated against?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGay and lesbian personsPossession of a controlled substance5954122595412359541245954125PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1030)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Unfortunately, the question is a bit disingenuous.Our government has done more than what the NDP was proposing. We are the ones who wanted to legalize cannabis. The NDP wanted to keep fining young people, especially young indigenous people and young visible minorities, perpetuating the repercussions on their lives. We are the ones who made the best decision for young Canadians and I am proud of that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGay and lesbian personsPossession of a controlled substance59541265954127MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1035)[Translation] Madam Speaker, this morning, I will be speaking about Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. We are just a few weeks away from the end of the parliamentary session, the last one before the next election campaign.We will all recall that, in 2015, the Prime Minister promised to be transparent. He promised an open government. He promised to save Canada from the bad Stephen Harper. He made many, many promises.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595412859541295954130PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing some order to the House when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Border Security was arguing with the NDP. I am here to present our arguments. I was talking about our Prime Minister, who made a lot of promises in 2015. Many Canadians put their trust in him; they saw him as a beacon of hope. Now, in 2019, it is clear that he made a lot of promises and ultimately did not achieve much.Canadians are giving up. They are tired of seeing the Prime Minister dance around when it comes time to work. They are frustrated with seeing the Prime Minister talk when he should be taking action. They are worried that the Prime Minister is welcoming terrorists, contract killers and other criminals without lifting a finger to help victims of human trafficking and our veterans who gave everything for Canada. They are sick of seeing the Liberals go after law-abiding citizens and ignoring organized crime and ISIS traitors. They are sick of it.They saw the Prime Minister go after women in his cabinet because they resisted. What was their crime? They wanted to obey the law. Canadians are sick of seeing this Prime Minister refuse to take responsibility for his mistakes, and this October they will take action. A number of Liberal members have already taken action, in fact. Several have already quit the caucus and many others have announced that they are leaving politics. Even the Toronto Star is touting a potential replacement for the position of prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party.Before talking about Bill C-93, I have to say a few words about Bill C-45, because one complements the other. To give credit where credit is due, one of the Prime Minister’s few accomplishments was passing Bill C-45. However, let's not forget that it was a botched bill. It was passed in the House and became law, but it was botched.The Prime Minister decided that his commitment to passing Bill C-45 was a national priority. Everything was a priority. There was nothing more important in Canada than legalizing marijuana. Organized crime, violence against women and the economy paled in comparison to legalizing weed.Now that Bill C-45 has been in force since October 2018, Bill C-93 is being introduced at the last minute, once again, at the tail end of the current session and Parliament. They want to rush to expunge the records of people accused of simple possession of cannabis in the past.Normally, an offender with a conviction on their record has to wait five to 10 years before applying for a pardon and pay a $631 fee. Originally, the fee was set based on the cost to the Canadian government and to taxpayers. We agreed that applying for a pardon for simple possession of marijuana should be free, even though sound stewardship of public funds is a Conservative priority. One of the reasons we did not oppose this measure was that the committee learned that no more than 10,000 people would be eligible to apply for a pardon, costing taxpayers about $2.5 million. That is what officials told us.It is important to remember that the goal is to grant a pardon to those who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis and do not have an extensive criminal record. We understand these convictions are often the result of youthful indiscretion. It was also explained to us that the indigenous and black communities are disproportionately affected and are less likely to have the resources to apply for a pardon. We are flexible on this point, and we accept the facts. There is no problem there. However, there is a problem with the way Bill C-93 was crafted. Some of our amendments were accepted, and we thank our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for that. The fact remains that the bill still has a few flaws.(1040)The Conservatives' amendments improved the bill's procedural fairness and require the Parole Board of Canada to include a review of the program in its annual report, which will enable us to review the legislation the year after it comes into force.Currently, the record suspension process is a user-pay system. Earlier, the member mentioned the $631 record suspension fee. Now that cost is estimated at $250, which justifies the $2.5 million I mentioned.The other option, expungement, would involve minimal cost, but it would not apply to individuals charged with more serious offences who negotiated lesser charges or were in possession of a quantity above the current legal limit. In general, law enforcement organizations are in favour of record suspension for simple possession, but they want us to take into account individuals who pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of simple possession.Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, testified that, in those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they had known this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.That is why I moved a motion to amend the bill. This amendment would delete clause 6. The Canadian Police Association explained that the Parole Board of Canada must retain the discretion to conduct additional checks because every case is different. Clause 6 of Bill C-93, as it is currently drafted, does not enable the Parole Board of Canada to do its job properly.In his haste to meet his self-imposed political deadline, the Prime Minister failed to consider the many concerns of municipalities, law enforcement, employers, scientists and doctors regarding the legalization of cannabis. Similarly, the Liberals introduced legislation that correlates with the legalization of cannabis in the last few weeks of this Parliament without listening to the main stakeholders, including law enforcement.Now that cannabis is legal, the Conservatives understand that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not place an unfair burden on Canadians. However, we will be monitoring the implementation of the bill. We promise to determine whether it is working and whether it is fair when we take office in October.As with Bill C-45, the Conservatives will also amend Bill C-93 in order to ensure that it effectively provides appropriate access to no-fee record suspension. We believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension and we will ensure that the law upholds the integrity of the Parole Board of Canada so that Canadians have their records suspended.Come October, when we form the government, we will have a lot of cleaning up to do. Our priority will be the real needs of Canadians, including their safety and their prosperity. Everything we do will be for Canadians. When we go to India, it will not be to dance and wear costumes. When we go to Washington, it will be to work and to clean up the mess made of the new free trade agreement. When we invest taxpayers' money, I guarantee it will not be to reward murderers, terrorists or dictatorships that are detaining our citizens on bogus charges. We will also clean up the mess at our borders. We will prioritize new Canadians who obey Canadian laws, and we will crack down on those who cheat and jump the queue. As a government, we will show compassion to those in need, as well as taxpayers. We will take action to improve the environment, but not by dipping into taxpayers' pockets.AccountabilityC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionFeesInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time5954133595413459541355954136595413759541385954139595414059541415954142595414359541445954145595414659541475954148595414959541505954151CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member with regard to his report stage amendment. The Conservatives are saying they are going to repeal a bill that provides for extended background checks for people to get firearms, yet in this bill they want to include an amendment that would allow the Parole Board to investigate applicants because of bad conduct and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.Can the hon. member tell this House what kind of conduct the Conservatives are talking about that would allow the Parole Board of Canada to justify denying someone's application?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance59541525954153PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1045)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. To ask that question is to answer it. That is precisely why the Parole Board of Canada must remain involved. If the board does not conduct criminal record checks of applicants, there would be no way of knowing who should get the expedited option.The Canadian Police Association recommended that the Parole Board of Canada remain involved in the record checks. Otherwise, we are turning a blind eye and granting record suspensions with no regard for what those individuals have done. I cannot answer the member's question. Employees of the Parole Board of Canada can answer that.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance59541545954155PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, we all know that the Conservatives have long opposed the legalization of cannabis. In fact, I was in this very House under the Harper government when it sought to increase penalties on Canadians for possession of cannabis. The Liberals voted for those increased penalties, by the way, in that Harper government. It is kind of an interesting discussion here today.On this side of the House, New Democrats believe there is a fundamental problem with this bill, which is that now that we have legalized cannabis, the obvious legal consequence of that should be that Canadians who carry records for offences that are not longer illegal should have their records expunged.There is a critical difference between expungement and pardon. Expungement erases a record; a pardon simply forgives it. If people in this country think that a pardon eliminates any record anywhere of a cannabis conviction, they do not understand how records are kept in this country. That is a fundamental problem.However, the worst problem is that the poorest and most vulnerable populations in this country are still left with the obligation, under the Liberal bill, to apply for a pardon. Many people do not have the resources, the ability, the time or the inclination to do that. This bill is going to leave many Canadians, the poorest and most marginalized, walking around this country with the millstone of a conviction for cannabis around their neck.Does the hon. member's party not agree with the New Democrats that we should expunge the records of all Canadians, so that they do not carry records for something the law currently does not and in the future will not regard as criminal in any sense?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59541565954157595415859541595954160PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1045)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.There is a fundamental debate about expungement and pardon. There is actually a big difference between the two. Expungement gets rid of the conviction, as though nothing had ever happened. A pardon sets aside the conviction and lets the individual apply for jobs, return to the labour market and have no further problems.The Conservatives believe, however, that when marijuana was illegal, possessing and consuming marijuana constituted an illegal act. It was therefore a crime. We understand that it is now legal. However, at the time, it was illegal.To grant a pardon means that the crime is in the past. Pardons will be provided at no cost and expedited. We are prepared to do that. That said, if an individual decides to continue down a path of crime and we want to bring up their former crimes, we should be in a position to do that. To eliminate the record completely would be saying that the individual never committed a crime, which is false.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5954161595416259541635954164DonDaviesVancouver KingswayGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, the Liberals, in the 11th hour, or the 12th hour actually, at midnight, have changed some of the proposals agreed to by the committee concerning some of the amendments.With the amendment to 4(3.1), we talked about allowing those who cannot obtain records of any of the offences from the government, the courts, the police or whomever, being able to swear an affidavit to get this done.I see the government has removed that. Motion No. 1, which it is proposing today, is confusing to me. How is it that we are still going to make it impossible for some of those people who have fallen through the cracks in that circumstance to receive a suspension?Could the hon. member comment on that?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionOathsPossession of a controlled substance5954165595416659541675954168PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1050)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. One of the amendments we moved in committee, and which was agreed to, would allow people who were unable to obtain their documents to access them by providing a sworn statement.The amendment proposed this morning by the government wants to prevent that and will continue to complicate the lives of the least fortunate. We really do not understand the government's position on this issue.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionOathsPossession of a controlled substance595416959541705954171GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1050)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to begin today by quoting Solomon Friedman, a defence attorney who appeared before the committee.I think that this quote clearly states what we think of this bill.[English] I should first note that Bill C-93 is better than nothing. But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament. You can do better. You must do better. Instead, I would urge a scheme of expungement along the lines already provided for in the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act. I would add here that that was a bill presented by the government. He went on to say that the record of these convictions for the simple possession of cannabis “should be expunged permanently and automatically”.I also want to read a quote from Elana Finestone, from the Native Women's Association of Canada:Unfortunately, the effects of the bill will go unrealized for many indigenous women with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. Simply put, the bill remains inaccessible for indigenous women who are poor and have administration of justice issues associated with their simple possession of cannabis conviction.[Translation]I must repeat what I said in my questions earlier. I have never seen such a sorry, pathetic attempt. I have all the respect in the world for our public servants, and they told the committee that it was too much work for them. They said that there were no systems in place that would allow them to expunge criminal records for simple possession, as parliamentarians wanted. This is unacceptable, and this is a far cry from the Liberals' claims of “better is always possible”. As members can see in the quotes I read out, that certainly does not apply to this bill. Furthermore, when the minister appeared in committee, he was unable to answer my very simple questions. The Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretary who just spoke, the Minister of Public Safety and the associate minister in charge of border security have all acknowledged, on different occasions, the impact that pre-legalization laws had on indigenous peoples, racialized persons, the poor and all marginalized Canadians. They all acknowledged this.What the Liberals did with Bill C-66, which provided for the expungement of the criminal records of LGBTQ people, was a good, commendable thing. It was what a fair and just society should do. The Liberals expunged those criminal records.Why did they not do the same thing in this case? I asked the minister that question. Unbelievably, he responded that Bill C-66 had to do with violating rights that were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Excuse me, but that is quite an arbitrary criterion. I asked all of the witnesses who appeared in committee whether the law included the concept of injustice specifically with respect to a violation of our rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They all told me that it did not.(1055)[English]Not only did they say no, but Kent Roach specifically recognized that the minister's standard for defining historical injustice is nothing but a fabrication of the government, an arbitrary measuring stick that it put in place with Bill C-66, and now suddenly it does not want to follow through with Bill C-93 for these marginalized Canadians who, in a different way, have been victims of their own historical injustice.I could not put it better than Cannabis Amnesty put it at committee when it quoted a Supreme Court decision that recognized that a law can be found to have been discriminatory even if the law itself is not discriminatory, but its application has been discriminatory. It is hard to find better examples in the history of our country than the war on drugs and the criminalization of simple possession of cannabis. The minister, being unable to respond to those questions, led a parade of witnesses at committee who all agreed with the sentiment expressed in the quotes I shared with the House, that this bill is nothing more than an 11th hour attempt to check off a box and really does very little. Putting the onus on marginalized Canadians is never going to lead to the kind of justice this bill purports to want to attain. Why? We just need to look at Bill C-66 and the expungement of the criminal records of LGBTQ Canadians. Seven out of the 9,000 some-odd Canadians who could have applied have applied. There are seven out of 9,000, and change. What would be different this time? We asked the officials and they were unable to provide us with an answer, except to say they are going to come up with creative ad campaigns using social media and things like that. It is unbelievable to think that we are going to reach the most marginalized in our society by coming up with fancy hashtags and buzzwords on social media. It is simply mind-boggling.[Translation]My speaking time at report stage is limited. I have just 10 minutes, but I want to talk about the amendments that were adopted.First, there is the amendment proposed by the Green Party. To be clear, this amendment was proposed by the Green Party and then amended by the Liberals. At first glance, it seems well intentioned. It ensures that record suspensions remain in effect regardless of the good behaviour criteria that usually applies. That is something we support in principle. We support it because a record suspension can be revoked under these criteria, for a speeding ticket for instance. We can all agree that this type of assessment is profoundly unjust. However, the Green Party's amendment amended by the Liberals omits a very important aspect. This is not just about good behaviour. Under this amendment, a Canadian whose criminal record is suspended under the terms of Bill C-93 and who commits a crime thereafter will have their criminal record suspension annulled and will continue to carry the burden of their criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. They will then be unable to make an application under the terms of Bill C-93.This means that marginalized Canadians, who belong to the various groups that were just mentioned, could presumably benefit from the process set out in Bill C-93, but not if they commit a crime thereafter. Clearly, we are not pardoning the crime that has been committed, whether it is proven in court or not. However, we know that all sorts of factors could come into play, such as mental health, housing and the discrimination that exists in our legal system and our criminal justice system. This means that, whenever another crime is committed, the activity previously engaged in that is now considered legal remains illegal. That is utterly absurd and illogical. I have a very hard time understanding how a government that says it wants to help these people can go in that direction.[English]I could not believe what the member for Toronto—Danforth said at committee. I felt like I was in the last Parliament, with Vic Toews as Minister of Public Safety. At committee, I said that Canadians who obtain a record suspension for simple possession of cannabis should be allowed to keep that record suspension even if they have committed other crimes, because simple possession of cannabis is now legal. To paraphrase her quite accurately, she said that the NDP was trying to make it easier for murderers to obtain record suspensions. I invite Canadians to look at the transcript.That is the kind of rhetoric that led to a change in government in 2015. We have a member of Parliament from downtown Toronto employing the same rhetoric as Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the previous Parliament. That is unreal. All we are trying to do is to ensure that the most marginalized Canadians with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis do not continue to be criminalized because they get caught up in the continuing discrimination they have to live with from our criminal justice system.(1100)[Translation]I want to raise one last point because I have only a minute left. I want to talk about the administration of justice.Representatives of various indigenous organizations talked to us about indigenous individuals who had a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and who did not show up in court because the court was too far from where they live or because of any number of other factors one can think of that would interfere with getting to court. The representatives told us that these people, who get a record suspension—even though the NDP would have preferred an automatic expungement—these people cannot get a record suspension, much less an expungement, because they did not appear in court on charges of simple possession of cannabis, which is no longer a crime.In conclusion, this government said it wanted to make things better, but it is a long way from delivering justice to the most marginalized members of our society.Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal policyApplication processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationExpungement of convictionsGay and lesbian personsPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivistsRemote communitiesWomen59541725954173595417459541755954176595417759541785954179595418059541815954182595418359541845954185595418659541875954188595418959541905954191595419259541935954194PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I have the utmost respect for him. However, I find it a bit rich for him to stand here today and complain about the Liberals bringing forward a bill that would allow pardons for people who have a criminal conviction for cannabis possession, given that in the last election the New Democratic Party ran on a platform to decriminalize marijuana. We went further and legalized it. If the NDP had been elected and had decriminalized marijuana, those individuals would be in a worse position than they are today. They would have faced fines and problems they do not currently face, but we went a step further and legalized cannabis.Could the hon. member justify how decriminalizing marijuana would have put us in a better position than we are in today?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationPossession of a controlled substance59541955954196MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, the Liberals continue to relitigate, as it were, the last election to justify their failure to do better here for black Canadians, indigenous people and other marginalized Canadians who carry the disproportionate burden of criminal records for simple possession of cannabis.Every single person who came to committee said that the Liberal government could do better. This was supposed to be a pillar of the Liberals' platform in the last election. This legislation is arriving one month before Parliament rises and several months before the next election, and we do not even know if it will make it through the Senate with all of the nonsense that goes on there. It is no wonder that the Liberals want to live four years in the past. Those individuals who are marginalized will not be able to benefit from the scheme put forward in Bill C-93. The government could have supported the member for Victoria and all those who are fighting for these marginalized Canadians. These Canadians are not going to benefit from the rhetoric of the last election. They would have benefited from an automatic pardon, and even better, an automatic expungement. We are so far from the mark. It is so disappointing.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationPossession of a controlled substance595419759541985954199PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, the reality is that here on the opposition side, we are faced with rushing through another important bill. This is an extremely important issue. As my colleague properly pointed out, it was a big item in the Liberals' election platform, and yet here we are almost four years into their mandate struggling to make sure they put in good legislation. As everyone in the House knows, it is the health and safety of Canadians that we are worried about, and we want to make sure that justice is provided to all.The whole approach of the Liberals toward marijuana legalization has been highly criticized, whether it is roadside testing, worker safety, or things along those lines.One of the Liberal amendments that passed at committee would allow individuals with unpaid fines and victim surcharges to apply for a record suspension under this legislation. This would create complications between the federal and provincial levels, particularly for provinces like Quebec and New Brunswick that collect fines. Officials at committee really could not answer how the provinces would enforce payment of fines once a record is suspended. Would my colleague be able to comment on this? Does he have any ideas that would help to resolve this inter-jurisdictional issue?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance5954200595420159542025954203MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Personally, I agree with letting people who have unpaid fines get a record suspension. That addresses one of the major flaws in the bill as originally written. Those fines are a significant barrier because, in many cases, people who need a record suspension to get a job do not have the means to pay the fines.What I gathered from officials who appeared before the committee is that different governments handle this different ways but that they are still responsible for collecting fines. Personally, I strongly believe that it would be totally unfair if people who have unpaid fines and a record because of an offence that is no longer an offence, simple possession of cannabis, could not apply for a record suspension. I think eliminating that barrier makes perfect sense.Before I sit down, I would like to respond to what my colleague said in his preamble. This bill is being rushed through at the last second, even though marijuana legalization was one of this Liberal government's flagship promises. Yes, the Liberals went through with it, but I want to make it clear that they did not really hold adequate consultations. The work was botched at times. At the end of the day, this is a bill that is being rushed through at the last minute, despite having been on the government's agenda from the start.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance595420459542055954206ColinCarrieOshawaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-93 this morning. I found it actually quite excessive listening to my New Democrat friends on this issue. As the parliamentary secretary put it, I think it is important that we recognize that the NDP tends to grossly exaggerate its stand on a wide variety of issues. This is a good example of that.In the last federal election, the New Democrats, under Mr. Mulcair, actually said that they were not in favour of the legalization of cannabis. That was their position. Now the member says that we should not hold them to account for what the NDP said back in the last federal election, but in the same speech, he said that he wants to hold us to account for what we said in the last election.Let us talk about the cannabis issue. What did the government say back in 2015? The Liberals were very clear, and our leader was very clear, that we were in favour of the legalization of cannabis, because we wanted to protect our young people. We wanted to bring in strong regulations. We wanted to go after criminal activities. That was our justification for making that commitment to Canadians back in 2015. The Conservatives, on the other hand, wanted the status quo.The NDP position was very clear. It did not want to legalize cannabis. It wanted to decriminalize cannabis. Reflect on that. I think the NDP is trying to find relevance in society today, because even the Green Party tends to outdo the NDP on the environment file. Many of the positions the NDP is adopting today are going to the Green Party. On this issue, it is following the Liberal Party. That is fine. We do not mind sharing our ideas with our NDP friends.However, those following this debate should not be fooled by the type of information the New Democrats are providing on this issue. They argue for expungement, because they are grasping. A few years ago, they were not even in favour of the legalization of cannabis. During the 2015 campaign, we made a very strong presentation to Canadians, and Canadians accepted it, and now, through Bill C-45, we actually have cannabis legalized here in Canada.The Conservatives and the NDP, that unholy alliance, I would argue, at times come together. The last few days, they have been saying, “Here we are with 18 days left to go in this session and the government is wanting to rush things through.” When we were elected, we made a commitment to Canadians to work hard every day. What do they expect us to do, say that with only 18 days left in this session, we are going to stop, as if there is nothing else for us to do?From day one, with that very first bill, Bill C-2, to reduce taxes for Canada's middle class while at the same time increasing it for Canada's wealthiest 1%, until the last day we sit, this government's intention has been to continue to deliver for Canadians in a real and tangible way. The legalization of cannabis took us a considerable amount of time. We cannot just bring in legislation and pass it. Legislation of that nature requires a great deal of background work, such as working with the many different stakeholders, provinces and indigenous leaders. We could not bring in this legislation before we even passed the other legislation. This legislation is before us today because it is good, sound, solid legislation. This is the type of legislation that is going to have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of many Canadians. That is the reason we are debating it today.(1110)Whether there are 16 days, 10 days or five days left does not really matter. At the end of the day, Canadians can know that this government will continue to work every day to advance good, strong social budgetary policies. For individuals who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis, this legislation would allow an expedited pardon for that particular conviction. It is as simple as that. This legislation would expedite it and ensure that there was no cost for receiving that pardon. For those who have an interest in getting a pardon, this government has made it exceptionally easy for them to do. That is why this legislation is important. It is why we challenge all members of the House to support it.With regard to the expungement argument being brought forward, a pardon is all that is required. It is far more than the NDP was prepared to offer in 2015. When its members say that it should be expungement, they should put an asterisk there to indicate that it is a lot more than what they were prepared to do back in 2015.I know that the NDP had a change in leadership. I believe that the current leader says that the legalization of heroin and cocaine should be allowed. I believe that could be a potential election platform coming from the NDP. That is what its current leader has talked about in the past. Maybe the NDP might provide some clarity and transparency on that issue. We are glad that the NDP has accepted the idea of the legalization of cannabis.The NDP had some influence with the Conservatives. Prior to the last election, the Conservative Party was outright against it. I remember the brochures, the propaganda and the myths being created. Even back then, the Conservatives were more focused on being critical of personalities than on substantive policy issues. The Conservatives were against it. They did not want legalization, and I do not believe they even favoured decriminalization. After the election, they started to talk about the decriminalization of cannabis. A few of them are saying that they started talking about it a bit earlier. In fairness to my Conservative friends, that might be the case. Having said that, who were the biggest benefactors? I argue that it was the gangs and the criminal element that were the biggest benefactors of the Conservative policy on cannabis. Stop and think about that.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseExpungement of convictionsFeesLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time59542075954208595420959542105954211595421259542135954214595421559542165954217595421859542195954220595422159542225954223MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, let us look at a school, for example. I have half a minute left, so I might have to continue my example during my answers. The bottom line is that I am concerned about young people. Prior to this government, Canada had the highest rate of consumption of cannabis by young people in the world. I am concerned about our youth in regard to the cannabis issue. I am very proud of the way this government has rolled out the legalization and would now provide a pardon. I encourage the Conservative Party to take that extra step and get behind the legislation. I thank the New Democrats. They are somewhat late, but at least they are onside today.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5954226CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that even under former Liberal governments and Conservative governments, the trend line for years was actually going down. I think there was a 50% increase in use by 2015. It will be interesting to see if it has gone down since legalization, but my understanding is that it has not.As my colleague points out, we are in the last minute here. Marijuana has been legalized since October 2018, and we are rushing to put the bill through as an important part of the Liberals' platform. However, the Liberals' tendency is not to listen to stakeholders. I wanted him to comment on the Canadian Police Association, which suggested two amendments calling for the Parole Board to retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations to ensure that the small number of applications from habitual offenders were vetted. This would ensure that individuals would not take advantage of a process that was clearly not intended for their cases. This could include looking into court records to determine if an individual was charged with something more serious, such as trafficking, and pleaded down to simple possession. The member knows that the health and safety of Canadians is what all of us want to look after. Sometimes these more hardened criminals have pleaded down. For some reason, the government did not accept those amendments. I wonder if the member could explain why.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance595422759542285954229KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Parole Board has some discretion to look at reversals. I made reference to schools. When cannabis was an illegal substance, young people were recruited by gang members or the criminal element. As an example, in Winnipeg's north end, 14-year-old and 15-year-old teenagers were recruited to take cannabis into the schools to sell that merchandise. They would take some profit from it for themselves. That young person was put on the wrong road, and ultimately, the criminal element received the proceeds from that. That is one of the primary reasons it was so important for us to go the way we have in the last couple of years. It is about improving the conditions for our youth, going after criminals and bringing in strong regulations. It will not get any worse with the number of Canadian youth participating in cannabis consumption.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance59542305954231ColinCarrieOshawaPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71447PierreNantelPierre-NantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/NantelPierre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite why the NDP's position is drawing so much ridicule today.The fact is, the people we are talking about today are the ones who are being unfairly penalized. Our position was that their criminal records should be expunged. The Liberal government told us it wanted to make marijuana legal in Canada. What was the result? The Liberals will never get me to believe they cared about the situation of the people we are talking about today. All they wanted to do was please the general public, which does not face excessive criminalization, and above all pander to their investor friends and help them make lots of money.Today, it is clear that the offence of simple possession of cannabis will come back to haunt someone if they commit another offence. Was this a simple oversight or do you just not give a damn?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivists595423259542335954234KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, I focused some of my attention on that issue because it is important that those who are following the debate understand where the NDP members have come from. At the end of the day, they did not support the legalization of cannabis. Now, to overcompensate, they have come up with expungement and are trying to come across as if they are championing something, which is just not right. This is a government that not only brought in the legalization of cannabis but that is dealing with it in an appropriate way through a pardon system. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians understand that and support it. People should realize that as much as the NDP has tried to stand on a high pedestal at times, in this case, there is no pedestal to stand on.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivists59542375954238CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide record suspensions to individuals with convictions for simple possession of marijuana. While I agree in principle with the intent of this bill, I believe it is flawed and in need of further amendments. Based on what we heard at committee, Bill C-93 was rushed, lacked consultation outside of the government and fails to achieve its objectives. This seems to be the theme with the current Liberal government. We know that with this bill, the government meant to provide a no-cost, simple process for those with convictions for simple possession of marijuana to obtain a record suspension. It also hoped to remove the stigma of a criminal conviction for this offence. Using the evidence and testimony of experts at committee, we should be able to show a clear benefit to those targeted by the legislation. However, despite the minister's best intentions, I am not sure any of these objectives were achieved. Even after two Conservative amendments were accepted by committee, one of which was removed this morning, the bill is only less bad; it has a long way to go.To make a good decision on this legislation, the committee needed evidence and information from departments and agencies working on criminal records and record suspensions. The bill should not have been a surprise to anyone. The Prime Minister announced his plans for marijuana legislation in 2015. Clearly, some kind of amnesty or consideration would take place to try to balance the old and new realities that were occurring. The issue was raised in the House and by the media as legalization was occurring and after the legislation was passed. The government repeatedly told Canadians that it would bring in amnesty after legalization. On October 18, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety said he would make things fairer and remove the stigma.That is why it is so confusing. No one had any clear idea how many people would be eligible or would benefit, how to implement it or how much it would cost. When we asked officials how many people would be eligible, officials and the minister provided their best guess. That work would be challenging and time-consuming. Convictions are not listed as simple possession of marijuana. As the minister noted, in order to know who would be eligible, officials would need to know who had a record for possession of illegal substances and which of those was for simple possession of marijuana.According to testimony at committee, Canadian conviction records do not generally say “cannabis possession”. That is not the language used. Rather, they say something like “possession of a schedule II substance”. Then the police and court documents have to be checked to find out what the particular substance was. Therefore, the blanket generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way the charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian records system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database. Additionally, many older records are paper copies kept in boxes in courthouses and police departments across the country. We also do not know how many individuals the government expected to apply for this record suspension. Public Safety officials stated:It's very difficult to know who has possession for cannabis offences, so we can't just go into a database and say this is how many offences there are. We've extrapolated from statistics collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and their figure is upwards of 250,000 convictions for the simple possession of cannabis. That is a starting point. The number of people expected to apply is much lower.The official, appearing before the public safety committee, went on to remind members that people can get that pardon solely if their only offence is for possession of cannabis. While people may have that offence, if they also have other offences on their record, they would not be eligible. She admitted that it was not an exact science, but the department had extrapolated from the figure of 250,000 and estimated that 10,000 would apply. Outside experts have suggested that a significantly higher number of approximately 500,000 people in Canada have a record for cannabis. How many of those people would benefit from this? The minister and officials could not say. How much will taxpayers pay to provide a record suspension to someone who committed a minor offence? The minister and officials have guessed that to be about $2.5 million. It is hard to understand the cost evaluation for a new process for an unknown number of people. We asked the minister to provide the committee with details of how the government reached its costs. The minister committed to providing that before we had to vote on the matter at committee, but here we are today and we have still not received that breakdown.(1125)If costs are higher than the anticipated amount that was presented to us by the minister, the Parole Board will have to pass it on, either to taxpayers or to applicants in another process. One thing the committee heard from almost all the legal witnesses was the challenge of obtaining record suspensions, especially for individuals who could benefit from this record suspension the most. The process to apply can be quite onerous for individuals who are not necessarily legally or administratively savvy. They need to obtain a record of their conviction from the court of jurisdiction. Once they have proof that all fines or sentencing conditions have been met, people will then be required to have a records check done by a police department, as well as an identity confirmation by way of fingerprints. None of these requirements are free, and they could potentially cost several hundred dollars. To put it simply, those most impacted probably do not have the means to pay. It is quite clear that the people the minister and his colleagues are saying they are going to be helping continue to face potentially insurmountable hurdles.The Native Women's Association of Canada stated that the effects of the bill “will go unrealized for many indigenous women with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. Simply put, the bill remains inaccessible for indigenous women who are poor”. The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers stated, “The suspension of the record will almost seem like a token gesture”, and went on to point out that “for many who are coming from extremely poor areas and families who don't have the means to push them forward, this is a huge stumbling block.”Part of the title of the act is “no-cost, expedited record suspensions”. This is clearly not the case. There will be a cost to the applicant, and it clearly will not be fast, as it takes multiple trips to police stations and courthouses just to get the information to file an application.Witnesses told us over and over again that the only way to remove these convictions was to expunge them. Legal experts noted that a record suspension would be set aside if an individual had any future charges. Border crossings would continue to be an issue, as the U.S. may have the old records of people's convictions, even if they have been suspended. We were also told that an expungement would certainly be more closely aligned to the proposed values of the Liberal government. The government claimed it was legalizing marijuana because it would remove the black market, decrease use by children and reduce consumption. The plan it implemented would not accomplish any of these objectives, and Bill C-93 would not accomplish any of the minister's objectives, as he said it would. The minister told us in the House that the effects of an expungement or record suspension were identical, so it really did not matter which one the government picked. Since it was a lot of work for the government to figure out which individuals had criminal convictions for simple possession of marijuana, it would go with record suspensions. It was clear that this made it easier for the government and not for those who had convictions. I believe in redemption, but I know that redemption is earned not through the generosity of the minister, but by the person who seeks it. I am not sure the redemption in these cases will result in benefits to very many Canadians.I was initially pleased that the committee agreed to make some minor improvements to this deeply flawed piece of legislation. Conservative amendments addressed a serious gap that had been missed. What happens when the courts do not have people's records? Records are lost, destroyed and may not be found. When an individual is seeking to follow the minister's challenging application for the not-so-free, not-so-easy process and cannot get the basics for an application, should that individual be ignored? I say no. We proposed an amendment, but this morning it was deleted and replaced by something else that does not cover it. Unfortunately, we are not able to eliminate clause 6, which would limit considerations by the Parole Board when examining these applications. We should not be giving these record suspensions out to people who do not deserve them, and the only way to accomplish that is to ensure a thorough review. The Liberals, sadly, disagreed with that at committee. In conclusion, this is not a good bill, as it only makes things very slightly better. Like most of the Liberal promises, it falls far short or is not as advertised. Too few Canadians would actually benefit from the intention of this bill.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionEqual opportunitiesExpungement of convictionsFeesInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time5954239595424059542415954242595424359542445954245595424659542475954248595424959542505954251595425259542535954254595425559542565954257595425859542595954260KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, there are many problems with this bill, and I would like to thank my hon. colleague for pointing out a number of them.It has to do with the Liberals' excuses as to why they could not proceed with expungement, and with their acknowledgement that the system of keeping records in this country is completely haphazard. Records exist in courthouse basements and police departments. They are decentralized. They differ from province to province. That is a shocking admission by a government. It is a shocking admission of dereliction of duty and incompetence. Frankly, it is a violation of fundamental public safety. In this country, after 150 years of Liberal and Conservative governments, are we here to tell Canadians that we do not have an efficient, centralized repository of criminal records in this country? Can police or volunteer organizations not even go to one local place and be confident that they will get a reliable source of information about a person's criminal record?This bill before us, about which I have many concerns, almost pales in comparison to the underlying problem that has unwittingly been exposed by this whole debate, which is that we have a mess in terms of our criminal records in this country.I am curious about my hon. colleague's comment on that. Are he and the Conservative Party—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsInformationPossession of a controlled substance59542615954262595426359542645954265GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, we have a great system now, but it is not historic. It does not go back and cover some of those areas in our records system as far back as the time some of these convictions occurred. That is part of the challenge with this particular legislation.We have other gaps in services that could be provided to the Canadian public, much like our firearms legislation that is being proposed. When we think about it, that does not do anything to address the gangs and guns problem that we have in this country. It targets law-abiding citizens. The problem with the gap in services is that the policing community in this country does not have the resources or the lab capacity to actually trace crime guns. That is more of a systemic, underlying problem that has existed for decades.We need to get modern. We need to get with the times on technology. Our system is okay now, but it does not necessarily cover records from decades back.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsInformationPossession of a controlled substance595426859542695954270CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, there is one thing I can say. The Liberal Party and the government have been very consistent on this issue right from the beginning. We were in favour of legalization. We were in favour of regulation. We were in favour of making sure those who had simple possession convictions could apply for pardons.It feels as though the NDP and the Conservatives are all over the map. At first, the Conservatives were putting out misinformation and using fear tactics prior to the last election. They were always in favour of criminalization and keeping it a criminal offence. Then suddenly they decided that maybe we did not have to be that hard on this, because maybe people wanted it. They started to change their position a little, saying that maybe decriminalization was the answer.Now we are starting to hear the Conservatives talk about the most vulnerable in our community and how they are being impacted by this bill, which attempts to pardon individuals for simple possession.I wonder if the member could comment. Could he at least stand up and say that he supports the legalization of cannabis and that he supports making sure pardons can be properly given to those who need them?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954271595427259542735954274GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, what I can say, and it has been consistent in the almost three years I have been here, is that the inconsistency of the Liberal government is the only consistency I have seen, both in its legislation and in its approach to things.One of the things I appreciate, and one of the reasons I am a Conservative, is that the Conservative Party, in its application of the law, in its legislation and in its development of laws, cares for people. The importance of those who are underprivileged and the importance of caring for those who are marginalized has always been at the forefront of the responsibilities of Conservatives.Regardless of what one's position is, one thing I know for sure is that this legislation does not meet the mark, because it still does not help those who would really benefit from the intent behind it.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595427559542765954277MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-93. Just picking up on the response to my last question, I would argue that the only party in this chamber that has had consistency on this particular file is the Liberal Party, and the government is advancing this legislation in a meaningful way. We have been criticized and attacked on a number of occasions for this happening in the dying days of this Parliament, as though somehow as we get toward the end of the session, we need to stop and give up because there is nothing left to do. They speak as though we have not done anything over three and a half years, yet poverty has been reduced by 20% in this country; the middle class received a tax cut; the economy is booming, and we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7; we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7—An hon. member: Oh, oh!C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595427859542795954280GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, to continue my point, I would say that this legislation has come forward in a manner that has allowed us to give it the thoughtful consideration it needs. We have studied it in the House and it has been studied at committee. Amendments were put forward. It has come back to the House, and there has been time for consultation. It is now time to take action to make sure that all people, particularly the most vulnerable in our communities, can get the justice they deserve, given that the criminalization of cannabis has changed significantly in the past year.I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today at report stage on Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. The purpose of the bill is plainly stated in the title. It would streamline the pardon application process for people who have been previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis and who have completed their sentence.Two main requirements of the existing process would be waived to make this happen: one, the current $631 Parole Board application fee, and two, the waiting period to apply, which can be up to 10 years. As hon. members have heard since the bill was introduced, these requirements make life difficult for people who have been convicted of a relatively minor offence and who just want to get their life back on track.The combination of the fee and the waiting period can be a serious obstacle, so we are getting rid of them. Allowing people to apply for a pardon faster and more easily would reduce barriers to their reintegration into society as productive, law-abiding, contributing citizens. It would also open all sorts of doors to jobs, education and housing.It is time to move the bill forward. I am pleased to note that even stakeholders who have said they would prefer a different legal mechanism were clear that the bill is a positive step and should be passed as soon as possible.The bill was passed at second reading with an overwhelming majority. From there, it went to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As always, hon. members on that committee gave it their careful consideration. They heard from numerous witnesses, including government officials and the Minister of Public Safety.Those hearings followed a study of the pardons system last year, during which the committee also heard from a number of stakeholders. Representatives of the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society gave powerful testimony about how a pardon can change a person's life for the better. In fact, when law-abiding people can put their criminal records behind them and move on with their lives, it is better for all of us and it is better for society.Amendments have been made, and an updated version of the bill has now been reported back to the House for its final blessing.For the most part, the committee's scrutiny and revision have produced a better and stronger bill. Bill C-93 would allow for expedited, no-fee pardons for people whose only conviction was for simple possession of cannabis. If their conviction was for an offence involving trafficking, production or exportation of cannabis, or something else entirely, they would not qualify. In those cases, they could still apply for a pardon once they have completed their sentence, via the usual route, with the fee and waiting period.Criminal records often do not specify the exact offence. They may just say something like “possession of a controlled substance”. To demonstrate that the substance was cannabis and that there is no outstanding sentence associated with the offence, people will generally have to provide police and court documents.At committee, an amendment was passed allowing people to apply even if they have an outstanding fine. In recognition of that, the government has introduced a report stage amendment removing the need to provide court documents for people whose only sentence was a fine. That is because, in that circumstance, the court documents mainly serve to show that the fine has been paid, and that would no longer matter.There were other amendments adopted at committee that are worthy of our support. Among them was an amendment to ensure that a cannabis possession conviction does not prevent someone from getting a pardon for other offences, and an amendment removing the possibility that a pardon could be revoked for reasons of non-criminal “bad conduct”.Unfortunately, the Conservatives introduced an amendment today at report stage that would reinstate subjective criteria when processing a pardon for cannabis possession. Their amendment would mean that when people apply for a pardon for cannabis possession, the Parole Board would investigate them to make sure they are generally well-behaved. The board would also conduct an investigation to determine whether granting them a pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.(1140)With Bill C-93, we deliberately removed these subjective criteria from the process because they do not make any sense when we are talking about people who do not have convictions of anything other than simple possession of cannabis for personal use. The whole point is to let people clear their records with as few obstacles as possible. At the end of the day, that is what Bill C-93 is about. It is about fairness. It is about providing a much-needed lifeline to people who want to contribute to their families, to their communities and to society but who have barriers in their path. With cannabis possession now legalized in Canada, we should do all we can to knock those barriers down. Bill C-93 is the right way forward to achieve this goal, and this is the right time to put it into effect.Let us take the opportunity we have at report stage to ensure that a proper version of the bill moves ahead for a final vote in the House.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsFeesInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time5954283595428459542855954286595428759542885954289595429059542915954292595429359542945954295595429659542975954298CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the importance of reducing the fee for someone applying for a pardon. The previous Conservative government increased the fee for a pardon to $631, which made it prohibitive for many people, especially those most vulnerable, to even apply. I am wondering if my colleague could speak to the importance of having that fee reduced to zero.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance5954299MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, that is what this bill is really about in my mind, when I look at it. It is an opportunity for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to successfully apply for a pardon and to have that pardon in place, especially and only if they have been charged and convicted for simple possession of cannabis.When we talk about the $631 fee, the reality of the situation is that it becomes an impediment for many people in terms of the application process. We want these people, particularly the most marginalized, the people who need help the most, to have a pardon in place so they can go on and become productive members of society. We want them to be able to apply for jobs without having to worry about a conviction weighing over their head. We want them to be able to apply to help in community groups where a CPIC check is required. We want to make sure that they do not have to worry about that popping up and having to explain that. That is where I see the real benefit of the reduction of this fee. It is for those people to be able to be active participants in our communities and genuinely contribute to society in meaningful ways.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance595430059543015954302PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about how Bill C-93 would allow some of our most marginalized citizens who may have this on their record to have a clear record, but Bill C-93 would not clear the record. That would be expungement; this is a suspension. I would ask my hon. colleague about suspension versus expungement. Bill C-93 would not clear the record. Perhaps he would like to clarify or restate his comments.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5954303MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, the vast majority of people in the House know what a pardon is. When we talk about expungement, obviously we are talking about wiping the slate completely clear. We have heard why that is perhaps not the best route to go. For example, when people are travelling to the United States, if they have already claimed at a previous time that they had this conviction and now they are saying they do not, that could cause a problem for them. As I said before, I find it remarkable that four years ago, Conservatives were spreading leaflets and propaganda trying to scare the public that the leader of the Liberal Party wanted to put cannabis into our children's schools. I do not know their position on that now. I think some of them might be in favour of legalization, and some of decriminalization. Now, all of a sudden, Conservative members are trying to be the champions of the most marginalized in our communities. This is ludicrous. Both the Conservative Party and the NDP have been losing the battle on this, because they are completely inconsistent. They are all over the board on this issue. The Liberal Party has been consistent from day one. We committed to legalization so that we could properly regulate cannabis and make sure we keep cannabis out of the hands of children, while at the same time making sure that the most vulnerable people in our communities are taken care of when it comes to the pardon system.We have done exactly what we said we would do.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59543045954305595430659543075954308ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. I hate to say this, but I do support the bill in principle. It is a terrible bill. It has been pushed on us at the end of this Parliament. The Liberals have known this was coming up, but now they are trying to ram it through. It reminds me of the NAFTA trade deal. It is not very good for Canadians.The Liberals brought forward the marijuana legalization bill, Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts. It received royal assent in June 2018. The Prime Minister at that time wanted to push it through, but he had to set it aside until October 17 because there were so many complications. The Liberal government did not look at how complicated it would be for many jurisdiction across our country.I never supported Bill C-45, and I still do not support it. It was badly thought out and badly written, probably worse than the bill before us. However, this is typical of the government. Again, look at what it did with NAFTA.Yesterday, when the Prime Minister spoke about NAFTA, he said a deal was better than no deal. He did not say it was a great deal. Bill C-45 was his promise to the public. It was an election gimmick. It probably worked, but let us get back to Bill C-93. No deal would be bad, therefore that is why I support this. The Parole Board wants to investigate a good portion of these applications, which its representatives said so many times at our committee hearings. It said that it did not have an electronic program. It also did not seem to be very interested in that and had not even looked at it. Many different witnesses said that the program to apply for a record pardon was too cumbersome. A prosecutor in California recently said that when government used 20th century technology to tackle a 21st century problem, it would be the people who would pay the price. That is exactly what we are doing today. We still working with 20th century technology, most of it by hand.Bill C-93 recommends that the Parole Board look at electronic means. It was my recommendation, and it was kept in the report. As mentioned earlier, the Parole Board could not tell us exactly how many people might apply for this. One figure was 250,000 and another agency said it might be closer to 500,000. The Parole Board said that it might get 10,000 to 12,000 people applying. It could not give us the cost. This seems to be a government agency where bureaucrats do not want to step out of their sandbox and modernize. It is not listening to Canadians to do what is best.(1150)I would like to read about something that recently took place in the state of California, which legalized marijuana a few years ago. It is called the “Code for America’s Clear My Record to revolutionize criminal record clearance practices”. This article was posted on February 14 by Jails to Jobs magazine. It states:Imagine the effect that automatically clearing hundreds of thousands of eligible criminal records would have on the lives of people who have them. Those unable to get jobs because of mistakes they made in the past would now be record free. Imagine that.Considering the hassle and expense that people must go through to clear their records, it almost seems unbelievable. But it’s not. Technology has the capability to “download rap sheets in bulk, algorithmically, read them to determine eligibility and automatically fill out the petitions....”However, we are not going that way. We made a recommendation, and I discussed it many times, but it was ignored by the Liberal government and the Liberal members on the committee.Code for America launched clear my record. It was a program developed in the United States and it went online in California last year. California intends using this system to clear 250,000 criminal records for simple marijuana possession in one year. Here we are bringing in Bill C-93 with no real strong indication of going electronically in the modern age. I have made a recommendation, and I think it probably will sit in the background. The whole discussion on Bill C-93 should have been about modernization and making it easy for the people to go on a computer, whether their own, or one through a social service agency or a legal channel, fill in the application, the history and make a declaration. Let the computers do a lot of the digital analyzing work of checking the records. The program could go on to interconnect with provincial court registries. The program could go on to interconnect with the RCMP. However, it is going to be done it manually in the 21st century. I cannot understand why we would go that way when the technology is out there and proves it can be done.I have come to understand the NDP's rationale for expungement. When I listened to my colleague from the NDP explain the rationale at the committee, it made sense in a lot of cases. I started policing back in the sixties as a young man, and the marijuana movement was just starting. We were laying charges for simple possession of marijuana or maybe trafficking if a person had a certain amount. Expungement could work if that is the only record the person has. However, my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and I have concerns. He is a police officer too. In a lot of cases, going back over the years, these simple records sitting in our record systems did not start that way. They may be simple possession charges today, but they may have started off as trafficking or obstruction charges, but they were dealt down by the prosecutor and a defence lawyer to simple possession charges. We are concerned with those charges. That is why the Canadian Police Association has asked that they be thoroughly reviewed.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsData banks and databasesDrug trafficking and drug seizureInformation technologyInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance59543095954310595431159543125954313595431459543155954316595431759543185954319595432059543215954322595432359543245954325MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his thoughtful work in public safety. He is one of the more thoughtful members in the House when it comes to the lives of people and the importance of people being able to move forward.This bill would reduce the fee for a pardon from $631 to zero dollars. Could he speak to the importance of not just the pardon but being able to apply for a pardon without having to pay a fee for it?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance59543265954327JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, the fee, as it is today, makes it very difficult for people with marginal incomes or from marginal backgrounds. That we all understand. However, the greater problem is that the bill does not go far enough to encourage municipalities across Canada or provincial governments to play ball with what is in the bill and look at eliminating the fee for the criminal record. It could be $75 and as high as $150 in some municipalities. Then there is the fingerprint check, which could be another $75 to $150. Therefore, it has an impact. If we add that to the $630, as my colleague said earlier, then it could be close to $1,000, which is unacceptable. This is to deal with a simple possession of marijuana record. If that is all that is in a criminal record, then it could be removed quite simply electronically. If we modernize our parole system, it could be done very cost-effectively and very quickly. However, if it remains the way the bill states it will be and it is left in the hands of the Parole Board, it will take too much time and people will still suffer.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance59543285954329PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/69488RobertSopuckRobert-SopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SopuckRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for my colleague's service to our country as a police officer. He and I have had a number of conversations about the situations in which he has been involved. Very few of us could have endured what he did. I would like to correct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister who said yesterday that under Bill C-71, a permit would now be required to buy a firearm. That is an absolute falsehood. Here is a possession and acquisition licence, which one has to have after getting a test in order to buy a firearm, and this has been in place for a decade or more.The Liberals across the way said over and over that legalizing cannabis would eliminate the illegal trade in cannabis, which is clearly nonsense. Does my friend have a comment on the relationship between the legalization of cannabis and the great increase in the illegal trade in cannabis? C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceSmuggling595433059543315954332JimEglinskiYellowheadAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, the possession and acquisition licence, PAL, has been around for about 20 years now.However, the current legislation will not decrease the criminal or backdoor marijuana trade. It will actually increase it. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that it would stop the 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds from selling these things. However, the government put a little part in the bill saying that a 12-year-old would not be charged. If I were a criminal ringleader in organized crime, I would give all my drugs to a 12-year-old to take into the school and dispose of them for me, because no one will be charged. Therefore, the legislation is wrong. It was wrong when it was brought out. It was ill thought out. I still do not believe it is a good law for Canada.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceSmuggling595433459543355954336AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. In short, this bill creates an expedited pardons process for Canadians who have criminal records for nothing more than simple possession of cannabis. Bill C-93 reduces the usual fee of $631 to zero. This is the most important aspect of the bill, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. It reduces the usual waiting period of five or, in some cases, 10 years, down to no time at all. It removes the usual subjective criteria, like whether a person is of “good conduct” or would get a “measurable benefit” and, thanks to an amendment made at committee by the member forToronto—Danforth, it lets people get pardons for cannabis possession even if they have outstanding fines. I would like to clarify an assertion that was made earlier in the House about the comments of the member forToronto—Danforth at committee. She actually said that murderers who smoked pot should not be treated better than murderers who did not smoke pot. I just wanted to clarify that for the record.Taken together, the various parts of this bill mean that people burdened with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis will be able to have their records cleared with no fee, no waiting period and no problem if they cannot afford fines or surcharges, and there is no possibility that their applications will be denied on the basis of subjective criteria. That brings me to the amendment the Conservatives have introduced today. It does two things. The first is that it reintroduces subjective criteria for people seeking pardons for simple possession of cannabis. The whole point of Bill C-93 is that the process should be simple and straightforward. This change would undermine that objective. Ordinarily, Parole Board members, the same people who adjudicate parole hearings, review pardon applications and consider a variety of factors. They make sure that the applicant meets the basic eligibility criteria, like whether they have served their sentence and waited the requisite amount of time. They also consider subjective criteria, like whether the applicant has been of good conduct and whether granting the pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. On the basis of all of these considerations, the board member uses discretion and decides whether the applicant will be pardoned or not. The legislation we are debating today is designed to remove all subjectivity from the pardoning process for people convicted only of cannabis possession for personal use. As the bill is designed that way, the Parole Board's intention is not to use board members to evaluate applications. Instead, the board will just have staff check to make sure that the applicant meets the basic eligibility criteria, like confirming that their conviction was not for a more serious offence, like trafficking. It will be a quick, simple, administrative process with no discretion involved. That way, applications can be processed quickly and people will get their pardons quickly. However, the Conservatives want to have the Parole Board spend time and energy conducting inquiries into the general conduct of applicants. I am not sure what behaviour they think would justify denying someone a pardon for activity that is now legal. I would really like to hear Conservative members give some examples of what kind of non-criminal conduct they think would be a good reason to make a person continue living with a criminal record for cannabis possession. I asked that question of the critic for public safety earlier today during this debate, but have not yet had a response. With this expedited process, we are only talking about people who have not committed any other offence. What non-criminal activities do Conservative members think are acceptable grounds for maintaining all the obstacles to employment, housing, education, volunteering and travel that a criminal record represents? I cannot think of a single one. The same Conservative motion would also have the Parole Board consider, in each case, whether granting a pardon for simple possession of cannabis would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Again, I can't imagine what circumstances they are thinking of. What is the scenario in which pardoning a person who has nothing more on their record than cannabis possession would bring the administration of justice into disrepute? What exactly would the Parole Board be looking for? We are not talking about murderers, sex offenders or drug dealers. They are not eligible to apply for this process. Instead, we are talking about people who did something that has been legal since October. It seems to me that if the Parole Board were to review their application and reject it, that could bring the administration of justice into disrepute. However, for some reason the Conservatives have decided that they want people who are saddled with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, and who have likely been facing all sorts of obstacles in their daily lives because of it, to jump through even more hoops. It just does not make sense. It will also make the whole process take longer. Processing times for applications submitted under Bill C-93 should be pretty short, since there are no subjective criteria. (1205) If the Conservative amendment were to pass, every application would be slowed down by unnecessary inquiries. As well, Parole Board members, who already have full workloads dealing with all sorts of challenging cases that require their attention, would have to spend time needlessly investigating people who once possessed cannabis, to make sure their conduct is acceptable and that the reputation of the justice system can survive their rehabilitation. As members may have guessed, I will be opposing the Conservative amendment. I strongly support a straightforward process that stops treating people who are only guilty of cannabis possession with unjustified suspicion. I support waiving the application fee and waiving the waiting period. I support letting people get their lives back on track without insisting that they pay fines they may not be able to afford. I support having Parole Board staff process applications quickly for anyone who meets basic and objective eligibility criteria. I support skipping all the discretionary evaluations of good conduct and measurable benefit and whether the administration of justice might be brought into disrepute.We ran on a mandate of legalizing and regulating cannabis, because the old system of prohibition was a failure. We were not content to accept decriminalization, which really just means imposing fines on people in marginalized and low-income communities. We upheld our commitment and a new legal regime is now in place.In conclusion, this bill is a critical companion to the legislation that legalized cannabis, and I ask all members of the House to facilitate the timely passage of Bill C-93.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time59543375954338595433959543405954341595434259543435954344595434559543465954347595434859543495954350JimEglinskiYellowheadMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion today about how people in our communities, particularly marginalized individuals, could really benefit from the fact there will be no cost associated with the application for a pardon.I know the member spoke very passionately about how she wants to make sure that those people in particular are taken care of. How does she see this playing out practically? Does she believe this leading to an increasing number of people applying for pardons, and how will not having a penalty or application fee for applications for a pardon practically impact our society?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance59543515954352PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, studies have been done that show that when people are able to obtain a pardon, they are then able to contribute through employment, through being members of their community and doing things like volunteering, and being able to obtain housing. As a result, the net benefit to society is something like twice the cost of what a pardon would have been.In my opinion, it was a very petty move by the previous government to increase the cost of a pardon to $631. We are reducing it to zero. The $631 would be prohibitive for some people. Making it zero and expediting the process means that some of these individuals who have perhaps been held back will be able to really get on with their lives in a meaningful way and contribute to our society.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesPossession of a controlled substance59543535954354MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech that included some comments about the Conservatives and our remarks here in the House. I am not sure if the parliamentary secretary is aware of how the legal system sometimes works.Sometimes what happens is that people who are guilty of more serious offences actually plead down. This is why we recommended two amendments. The amendments are not in fact Conservative amendments, but were put forth by the Canadian Police Association.The two amendments call for the Parole Board to retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and that the small number of applications by habitual offenders be vetted. This would ensure that these individuals do not take advantage of a process that clearly is not intended for their cases. Basically, I think we are in agreement in the House that they are not the people who should be taking advantage of this. The other thing is that this could include looking at court records to determine if an individual had been charged with something more serious, like trafficking, and had plead down to simple possession.I hope that answers her question. Despite these amendments being very reasonable, the Liberals have not accepted them. The health and safety of Canadians could be enhanced if these two amendments suggested by the Canadian Police Association, not the Conservative Party, were accepted. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is really serious about safety, why did the Liberals not accept these two amendments that would have made for a better bill?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance5954355595435659543575954358PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government is certainly seized with the safety of Canadians. The Conservative members put forward an amendment, but those records may not exist. There is no way for the Parole Board to search through these records, which are often kept in county courthouse basements because they are not digital records, and there is no way of knowing whether someone pleaded to a lesser offence. It is certainly within the Parole Board's discretion if something comes up dealing with fraud. When someone has applied for a pardon, the board can revoke that pardon. From a practical standpoint, to obtain the kind of records the hon. member is talking about simply would not be possible. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance5954359ColinCarrieOshawaToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. It has already been stated that the Conservatives, though having concerns about this legislation, will be supporting the bill. The bulk of my speech will be about some of the comments bandied about in this debate by the government side, which are disingenuous. I will go back to the passing of Bill C-45, the legalization of cannabis bill, and some of the challenges being seen across our country. There are concerns that Conservatives and, indeed, opposition members on all sides of the House stated prior to the passing of Bill C-45. At the time, Conservatives felt it was a flawed piece of legislation that was passed hurriedly to try to tick off the box, so that the Liberals could say they have done what they said they were going to do in 2015. There were serious concerns then and there are serious concerns now.Government members have said that Bill C-93 is just another example of how Liberals are being tough on organized crime and keeping drugs out of the hands of our youth, and yet they cannot provide us data as to whether the passing of Bill C-45 has actually minimized the proceeds going to organized crime, whether it has kept organized crime out of the legalized cannabis market or whether it has kept cannabis out of the hands of youth. I will read a passage from Bill C-45, under part 1, “Prohibitions, Obligations and Offences”. Subclause 8(1) states, “Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited... for a young person to possess cannabis of one or more classes of cannabis the total amount of which, as determined in accordance with Schedule 3, is equivalent to more than 5 g of dried cannabis”. A young person in Canada is defined as between the ages of 12 and 18. By virtue of that statement in Bill C-45, it is legal for someone between the ages of 12 and 18 to have under five grams of cannabis.When members are in their ridings, we spend a lot of time working with many different groups. I, for one, have spent a lot of time with the educational and law enforcement communities, and Bill C-45 has done nothing to keep the proceeds of cannabis and marijuana from organized crime and nothing to minimize access by youth. As a matter of fact, it has probably made it easier. In some of the most marginalized communities, there is increased drug use because it is now okay for those aged 12 to 18 to have less than five grams of marijuana on them.The Liberals have also said that Bill C-93 would provide barrier-free access for travel, but we already know that it would not clear one's record. The record still exists, as it is not expunged. Canadians travelling across the U.S. border or the borders of other countries are still subject to the enforcement of the rules and regulations of those countries. (1220)When I was talking about Bill C-93, I canvassed our front-line officers, our law enforcement. When we talk about consultation, if we are going to be totally honest in this debate, the government likes to say it has consulted Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but it has not. Our front-line officers asked us to put forth reasoned amendments, and a colleague across the way just said the Liberals would not support that. When I was preparing for this, I talked with some of my friends who are on the front lines. They said that, in reality, for the last 10 years, most seizures have been treated as non-seizures. Therefore, this may have an application for those who were charged maybe 20 or 25 years ago, and it might help some people in our most marginalized communities, maybe first nations or our black community, as I believe the NDP talked about. This might assist them, but it would not impact those who have been charged in recent years, perhaps in the last decade leading up to October of last year.Cannabis is often called a gateway drug. Our colleagues from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and Yellowhead themselves were on the front lines in law enforcement for many years and have served our country and our communities valiantly. Therefore, when they offer comments and real-world experience with respect to this, I tend to listen. I also know, from working with some of my friends in coordinating law enforcement agencies and front-line workers, that possession is often a gateway charge. Law enforcement officers may not have all the information they need to make a complete case, so they will charge people with possession to be able to build a case. It has also been noted that, many times, in a major trafficking case when the worst of the worst are before the courts, they will plead down to possession. That is why, going back to my comment about listening to our front-line workers, those who have been charged with protecting us and keeping us safe and sound, we must always do whatever we can to provide them with the tools required to do their job so that we and our friends, families and communities can remain safe and sound.I will go back to Bill C-45. Bill C-93 is another failed piece of legislation where the government did not provide adequate thought and did not listen to the consultations. Bill C-45 was the same. It did not arm the communities and municipalities with the required tools. The number one cost in most communities is with respect to policing. The government did not arm them with the tools to be able to pay for the increased costs of policing. It did not arm our front-line officers with adequate training for the roadside tests in the rush up to October. What is impairment? Is it one joint? Is it two joints? What is impairment under the influence of cannabis? Indeed, we are now seeing charter challenges because of the flawed testing equipment the RCMP forces have been outfitted with.As I said in the preamble to my speech, the Conservatives will be supporting this piece of legislation as we move forward. Our colleague across the way will probably challenge where the Conservative stance is on this. I think the confusion lies in that this is another piece of flawed, rushed Liberal legislation that the government is trying to move forward. It is saying that it is doing this, but it is not putting the resources and the work behind it. It is not listening to the people who will be in charge of implementing this legislation, and this is causing concern. Our job as the opposition is to challenge and to question. That is what we are doing. We are speaking for those who do not have the floor. There are 338 members of Parliament elected to be the voice of their communities, and that is what we are doing.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationWork-based trainingYoung people59543605954361595436259543635954364595436559543665954367595436859543695954370595437159543725954373PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Conservative Party will be supporting the bill. I too believe that it is good, solid legislation. It was good that we had consultation. I think the member across the way is underestimating how much consultation and work went into the legislation, even prior to its introduction in the House. We have very capable civil servants.Despite the discouraging things I am hearing from the opposition, I note, more as a cautionary thing, that we need to recognize that we have some of the best, if not the best, civil servants in the world. Our civil servants do a phenomenal job of providing the information necessary for us to make good, smart decisions. The bill today is a good example of this, whether in the forecast of the number of individuals who will get a pardon or in the flexibility built within the bill. The purpose of this legislation is to provide an expedited, no-cost pardon for simple possession. That is really the core of the legislation.Would the member not agree that now is the time to pass the legislation, as we have now legalized cannabis in the country? That has been widely supported. Is it the Conservative Party's intent to leave cannabis legalized in Canada?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionLegalizationPossession of a controlled substance5954374595437559543765954377ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, the bulk of my presentation was about some of the disingenuous comments that were being made by the government on both Bill C-45 and Bill C-93.I talked about Bill C-45 and the comments that Bill C-93 will, once passed, facilitate barrier-free movement and barrier-free access to education. However, there will still be challenges in that respect because there is no expungement. I also talked about the comment that Bill C-45 has impacted organized crime. The government does not have data for this. It does not have the data or the proof to say that Bill C-45 has limited our youth's access to drugs. Those are my challenges with Bill C-45 and Bill C-93.I always enjoy this debate and the back-and-forth conversation. It is respectful. However, if we are going to debate this issue, at the very least we should talk facts, not use disingenuous rhetoric.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionLegalizationPossession of a controlled substance595437859543795954380KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.Contrary to what many stakeholders have been calling for, the Liberal government said no to expunging records for simple possession of cannabis. This will continue to harm many people in marginalized communities for years to come. We in the NDP are very disappointed by this, given that the Liberals claim to care about people who are discriminated against, excluded and marginalized. In that regard, the bill is flawed.Why did the Liberal government not listen to stakeholders?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance595438159543825954383ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have stood in the House a couple of times in this debate and talked about expungement versus suspension. I heard another disingenuous comment from our colleagues across the way that Bill C-93, which is being rushed through, will somehow provide barrier-free access to travel and barrier-free access to educational, volunteer or employment opportunities. However, there would still be a record. The bill would not clear the record.For educational opportunities, the courses people want to take or the country they want to enter, expungement would absolutely clear the record 100%. With suspension, there is still a record.I appreciate my hon. colleague's comment. Again, what we have heard is just another disingenuous comment from our colleagues across the way.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance595438459543855954386AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatriePatFinniganMiramichi—Grand Lake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88360PatFinniganPat-FinniganMiramichi—Grand LakeLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/FinniganPat_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pat Finnigan (Miramichi—Grand Lake, Lib.): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and add my voice to today's report stage debate regarding Bill C-93, the government's cannabis pardon legislation.Let me say at the outset that I will continue to use the term “pardon” in my remarks, rather than “record suspension”. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleagues for their contributions to the bill. I appreciated the thoughtful discussions we had on Bill C-93, both in this chamber and at committee. Those discussions and the close scrutiny the bill has undergone have helped shape the version that is now before us.For those convicted only of simple possession of cannabis, Bill C-93 would streamline the process for getting a pardon in two main ways: It would waive the normal waiting period of up to 10 years, and it would eliminate the $631 application fee. In other words, under Bill C-93, people in this group would be eligible to apply for a pardon immediately after completing their sentence, and they would not need to pay the application fee. The ultimate goal is to make it easier for them to reintegrate into society and have a better shot at a happy, productive and fulfilling life. Indeed, in the words of the Minister of Public Safety, the bill would have “life-changing impacts for people dealing with the burden and the stigma of a criminal record for cannabis possession.” I cannot overestimate just how significant a pardon is for those with a criminal record. Registered nurse Louise Lafond explained it eloquently and succinctly in her testimony before the committee last December. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Ms. Lafond compared the ability to apply for a pardon to “being able to turn that page over. The X [the criminal record] is still there, but they are able to pursue paths that were closed to them.” That is why this bill is so important, and I am pleased that the review process at committee has resulted in a slew of worthwhile amendments. I commend the committee for working together so harmoniously to adopt those amendments. The already solid bill that was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety is today even better as a result of this tremendous work. In particular, the changes strengthen the fairness aspect that is at the heart of the bill. One example is the series of amendments proposed by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and adopted by the committee. These amendments, all of which are connected, would allow people to apply for record suspensions even if they have outstanding fines associated with cannabis possession.To be clear, those fines could still be enforced civilly, but the individual in question could have the criminal record set aside. As my hon. colleague said, those individuals “might have difficulty covering those costs, and that could pose a barrier to people who are applying for record suspensions.” It is a concern that has been raised by advocates and stakeholders, and it has now been addressed by the amendments in question.Amendments introduced by the member for Toronto—Danforth also waive all waiting periods associated with cannabis possession convictions, even if people have other convictions on their record. They would still have to wait the full waiting period for those other offences, but if those waiting periods have all elapsed, they will not have to wait any additional time due to their conviction for cannabis possession. In other words, if a fine for simple possession of cannabis is still outstanding, that would not stop someone from being able to proceed with a pardon application. Another important amendment was moved by the hon. member for Brampton North. As originally drafted, Bill C-93 allowed a member of the Parole Board of Canada to refuse a pardon application on the grounds that a conviction for simple possession of cannabis is relevant to good conduct. This could have created a situation where someone with a theft conviction from five years ago is denied pardon because a board member determined that a conviction last year for simple possession of cannabis demonstrated poor conduct. With cannabis possession now legal in Canada, and people now freely, openly and legally consuming cannabis, that is unfair and, quite frankly, absurd. It goes against the government's intention to ensure that convictions for simple possession of cannabis do not continue to create barriers to reintegration.(1235) I am so pleased to note that this part of the bill was amended at committee. The amendment would ensure that a conviction for cannabis possession was not taken into account as part of the good conduct review for people seeking pardons for other criminal offences. Ultimately, this would mean that people with other convictions on their records would not have convictions for simple possession of cannabis affect their ability to obtain pardons for other offences. This would be good for the applicant. It would also be good for society.This brings us to the report stage amendments we are debating today. The first has to do with an amendment at committee by the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. The amendment would allow someone who had checked police stations and courthouses for records and come up empty-handed to provide a sworn statement that he or she had been convicted of only simple cannabis possession. Unfortunately, it would then require the Parole Board to check those same police stations and courthouses to ensure that the records were not there so that the board could be satisfied that it was truly only a simple cannabis possession charge. Under this amendment, the board would still need to see the record. Having local police and court staff perform another search in the same place would be a duplicative waste of effort. While well-intentioned, this amendment should be undone by the report stage amendment. I would like to once again thank my hon. colleagues for their efforts in getting us to this point in the process on Bill C-93. I strongly support this important piece of legislation in its current form, and I encourage all hon. members of this House to do the right thing and pass it at third reading when the time comes for a vote.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionOathsParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time595438759543885954389595439059543915954392595439359543945954395595439659543975954398595439959544005954401ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/69488RobertSopuckRobert-SopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SopuckRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I served together on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for a number of years, and he is a very honourable gentleman. However, he is part of a government that believes in policy-based evidence-making. My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George asked for data, and I wonder why the government, when it legalized cannabis, did not look at other examples. A CBC article from May 28 reads:Marijuana grown in Colorado, the land of legal weed, is being smuggled out to states where it is still illegal....[T]he government's goal was to regulate and tax a drug that was already widely used and to squeeze out dealers and traffickers in the process. But law enforcement authorities in the state say legalization has done the exact opposite.It goes on to say that the illegal trade in marijuana, whether it is legalized in Colorado, is “being driven by criminal organizations that grow weed in Colorado”. Furthermore, residents of Colorado are preferring to buy illegal cannabis, because it is often cheaper than legal cannabis.Can my friend provide any data whatsoever to show that what happened in Colorado will not happen in Canada? In fact, it is happening in Canada right now.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisColoradoCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59544025954403595440459544055954406595440759544085954409PatFinniganMiramichi—Grand LakePatFinniganMiramichi—Grand Lake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88360PatFinniganPat-FinniganMiramichi—Grand LakeLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/FinniganPat_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pat Finnigan: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have certainly worked well on many topics at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The law was only passed last October, and there is still a lot of data collection to take place. We also know that what was there prior to that law being passed did not work. It has not worked for generations. I can recall my days in the early seventies when people who used cannabis were stigmatized. At the time, people called them hippies, or whatever. A lot of them are my friends and are people who are in good standing in society today. We know that we have to do things better, because some of them have criminal records that prevent them from doing good things in life. There is still a lot to do. There is still a lot to learn and to possibly modify as we go along. However, it is the right path, and I am confident that this is good for society.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisColoradoCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595441059544115954412RobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1240)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.There are some interesting ideas, but we in the NDP are having a hard time understanding the Liberal government's persistent refusal to expunge records for simple possession of cannabis. There is a difference between suspension, pardon and expungement, which completely erases the record forever. We think that should be a priority for certain marginalized communities and for certain individuals who are discriminated against in our society. They could run into problems in the future when they are seeking employment, applying for education programs or travelling to certain countries.Why did the Liberals refuse to consider expungement, which is much more definitive and would have helped these individuals?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5954413595441459544155954416PatFinniganMiramichi—Grand LakePatFinniganMiramichi—Grand Lake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88360PatFinniganPat-FinniganMiramichi—Grand LakeLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/FinniganPat_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Pat Finnigan: (1240)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.We chose to suspend rather than expunge criminal records for simple cannabis possession. People will not have trouble getting a job with a record suspension unless they commit other offences. Suspension is the simplest and quickest way of doing things. It opens doors for all those who want to pursue a career and live the same way every other member of society does. We believe that this will solve the problem.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59544175954418AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-93, which I think is a critically important bill for many Canadians who have been concerned about, and fighting for, an effective, rational drug policy in this country for the last 50 years. To give a historical perspective on this issue, in 1972, almost 50 years ago, we had the Le Dain commission in this country, which examined drug policy. One of the core recommendations of that commission, which thoroughly examined all the issues concerning drug policy in Canada, was that Canada should immediately move to decriminalize cannabis. It made other recommendations as well for sensible, evidence-based drug policy. Of course, at that time, from 1972 all the way to 2015, successive Liberal and Conservative governments utterly refused to even take the next logical step of decriminalizing cannabis, leaving 400,000 Canadians to acquire criminal records from 1972 onward for the simple act of possessing and consuming cannabis for personal use. The NDP, of course, took the Le Dain commission's recommendation very seriously, and from then on, in every single federal election since 1972, advocated and campaigned on taking cannabis use out of the Criminal Code. We pursued decriminalization, because the only other option at that time was criminalization.In 2015, of course, the Liberal Party decided on an abrupt change of policy. I would add that in the previous Parliament, the Harper government actually introduced legislation in the Criminal Code that would punish cannabis users even more harshly, and the Liberals voted for it. That was in 2014, I believe. At that time, that was the version of the Liberal Party. We are used to members of the Liberal Party saying one thing in an election and doing another. We cannot really count on what they say day to day. However, in 2014, they wanted to punish cannabis users criminally even harder. In 2015, the Liberals had a magical change of heart, and suddenly, 45 years after the Le Dain commission, and many elections after the New Democrats urged them to decriminalize marijuana and they refused to do so, and after they made punishment more severe for people in Canada who used cannabis, they had a magical epiphany and decided that they would legalize it. I was struck by the comments by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who saw fit to attack the NDP for not immediately jumping to legalization in our campaign and staying with our historical position of decriminalization. He pointed out that this was somehow a contradiction for us, when, in fact, it was his own party that campaigned and championed the criminalization of cannabis for most of the last 50 years, until it thought that there was an obvious electoral advantage in changing its position suddenly. The same member also stood in the House and attacked the NDP for exaggerating issues in debate, as we often do, as he said. He went on to accuse the NDP of seeking the “legalization of heroin and cocaine”. Those were his exact words. I am shocked by that characterization. First of all, it is a complete exaggeration of our position. It is the kind of political wedging, simplification and attack politics by the Liberals that we often see from the Harper Conservatives, which is why I think the Liberals are so sensitive to that issue. Of course, the NDP is taking the firm position that with Canadians dying by the thousands from opioids in this country, from a poisoned, toxic street supply, we are looking at saving lives by bringing a safe supply to these people through a highly regulated and medically driven process to decriminalize the purchase of drugs and put it through the medically regulated system. That is what we are actually saying, but he wants Canadians to think that we are championing heroin and cocaine. That kind of right-wing, Republican, U.S.-style wedge politics does politics a disservice in this country, and he should be ashamed of himself for it. Frankly, with the people dying in this country, it is disgusting to hear that kind of language coming from the Liberal Party of Canada in 2019.(1245)The issue before us, of course, is what to do with criminal records for cannabis offences, now that certain cannabis offences, namely possession and use of cannabis, no longer exist. The NDP's position is simple. We have examined this issue in great detail, and as the most progressive, consistent party on progressive drug policy in this country for 50 years, we are very familiar with the issues and the pros and cons. We are proposing that the only fair, just, effective and efficient way to deal with Canadians who are saddled with and harmed by criminal records for cannabis offences that no longer exist is to have an automatic expungement of all those records so that Canadians no longer have those records as millstones around their necks, preventing them from getting jobs, preventing them from volunteering with organizations, and in some cases, preventing them from travelling.The Liberals have refused to do that. Instead, they have tabled a bill that rejects expungement and instead requires Canadians to apply for pardons. This bill makes two amendments to that process. It waives the $631 fee, which the Conservatives jacked up in the last Parliament to make pardons more difficult for people to get. It also waives the five-year waiting period. Both are positive, I suppose. However, a pardon is not the same as expungement. Expungement removes the offence and allows Canadians to treat the offence as if it never occurred. A pardon, though, means that the offence still exists, but it is forgiven. The difference is that if there is an expungement of the record, a Canadian, when asked by an employer or a U.S. border official, “Do you have a criminal record?”, could say, “No, I do not.” That is versus, “No, I don't have a criminal record for which a pardon has not been granted.” That is what a Canadian has to say to an employer or to a volunteer organization or to a U.S. border guard when granted a pardon.Here are the problems with the bill. First, it would not help marginalized Canadians, who we know are disproportionately impacted by criminal records for cannabis. This process would still require Canadians to apply for a pardon, and we all know that many cannot, many will not and many are not able. There are 400,000 Canadians carrying criminal records today, and the estimate we have is that between 10,000 and 70,000 Canadians are expected to apply for pardons.The Canadians who are most needy, the people who are most deserving and in need of a pardon, the poor, the young, the indigenous, the racialized and rural Canadians, would probably not get a pardon, because they would not be able to actually navigate the system to apply for a pardon. The pardon was described by Senator Kim Pate, in studying this bill, as “punishingly complex, bureaucratic and time-consuming.” Problem number one with this bill is that would still leave many Canadians, the most needy, without a pardon.Second, the record would be pardoned, not extinguished. A pardon still exists in the records. This bill would remove a record from Canada's CPIC system, but it would not remove records from provincial and municipal databases. The record could still be seen. It could still be acted upon.I would ask Canadians what they would rather say about their cannabis records: “I do not have a record” or “I do not have a record for which a pardon has not been granted”. I think the answer is obvious.Third, the record could be resurrected in a future criminal proceeding. It is not as if the record would be gone forever. If a person had a cannabis record pardoned, it could still be brought up later in a future criminal proceeding.Fourth, Bill C-93 would apply only to those convicted of simple cannabis possession, meaning that anyone with a prior record, suspension, or crime related to possession would be unable to use this provision. Again, it is narrowly restricted.Finally, U.S. border officials would still have access to this record if there was a pardon. If someone is sitting in a lineup at the border, and a U.S. border guard asks if that person has a cannabis record, and the answer is, “No, I do not”, the person will likely be waved through. However, if someone says, “I don't have a criminal record for which a pardon has not been granted,” the guard is likely to flag that and go into the system. U.S. border guards would still have access to the record in the system.The Liberals say that they cannot change this. However, the Liberals provided an expungement in this very Parliament for people who had been convicted of homosexuality crimes. They just did an automatic expungement for anyone who was convicted of those crimes, which we no longer regard as crimes.However, they say that is too complex to do for cannabis offences. That is fundamentally untrue, and I look forward to hearing the Liberals explain why. Do they think there is a fundamental difference between those two offences? The offences once existed; they do not now. The records should be treated equally. They should be expunged for all Canadians.(1250)I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues.Application processBorder officialsC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDrug use and abuseExpungement of convictionsLe Dain Commission of Inquiry Into the Non-Medical Use of DrugsPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivistsUnited States of America59544195954420595442159544225954423595442459544255954426595442759544285954429595443059544315954432595443359544345954435595443659544375954438PatFinniganMiramichi—Grand LakeKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, something puzzles me about the position of the New Democrats on this issue and perhaps the hon. member can clear it up for me. The NDP have called for the decriminalization of certain substances, more than just cannabis. However, the way I see it is that decriminalization leaves the production and the profits in the hands of criminals. I have not been able to rationalize that.Maybe the member can explain what the New Democrats actually mean or intend by decriminalization.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substance59544395954440DonDaviesVancouver KingswayDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, of course, the debate fundamentally shifted after the 2015 election, when legislation came before the House to legalize it. I and all my NDP colleagues voted in favour of the Liberals' bill to legalize cannabis.Our position on decriminalization was a position, politically, that we had taken for the last 45 years. This was when the Liberal Party was in favour of criminalizing cannabis and other drugs. I would ask the member to explain this. Why was the Liberal Party so in favour of criminalizing cannabis use right up until 2015? Why, in 2014, did Liberals think that cannabis should be criminalized and, in fact, punishment should be increased? That is how they voted in the House in 2014.The Liberals have to explain their about-face and curious position. They have to explain why in the 1970s, 1980, 1990s and 2000s, they were content to let so many Canadians get criminal records for simply using cannabis. We will take no lessons on this side of the House from the Liberals on drug policy.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substance595444159544425954443KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, some individuals with simple possession charges have them because they pleaded down from more serious offences. Does the hon. member then have a strategy to prevent former drug dealers from getting a free pass because of this bill?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug trafficking and drug seizurePossession of a controlled substance5954444DonDaviesVancouver KingswayDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians are entitled to be assessed based on their criminal record. I do not think anybody has the ability to look behind that and determine how that record came to be. The official judicial record of a person is what the court system, the prosecutors, the defence attorneys and the accused, ended up agreeing was the appropriate offence. We have no problem dealing with a person's record on the face of it. However, I will say one thing about records. After 150 years of Conservative and Liberal governments, it is quite shocking that witnesses have told the justice committee and this Parliament just how disorganized our criminal record system is and that we do not have one centralized reliable, consistent place where a person can go look for records. Instead, we are looking in the bottom of courthouse basements, in police departments, in municipal places of businesses and federally.It is very concerning to me that both those parties, over such a long period of time, have neglected to ensure that basic public safety. Because the integrity of our justice system has been so sloppily administered, our police and volunteer organizations cannot even reliably go to one place to see what a person's criminal record is. That it is a clear breach of public safety and it shows the incompetence of successive administrations.It has shown itself in this debate. One of the excuses the Liberals give for not expunging records is that they do not know where they all are and how can they expunge them if the records are all over the place. They again are putting the onus on people, the most vulnerable and needy people, to apply to get their records expunged instead of just expunging it, which is the only rational response to treat an offence that society no longer views as a criminal act.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug trafficking and drug seizurePossession of a controlled substance5954445595444659544475954448KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. I was staggered to learn that the Liberal solution was to issue pardons that would only temporarily eliminate criminal records. If a person whose record was suspended were to commit another offence, his or her record would be resurrected. These are like zombie records, coming back from the dead.I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the impact this could have on marginalized populations.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivists59544495954450DonDaviesVancouver KingswayDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Don Davies: (1255)[English]That is exactly the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals have commented and tried to give credit to the hon. leader of the Green Party because they accepted an amendment that would not allow a previous cannabis pardon to be resurrected in the case of subsequent bad conduct. However, it would allow that record to be resurrected if there were a subsequent criminal proceeding. That is not good enough. A cannabis offence that is no longer illegal should be expunged. It should be thrown in the trash heap of history where it belongs. It is no longer an offence, just like those old crimes of buggery or being caught in a bawdy house. This Parliament recognized that those crimes should not have been offences then, and they are not now. Therefore, we expunged the records of anybody who had been convicted of them. We should do the very same thing for cannabis. People who use cannabis have had their civil and constitutional rights abused in the same way and it should not be allowed to stand. The NDP will continue to fight for those people.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsPossession of a controlled substanceRecidivists595445159544525954453AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, here we are again, days away from rising and returning to our constituencies for a summer of gauging the opinions of those in our communities, and the Liberals are back at their same old game, rushing legislation through the House without consulting relevant stakeholders and, more important, not even listening to relevant stakeholders. As a result, Bill C-93 will fail to accomplish its intent, the typical Liberal way. There is a cascade of failures. Let us look at how we got here. Back in 2015, the Liberals said that the current approach was not working. They said we had to take the profits away from organized crime and take it out of the hands of our youth. They said that the approach of previous Conservative and Liberal governments was not working to decrease the use of marijuana by our youth. If we look at statistics from 1980 by Statistics Canada, they show that minors represented 22% of marijuana users. By 2015, only 5.8% of marijuana users were aged 15 to 17. Their whole approach to this was based on a premise that was false and misleading. Right now, there is absolutely no evidence that it has taken the criminal element out of it. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that it is increasing. The demand is out there. When regular marijuana users want it, instead of going to government facilities, quite often they go back to where they have been getting it over the years. This is a huge cascade of failures and the government made the decision to move forward with Bill C-93, proposed legislation that places a focus on expediting the process for providing pardons to individuals convicted of marijuana possession charges prior to the implementation of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, which officially legalized cannabis possession on October 17 of last year.The Liberal government is rushing, with days left, to clean up the mess it made with the rolling out of its marijuana legislation. It was simply not prepared for the effects of its legislation on marijuana on our judicial process, and this is its last-ditch attempt at putting together a piece of shaky legislation before the House rises, which is just in a matter of days. We do not have a lot of time to look at the bill.My constituents have felt the effect of the Liberal government's failure at providing effective processes since the rollout of Bill C-45 last October. For example, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister has been claiming for what is now years that legalizing marijuana will keep marijuana out of the hands of our kids. In Oshawa, there have been two instances of marijuana edibles finding their way into one elementary school and parents are very upset. They are saying, as a result of this, these grade 6 students reported feeling dizzy and euphoric. More and more of these stories are rolling out. Stories have been reported, it seems like on a daily basis, from coast to coast to coast. The government is now trying to make up for these obvious mistakes with this poorly drafted policy, pushing it through the House before the House rises.In my riding, considerations for workplace safety are really important. These are non-existent with the Liberals. Many of my constituents work blue collar jobs. Not providing proper workplace safety measures to go along with the legislation endangers workers and could potentially result in serious injuries or the death of Canadians as a result of the government's inability to effectively roll out workplace safety provisions.How about tests available to law enforcement in determining whether a driver is impaired by marijuana? It has been obvious that the science is not there yet. These tests are far from being perfected. It is obviously not safe to get behind the wheel while impaired by the effects of cannabis, yet the government passed its legislation anyway, without any consideration as to how law enforcement would combat drug-impaired driving. Until the time that such tests are perfected, roads could become much more hazardous than before.(1300)For this bill we are talking about today, Bill C-93, it is the stance of the Conservative Party that there should be an expedited process in place to offer record suspensions for those convicted of marijuana possession before October 17, 2018. I am going to focus on the notion that the current government is clearly out of touch with the reality of everyday prosecutorial practices. In the current form of Bill C-93, even those who are truly responsible for more serious drug crimes will be able to have their records suspended, and not just simple possession offenders. A critical consideration that the Liberal government has evidently ignored, despite testimony on it at committee, is the process of offering a less serious conviction, such as marijuana possession, in exchange for co-operation by more serious drug offenders, such as those charged with the intent to sell illegal drugs. Out-of-court plea bargaining agreements occur on a regular basis. As a result, many individuals who are truly responsible for more serious drug crimes end up pleading guilty to simple possession charges. If Bill C-93 were to pass in its current form, and obviously it will, without provisions taking this issue into consideration, we would be suspending the records of individuals who should not have that option available to them in the first place. A very important stakeholder came to committee and the government ignored what he had to say to improve the bill. Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, stated:[I]t is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date. The fact is this concept is simply logical. Canada's Crown prosecutors are tasked with upholding the laws passed by Parliament. What prosecutor would offer a plea bargain agreement to drug dealers, knowing they would later have their offence suspended? What the Liberals are proposing with this bill is to throw out all of that prosecutorial history that has been there for decades. To solve this problem, my Conservative colleagues moved amendments to Bill C-93 that had been proposed by the Canadian Police Association. Had those amendments not been voted down, they would have granted the Parole Board the power to open inquiries on any factors that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, such as suspending the record of drug dealers as a result of prosecutorial plea bargaining practices. The reality is that there were two amendments. The first would restore the Parole Board's power to make these inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of their conviction. The second would restore the Parole Board's power to make inquiries with respect to any factors that it may consider in determining whether record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. These were common-sense ideas put forth by the men and women on the ground who are going to be tasked with following through with this cascade of marijuana legislation, most of which was poorly thought out. The amendments would ensure that these individuals not take advantage of a process that clearly was not intended to be used in their particular cases.This is just another example of the Liberal government seemingly making every attempt to let criminals get away with their illegal actions. It is despicable. I speak on behalf of my constituents when I say it is unacceptable that the current government is not taking this issue into any consideration whatsoever. Let us talk for a moment about the costs of this. I think nobody in the House would want to see marginalized Canadians not given access to these record suspensions. The reality is this. The minister was asked to come up with some numbers to let Canadians know how the government came up with the estimated cost of this. Unfortunately, the minister utterly failed to provide how this process was put forth and how it would apply to Bill C-93. He promised to provide the numbers by the time we vote on this legislation. Has that occurred? Absolutely not. Has anyone seen these processes? We have seen the estimates, we have seen the numbers, but we really do not know how much it will cost Canadians. Therefore, the answer here is no.(1305)Would anyone be surprised that perhaps even he does not know? I think the answer might be no. I see that my time is up.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesImpaired drivingInquiries and public inquiriesOffendersParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceWorkplace health and safetyYoung people595445459544555954456595445759544585954459595446059544615954462595446359544645954465595446659544675954468595446959544705954471595447259544735954474DonDaviesVancouver KingswayMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say something earlier in a question and repeat it in his speech, which I think is extremely misleading when one talks about statistics. The Conservatives are really good at this. He said that 20% of users of cannabis in 1980 were youth and now only 6% are, as though the numbers have somehow gone down. However, all that percentage describes is the proportion of people who were using cannabis. It does not actually talk about the overall number. Using the stats he cited, the number of youth using cannabis could still have doubled or tripled, but they only represent 6% of users now versus 20% back then. I am assuming his data is correct.I have a real concern with how he comes into the House and uses this information to suggest that usage among youth has actually gone down when in reality we know that it has not. Canada is or was the developed country with the highest percentage of youth using cannabis. Could he please try to justify how he can come in here and use this stat as though it somehow indicates that consumption among youth has gone down when in reality it has not? He is just playing with the numbers to show how it has shifted in terms of how much usage there actually is.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people595447559544765954477ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the non-question. He has been in the House repeating falsehoods over and over again. I took the information from a December 18, 2017 CBC article written by Kathleen Harris of CBC News.The member is grasping, accusing and trying to distort the statistics out there. The reality is that he is not fooling anyone. The Liberal government is the most incompetent government out there for producing results. At this time in our previous Conservative government's mandate, I think our government had 97 bills that had received royal assent. The Liberals might have 60 bills; they cannot get anything through.We have days before the House rises. This bill was a major promise by the Liberals. On this side, we can all agree that this has been a disaster. The Liberals are rushing through legislation and not consulting. The next government, which will hopefully be a Conservative government as of October, will end up fixing the huge mistakes of the Liberal government.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5954478595447959544805954481MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned the earlier legislation that made marijuana legal and the impact it had on the business community in his area. There are a number of small contractors throughout my riding who have been told very explicitly by their insurance companies that they need to have a form of drug testing because of this new legislation and the concerns the Insurance Bureau of Canada has. Would he like to comment on that?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSobriety test5954482ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service. Everyone in the House knows this member has served in the police on the ground and has credibility when it comes to this topic. What he said is quite right. I talked about it because my community of Oshawa has historically been a blue collar community, with people who work with dangerous machinery. When the Liberals brought this forward, the reality is that they did not think it through. They did not think about how it would affect our ingrained systems in Canada or about how things are different here from the United States, for example. In the United States, different jurisdictions can force mandatory drug testing. They can even have the police do blood samples on the side of the road. Again, the Liberals were not even thinking about these issues when they brought forth their initial marijuana legislation. It is important that I brought that up. How did we land here with such a disaster? Here we are stuck at the very end of the Liberal government's mandate having to pass an important piece of legislation. At the end of the day, I think members on all sides of the House will be supportive of this legislation's intent, but it is not going to do what Canadians expect it to do and what it should do.I thank my colleague from Yellowhead for bringing up this very important issue that is going to affect workers moving forward. Again, it will have to be fixed by the future Conservative government. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSobriety test5954483595448459544855954486JimEglinskiYellowheadEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this debate. I would like to paint a bit of the context in which this legislation will play out in my community.Every time a bill comes forward in the House that addresses the issue of drugs, whether illegal or now legal, the residents of Abbotsford take notice. If we were looking for two communities in British Columbia that are most impacted by gun, gang and drug-related crimes, those communities would be Surrey and Abbotsford. I mention Surrey because there are three or four Liberal MPs in the House from that community, but who have done virtually nothing to address the plague of drug and gang crime. We have lost so many young lives, young kids, who are getting into the gang lifestyle because of how attractive it seems, and because of the profits generated by drug trafficking, they are killing each other as they compete for territory.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954487595448859544895954490ColinCarrieOshawaEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1315)[English] Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my Liberal friends heckling me about something as serious as the deaths of young men in my community and the community of Surrey. There have been so many. Those Liberals are scoffing about it. I am appalled. That is the state of the Liberal Party of Canada today under the leadership of the Prime Minister.Let me get back to the legislation at hand.Bill C-93 addresses a very small part of the recent marijuana legalization that the Liberal Prime Minister undertook. Members may recall that the Prime Minister made a host of promises during the last election. He promised to balance budgets. Did he do that? No. We now know we will not balance our budget for at least another 20 years. He promised to run small deficits, which ended up being humongous deficits. He promised electoral reform. Do members remember that? He went on and on and on.There is one promise that he did deliver on, the legalization of marijuana. I opposed that, because I believe that allowing young men and women to purchase and consume marijuana poses a huge risk to the mental health of our future generation, and I mean that seriously. This is not something that should be scoffed at—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people595449159544925954493595449459544955954496EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1315)[English] I am still hearing from the Liberals, Mr. Speaker. They are still heckling. I cannot believe this. They do not care for Canadians. This is about keeping our communities safe. I was opposed—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59544975954498EdFastHon.AbbotsfordAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very kind for you to acknowledge that what has been happening in the Liberal benches is inappropriate. The Liberals can do better.I opposed the marijuana legalization legislation. It represents a huge risk to the mental health of future generations of Canadians. Even though the legislation does not allow children under the age of 18 to purchase marijuana, it does allow them to possess marijuana. That is the craziness of it.We know from medical research that Canadians under the age of 25 who consume marijuana run a huge risk of mental impairment in future years. Why would we take that risk? That was why I opposed the legalization of marijuana.Now that marijuana is legalized in Canada, there is a step that the Liberals did not consider as they were ramming through marijuana legalization. What would happen to all those people who were convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana, simple possession, over many years, people who now want to know why, now that it is legal, they are still saddled with a criminal record.Canada has a system under which record suspensions take place. This legislation is about that. Just so everyone understands, Canadians already have the right to apply for record suspensions, or pardons as they used to be called. That is already in the law. However, there is a cost and there are some conditions to do that.For example, before people can apply for a record suspension for simple possession of marijuana, they have to wait five or 10 years, whatever the term is. They need to have served their sentence, whatever that is. They will have to pay a fine, if it was levied. Then they have to pay a fee of $631. There is a problem with that. I am not against middle-class Canadians or wealthy Canadians being required to pay for the cost of something that will clean up their record so they can get jobs. If people have a criminal record, even it is for simple possession of marijuana, that can disqualify them for a host of job opportunities. Why would we want to saddle young Canadians or middle-aged Canadians with that burden?However, the cost of $631 to apply for a record suspension disproportionately impacts negatively poor Canadians. We heard at committee that minority groups like black or indigenous Canadians felt they had borne the brunt of the war on drugs and were disproportionately affected in society by simple possession charges that remained on their record. These are often folks who cannot afford the $631.It is for that reason that I do support the legislation. I do not in any way support weakening our drug laws. In fact, they need to be strengthened. I do not for a moment believe we should be weakening the protection of young Canadians against marijuana usage. We want to ensure our children grow up with healthy brains, with minds that are keen, that allow them to engage in our workforce and be productive members of our society. Fortunately, this legislation does not undermine any of that. However, we want to ensure that legislation like this is properly considered. When I look at the amendments proposed by the Conservatives at committee, they were reasonable amendments. They would ensure that there was still an ability for those who had serious drug offences that may have been pleaded down to a charge of simple possession could be captured and that it would be taken into consideration before a record suspension would be granted.(1320)What did our Liberal friends do? They voted down that amendment, a very reasonable amendment about the protection of the public, about public safety. Of course, as might be expected, when Liberals are faced with that kind of a decision, they side with the criminals, not with the potential victims of those crimes.The legislation before us is relatively benign because it actually does not create record suspensions. It would ensure that the process for applying for a record suspension for simple possession of marijuana would be simplified and would not cost Canadians who might not be able to afford the $631, something that might prevent them from securing a record suspension.For all those reasons, I will be supporting the legislation. However, I want to make it very clear that the Conservatives will continue to stand up for the safety of Canadians. We will continue to advocate for stronger criminal justice legislation to ensure our country remains safe. That is the responsible and accountable thing to do.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5954502595450359545045954505595450659545075954508595450959545105954511595451259545135954514AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member opposite, a couple of things come to mind. The most important one is in relation to what the Conservative Party is trying to tell Canadians. The Conservatives have been all over the map on the issue of legalization of cannabis. At one time, it was an absolute no-go area. Then they turned it into a decriminalization issue, which in my opinion was an even worse thing to do than what was already in place. Time does not allow me to expand on that. Today, I cannot help but think that if the Conservatives were in government, their intention would be to repeal the legislation that legalizes cannabis. I am very interested in the member being transparent and open with Canadians on this point. Is it the policy of the Conservative Party to reverse its position yet again? If Conservatives were to form government, would they make cannabis possession a criminal offence? Is that the party position or is that just his personal position?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954515595451659545175954518EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have never heard fake news like that before.Our leader has been very clear that we will not recriminalize marijuana. We have, however, made it clear that we believe the Liberal government rammed through the legislation without consulting properly with stakeholders, without taking into account public safety. We will ensure that we remedy the flaws in that legislation, as we will ensure we remedy the flaws in Bill C-93, hopefully implement the amendments we proposed at committee, which the Liberals voted down, eminently reasonable amendments to the legislation. That is what we will do.I would encourage that member to not get into this whole process of perpetuating fake news. The Liberals do it enough. That member does not have to add to that. It is a disgrace to the House.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595451959545205954521KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, the House is speaking about marijuana this morning. In my region, in Fort Albany, Chief Leo Metatawabin has just declared a state of emergency over the devastating impacts of the opioid crisis.In our northern communities, opioids are destroying families. There are no resources. We have seen the horrific opioid deaths across the country. Much of this is under provincial jurisdiction. However, in our northern reserves, they have to look to the federal government for action to help in dealing with the horrific impacts of the opioid crisis. They are not seeing action, action that would save lives, action that would restore families being broken by the drug crisis.From his experience in the west, could my hon. colleague tell us what we need to do to ensure we have the on-the-ground resources right now to help the communities that are facing the devastating impacts of the opioid epidemic?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substance595452259545235954524EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very well thought out and compassionate. My region of the country, which is the greater Vancouver area, has a very serious opioid crisis, about which I believe the member knows. I believe everyone in the House would want to bring to bear the resources required to address this issue. It is a complex issue. It is an issue on which the Liberal government has been completely absent. “Missing in action” are probably the appropriate words to apply to the Liberal government when it comes to the opioid crisis.The legislation before us does not deal with the opioid crisis. It deals with record suspensions related to marijuana convictions, ensuring the process for securing a record suspension is simplified and made less costly for those in Canada who would not otherwise be able to afford it.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substance59545255954526CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.This bill seeks to make changes to the pardon process and eliminate fees for Canadians who were convicted of marijuana possession before cannabis was legalized in October 2018.Now that cannabis has been legalized, this bill seeks to help Canadians who were convicted of something that is now legal by allowing them to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the usual waiting period or fees. For the information of those watching at home, offenders currently have to wait five to 10 years after serving their sentence, depending on the type of conviction, before they can apply for a pardon. They also have to pay about $600.This enactment amends the Criminal Records Act and makes reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act.We are days away from the end of this Parliament and this government, which was elected in 2015. At the time, the Liberal government made a lot of promises to get elected. Only one of those promises was kept, namely to legalize marijuana. It seems that was important to Canadians. During the next election campaign, in September, the Liberals will brag about their record and say that the only thing they did was legalize marijuana.Today, the Liberals are doing things at the last minute again after dragging their feet for three and a half years. I recently made a speech in which I referred to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, but I will not get into that again. We know that the grasshopper represents the Liberals and the ant represents the Conservatives, diligent, hard-working people who are ready to take the bull by the horns. We will have to fix the mess the Liberal government has gotten us into.I would like to remind hon. members that Bill C-45, the cannabis legalization act, had two objectives, namely to protect our young people and to eliminate organized crime. I must admit that those are commendable objectives. However, the Liberal government sped up the process. We question their motives, but I will not get into that.I believe they were serious about what they wanted to achieve, but the actual process of legalization was botched because the Liberals rushed the process. In Quebec, they rushed the process so much that the shops selling cannabis have to close for two to three days a week due to poor management and inadequate supply. That is a testament to the government's improvised approach.Furthermore, a number of news articles are saying that organized crime is thrilled that the Liberal government is promoting this product, which, in my opinion, is harmful to young people 25 and under, but let us not reopen that debate. They Liberals have a majority and they legalized marijuana, and now we have to live with it. We will need to assess and deal with the consequences.In an effort to eliminate organized crime, the Liberals are promoting cannabis. Who benefits from this promotion? The answer is organized crime, because there is not enough supply and cannabis has been trivialized. Young people are hearing that there is nothing wrong with cannabis and that it is good for you.I will read an article by Antoine Lacroix that was published in Le Journal de Montréal on May 16 entitled “Spike in Cannabis Poisoning in Kids since Legalization”, Conservatives are not making this up.(1330) Hospitals are becoming increasingly concerned.A large increase in the number of children with cannabis poisoning since legalization is worrying medical experts, who are calling on parents to make sure that their pot products are out of reach.“This is not something we saw a lot with kids under the age of seven. Before 2016, it would be once every three years”...bemoaned Dr. Dominic Chalut, an emergency room physician and toxicologist at Montreal Children's Hospital.I did not say that he was a Conservative. I just gave his title. He is a doctor, an emergency room physician and toxicologist at Montreal Children's Hospital. I think he is credible. I am not making this up.The article continues:Dr. Chalut thinks that the phenomenon will get worse once edibles are legalized in Canada, even though they are already easily accessible.The Liberals believe they have everything under control since cannabis was legalized, that organized crime is out, that all is well and that Canadians are not dealing with a dangerous product. I have to wonder how reliable and stringent they are.I will continue: Impact also felt at Sainte-JustineOn Wednesday, the [Montreal Children's Hospital] called on parents to be vigilant. Since October 17, 2018, 26 children have been treated for poisoning, compared to “a handful per year” previously.Sainte-Justine Hospital has also seen a twofold increase in poisonings in the past year. It is important to keep in mind that marijuana was legalized less than a year ago.“The trend is rather alarming, and we are seeing an uptick in the number of cases. We are going to have to pay very close attention to this”, said Dr. Antonio D'Angelo, a pediatric emergency doctor.Experts point out that an amount that causes minor symptoms in an adult can have significantly more adverse effects in a child.We stated that when debating Bill C-45.In the worst cases, children went to intensive care to be treated for cannabis poisoning. The symptoms include convulsions, vomiting and drowsiness. The [hospital] reports that the youngest patient was under a year old.The Quebec Poison Control Centre is asking people to be cautious, as they are seeing a sharp increase in poisoning among adults and children. On October 17, 2019, Ottawa will legalize edibles, such as gummy candies and pot brownies, across the country. The provincial government, on the other hand, has not yet decided whether to authorize edibles.Alarming statisticsI could go on, but I will get back to Bill C-93. I just wanted to set the stage.As I said, Bill C-93 seems to be a rush job. Apparently that is the Liberal way: wait until the last minute and get it done in a hurry.The Liberals were criticized for legalizing marijuana, but they did not learn from that experience. Now, yet again, they are scrambling to repair the damage they did.We are in favour of pardons. We want to make sure the process is fair. I think fairness for all Canadians is a very important concept. To demonstrate our good will, we helped draft the bill and proposed a number of amendments in committee. The committee was impartial, which meant that we could present our amendments and they were agreed to. The Liberals, the Green Party and the Conservatives all presented amendments, but the NDP did not. I do not know where the NDP members were. For our part, we take this seriously and felt it was important to participate in the committee. That demonstrates our good will. We are parliamentarians and we are here to help make the best laws possible. That is why we, as Conservatives, get involved.The Liberals did not agree to all our amendments, but they did agree to two of them, and that improved the bill's procedural fairness. Because of our amendments, the Parole Board will have to include a review of this program in its annual report.It is important to understand that the well-being of all Canadians is important to us, as is fairness.(1335)We want to reassure Canadians that when we gain power in October 2019, we will make some changes to smartly and carefully meet Canadians' needs and guarantee their safety.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5954527595452859545295954530595453159545325954533595453459545355954536595453759545385954539595454059545415954542595454359545445954545595454659545475954548595454959545505954551595455259545535954554595455559545565954557595455859545595954560595456159545625954563EdFastHon.AbbotsfordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of how this government has fulfilled campaign commitments, from the very beginning, when we brought in Bill C-2 to reduce tax rates for Canada's middle class, to this piece of legislation today, Bill C-93, which makes a commitment to pardon individuals for simple possession of cannabis. These are the types of progressive legislative commitments we made in the last federal election.Would the member opposite not agree that Canadians have an expectation that all members of Parliament will actually work every day, all the way through? That means that for the next 12 to 14 days we should continue to sit and continue to debate important legislation that will have the same type of impact as Bill C-93 does for Canadians, and that is indeed a good thing. Many of the members opposite seem to feel that maybe we should stop debating legislation. I think that would be bad public policy, given that we can still continue to work hard for Canadians and pass legislation. Would he not agree that we should continue to pass legislation wherever and whenever we can? C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595456459545655954566JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Joël Godin: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his comments. I would like to remind him of the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, which I mentioned in my speech. The Conservatives are not afraid of work. We are prepared to work to improve legislation, thereby improving Canadians' quality of life. As for his question, I must say that we do not disagree. My only point was that the Liberals dragged their feet. When they see a problem, as has been the case with some important issues, like the SNC-Lavalin affair, they are always in reaction mode. They lose control and always act hastily. This seems irresponsible to me.That said, we are happy to be here. Canadians chose us to represent them, and we on the Conservative side will always be there. The amendments we proposed to the bill are proof of that. I think they show our good faith.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595456759545685954569KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I just want to ask him what he thinks of the Liberal government's pigheadedness. It agreed to provide pardons, but it refused to expunge records for simple possession of cannabis. We know all the problems this can cause for the affected individuals, who are often members of marginalized communities that face discrimination and injustice in various forms. This will affect them for the rest of their lives, especially when they look for a job and travel abroad. Can my colleague tell us why he thinks the Liberals did not want to listen and refused to expunge records for simple possession of cannabis?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceRadiation595457059545715954572JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Joël Godin: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.It is now commonplace for the Liberals not to consider Canadians' needs. This is not the first time it has happened. I hope it will be one of the last, because there are just over three weeks left in this Parliament and the Liberals' term. There will be an election in October 2019, and I hope that after that, Canadians will be better served. I hope that they will choose us, the Conservatives, because we listen to all Canadians and care about their well-being.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceRadiation59545735954574AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak to Bill C-93.I played a fairly significant role in the debates on Bill C-45 in 2017, because at that time I was serving as my party's justice critic. I recognize that the issue of cannabis reform has occupied the public sphere for quite some time.I listened to my Conservative colleagues during the debate on Bill C-45 and in today's debate, and I note they favour a strong criminal justice approach. They admit that the problem in question has to do with concerns over mental health and youth getting inappropriate access to large amounts of cannabis. As we know, too much consumption of cannabis can have consequences.I have always believed that the criminal law approach to drug reform and drug policy is in a sense like using a sledgehammer to hit a nail. I believe that if we want to talk about social and health problems, we really need to focus our policy tools and levers on making sure that our health and social services have the tools to provide not only education regarding the possible harms of over-consumption of certain substances, but also support services to people who feel they have a problem. We should remove the stigma of criminality and of being an outcast among a group of friends or family and community, so that people have the ability to get the help they need. I believe policies like this have been shown to be very effective.With respect to the harshness of other drugs, especially given the opioid crisis and the heroin crisis, we can look to countries like Portugal, which have moved to a more social- and health-related policy for their drug problems. They saw significant results from that. Portugal went from being a country that used to have one of the highest rates of opioid deaths per capita in Europe to having one of the lowest.When it comes to cannabis, I believe we had this debate, in large part, with respect to Bill C-45. Bill C-45 did not necessarily legalize cannabis, but rather made it less illegal, because in the provisions of Bill C-45, the consequences for stepping outside the boundaries of the law are in fact quite severe.I come from a part of the country where attitudes toward cannabis possession and use are quite liberal. Many people on Vancouver Island, and indeed in British Columbia, have long regarded the crime of cannabis possession and use to be outdated and belonging in the previous century. Of course, we are very much looking forward not only to seeing the law reformed but also to seeing the injustice of the criminality addressed.Unfortunately, when we look at the timeline, it is quite obvious that the Liberal government has not treated this particular issue of Bill C-93 with the seriousness it deserves. As my colleagues will remember, when Bill C-45 was introduced, it was already April 2017. I believe that particular bill received royal assent later that year. However, it was not until October 2018 that it had its provisions for coming into force. In other words, we were well into the third year of the government's mandate before Bill C-45 came into effect and cannabis use and possession were legalized.Another problem is that police in different jurisdictions in Canada have different approaches. I have spoken to members of the police forces in Vancouver Island, whether in the RCMP or in municipal police forces, and they always tell me that with their limited resources, they have always had far bigger problems to go after than cannabis possession. By and large, when they have caught people with cannabis, they have usually just seized it and told them to please go on their way and not do that in public. However, we know that in other parts of Canada, the full force of the law has been brought to bear on people who possess even tiny quantities of cannabis.Despite the record and the fact that the government has admitted this is a problem and has acknowledged the injustices, it is only now, in the dying days of the 42nd Parliament, that we are actually dealing with a bill that could have a substantive effect.(1345)The government still has a very heavy legislative agenda before it. The House has just recently passed a motion to extend its sitting hours. We know that the other place, the Senate, is certainly showing true to its form as a new independent body. There is a lot of government legislation that is really up in the air right now, and I am not quite sure that Bill C-93 is going to have enough time to reach the finish line. Moreover, I think it does far too little.The member for Victoria had a perfect blueprint for the government to follow in the version of Bill C-415. Rather than going through the pardon process, as Bill C-93 is doing, his bill would seek to expunge all previous crimes of personal possession from the record. I like the word expungement, because it has an air of permanence about it. Expungement basically means that the crime never occurred. It is completely erased from the record. We have something that is now legal in Canada, and we have acknowledged the injustice of it, so it should be expunged from the record of any person who may have been charged with that crime back in the 1970s and 1980s. Such individuals could truthfully state to any official that they have never been charged with or convicted of such a crime.The problem with a record suspension or a pardon, and we use those words interchangeably, is that the record is going to be set aside but would still exist. Moreover, when travellers go to other countries, such as the United States, which has very harsh drug laws, there is nothing in the bill that would actually tackle the problem of the United States still having those records on its systems. That, indeed, is a big problem. The major criticism I have of the Liberal government is that instead of going all the way, it often resorts to half measures. We had a beautiful opportunity before us in this Parliament, through Bill C-415, to substantively tackle this issue.My party, the NDP, has a long history of fighting for this issue. Just in this Parliament, if we go back to June 2016, we used one of our opposition day motions to fight for decriminalization. The Liberals have always argued that decriminalization is not an effective policy, but we always argued that it should be a policy that is employed as an interim measure as we went on to legalization. If we had had that in place for those three years, a lot of Canadians could have avoided those run-ins with the police and with the criminal justice system, which I think many in this place can agree has far bigger problems to deal with using its limited resources. We raised this, as I mentioned, in the debate on Bill C-45 and, of course, through Bill C-415.I can recognize that there are parts of this proposed legislation that will certainly have a benefit for some people. However, that is precisely the problem: Not everyone is actually going to take advantage of the provisions. It is nice that the fee is going to be waived and that there is an expedited process, but still there is the problem of going through that, and the fact that some people have greater resources than others and will be able to benefit from this much more. I still think expungement would have been the better route, and I will remind my constituents that there was one party in the House of Commons that was fighting for expungement.I cannot give my support to a half measure, not when we had a better option before us. Therefore, on principle, I will vote against this legislation. I will vote against it because there was a better way, and I am not going to let the Liberal government get away with another half measure without firmly standing in my place on behalf of my constituents and voicing my displeasure at the loss of what was a beautiful opportunity.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseExpungement of convictionsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substance595457559545765954577595457859545795954580595458159545825954583595458459545855954586595458759545885954589595459059545915954592JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting day, watching both the Conservatives and the NDP fumble around this issue and try to determine where exactly they are going to land on it. I find what the previous speaker said remarkable. He said that instead of going all the way, the Liberal government was resorting to half measures. That is exactly what the New Democrats did. In 2015 they refused to say they thought cannabis should be legalized. Instead, they resorted to a half measure and said we should decriminalize it, because that was probably going to be more palatable to the public. They totally played that card wrong, and now they are forced into trying to justify and explain why their proposed system of decriminalization would still have led to thousands and thousands of fines being issued to people, in particular the most vulnerable and marginalized in our communities. How can the member actually stand in the House and say that the government has resorted to half measures when in reality the Liberals have been consistent from day one? We said we would legalize and regulate cannabis, and that later we would bring in the proper measures to make sure those with simple possession records could be pardoned. How can he stand here today and say this?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954593595459459545955954596AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Kingston and the Islands would spare the House his manufactured outrage. If he were to look at the voting records, he would see that my party did in fact vote on Bill C-45. The really bad thing about this whole thing is that the government, with all the trappings and power that comes with a majority, is only now moving on this issue. It had an entire term to get to it. Meanwhile, how many people had to go through our justice system while we waited for Bill C-93? How many people were confronted with police officers for a crime that was admitted by the government to be unjust?I will take no lessons from the Liberals. They are a party of half measures. They know it is true. They know they could have taken substantive action. When Bill C-45 was introduced, what did they do? They waited three years to put those provisions into force. Meanwhile, 400,000 people had run-ins with the law. Liberals refuse to go all the way with expungement. I will take no lessons from them, and I will always cite the member for Victoria on the NDP's position on expungement. We have the right way. Liberals are just sad that they could not bring themselves to vote for it.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595459759545985954599MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said. I have been on committee with him before and appreciate some of the work he does, but only some of it. He will know that I and several other members voted for expungement because we thought it was a cheaper route to go and was easier and faster to achieve. I do not think that hockey parents who made a mistake 25 years ago and were convicted should be stopped from volunteering for their children's hockey teams today when they fail their criminal background checks. I just wanted to make sure I put that on the record. I do not have a question for the member, but I wanted to make that comment so he could at least understand that there were members on both sides of the aisle who voted in favour of expungement as a wiser and more fiscally responsible route.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsPossession of a controlled substanceVolunteering and volunteers59546025954603AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for reminding me of that. We would all do well to remember that Private Members' Business is more of a forum where individual members can consider the merits of the legislation before them. They are usually bills that are smaller in scope. I appreciate that some members of the Conservative caucus did support the member for Victoria and his very real efforts.We call the member for Victoria our resident law professor in caucus, and all members in the House can recognize the work he has done in this Parliament, the contributions he has made and the very thoughtful analysis he has brought to the House. I think I can speak for all members in the House when I say that we are going to miss the member for Victoria and the work he has done for the House of Commons and Parliament. I really appreciate the member's comments in that regard. We certainly look forward to bringing forward the issue of expungement as much as we can. It is still a worthwhile policy tool. I look forward to continuing that debate in the 43rd Parliament.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595460459546055954606TomKmiecCalgary ShepardMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1510)[English]Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton West.I want to start by stating unequivocally that the Conservative Party and our Conservative leader have stated unequivocally that they have no intention of reopening or again making marijuana possession illegal. That train has left the station.What we will be doing with respect to Bill C-45 is making corrections to the bill. Obviously, the legislation was enacted last year, and it has been several months since then. I remember saying at the time that although I did not support the bill for several reasons that I stated publicly, I had concerns with respect to issues at the border. There were also issues that I thought were hypocritical within the bill, namely, with respect to possession of cannabis by young people in this country. I was also concerned that the police were not ready for the legislation to come out given the tools they needed for enforcement of the legislation's drug-impaired driving provisions. I have talked to a lot of young people in my riding, and I still have concerns about the broader issue of the effects of marijuana as gateway drug that could lead to other drugs.Those concerns are still valid. They still exist. However, again, this is the law of the land now, and there is no changing that. It is certainly my intent to make sure that we do not roll back the clock on this piece of legislation and that it continues.I will also say that in the year and a bit that I was critic for veterans affairs, I really came to understand the effects of marijuana on individuals and families, and how it has helped move people away from opioid use to marijuana use. I heard many times at the veterans affairs committee and as I crossed the country to speak to veterans and their families that opioids suppressed a lot of emotion and feelings among our veterans, but when they were able to switch to marijuana, it really helped open things up. There was less paranoia from marijuana than opioids. They were able to function socially. There were other functions that became a reality to these families, as well. I became a big proponent of medical marijuana for our veterans in my time as critic for veterans affairs. I will also say that within my family, marijuana has become important for my cousin who suffers from epilepsy. There was a time when he was smoking medicinal marijuana, and it was helping him with respect to his seizures. He was seeing fewer of them.Those experiences really caused me to rethink my position, particularly on the issue of medical marijuana. I am strong supporter and proponent of it. As I said earlier, it is not our intention to roll back this legislation. The toothpaste has left the tube, and we are not going to put it back in. The legislation before us today is important, as well. Those who have been charged with simple possession are really being penalized. In my office, over the course of the last three-plus years I have been a member of Parliament, I have had members of the public come to talk to me about the impact that a simple possession charge has had on their life. They are unable to cross the border, for example, and there is the cost of having the charge suspended, and there is the impact of the charge on employment.(1515)As the legislation stands, I am prepared to support it. However, I also understand there are flaws with it. Quite frankly, in many pieces of legislation introduced over the years by the Liberals, flaws have happened regularly. That is why the legislation went to committee. Not only were there several amendments put forward by the Conservative side, some of which were rejected, some amendments were brought forward recently. At the end of the day, we are trying to ensure we get legislation in place that works for Canadians. There has been some concern with respect to this legislation.By way of background, the bill proposes to make changes to the pardon process and waive the fee for Canadians with a past conviction for pot possession. For the people I dealt with, in several cases the fee was quite cumbersome. In many cases, they were low-income Canadians and members in my riding who simply could not afford to pay the fee. Therefore, that fee will be waived for a past conviction of pot possession.The legislation was introduced in October 2018. The bill seeks to assist Canadians who were criminalized for something that is now legal, without that individual having to wait the usual time to pay the fee otherwise associated with a record suspension. The fact it is now legal is an important element of the legislation. Therefore, those who have a simple possession charge should be allowed to have an expedited record suspension. Typically, offenders must wait five to 10 years, depending on the type of conviction, after they have served the sentence. The cost of applying is $631. The legislation would amend the Criminal Records Act and references the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Regulations and the National Defence Act.As I said, as the bill went through committee, several concerns were highlighted. In particular, the Canadian Police Association was a witness. It suggested two amendments, calling for the Parole Board to retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and to ensure the small number of applications from habitual offenders would be vetted. It would ensure that these individuals would not take advantage of a process that was clearly not intended for their case. That important amendment was put forward by the Canadian Police Association. It also talked about restoring the Parole Board's power to make inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of conviction. That was an important aspect. Oftentimes, the behaviour and conduct of an individual can change quite rapidly and what was once simple possession, could manifest itself into other areas of criminal activity. The Parole Board, in the view of not just the police association but certainly the members on our side, needed to have that discretion and information available to it to determine further penalties or justification if required.Of some of the notable amendments introduced to this bill, this one did pass. It allows for individuals to apply for a record suspension under the legislation, even with outstanding fines. This would add a financial burden due to loss of income. It also sets an unwanted precedent regarding the seriousness of the payment of the fines.One amendment that was defeated was put forward by our colleagues on the Conservative side. It would have allowed for record suspension applications to be made through an online portal. With technology the way it is today, everything is moving to the digital age. We felt it was important to do that.In wrapping up, we are going to support the bill at this stage, with some trepidation and concern, to ensure those Canadians with minor offences are able to get what they need out of the legislation. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesInformation technologyInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsReasonable timeVeterans5954896595489759548985954899595490059549015954902595490359549045954905595490659549075954908595490959549105954911595491259549135954914BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.An issue was raised when we studied the bill at committee. I understand that the Conservatives are opposed to expungement. Although I do not necessarily agree with their reasons, I do understand them.Having said that, we, at least the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, agree with them about one thing, namely that we heard a lot about an automatic mechanism. As things currently stand, in Bill C-93 and in the record suspension system itself, the burden rests with citizens.Under normal circumstances, we can understand that it is up to citizens to obtain all the documents and pay other fees that are not necessarily in the federal government's control, but that must be paid to obtain certain documents. However, in a situation like this, which is meant to address an act that is now legal, it is rather unfair.If I am not mistaken, his colleague from Yellowhead spoke at committee about the example of San Francisco, which is using artificial intelligence software to locate files.Does my colleague agree that the government could have worked harder to implement an automatic process instead of making people run all over the place to obtain documents that are currently not well managed? Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substance595491559549165954917595491859549195954920JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1525)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.[English]Yes, we can disagree on the legalization of marijuana, but we do agree on the fact that this will not be recriminalized. I can tell the hon. member with some certainty and a great deal of respect for my colleague from Yellowhead, especially given his prior experience as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that if he suggested it, it was a very good idea because of that experience. I did not sit in on those committee meetings and I am not able to speak specifically to the issue. However, if the member for Yellowhead did suggest that, then it would have been a good idea for an amendment to the legislation.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substance595492159549225954923MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, we hear members on the opposition benches say that we have 17 or 18 days left to go. From day one, this government introduced Bill C-2 that gave a tax break to Canada's middle class and put an extra tax on the wealthiest 1%. Today, we are debating Bill C-93 that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians.Would the member not agree that the number of sitting days left does not matter, that if we are afforded the opportunity to do good work for Canadians by passing legislation that will make a difference in their lives, we should all support and encourage that?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59549245954925JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1525)[English]None of us is going to argue, Madam Speaker, that we should not be encouraging and supporting legislation to move forward. What is important in the House, this House of democracy, is that every member has an opportunity to speak to the legislation. As I said during my speech, there is an interest in this in my riding. There is interest in my support of the legislation because of the fact that I have dealt with members of my community who have simple possession records that have disqualified them from certain things. I have, as their member of Parliament, helped them work through the system and get what they need to cross the border, for example, or not be handcuffed in employment opportunities where criminal background checks are required. I, for one, am thankful, as the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil, that I get to stand in this place and speak not just for my constituents and show my support for this issue, but that I am given the opportunity to do that. If members in the House want to speak to this issue, they should be given that opportunity.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595492659549275954928KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to speak to Bill C-93. However, before I do, I want to congratulate all my fellow Albertans celebrating carbon tax freedom day. I also want to thank the new provincial government in Alberta for keeping its promise, which is something my friends across the way do not know. Maybe they can wait for the translation. It kept its campaign promise to repeal that bill. I also want to take this opportunity to wish our new premier, Premier Jason Kenney, a happy birthday.Bill C-93 is a bill basically to provide no-cost expedited record suspensions for those who received a criminal record for pot possession. It proposes to make changes to the pardon process to waive the fees for past pot possession convictions. It will assist Canadians who were criminalized for possession of pot that is now legal, waive the usual wait time and also amend other acts.We generally support the bill, but I have to agree with my colleague from the riding of Victoria, and it is a dad joke, when he called it half-baked. We will support the bill. It is not perfect, but it is a step forward. I am sure when the Conservatives are back in power, we will take the time to fix the weaknesses in the bill.The Conservatives at committee put through several valid amendments, which I will discuss here.First, we put forward an amendment to allow for record suspension applications to be made through an online portal to make it easier and most cost-effective for Canadians to apply. Unfortunately, that was voted down by the Liberals.We put forward an amendment to allow for applicants whose records had been destroyed to sign an affidavit explaining their circumstances and swearing that they were eligible. This would bring procedural fairness, which was criticized by several witnesses. It was originally passed at committee and then unfortunately defeated by the Liberals at a later stage.We put forward an amendment to reinstate the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries to be made to determine the applicant's conduct since the day of conduct. It was unfortunately defeated by the Liberals. We also put put forward an amendment with respect the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries with respect to any factors that may be considered in determining whether ordering the record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. That was also defeated by the Liberals at committee.Finally, we put forward an amendment to require that the Parole Board include in its annual report a review of the success rate of this legislation and the associated costs. This actually was approved. The Canadian Police Association put forward an amendment, which we hope the Liberals will consider. This is the police asking that the Parole Board retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and to ensure that the small number of applications from habitual offenders, not all, are vetted. This would ensure that these individuals would not take advantage of a process that was clearly not intended for their cases.There are some fiscal implications of the bill. The Department of Public Safety and the Minister of Public Safety think it is around $2 million. They have not done any fulsome studies, but they guess it is around $2 million. It is funny timing for the minister to say that, basically at the same time the Senate has forced through Bill C-81, the new backdoor gun registry bill.I want people to think back to the Liberal government years ago and Allan Rock. The government said that the gun registration would only be $2 million. It ended up well over a billion. It ended up costing Canadian taxpayers about $1.3 billion. Of course, with this massive spending oversight, what did the Liberal government do? Much like it does today with all its other mistakes, errors and incompetence. It blames someone else. It blames the provinces and the gun owners themselves.[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]Beware of Liberals promising just $2 million costs.[English]The government apparently has not done a proper study on the costs or timelines. The fee previously was $631, which I understand had been moved up previously in 2012, on advice of bureaucrats who said that was the general cost of arranging the cost of the suspension. Now the government is saying it expects it to be $250. Where did $250 to the penny come from? We do not know because they have not done their homework on it.It is currently five to 10 years to get the suspension, but the public safety minister said he could not offer a timeline as to when that would happen. He said that the critical point was not the cost or the actual timeline to help Canadians; it was getting the bill tabled. It was not the actual results helping Canadians, but it was the announcement of getting this bill tabled.(1530)I have to ask, why now? The government has also said this is fundamental transformation. If it is critical and a fundamental transformation, I have to ask why the government waited until the final three weeks to put the bill through. Obviously it has been rushed through for political reasons.I have looked at the departmental plans, and remember these are the plans that the minister signs and that are tabled in the House. This is not just nominal propaganda; these are actual documents tabled in the House, showing the government's plans for its departments.These are the Liberals' targets for this year. The percentage of record suspensions that are processed within an established time frame is 95%, but the Minister of Public Safety says there is no time frame. Why would they commit to a target of 95%, table these numbers in the House and at the same time tell Canadians they do not know where they are going to help. I do not know if they do not have a clue, do not know what they are doing with their departmental plans or are just being disingenuous.I also note that the departmental plans for 2018-19 for the Parole Board go out three years. When we factor in just 2% inflation, they are cutting 8.6% of the Parole Board's spending. This is in the Parole Board's departmental plans. These are actual plans, submitted in the House for long-range forecasts, which show they are cutting 8.6% of Parole Board funding.When the member for Yellowhead submitted an amendment at committee, suggesting that people be able to apply online for this, members were told by the Parole Board that it could not offer it because of technical limitations. Apparently they do not have enough money to develop the technology, but at the same time we are going to allow this new process with up to 250,000 Canadians applying. When we look at the Parole Board's departmental plans, which are also required to show labour going forward, they have not added a single body from the 2016-17 year. From last year to next year, they added five bodies. They are going to process perhaps up to 250,000 of these suspensions with no extra labour. Why do they think they can do all this extra work without providing extra bodies and while at the same time cutting 8.6% from the Parole Board budget going forward? If getting it tabled is as critical as the minister says, and if it is so transformational, why has the government not provided for long-term funding in the departmental plans? It is not even mentioned in the public safety minister's own departmental plan. I remind members that all the pardons for the unjust criminalization of same-sex activities will be going through at the same time, yet with no extra bodies. This is right from the Parole Board's departmental plan, signed off by the Minister of Public Safety. It says the volume of applications forecasted to be received this year or next year remains the same. We have all the applications from the unjust criminalization of those in same-sex activities all those years ago and potentially 250,000 Canadians who can receive a pardon for pot possession. The government has provided no extra resources and no extra staff, and has actually said there is not going to be any increase in applications over the previous year.Again, I have to wonder how seriously the Liberal members are taking this. They say it is transformational and critical, but like so many other things, they leave it until the last second and rush it through. Are they pushing it through solely for their political agenda and for political reasons? The evidence shows they are. If they actually really cared about Canadians, they would have tabled this legislation at the same time they legalized pot. They would have taken the time to perhaps consider the other amendments put through by our party, the NDP or law enforcement members. While we support the bill, it is another example of lazy legislation by the government.AccountabilityApplication processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment assistanceInformation technologyInquiries and public inquiriesOathsParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable time595492959549305954931595493259549335954934595493559549365954937595493859549395954940595494159549425954943595494459549455954946595494759549485954949595495059549515954952595495359549545954955595495659549575954958JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, which should come as no surprise. When we take a look at this legislation, much like many other pieces of legislation this government has been introducing virtually from day one, it is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a campaign commitment that the Liberal Party made in the 2015 election. However, I guess where we differ from the Conservative Party is that I believe, whether it is Bill C-2, which we brought in on day one of our mandate to give Canada's middle class a tax break while at the same time putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, or Bill C-93, which we are debating today and which would allow for a pardon for individuals with convictions for simple possession of cannabis, these are all good, solid, sound pieces of legislation, and I am grateful.The member is supporting this legislation, I understand. Would the member not agree that we should continue to look at ways in which we can pass legislation for every day that we sit. Would he agree that just because we are in the last 10 or 15 days, we do not have to stop passing legislation?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595495959549605954961KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, everyone in the House supports legislation that is going to help Canadians, but the reality here is that this is another piece of legislation thrown together and pushed through at the last second without proper consultation. The Liberals' own minister did not mention it once in the Parole Board departmental plan; it is not mentioned in his own departmental plan that the minister signed off on; there is not one extra penny of resources for this, and there are no extra bodies to enable the Parole Board to deliver the services to Canadians. This all proves that the government, once again, is all about getting an A for announcement but a D for delivery.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954962KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about the lack of planning that there seems to have been at the Parole Board. It is interesting, because we saw in committee, from both the minister and the officials, an acknowledgement that they did not want to do more because it would be too much work. Therefore, when the member talks about the numbers not anticipating an increase in requests for record suspensions, it is true. If we look at Bill C-66, which had an application-based process for expungement for the historical injustice done to LGBTQ Canadians, that process has only been taken advantage of by seven people. Therefore, how are we to believe that the most marginalized Canadians, those whom the bill purports to help, are going to be able to acquire the documents they need and go through the other parts of the process? At the end of the day, the government might be waiving the fee and saying that it is great and it is expedited, but ultimately these are individuals who get taken advantage of by bad actors who are out there offering bad advice for thousands of dollars, saying they are consultants and things of that nature. The whole system is backwards and broken, not to mention the fact that we believe expungement would have been the best course of action, as did all the witnesses at committee. Does my colleague not agree that had the Liberals made it automatic, that would have gone at least some way in making this whole process work better, even if it required just a little more effort from these individuals at the Parole Board and the minister himself?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substance5954963595496459549655954966KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, the point about making it automatic was put forward by my colleague, the member for Yellowhead, who had a distinguished career in law enforcement, so I believe that is something the government should look at. However, this is the same government that so bungled the Phoenix pay system, so I worry about what system it would put forward. However, it brings forward a good question about not being prepared, and I want to go back to the departmental plan. This is important. I mean, this is signed off by the Minister of Public Safety, and the very first item is the target for the Parole Board. We are talking about delivering suspensions to Canadians; the number one target is for the percentage of record suspensions or pardon decisions that are not revoked, and they have it at 95%. On the one hand, they are saying they want to help Canadians revoke suspensions, but in their own plan, their own marching orders to the department, the Liberals have put that they want 95% of suspensions not approved. It just shows again that the government has no clue what it is doing, and for Canadians, October cannot come soon enough. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInformation technologyPossession of a controlled substance59549675954968MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25516GuyLauzonGuy-LauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LauzonGuy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Lauzon: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-93 this afternoon. Bill C-93 is the result of—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5954969KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71553Pierre-LucDusseaultPierre-Luc-DusseaultSherbrookeNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DusseaultPierreLuc_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): (1540)[Translation]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.(1545)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. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59549725954973595497459549755954976595497759549785954979595498059549815954982595498359549845954985CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1550)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59549865954987Pierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71553Pierre-LucDusseaultPierre-Luc-DusseaultSherbrookeNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DusseaultPierreLuc_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault: (1555)[Translation]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59549885954989ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1555)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59549905954991595499259549935954994Pierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71553Pierre-LucDusseaultPierre-Luc-DusseaultSherbrookeNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DusseaultPierreLuc_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault: (1555)[Translation]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.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceSocial marginality595499559549965954997LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25516GuyLauzonGuy-LauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LauzonGuy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): (1600)[English]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.(1605)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.AccountabilityC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substance5954998595499959550005955001595500259550035955004595500559550065955007595500859550095955010595501159550125955013Pierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1605)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5955014595501559550165955017GuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25516GuyLauzonGuy-LauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LauzonGuy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Lauzon: (1610)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59550185955019ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1610)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultation59550205955021GuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25516GuyLauzonGuy-LauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LauzonGuy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Lauzon: (1610)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultation5955022ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1610)[Translation]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people595502359550245955025GuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25516GuyLauzonGuy-LauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LauzonGuy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Lauzon: (1610)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abusePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5955026LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1610)[English]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.(1615)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. Application processBacklogsBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsData sharingExpungement of convictionsLabour forcePossession of a controlled substanceRacial profiling5955027595502859550295955030595503159550325955033595503459550355955036595503759550385955039GuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1620)[English]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?BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substanceUnited States of America59550405955041DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1620)[English]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.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substanceUnited States of America5955042595504359550445955045LloydLongfieldGuelphKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1625)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595504659550475955048DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1625)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance595504959550505955051KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1625)[English]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. (1630)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.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCanada-United States relationsCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthUnited States of AmericaYoung people595505259550535955054595505559550565955057595505859550595955060595506159550625955063595506459550655955066DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1635)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultation59550675955068ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1640)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultation59550695955070595507159550725955073ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1640)[English]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?BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substanceUnited States of America595507459550755955076ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1640)[English]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.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substanceUnited States of America59550775955078595507959550805955081LloydLongfieldGuelphJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): (1640)[Translation]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.(1645)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.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceUnited States of AmericaYoung people5955082595508359550845955085595508659550875955088595508959550905955091595509259550935955094595509559550965955097ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1650)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59550985955099JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.I will simply respond by saying that we are in a rush to work on solving a problem that the Liberals created during this Parliament. That is pretty rich. The way they went about legalizing marijuana led to all these consequences. Now we have to rush through other things to fix a problem that the Liberals created. October 21 cannot come soon enough.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59551005955101KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, we know that when people are charged and convicted of simple possession of marijuana, it creates barriers for them to access housing, employment, and even to volunteer in the community. The goal here is to try to create a pathway for them to be able to move forward. The pathway being proposed by the Liberal government would simply give people a break, but not give them a break permanently. It would not expunge the records, which is what we need for these people to be treated fairly.Today people can legally access marijuana, so why would people living with a criminal record get their record suspended and have to live in fear that another government could come in and reverse that decision, which would make their record available to the public and again become a problem in their lives? It simply makes sense for the government to expunge all the records. It has made marijuana possession legal.We clearly hear that my colleague does not agree with the Liberal decision to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The government decided that Canadians should be allowed to access and consume marijuana. Now that they are allowed to do that, would it not make sense for the government to expunge the records and move Canadians forward? If they were in government, would they work to completely erase the records that have been suspended and reinstate those records?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance595510259551035955104JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.The key word here is “suspension”. Does suspension mean anything in today's world? Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana will now have the word “suspension” stamped on their record. When they try to cross the border, the customs officer could still refuse them entry, since they got a criminal record suspension for possession of marijuana, which implies that they consumed marijuana.Furthermore, if a person wants to work in another country, if they want to do business there or something, being able to prove that their criminal record was suspended is meaningless. It is not a pardon, and it is not an expungement.Unfortunately, this is just an election gimmick to try to get an extra 300,000 or 400,000 votes.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5955105595510659551075955108GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93. The bill has come forth as a result of the government's lack of foresight in its hurried quest to legalize marijuana. The bill was so rushed to meet the Prime Minister's self-imposed political deadline that it fails to address a host of concerns raised by municipalities, law enforcement officials, health care professionals and stakeholders who testified at committee and reached out to the government.As issues arise with recreational marijuana going forward, there has to be due diligence and proper steps taken to protect Canadians, and because of that, I will be supporting this legislation very cautiously. The Liberals have left consequential legislation to the final weeks of our Parliament. They have failed to consult and to listen to those key stakeholders, including law enforcement. This has been a theme of the Liberals. They make great promises and then drag their feet and wait until the eleventh hour to implement them. In a lot of ways it shows disregard for the stakeholders to whom they made those promises originally. We have seen this time and time again.I have heard questions by government members to my colleagues on why we are concerned that they are raising this issue at the eleventh hour of this session of Parliament. I would like to explain it to them in a context that I have used to explain things to my young children, as I do at storytime. I will reference the story of The Tortoise and the Hare.The Liberals were hare-like when they began. They got off to a loud start with their promises. They promised balanced budgets and sunny ways. They were going to do government differently and were ridiculing their opponents and arrogantly spending Canadians' money on vacations and impressing American celebrities on Twitter. Like the hare, the Liberals figured they were well ahead and decided to take a nap before the race was over. The Liberals have been in nap mode for several years and their consecutive deficits and their dropping of the ball on important legislation are proof of this. In the story, the hare eventually wakes up from his nap to find that his opponent had already crossed the finish line while he was sleeping. That is exactly what we have seen here. It took the explosion of the SNC-Lavalin and Vice-Admiral Mark Norman scandals during the Liberal government's spring of scandal to finally wake them up. Now that the Liberals have finally woken up, it is a mad scramble to the finish, moving legislation that should have happened years ago in some cases. Certainly, having waited this long, they should have been listening to those stakeholders along the way. However, here we are without having proper debate and proper consultation with stakeholders and we are moving toward the House sitting late for many weeks before the end of session, which has been the custom in this place.It is a shame that the Liberals did not take that lesson from the tortoise and the hare. They might have been more successful over the years if they had worked slowly and steadily, instead of carelessly leaving Canada with massive debt to pay off.In the wake of legalization, many questions remain. It is clear that the government was hasty in its roll out because of its rush to roll up. Many groups, including law enforcement, were concerned about the increase in drug-impaired driving after legalization. The Liberals assured the public there would not be an increase in drug-impaired driving, but if there were, they would equip our police forces to deal with it and properly enforce the law and protect the public. That is not the case. The roadside marijuana testing devices that the Liberals hastily approved in time for last year's legalization roll out is giving out regular false positives. It is a failure right out of Seinfeld. During testing, this device was giving false positives for subjects who had eaten a poppy seed bagel. People can have their favourite poppy seed bagel at the diner with friends, or a poppy seed lemon loaf at the iconic Canadian brand Tim Hortons, but all of a sudden for that indulgence a person can test positive for opiates in the saliva test and then again when the confirmatory urine test is done.(1700) If people indulge in their breakfast treats or their afternoon snacks and they get pulled over by police, they will be arrested and taken to the station. Then they will be charged with driving impaired, all for having a bagel or a slice of lemon loaf with their Tim's coffee.Canada's Conservatives understand that Canadians should not be unfairly burdened by a criminal record for something that is no longer illegal. I understand the government wanting to create a process for pardons. What I do not understand is the attitude when the situation is inverse. That being said, that was carried out while it was perfectly legal and being deemed illegal was the consequences of that.In its recent firearms legislation, the government has moved to reclassify certain rifles as prohibited, which means over 10,000 legally bought and owned rifles will be reclassified for no reason in particular. That has the potential to criminalize the owners of these rifles if they do not comply with the new ownership requirements of a prohibited firearm. This law would be applied retroactively, which means someone could be jailed for up to 10 years for something that would be perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate, as licenced and law-abiding firearms owners in Canada know.Imagine a government that is giving pardons for actions that were crimes when they were committed, but are now legal. It is criminalizing something that was legal when it was done; a classic Liberal strategy.We proposed several amendments to the legislation at committee in an effort to strengthen the legislation and empower law enforcement and the Parole Board, but the Liberals stood opposed to those common sense suggestions and amendments.We put forward an amendment that would have given the Parole Board the power to make the necessary inquiries to determine the applicant's conduct since the date of conviction. In my meetings with representative of Canadian police unions, their concern with the legislation was that it was an introductory or gateway offence and not an isolated incident of someone being arrested for simple possession and a one-time mistake. However, this amendment was to empower the Parole Board, which is the expert in the field, to provide it with as much information as possible. Evidence-based decision making is what we are advocating for and the Liberals are steadfastly against that.In addition to that, we put forth an amendment that would restore the Parole Board's power to take a look at ordering the record suspension to see if that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Canadian Police Association, as I said, had suggested these amendments and wanted the Parole Board to have that flexibility, that discretion, the ability to conduct investigations and ensure that the small number of applications seen from habitual offenders were being properly vetted. This would prevent individuals taking advantage of a process in a way it was not intended to be.We have grave concerns that the amendments were not given serious consideration. We have concerns that the time was not taken to review it, and now it is being hastily imposed. The government's failure to recognize these amendments is an affirmation about the haste with which it has gone about this legislation and, frankly, with which it has carried out its mandate.I will be cautiously supporting this interest. However, Canadians can count on a Conservative government this October to correct this Liberal failure along with many others.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDepartmental results reportsDiscretionary powersFirearms permitsInquiries and public inquiriesParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substanceRestricted firearmsSobriety test59551105955111595511259551135955114595511559551165955117595511859551195955120595512159551225955123595512459551255955126595512759551285955129595513059551315955132CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, fairly strong words came down from the PMO. If an opposition member were to propose an amendment, to not allow it to see the light of day. That has changed from the time of Stephen Harper to the current Prime Minister. We have a prime minister who encourages members of Parliament of all political stripes to look at ways in which legislation can be improved. Whether it is this legislation, or Bill C-45 or many other pieces of legislation, we have seen ministers respond to the presentations being made and listen to members on all sides of the standing committees.Would the member not agree that this is a much better attitude toward standing committees than Stephen Harper ever had?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59551335955134MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, a concept has been put forward by the member opposite, but certainly not the practice that is currently in place. We have seen time and again the heavy hand of the PMO and the Liberal members pressing down on committees. We need look no further than the interference by the PMO in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We need look no further than the government's efforts on all things when it comes to due process. While the concept that the member opposite proposes is an interesting one, we are certainly not seeing anything of that from the Prime Minister.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance59551355955136KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, we know the Conservatives did not support the legalization of marijuana. However, the NDP is in support of looking for ways to ensure the records of people who were arrested for simple possession of marijuana in the past, when it was illegal to consume, get expunged so they can move forward, like everybody else in society, and there is fairness. Regardless of the position of the Conservative Party, not supporting the legalization of marijuana, at this point in time, the majority of Canadians would like records expunged, not just suspended. My colleague said a couple of things in his speech, on which I would like to find out more. Now that it is legal in society, if one neighbour consumes legally today and another neighbour was charged in the past and carries a criminal record that could affect him or her getting employment, or housing or is even an obstacle to volunteering in the community, does he support expungement at this point? The member also said something that I would like him to clarify. He said that if the Conservatives were to get into power, they would be fixing things. What fixing is he talking about? Is he talking about completely erasing the suspension of records that they have proposed, which the New Democrats think is far from what is necessary, which is to support expungement?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5955137595513859551395955140MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, this is one of many messes left behind by the Liberal government that the Conservatives will be required and prepared to clean up. We heard great testimony from experts at committee and we have received recommendations. We would like the opportunity to look at them to see if we cannot improve this flawed legislation that will advance through the House.It has been said, and I will repeat, that a Conservative government will not recriminalize marijuana, but we certainly want to ensure there are no undue obstacles or burdens on folks as a result of this change in the law.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59551415955142GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-93, an act that would provide for the possibility of a record suspension for a conviction in relation to the minor possession of cannabis.I support the legislation. However, while I support it, I do so reluctantly. I support it because in the absence of other legislation, it is the best we have at this present time. However, it need not have been that way. A bill was put forward by the hon. member for Victoria, Bill C-415, that would have provided for the expungement of records for minor possession. I would submit that Bill C-415 was a much better approach than Bill C-93 introduced by the government. I was very proud to stand in support of Bill C-415 when it came to a vote at second reading. It is very unfortunate that the Liberals across the way, almost uniformly one by one, voted that legislation down.Why is Bill C-415 better than Bill C-93? One of the distinctions between the bills is the difference between an expungement and a record suspension. Oftentimes there is confusion of whether they are one and the same or more or less substantively the same, but they are substantively different. An expungement is the deletion, it is the removal of a record. If people are asked if they had ever been convicted of the offence of minor possession, they can honestly answer, no, that they have not because that record is expunged; it is removed. It is as though that offence and that conviction never occurred. Bill C-415 would have provided that.By contrast, Bill C-93 provides something quite different. In order to obtain a record suspension, one must apply to the National Parole Board. While the Liberals pat themselves on the back for waiving the $631 fee, the fact is that there are significant costs associated with applying to the National Parole Board for a record suspension. Those costs can include such things as finger printing and other searches of records that may be required. So complicated is an application for many individuals, that there are individuals who provide services on a for-profit basis and charge anywhere from $1,800 to $2,000 to apply for a record suspension. It is nice that the Liberals waived the fee, but again it does not address the other costs, time and effort that will be required in order to apply. Second, under Bill C-93, the burden falls on the applicant to obtain a record suspension. If people happen to be convicted in relation to another offence, they need not apply because they do not qualify. More than half a million Canadians have been convicted of minor possession. By the way, almost half of Canadians have said that they have consumed a minor amount of cannabis. (1715)Half a million Canadians have been convicted. According to departmental officials who appeared before the public safety committee, the estimated number of individuals who would be eligible to apply was around 250,000 Canadians. Right off the bat, half of Canadians who have been convicted of minor possession are disqualified. Why should they be disqualified?Why should they be disqualified from having their record suspended, and frankly it should be expunged, for committing an offence that today is perfectly legal? It is an activity that the Prime Minister bragged about engaging in before it was legal, when in fact the Prime Minister was a sitting member of Parliament. He was never charged. He was not convicted. He very proudly sloughed it off.However, a lot of Canadians who were not so lucky as the Prime Minister are burdened with a conviction. Then, if they happen to go through the application, establish that they qualify and obtain a record suspension, it is not over. Why is it not over then? The record is not deleted. It just goes from one national database to another. At some point in the future, perhaps the individual who has obtained a record suspension will have a traffic ticket violation, and the Parole Board might try to reimpose that conviction on the basis that the individual is no longer of good conduct. There are examples of that and there was testimony to that effect at the public safety committee.That is not to mention the fact that the minister has broad discretion to share those records where the minister deems it to be in the interests of public safety or where there is some other security purpose. Again, even after one has gone through the cumbersome process, the record continues to hang over one's head. The consequences of having a conviction are serious. It is an impediment to employment. It can be an impediment to housing. It can be an impediment to being able to volunteer in one's community. All this is for committing an offence that is perfectly legal today. I did not support marijuana legalization, but it seems to me that if the government is going to go down that road, and it has chosen to go down that road, expungement should be part and parcel of that legalization. It is why, of the 23 U.S. states that have either legalized or decriminalized minor possession, seven states have provided for an amnesty, and six of those states have provided for expungement.Again, that is something the government has opted not to do. Instead, it has established a costly, burdensome process that in the end is going to exclude nearly half of the Canadians who have been convicted of minor possession. It is a half measure that is totally inadequate.While I support this legislation as being better than nothing, the government could do a lot better than Bill C-93.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsFeesPossession of a controlled substance595514359551445955145595514659551475955148595514959551505955151595515259551535955154595515559551565955157MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and commend him for his intelligence. Always, when he rises in this House, he has done his homework. I also want to thank him for taking the leap and supporting the bill of the member for Victoria because it made sense. I did hear him that the Conservatives did not support the legalization of marijuana. However, it is nice to see that the member has put that aside and decided to look beyond that and ask what the right thing is for Canadians. Now that Canadians are able to consume marijuana legally, how could they carry a criminal record or a suspended record, which is something that would always hang over their head in society, when it could be expunged?The member talked about the costs. The government calls it a “no-cost record suspension”, but there is a real cost to that. There is the cost of administration, which is significant, whereas an expungement eliminates that cost. Maybe he could speak a bit about the economic costs of not moving forward with expungement.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesPossession of a controlled substance595515859551595955160MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni is absolutely right. There are a lot of costs associated with this bill. The cost-effective solution would be to go into CPIC and delete the records. That is all that would be needed. The government has said there are different databases and records stored in courthouse basements. Guess what. When employers ask for a background check and people go to the RCMP, where does the RCMP get the record? It gets the record out of CPIC. When the Government of Canada shares information with the U.S., what database does it share? It shares the CPIC database. Therefore, from the standpoint of addressing the stigma associated with a conviction that impedes employment, housing, volunteering and crossing the border, expunging the records from CPIC would go a long way. The current government did not do that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesPossession of a controlled substance59551615955162GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. In the last federal election, the NDP favoured decriminalization, and the Conservatives were passing out all sorts of false information, saying how bad it would be if the Liberals were to legalize cannabis. Today, we have a government that not only has moved forward and legalized cannabis, but it is now seeking to provide a pardon through this legislation. Now the two opposition parties are uniting and saying that it should be an expungement. One could easily see the hypocrisy there.We have heard that the Conservatives want to amend Bill C-93. Would it be the intention of a future Conservative government to change it to expungement? Is that one of the amendments we can anticipate if the Conservatives come to office?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance59551635955164MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, what a Conservative government would do is clean up the mess left by the current government on a whole host of fronts. There is going to be a lot of work ahead, but I know the hon. leader of the official opposition is more than ready for the task.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substance5955165KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1725)[English]Resuming debate.Is the House ready for the question?Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 2.Division on motion No. 1 deferred[Translation]The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.Some hon. members: Yea.The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen:The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.Division on Motion No. 3 deferred(1730)[English]Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDeferred divisionsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage motions5955166595516759551685955169595517059551715955172595517359551745955175595517659551775955178595517959551805955181595518259551835955184595518559551865955187595518859551895955190MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 34th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.8510-421-572 "Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis"C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substanceStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security59512795951280Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekLenWebberCalgary Confederation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.Colleagues, 50 years ago, the eminent astronomer Carl Sagan wrote an article under the pseudonym Mr. X. He wrote about cannabis, noting that “the illegality of cannabis is outrageous”. He said, on legalization specifically, “I hope that time isn’t too distant”. That was 50 years ago.I am going to start by commending and recognizing the progress we have made. If someone had asked me five or 10 years ago whether I would see cannabis legalized in my lifetime, I would have been incredibly skeptical, yet in October of last year, that is exactly what the government did, following through on a significant promise to treat it as a public health issue but also to treat Canadians as the responsible adults we are.I will support Bill C-93. It would waive the five-year waiting period. It would waive the $631 fee. The Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction has noted that as many as 400,000 Canadians have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. That is something we ought to correct as much as possible, because we know the impact of a criminal record on one's ability to secure housing, employment and ability to travel.I will be supporting Bill C-93, but that, to me, is obvious and straightforward. I also think the bill ought to go further, and I hope to see the committee make amendments so that it does. First, Canadians and colleagues should understand the difference between a pardon and an expungement. According to the Parole Board of Canada, the purpose of a record suspension or a pardon is to remove barriers to reintegration that can be associated with a criminal record. The idea is that we say, “You are forgiven. Move on with your life.” With respect to expungement, the government recognizes that the conviction was for an act that should never have been a crime at all and that these individuals should not be viewed as former offenders. Instead, we say, “We are sorry. We made a mistake. We should never have done this in the first place.” With respect to cannabis possession, and we are not talking about trafficking, it is straightforward that we never should have made this a crime in the first place and that expungement is the proper answer.The government has made technical arguments with respect to travel. I trust that the committee will address those. There is no difference at the American border with respect to a pardon or an expungement. In the hands of the American officers, they enforce their laws as they see fit. We should be concerned with our domestic laws.I will say this. If we can help people move forward with their lives in a more significant way, we should seize the opportunity. An expungement will help Canadians who are impacted by a criminal record more so than a pardon would. Again, just as a clarifying note on the difference between a pardon and expungement, this really hits home when we see the great differences between governments. We are seeing this in Ontario right now, where the pendulum is swinging so incredibly hard in the opposite direction. A different government could actually restore records when people have been pardoned. The records are simply set aside. A different government could never restore criminal records if they were properly deleted through the expungement process.I commend the member from Victoria for putting Bill C-415 forward, but I would also note that this is grassroots Liberal policy. I am going to read a resolution from the 2012 Liberal biennial convention put forward by the Young Liberals of Canada and supported by over 80% of grassroots Liberals at the time:Be it further resolved that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto;If we want to be consistent with our legalization promise that tracks back to this resolution, amnesty is the answer.Most significantly, the most important argument is that we have to correct an injustice. The criminalization of cannabis was a racial injustice in original purpose and current effect. I want to read a direct quote from Harry Anslinger, America's first drug czar. It is not a positive quote. It is an offensive quote. He warned that “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.” Here in Canada, Emily Murphy, one of the Famous Five, an otherwise celebrated women's rights activist, led a temperance movement grounded in the belief that “aliens of colour” used drugs to corrupt the white race.(1210)If we look at the modern application of these laws, we see a Toronto Star investigation from 2017 which found that black people with no criminal record were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis than white people. That was in 2017. There was a vice investigation subsequently that made access to information requests to police agencies across the country. It found, for example, in Regina, that indigenous people represented 41% of cannabis arrests in 2015 and 2016, but they were only 9.3% of the total population.We see the Federation of Black Canadians and the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers stand up in support of going further for amnesty. They are doing so because it was a racial injustice. The government argues that the injustice was in the application of the law; it was not inherent in the law. However, for anyone who understands how we interpret our constitutional law and how we might find a law unconstitutional, we consider the purpose of the law, but we also consider the effect of the law. So too with respect to expungement, it is not only if it is inherently an injustice, but also if it is an applied injustice.It is arguable whether the original purpose, as I have noted, ought not to be considered as well when we talk about the injustice. I would argue that this was inherently an injustice. I read the Le Dain commission in 1970, which said, “There can be no doubt that Canada’s drug laws were for a long time primarily associated in the minds of its legislators and the public with general attitudes and policy towards persons of Asiatic origin.”The point is this. We fear different drugs today because we used to fear different people.The last point I want to make is that if we set aside the most important arguments with respect to racial injustice and we consider basic common sense, almost half of Canadians have self-reported using cannabis in their lifetime. Are half of Canadians criminals? When cannabis is less harmful than the six-pack that people take to a party or a mickey of vodka, should people who possess cannabis, again not traffickers, ever be thought of as criminals? The obvious answer is no, in the same way that I do not think if people take a six-pack to a party they are criminals. In taking a less harmful substance, they ought not to be considered criminals, and we as legislators should cure that. We have the capacity to cure it. We could cure that simply by improving the law before us.The simple question that we all have to answer is whether the conduct in question is deserving of a criminal record. Demonstrably, the answer is no. It never should have been illegal in the first place.I support Bill C-93 for moving in the right direction, but we should do what is right when we have the opportunity. We should correct this injustice.Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalitySecond readingSplitting speaking time5887650588765158876525887653588765458876555887656588765758876585887659588766058876615887662588766358876645887665588766658876675887668588766958876705887671588767258876735887674Darshan SinghKangCalgary SkyviewNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech and his commentary. Oftentimes when we are dealing with legislation in this place, we do not do proper justice in talking about people who are impacted by the legislation we are dealing with. This bill is an opportunity for the government to correct a wrong. That is not just a wrong that has existed for the past three years since the current government formed office, and that it campaigned on and declared its intention to decriminalize marijuana possession, but also to look at past injustices, when the evidence was before all parliamentarians as to the need to decriminalize marijuana and the hypocrisy that legislature after legislature had shown in dealing with this. I will ask for two comments: one is on the racial component. I represent northwestern British Columbia. It has approximately 35% to 40% indigenous communities. We know, through statistics, about the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prisons. We know that part of that representation is due to possession charges. They are sometimes put together with some other charge where non-indigenous people would not face the same amount of incarceration. Therefore, I would like comment on the impact on indigenous communities. I know my friend is from Toronto, but he has studied this legislation and its impacts.The second component is on the effects on all people. What is it to hold a criminal record? What effect does it have on the day-to-day lives of Canadians, whether they are seeking to volunteer for their kids' soccer camp or being able to cross the border for business or pleasure, to carry around this record and the threat of that record being reintroduced into their lives?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalitySecond reading5887675588767658876775887678NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, it is ridiculous to think that a black person in Toronto, who is three times more likely to be arrested than a white person like me, should suffer the consequences of doing something that should never have been illegal in the first place and therefore suffer disproportionately. Simply because I, as a white person, was never caught does not mean that I am any less of a criminal than the black person. I think it is outrageous that we are not taking the opportunity to correct that injustice when that opportunity stares us in the face.The second thing I will say is that I have personal friends who, over the course of their lifetimes, had a cannabis possession record and could not get a job even at the 7-Eleven. It is ridiculous that people, otherwise contributing members of society, such as the person who could not get a job at a 7-Eleven yet is in the public service, who make an incredible contribution to Canada, could not get a job after undergrad because of a cannabis possession record. If we could in any way cure that problem, we ought to do so.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalitySecond reading58876795887680NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, I opposed the legalization of marijuana. However, it seems to me to be fundamentally unjust that individuals can be burdened with a criminal record for an activity that today is perfectly legal. This legislation fails to address that. It does not provide for amnesty or an expungement; it merely suspends the record, which can be revoked in a number of circumstances. Additionally, the Minister of Public Safety has a broad statutory discretion to disclose that record. I wonder if the hon. member could address those concerns.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalitySecond reading5887681NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, I trust that after hearing all the evidence, the member is now supportive of the legalization of a substance that is significantly less harmful than alcohol. If not, perhaps he might explain why we should treat the two substances so very differently.Now that it is legal, the only thing I will say is that I agree, in part. I do not think that Bill C-93 is a failure to move forward in the right direction. Rather, I think it is a significant move forward in the right direction. It simply is not going far enough. We see other jurisdictions, California being one of them, moving forward with expungement and then our own government says, well, it is technically somewhat complicated. If another jurisdiction can get it done in the interests of justice, we should do the same.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588768258876835887684MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at the second reading of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis, and legislation doing exactly that took effect last fall. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I am proud to have been part of the committee's review of the Cannabis Act. We now have a regulated system that keeps cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the hands of criminals.At that time, the government signalled that it would turn its attention to dealing with the criminal records created under the old regime. We now have before us Bill C-93, legislation that would make it easier for individuals who have been previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to have their records cleared. Bill C-93 proposes an expedited process for receiving a pardon, which is also known as a record suspension. The usual $631 application fee would be waived, as would the usual waiting period, which can be as long as 10 years. The bill would reduce barriers to full participation in society for these individuals. It would allow them greater access to job opportunities, educational programs, housing and even the ability to simply volunteer in their communities. It would make things more fair. It would enhance public safety by allowing people to reintegrate into society. It would fulfill an important commitment to Canadians in delivering on this new regime. This is the first time in history that both the application fee and wait period for a pardon would be waived. This unprecedented measure is a strong statement, recognizing that convictions for simple possession of cannabis have resulted in hardship for many Canadians and that certain populations, including members of black and indigenous communities, have been disproportionately affected. For my part today, I would like to delve a little deeper into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. To begin with, Bill C-93 proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act. It would waive the fee, waiting period and certain subjective criteria for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis under one of three acts: the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; the Narcotic Control Act, which existed until the 1990s; and the National Defence Act.Eligibility would not be based on the amount possessed but rather on the purpose. People would be eligible if possession were for personal use only. People would not be eligible if there were any trafficking or production involved. In order to qualify for the waived wait period, an applicant would have to demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada some basic facts: first, that the substance they possessed was cannabis; second, that their sentence was completed; and third, that the conviction was only for possession for personal use. To do so, applicants would provide standard police and court documents. The Parole Board would be available to help people through the process by email or phone. As a way of further expediting the process, the decision to grant a pardon would not be discretionary. Usually, a Parole Board member assesses pardon applications to decide whether an applicant has been of good conduct and whether a pardon would give them some measurable benefit. Discretion based on subjective criteria would not apply here. Instead, the Parole Board would be required to issue a pardon, as long as people are eligible and have completed their sentences. There would be nothing else to consider. The application would therefore be processed much more quickly by Parole Board staff. Once a pardon is ordered, the Parole Board would notify the RCMP to have the records sequestered in the national repository of criminal records. Once that is done, the RCMP would notify other federal agencies, and the Parole Board would alert provincial, territorial and municipal partners. For instance, it would mean that a criminal record check by a prospective employer or landlord would come up empty. As well, the records could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances. In practice, for cannabis possession, the only likely scenario in which anyone would ever see a record again would be if they commit a new criminal offence. Bill C-93 would fulfill our commitment to creating a simplified process for people with convictions for cannabis possession to shed their criminal records, along with the associated burdens and stigma. Work is also continuing on broader pardons reform, informed by consultations held by the Parole Board and Public Safety Canada as well as a recent study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.(1225)That study, initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, led to thoughtful and unanimous recommendations calling for pardons to become more accessible, not just for cannabis possession but across the board. I am glad that Parliament has been seized with that issue and I look forward to progress on that front. For the moment, though, we have an opportunity to move forward right now with the targeted recourse in Bill C-93. As I have noted, this further enhances public safety by reducing the barriers to reintegration associated with a criminal record. Many Canadians are stuck with a criminal record for activity that is no longer considered a crime. It is about time we make things fairer for those Canadians who have been living crime-free. That is why I offer my full support to Bill C-93. I encourage all my colleagues to do the right thing and join me in making sure this bill moves forward.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscretionary powersFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond readingSecurity checks58876855887686588768758876885887689588769058876915887692588769358876945887695588769658876975887698NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I would submit that this legislation falls far short of what is required and what is just and fair in the circumstances. It is true that the fee is being waived, but why should someone have to apply in the first place? Why would we not simply remove those records relating to an offence that today is perfectly legal? Why should someone have to complete their sentence in relation to an activity that is perfectly legal today? Why would that provision be in the legislation?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887699DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, in regard to completing one's sentence, the main point of that is administrative. There are administrative challenges to removing a record in the midst of a proceeding, and this has never been done before. The barrier this could create is mostly theoretical because, as we know, the penalties for the actual offences have been short. It is very unlikely that there is anyone right now sitting in a jail cell for simple possession of cannabis, so the practical downside is likely insignificant.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887700MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, we are certainly interested in seeing this piece of legislation go to committee. There has been quite a bit of concern brought up from those in the legal community, but there are also some financial concerns about this measure as well. It is estimated that if just 10,000 people take up what is proposed in the legislation, it could cost roughly about $2.5 million, but in fact there could be up to 250,000 people who are eligible to take advantage of what this piece of legislation calls for, which could cost about $600 million.I am wondering if the hon. member of the government has a plan to deal with the costs associated with this bill.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877015887702DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, right now the costs of our current regime are astronomical. When people are unable to get proper employment, they often will be living in poverty and they become involved in the justice system, all things that in themselves have tremendous costs to society. These costs would will no longer be borne by our society.Second, with regard to the cost to the government as a result of the waived fee that the member talks about, we must remember that this astronomical cost for applying for a pardon was instituted by the previous government. I would argue that such a fee for any pardon is extreme, and I would like to see that cost severely reduced in the future, if not cancelled altogether.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877035887704JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I am interested in the member's perspective on the cost. Why does he feel that taxpayers who have followed the law in the past should have to absorb the cost of a pardon for people who have deliberately broken the law, knowing full well that they could end up with a criminal record?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887705DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, first, as I said in my previous answer, it is because the fees put in place by the previous government for a pardon are excessive and are a barrier for people who want a productive life. Second, the fees probably cost the taxpayers more in decreased productivity, as those who still have criminal records cannot become productive members of society.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887706DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act that would provide the possibility of a record suspension for individuals convicted of possession of a minor amount of marijuana, the type of possession that is perfectly legal today.While the legislation is better than nothing, I believe it falls far short of what is required and fair and just.Allow me to say at the outset that I opposed the legalization of marijuana. I spoke against legalization and voted against it at all stages in this Parliament. However, I also said that elections have consequences. During the last election, the now Prime Minister committed to legalizing marijuana if the Liberals were elected. In the end, enough Canadians voted Liberal to give the Liberals 184 seats, allowing them to form a government.It was therefore not a surprise when the government moved ahead with legalization. One might say that they were keeping an election promise. One might also say that this is about the only election promise that the government fulfilled, but I digress.Some might ask why I, who opposed the legalization of marijuana, believe that the legislation falls short of what is required and what is fair and just. The simple answer is that I believe it is fundamentally unjust for Canadians to be burdened with a criminal record for an activity that is perfectly legal today.The impact a criminal record can have on individuals is not an academic issue. A criminal record has a profound impact on individuals' lives and people's ability to get on with their lives. There is a profound stigma attached to a criminal record, one that can impact a person's ability to obtain employment or obtain housing and even to volunteer on a children's soccer team or hockey team or in the broader community.It is within that context that I believe it is fair and just that individuals burdened with a criminal record for an activity that today, as a result of a policy choice made by the government, is perfectly legal should have that burden lifted from them.However, that is not what Bill C-93 does. It does not provide for an amnesty and it does not provide for an expungement; all Bill C-93 does is suspend the record. In other words, the records go from CPIC into another place, but it always remains. The record never goes away.Indeed, a suspension could be revoked if an individual is convicted of a future offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It could be revoked at the discretion of the Parole Board if the board determines that an individual is no longer a person of good character.(1235)The Minister of Public Safety has broad statutory authority to disclose that record when the minister deems it to be in the interests of the administration of justice or when the minister deems it to be in the interest of public safety of Canada or a country allied with Canada. Bill C-93 would impose a burden on the applicant to obtain a suspension. Why should someone have the burden of obtaining a suspension for an activity that is perfectly legal today, an activity the government itself made perfectly legal? How is that fair? How is that just?Bill C-93 would require an individual to complete their sentence before they would be eligible to apply for a record suspension. Again, why? Why should someone have to complete a prison term or a lengthy period of probation or pay a fine for an offence that is perfectly legal today? How is that fair? How is that just?Bill C-93 would render ineligible any individual who has been convicted of a minor possession offence plus any other offence, which would appear to include administration of justice offences that arose from the initial laying of the minor possession offence. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that individuals who are convicted of other offences should be pardoned or have those records expunged. My only point is that I do not see a connection between being convicted of other offences and an offence consisting of an activity that is perfectly legal.I can tell members from a practical standpoint what this provision would mean in terms of the ability of Canadians to obtain a record suspension. There are approximately 500,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for minor possession. According to figures from the Department of Public Safety, this provision would remove literally half of Canadians from being eligible to apply, bringing the number down to 250,000 people.Therefore, instead of providing for a mere suspension and instead of imposing a burden on the applicant to apply and instead of requiring someone to complete a sentence for an activity that is perfectly legal today, what the government should be doing is moving forward with expungement. Those records relating to minor possession should be removed from CPIC. They should be removed from all government databases. They should be deleted. They should be made history.Do not tell me that this cannot be done. It has been done in other jurisdictions. Indeed, of the 23 U.S. states that have either legalized or decriminalized minor possession, seven states provide for some sort of pardon or amnesty, and six of those seven provide for expungement. Instead, we are left with a poorly thought-out half measure that in the end will leave the vast majority of Canadians who have records for minor possession with those criminal records intact. The bill falls far short of what is required.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingSplitting speaking time5887707588770858877095887710588771158877125887713588771458877155887716588771758877185887719588772058877215887722588772358877245887725DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that we have already had both the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Beaches—East York, members across the party divide here, arguing that the bill does not go far enough, and there will be other opinions expressed on this matter before the day is out. I would like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton to comment on the original bill itself and the shortcomings in it that have led us to these unanswered questions and the realization that the bill will need much work at committee, if it is the will of the House to send it there. Is this not part of the general sloppiness and the poor thinking behind the bill in the first place?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877265887727MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the comment made by the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge. Wherever one stands on the issue of legalization, it is very clear that, from the start, the Liberal government completely bungled the implementation and enforcement of legalization legislation. On that basis alone, I was against Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, which contains a number of provisions.Quite frankly, this issue should have been part of the legalization bill. It should have been part and parcel with the legalization bill. Instead, we are left in a situation where we have a flawed half measure that very likely may not make it through this Parliament. It is another example of the failure of leadership on the part of the government.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588772858877295887730PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michel Picard (Montarville, Lib.): (1240)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to welcome our colleague to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His stellar reputation and professionalism precede him, and our discussions are always constructive. When he appeared before the committee, he received a response from departmental representatives. They explained to him that eliminating criminal records involved more than a simple click of a button because of the complexity of the files. Certain procedures are required. It is not as automatic or as easy as he suggests.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877315887732MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, it is true that we do not have a uniform database. There is CPIC, there are digital provincial databases and there are paper records stored in courthouse basements.In terms of the effect that records have on individuals in getting a job, in getting housing, in volunteering, it is largely those digital records, CPIC records, that are the source where employers would go, for example. When they go to the RCMP, the RCMP gets that record from CPIC.What the government should be doing at the very least is going through CPIC and deleting all of those records relating to minor possession. It would be a cost-efficient measure that would relieve the vast majority of the stigma and issues arising from a criminal record. In an age of artificial intelligence, I see very little argument as to why it could not be done.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588773358877345887735MichelPicardMontarvilleJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising some important concerns and issues with respect to this piece of legislation.He spoke specifically about the suspension of the records and that the bill does not deal with expungement or pardons. He already talked about this being a flawed piece of legislation. I am curious as to why he thinks the government did not go far enough with respect to expungement or pardons.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877365887737MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not know why the government has not moved forward with expungement or at the very least with the deletion of records from CPIC. As I said in my previous answer, that would be a far more cost-efficient way of moving forward, rather than requiring the Parole Board to hear all kinds of applications. It would be fairer and it would have a positive impact from the standpoint that the government clearly believes that it is a good thing that individuals convicted of these offences be relieved of having that record.I do not know why the government did not move forward with that, and I also do not know why it has waited until the 11th hour to introduce this half—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877385887739JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.This bill follows on Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, which has been in force since October 17, 2018. Bill C-93 seeks to make changes to the pardon process and provide no-cost record suspensions for Canadians found guilty of simple possession of cannabis in the past. It also seeks to help Canadians who were convicted of using a drug that is now legal, since they will no longer have to go through the usual waiting period or pay the fees associated having their record suspended.For this type of application, an offender would usually have to wait between five and ten years, depending on the conviction, after serving the sentence to obtain a pardon. Furthermore, the cost of the application is $631. The measure introduced by Bill C-93 would amend the Criminal Records Act and makes reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act. It goes without saying that this new legislative measure must be properly drafted or else it could potentially mislead many Canadians who could one day avail themselves of it.For example, if this legislative measure were adopted as written in Bill C-93, the administrative costs would be grossly underestimated. Also, it would result in criminal information about offenders being maintained and remaining available, as in the case of pardons granted in a system parallel to that of the RCMP. This information would be available to foreign police services. This would allow U.S. customs officers, for example, to bar a Canadian convicted of simple possession of marijuana from entering the United States.If a criminal record is not completely erased, it can have a life-long impact. This is counter to the purpose of the bill to ensure that all Canadians who have been convicted and have a criminal record will be able to travel to the United States without any problems.My speech on this bill will focus primarily on one topic that is very important to all Canadians, specifically the sound management of public funds, which has never been the hallmark of a Liberal government. The Liberals have always been champions of debt. I think that the current government is a perfect example of that, here in the House. Accordingly, it is only responsible and even advisable to ask such important questions about Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money.I have a serious concern about how much Bill C-93 will really cost. Based on our estimates, it could cost $315 million. The minister and his officials have said that it would cost around $2.5 million, because they expect that just 10,000 of the 250,000 eligible Canadians who have been convicted of one sole possession offence will apply.Since we are talking about estimates, let us recall the boondoggle created by a Liberal government with the implementation of the national firearms registry in 1995. Let's talk about Liberal spending estimates.(1250)I would like to remind members about how much the Liberals estimated it would cost to set up the infamous registry. At the time, it was supposed to cost $2 million. Do my colleagues remember how much the implementation of this very expensive and useless Liberal registry ended up costing? Surprise, it cost an estimated $2 billion. That is a far cry from the $2 million projected. So we can put this in proper context, I will say this: the cost was nearly 1,000 times the initial estimate. The Liberals are clearly not very good at estimates. In fact, I would say that they are the worst.My concern, which is very justified and shared by many colleagues and taxpayers, makes it hard for me to believe the government's estimate of $2.5 million. It is obvious to anyone who has read the bill that even the government is not sure about this amount. Considering the significant bureaucratic effort required to analyze, validate and confirm the profile of each applicant, we are convinced that the Liberal government's cost estimates are well off the mark.It is only natural for Canadians to find the government estimates set out in this bill rather dubious. It is important to remember that the Liberals promised to balance the budget in 2019. However, the only thing members will remember about the Liberals' legacy to our children and grandchildren is another $90 billion in debt. How long will it take us to pay that back? It will take at least 25 years. So much for the Liberals' estimates. Given the painfully obvious past and present failures of Liberal governments as well as the government's claims that middle-class Canadians are its priority, I have to say that making the middle class bear the tax burden of this measure, the cost of which the government has obviously once again underestimated, is unfair to honest people who have never had a criminal record and likely never will. Canadians work hard to earn a decent living to feed and house their families and to try to give them a decent education so that their generation will be richer than ours.I will find it very difficult to support this bill if significant amendments are not made to ensure that justice is served for honest taxpayers and for the offenders who would benefit from a privilege paid for by said taxpayers.I agree with expedited record suspensions for simple possession in principle, but we need to consider the cost. Canadian taxpayers deserve the truth when it comes to their money. I will always stand up for their right to demand transparency and accountability in the government's management of public funds. Once again, that does not seem to be the case with this bill. There are so many problems with this legislation I hardly know where to start. The only way to make it worthwhile is to sit down together and go through it in detail to make sure Canadian taxpayers are treated fairly and are not made to foot the bill. Normally, pardons come at a cost, but these will be handed out for free. We need to look at all the ins and outs of this bill to make sure it is fair to everyone, and, most importantly, to make sure the government's numbers are accurate and costs will not end up ballooning like they did with the gun registry.Application processBalanced budgetBudget deficitC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588774158877425887743588774458877455887746588774758877485887749588775058877515887752588775358877545887755CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I would say I disagree, in many different ways, with the member opposite. One of the things I would like to highlight is that there is a difference in the Conservative approach to the issue versus this government's or the Liberal Party's approach to it. We heard from a number of them that they are against the legalization of cannabis, yet they are in favour of allowing fines to continue on. In other words, we can decriminalize but not legalize it. That seems to be the consensus on the Conservative benches. Let me make a suggestion to the member. The only individuals who would benefit by that would be the criminal element. We have to recognize that one of the advantages of moving forward with this is to make our communities safer.I have a tangible example. Instead of gangs and criminals selling marijuana or cannabis to the degree to which they have been selling it in the last many years, it is now going to be done through regulations and governments working in co-operation at different levels of government. That should minimize or have a positive impact on the criminal activities within our communities. At the very least, would the member not acknowledge that, and acknowledge that it would be a good thing for Canadians?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877565887757SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher: (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question.It is a good thing our vision differs from the Liberals'. We voted against legalizing marijuana and it is now legal. That said, Bill C-93 highlights the bill's shortcomings.The government was improvising, and Bill C-45, its marijuana legalization bill, was rushed through Parliament. It did not have unanimous support. With this bill you told the provinces that they would have to figure things out. We will have to work together on Bill C-93.I was indeed against the legalization of marijuana. If the government wants this bill to pass unanimously, we are going to have to review it carefully, because it creates a large number of inequalities, and I do not like inequality.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887758588775958877605887761KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, the member opposite just finished saying that the Conservatives voted against the legalization of cannabis. That is what the opposition decided to do. If the Conservatives were ever provided another opportunity to govern, would it be her and her party's intention to make it a criminal offence again? Would they bring back legislation to recriminalize cannabis?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887764CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher: (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is not the issue. I was against marijuana legalization, but it is legal now.Bill C-93 needs to be reworked so it no longer creates inequality. This bill needs to be revised because many elements of it are not working, not least of which is the astronomical price tag of $2.5 million. We remember the long gun registry all too well. The Liberal government of the day promised it would cost $2.5 million. It ended up costing $2 billion. When we check the Liberals' math, we see that they keep getting Canadians further and further in debt. I am not going to take any lessons on economics from the Liberals.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588776558877665887767KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michel Picard (Montarville, Lib.): (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges. I am delighted to have a chance to speak at second reading of Bill C-93. This important bill would amend the Criminal Records Act to allow persons convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to apply for a record suspension, more commonly known as a pardon, without being subject to a waiting period or to the $631 fee once they have served their sentence. This is a important step in the implementation of Canada's new cannabis legislation, following the entry into force of the Cannabis Act on October 17, 2018.As we know, criminal records can seriously impact people's lives. It can make it harder to travel to foreign countries, restrict job prospects and housing options, and prevent people from going to school and upgrading their skills or education.Another way of looking at it is that a criminal record is a useful public safety tool, including for landlords or employers. People have to take responsibility for their actions. People have criminal records because they broke the law and their actions had consequences. However, those who serve their sentence should have a way of getting back on track without the burden of a permanent criminal record. That is especially true for the offence of cannabis possession, which no longer exists in the Criminal Code and had a disproportionate impact on minority communities.The Canadian pardon system gives people this opportunity to move forward. A pardon is almost like a reset button that erases all criminal convictions from a person's record. When the parole board grants a pardon, federal files about the conviction are immediately set aside. Given that the provinces and territories also have their criminal records, the board informs them and they generally comply with the request to set aside the record.When a pardon is granted, convictions are deleted from the RCMP national repository of criminal records. Pardoned convictions are not generally disclosed when undergoing a background check to find a job, rent a home or obtain a passport or a loan.A pardon also eliminates any prohibitions associated with a criminal record, including eligibility for Canadian citizenship. Only the Minister of Public Safety has the authority to disclose information about pardons based on exceptional circumstances, such as when a person convicted of a sex offence applies to work or volunteer in a vulnerable sector.Pardons are almost always permanent, unless the individual breaks the law again. Additionally, pardons are fully protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on convictions for which an individual has received a pardon.Similar laws already exist in many provinces and territories. Another important consideration related to pardons has to do with crossing international borders. If a pardon has been granted, American border officials will not find any evidence of a criminal record when they search the Canadian databases to which they already have access. Of course, we cannot control what questions border officials might ask Canadian travellers. An official might ask travellers whether they have used cannabis, and if the answer is yes, neither a pardon nor expungement would allow them to respond honestly in the negative.However, the advantage of pardons over expungement is that the documentation remains accessible as needed. For example, if a person's cannabis conviction was previously logged at the U.S. border, that person can provide documentation about that conviction on request. Once a criminal record is expunged, there is no longer any documentation for the person to present at the request of U.S. border officers, in which case the person can be denied entry into the country.Under the current system, a person can wait up to 10 years before being able to apply for a pardon. Bill C-93 proposes to waive that waiting period, making those found guilty of simple possession of cannabis immediately eligible to apply for a pardon after serving their sentence.The bill would also eliminate the $631 application fee. The applicant will have to show that he or she was found guilty of simple possession of cannabis, that this was the only crime on their record, and that the sentence was served.(1305)Why is it important to provide a no-cost expedited process to the specific group of individuals targeted in this bill? This is about fairness. For Canadians convicted of simple possession of cannabis, having a criminal record for a relatively minor infraction can have major long-term consequences.Those consequences are disproportionately severe considering that cannabis is now legal in Canada. Members of minority, ethnic and indigenous communities are overrepresented among those with criminal convictions for simple possession of cannabis. That can seriously hinder their ability to find work and succeed in their endeavours. The measures proposed in Bill C-93 would open up better opportunities for them and other Canadians. They would not have to put their lives on hold for 10 years before they can apply for a pardon. They would not have to worry about the financial stress of saving up for the $631 application fee. Bill C-93 would do away with those fees.Now that cannabis is legal in Canada, pardons should be accessible, affordable and available to anyone who has a criminal record just for simple possession. A pardon would help them reintegrate into their communities as productive, law-abiding and contributing members of society. This would also improve public safety for all Canadians.I would also like to point out that a broader review of our pardon system is under way. Public Safety Canada and the Parole Board of Canada have held public consultations, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security published a report on the issue of pardons as part of a study initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay.These measures are part of the efforts being made to ensure that our pardon system is fair and proportional and that it helps people who are not breaking the law reintegrate into society.For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-93 at second reading, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to do the same.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond readingSplitting speaking time588776858877695887770588777158877725887773588777458877755887776588777758877785887779588778058877815887782588778358877845887785588778658877875887788SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with some interest and increasing concern. This bill is being introduced very, very late into the parliamentary process. The government came in with a mandate three and a half, almost four, years ago about legalizing marijuana, certainly possession. The Liberals have known for many years the injustices that possession has had on indigenous communities and people of colour. They know that simple suspension removes back into a much more dangerous place because a future government could reintroduce those criminal records, starting the whole process back again.Is my friend not concerned about any of this as he looks to support this very hasty and last-minute piece of legislation?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877895887790MichelPicardMontarvilleMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1305)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. His many concerns are warranted.However, the answer is fortunately much simpler. It is too bad that my colleague's party is forcing him to take the position that the bill does not go far enough. The NDP voted against the legalization of cannabis. Decriminalization was not the answer. One cannot seek a weaker measure and then complain that this one goes too far or is not adequate.One side is saying that we moved too fast and the other side is saying that we did not move fast enough. I think the time is right. After cannabis was legalized, steps were taken in a timely manner to help applicants by eliminating the wait time for submitting an application and the fees associated with doing so.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588779158877925887793NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think we have underestimated the value of, in terms of the direction the government is going with regard to the legalization of cannabis, is that it really takes away significant activities from gangs or the criminal element.I want to get my colleague's thoughts about how the legalization of cannabis will actually make our communities safer places because, at the end of the day, it means less criminal activity in our communities. A good example of that would be individuals going into high schools to sell marijuana, which actually has been in existence for many years or decades.There is a very strong positive in terms of that aspect. I wonder if my colleague could add some thoughts to it.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588779458877955887796MichelPicardMontarvilleMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the first initiative, legalization, sought to put an end to the stigma associated with the recreational use of cannabis. Whether people use it or not is not the issue. It is something that some people choose to do recreationally and it has no adverse effects. Accordingly, in order to minimize the negative impact on these people, we must undertake the correct and proper procedure set out in the bill we are examining today. In my opinion, it is time we did that. We should have done it as soon as possible after cannabis was legalized.This bill goes above and beyond what is legal today. In other words, it will eliminate the stigma faced by those with a criminal record by granting them a pardon and suspending their criminal record. This will help restore the reputation of honest citizens who want to continue their lives in society—both those who want to integrate into society and those who already have a place in it—in a healthy, suitable and friendly environment.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877975887798KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the committee is already hearing from witnesses about this bill. I would like to know what my colleague found most interesting in the testimony. What ideas did he hear in committee that could help us understand why this bill is so important?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58877995887800MichelPicardMontarvilleMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we heard that in spite of the logistical concerns about obtaining a pardon, such as the fact that the records cannot automatically be electronically suspended because the information is scattered all over, this bill fulfils the very specific objective of reintegrating people into society.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887801JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-93 at second reading.This bill will make things fairer for Canadians and their families. There was an ineffective prohibition of cannabis for far too long and, as a result, many Canadians ended up with a criminal record after being convicted of simple possession of cannabis. Criminal records can make it hard for people to get jobs, find housing or even volunteer in their communities. The associated stigma can create the impression that the individual is a criminal who has nothing to offer Canadian society.Criminal records are obviously necessary in the context of public safety. However, they can run counter to their objective when they prevent people who do not represent a danger from actively participating in society. This is particularly true when the activity for which the individual was convicted is no longer illegal and when the members of certain communities are disproportionately affected.That is why our government has introduced Bill C-93, which would streamline the process for getting a pardon, also known as a record suspension, by waiving the waiting period and the application fee.[English]That is why our government has introduced Bill C-93, which would streamline the process for getting a pardon, also known as a record suspension, by waiving the waiting period and the application fee. The waiting period for people convicted of cannabis possession is generally five years, although it can be as high as 10 years. With Bill C-93, applicants would be immediately eligible. There would also be no application fee, which has been $631 since 2012. On top of that, usual criteria like determining whether people have been of good conduct and whether a pardon would bring them a measurable benefit would also be waived. On top of that, the Parole Board would take additional steps, like simplifying application forms and doing community outreach, all with the goal of allowing people with past convictions for cannabis possession to clear their records and move on with their lives as quickly and easily as possible.This is one of the final chapters in the unfortunate story of cannabis prohibition in Canada that goes back almost a century. It has involved billions of dollars wasted in enforcing an ineffective legal regime, and many more billions lining the pockets of organized crime. In spite of prohibition, Canadian youth became some of the heavier users of cannabis in the world. Some of them, especially members of marginalized communities, became saddled with criminal records that severely limited their educational and economic opportunities.Because of the many different courts and police services in cities and town and rural communities all across our country, each with its own archives of convictions that go back decades, we do not know the exact number of Canadians with simple possession charges on their records. However, we do know that a simplified pardons process with no waiting period or application fee would make it easier for people to get the pardons they need to finally turn the page. During the last election, we committed to ending the ineffective and counterproductive prohibition of cannabis. The NDP, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the prohibition of cannabis, with a decriminalization system that would have seen police issuing fines to people in marginalized and low-income communities. As for the Conservatives, they still think that people who possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use should be thrown in jail. Canadians gave us the opportunity to enact our proposal last October, and we did exactly that. With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we put in place a system of legal, strictly regulated cannabis production and distribution, designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep profits out of the hands of criminals. (1315)[Translation]With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we implemented a production and distribution system for legal cannabis that is rigorously regulated and designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and to take the profit out of the hands of organized crime. At that time, the government announced that it intended to provide recourse for individuals who had been convicted of simple possession of cannabis only.Once again, we have delivered on our commitment. Providing no-cost, expedited record suspensions is effective. Criminal records of pardoned individuals are sealed and segregated. Background checks by prospective employers or landlords would yield no results, as would a search of the Canadian police database.The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on a pardoned conviction. Similar protections already exist in several provinces and territories.[English]Waiving the waiting period and application fee are unprecedented measures. By doing so, we would be removing the major obstacles in the path of Canadians seeking to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record for possession of cannabis, allowing them to participate fully in society. We cannot go back in time and give them the opportunities they have lost, but we can give them a way of moving forward. When people fully reintegrate into Canadian society by going to school, getting jobs and generally participating in community life, we are all better off. [Translation]Now that a legal framework is in place, it is in our collective interest to allow people with criminal records for cannabis convictions to wipe the slate clean of records imposed under the former system.Bill C-93 does that. I strongly support Bill C-93 and I encourage all my colleagues to support it.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsCriminalizationDecriminalizationFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond reading5887802588780358878045887805588780658878075887808588780958878105887811588781258878135887814588781558878165887817588781858878195887820MichelPicardMontarvilleNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I am curious. The Liberals have had three and a half years. They knew this day was coming when the legalization of possession for marijuana would be in place. We know the approximate number, 400,000, of Canadians who have criminal records. In 2004, the NDP started talking about the need to expunge these records because of the impact of carrying around a criminal record.In the last five weeks left in the parliamentary sitting, when the Liberals have had three and a half years, the Liberals are introducing this bill, Bill C-93, for suspension rather than expungement. Under the Liberal plan, could a future government, simply by introducing another piece of legislation, reattach criminal records to Canadians, which the Liberals right now say they should not have? Under expungement, the record is removed. No future government can reimpose those criminal acts upon persons. That would be abolished by the government.We see future governments change course from one government to the next: Ontario would be a good example. There are many government examples we can draw upon that change ideology and change the approach to these fundamental human rights issues. There is overrepresentation of indigenous people and people of colour under marijuana convictions. Could convictions be reintroduced to people because of the Liberals' suspension process rather than expungement?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588782158878225887823PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, there are a couple of components to my hon. colleague's question. With regard to the introduction of this law in the last year of our mandate, Canadians expect us to continue to work until the end of our mandate. Some of the laws and bills we have put in place came in the first several months, and some are going to come in the last several months. We are going to keep working until the minute prior to when elections are called in this country, because that is what Canadians expect from us.I would also like to add that expungement brings with it several challenges. One challenge is that if Canadians who had this record were to travel to other countries, particularly the United States, and the countries had in their database that the persons had been convicted of simple possession, they could refuse them entry. If the individuals said that their record was expunged, they would ask for proof of that. Unfortunately, with the expungement process, there is no way that other countries could get access to those documents showing that the individuals' criminal record no longer exists. We chose to go with a record suspension process to ensure that if they needed it, people would have access to those documents to allow them to travel as they see fit. It is something that came up significantly in the consultations we had with Canadians. We listened; we put this law in place, and we are very proud that we delivered on that promise.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588782458878255887826NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, many people are asking about the cost of this bill and the information that the government relies on for assessing the costs. As members know, Conservatives will support this bill to go to committee, but we would like the government to be able to provide us with good information and be accountable to the House in that way.Indications from the minister are that the Liberals expect only 10,000 applicants, but there are 250,000 eligible Canadians. Therefore, the government seems to expect that the vast majority of people who have simple possession convictions would not apply and that is baked into its cost estimates. Why is the government assuming that such a small number of Canadians would apply for this? Is the member concerned that many of those disadvantaged Canadians he talked about may be less likely to access the resources to make these applications?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588782758878285887829PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, obviously with anything that we do, we have estimates. We are estimating that a certain number of Canadians will come forward to access the new tools we are giving them for a record suspension. If we see that those numbers are higher than expected or lower than expected, we will adjust and we will make the changes necessary. That is what any good government does.At the end of the day, what we have done over the last four years is that we have looked at a failed system, one that the previous Conservative government refused to even look at. The Conservatives were okay with the fact that we were spending billions of dollars every year on a failed system. We had some of the highest rates of cannabis use in the entire world for our youth. Billions of dollars were flowing into the pockets of organized crime. That was okay.We looked at that. We consulted with Canadians, with law enforcement, with experts. We put in place several bills that would bring us through a process that would deliver lower use rates of cannabis among youth, less money flowing into the pockets of organized crime and a safer Canada for our kids and future generations of Canadians.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588783058878315887832GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-93 and also to share my time with our excellent shadow minister for health, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who I know has done a lot of work on issues related to marijuana and will have thoughtful comments on them, I am sure. My comments will, hopefully, be somewhat thoughtful as well. I would like to talk about some of the questions we have with respect to this bill. As I mentioned during my previous question, Conservatives will support this bill to go to committee, and we will see what direction the committee study and amendments go, and what kind of clarifications are offered by the government in the context of that discussion.I will just note at the outset that the content of this bill is to make some changes with respect to the pardon process to facilitate the expedited application for pardons for those who have a conviction for simple possession of marijuana. The changes would involve the expedited opportunity to apply, as well as the waiving of the pardon fee.Some of the context for this discussion, as well, is that we had a bill proposed by the member for Victoria, a member of the NDP, that proposes expungement of these offences. Expungement would be to automatically and immediately remove the conviction, effectively to say that it did not happen, whereas the government process would be more complex and more arduous and would require the adjudication of individual applications for pardon. It would not eliminate the cost of the pardon process; it would simply move the cost from the individual who is receiving the pardon, to the taxpayer. Although I have some concerns about the direction of expungement as well, it is interesting that the government has chosen this process. If one believes in the process, the best that could be said about it is that it gets to the same place that the expungement process does, but the expungement process does not involve the significant cost to the taxpayer.In the process of waiving the fee for the pardon, the $631 fee, the government has considered its costs for this. Internal cost figures suggest that the bill would run at $315 million. People on the government side have tried to argue that the figure is lower, because they anticipate that only 10,000 people will make applications. As I noted earlier, 250,000 Canadians are eligible to apply under the system, having a simple possession offence, and yet the government believes only 10,000 would apply.It is hard for me to understand why the government has such low estimates for Canadians who would take advantage of an opportunity to get a free expedited pardon and all the benefits that are associated with getting that pardon. It makes me wonder, almost, if the government's plan is to advertise this bill as a great legislative act but then try to keep it as quiet as possible that this opportunity is available.To the extent that people might not make application, it might only be because they do not have the information or because they struggle to access the process, perhaps as a result of being disadvantaged in some way.I would observe that it is passing strange that the government trumpets this as a solution for potentially marginalized people who are held back as the result of a past criminal conviction, and yet tells us it is only going to be a very small percentage of the overall total that it will see as making this application.One might also consider the appropriateness in general of offering a free pardon process. The reason people need to access the pardon system is that they broke the law. The fact that it is not against the law to smoke marijuana or to possess marijuana today does not change the fact that if somebody carries a criminal conviction, it is because they broke something that was, at the time, the law. Regardless of one's views on whether marijuana should be legalized, I think we should, in general, seek to encourage compliance with the law. People who faced a marijuana conviction were not the victim of some great injustice. They did choose to break the law. Again, the fact that this Parliament has chosen to legalize marijuana does not change the fact that the law was broken.(1330)The counter-argument might be to point out that the pardon fee, although in some sense just and fair to those who have broken the law, does present a particular barrier to people who are struggling financially. We would want to encourage a situation in which people who maybe have committed criminal behaviour in the past but want to turn their life around, who want to be able to access legal employment, have the ability to access pardons and are not held back because of their situation, are not held back from moving forward in a way that is legal and desirable for them and for society.We recognize the need to help people who are struggling financially and also the inherent justice of people paying for their pardons in most cases. One could say it is possible to have one's cake and eat it too, by having a pardon system that gives allowances for people who are not able to afford that.I personally think it is reasonable for people who have the resources and are able to pay the pardon fee to be asked to do so. It is quite possible and reasonable to say that those who can afford to pay for a pardon, and it is a response to a criminal behaviour that they did, should have to pay for that pardon. Then those who are not able to pay should be given those allowances.It is reasonable for the government to consider that and to study the impacts of that, to explore that across the board, because it is not just a question of those who have cannabis-related convictions. It is also about anybody who has a criminal offence hanging over their head and is seeking a pardon and has turned their life around but cannot complete that process because they are struggling financially. Regardless of their past conviction, we would want to ensure that they have the opportunity to do that. In other words, this issue of whether people are able to access the pardon system if they struggle financially is not just an issue uniquely related to the particulars around cannabis. It is a discussion that we can be having across the board.This bill, in offering free pardons for one category of offence—not means tested—without considering the broader issues around pardons and their impact on low-income people and how those impacts are different from those on other people, in that respect, does slice the pie in the wrong direction. Let us try to support those who say, reasonably, that they want to find regular employment, they have turned their life around and they are ready to go through the pardon process but cannot afford the pardon fee. Let us help those people while recognizing that there are plenty of people who have past cannabis-related convictions who are of reasonable means and for whom the cost of $631, though not nothing, is quite reasonable. Hypothetically, if there were a prime minister who had a family fortune and happened to be convicted of marijuana possession, it would be reasonable for that person to pay for a pardon. That speaks to the fairness issues and the broader discussions around the pardon system. I would welcome a debate here about broader questions around reforming how we approach pardons, but that is not what we have in Bill C-93.I spoke earlier about the costs. In general, we are concerned about the costs that the government's agenda is imposing. The government seems to really be off so often when it estimates what the costs of things are going to be. The Liberals said we would have a balanced budget by this year, and yet we are still running very large deficits. Any time we see more spending bills with estimates that seem very suspicious, it raises some further questions for us from the perspective of our obligations to taxpayers.The parliamentary secretary made a strange comment. He said that, under an expungement regime, it would be harder for people to access the United States than under a pardon regime. I do not at all follow the logic of his arguments, because if the Americans have a record, it is up to them what kind of questions they want to ask and what kind of documents they want to seek at the border. It would be perfectly possible to provide people who have received expungement with documents supporting the fact that they have had expungement of their convictions.On that basis, we support the bill going to committee but we have many continuing questions.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingSplitting speaking time588783358878345887835588783658878375887838588783958878405887841588784258878435887844588784558878465887847588784858878495887850588785158878525887853PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's submissions on this. First of all, as to Canada's criminalization of cannabis previously, what people have been raising is that it was a historical injustice in its application. It has come up frequently at committee that it was not applied in the same way to all people in our country. I want to point out that our committee did a unanimous report. All parties agreed when we studied Motion No. 161, which was about pardons and record suspensions, that we should look at the pricing for record suspensions, and this included Conservatives. The stories we heard over and over again said that the cost of getting a record suspension, at $631—and that increased when the Conservatives were the government—prevents people from being able to get a record suspension. That is a problem for people because then they cannot work.The thrust in most of the argument I have heard is about this being taxpayer dollars and it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Is there not a value, something that pays back on that investment when we allow people to enter the workforce, be able to have accommodations and actually be a part of our society actively?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588785458878555887856GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, with due respect to my colleague, I think she misstated the thrust of my argument. I recognized explicitly in what I said that there is a legitimate concern about the prohibitive cost of record suspensions for some Canadians. That is why I said we should be looking at addressing that prohibitive cost, not uniquely for one type of conviction but for all convictions. At the same time, there are Canadians who can afford to pay the record suspension fee, whether we are talking about cannabis-related convictions or other convictions. My view would be that we should put in place a structure that ensures that any Canadians who can make a meritorious application are not obstructed in their ability to seek a record suspension by the cost, that any Canadian can move forward with that type of application regardless of ability to pay, but that those who are able to pay do pay, that the taxpayer is not subsidizing the record suspensions of those who are doing well financially. I think that is the reasonable way of proceeding.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878575887858JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, as had been noted earlier in debate today on this topic, the legalization of marijuana may well be the only election promise that the government has successfully kept, as we get to the very end of this Parliament. That bill, even then, took longer than the Liberals' promised deadlines for which it was to take place.There are still a number of loose ends to this that were not properly contemplated under Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. I would ask the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan if he would like to comment on the late hour, literally down to the final weeks of this Parliament, still trying to deal with the sloppiness of the entire legalization rollout?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878595887860GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate about the question of the legalization of marijuana, but even many of those who supported legalization in principle identified the fact that the devil was in the details of this legislation. There are many problems with the way the government approached it, and residual concerns about impacts.My colleague is right that we are here at this late stage debating the bill. A member of the government, in response to a question from the NDP about this, said they are going to work right until the end. That is all well and good, but the reason we are concerned about the timing is that it raises questions about whether the government is actually serious about getting it done. When a bill is started this late in the process, it increases the likelihood that it will not actually get done. The marijuana legalization legislation was so extensive that it could have contemplated issues around this. Again, we continue to have concerns about various aspects of the application of the bill. There are aspects of the bill that require significant study and that will, I suspect, require study in the other place as well. Starting late has real consequences. It is not just a question of the arbitrariness of the calendar, but it does have consequences for those who are impacted in some way by the bill.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588786158878625887863PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.This bill would make changes to the pardon process and eliminate fees for Canadians previously convicted of marijuana possession. Today I want to talk about the existing fee elimination process, the difference with the NDP's plan in favour of criminal record expungement, and the current situation surrounding cannabis possession in Canada.[English]To begin with, I want to talk about the fact there is an existing process for people who have been convicted of cannabis possession to have those offences pardoned. It has been stated already that the cost is $631. One thing I would point out about the existing process is that it takes a look at what exactly the criminal history was. In many cases, when a crime was committed, there may have been a violent action or something that could not be proved, so people ended up with a charge for possession when in fact multiple crimes could have been committed that could not be proved at the time. It is important to keep that in mind.I heard some discussion about the fact that this $631 is very burdensome for people. However, let us look at the price of weed in Canada today. There is actually a website now, and depending on the quality of cannabis, we are talking about $200 an ounce, which for those members who do not convert to metric, is 28 grams. That is about the amount that is allowed for personal possession under the current legislation, meaning it is about $200 for the amount that someone might normally possess. If someone is caught for possession, we would assume that the person had possessed this amount more than once, so I think the affordability issue is a red herring.One of the important things to consider when looking at whether or not to pardon or to grant an expungement of the record is what is going to happen. People want a pardon because it is difficult to find employment if they have a criminal record. One of the concerns I have heard is that people who are given a pardon still have to answer “yes” to the question on the employment form that asks if they have ever had a criminal record, even though they have a pardon. People might think that means that expungement is a better option, but I would tell them it is not.I am in a border city, living close to the U.S., and we have dealt with lots of cases of people wanting to get a pardon so they will be able to go to the U.S. It is important to know that there is a different process. Just because people have been given a pardon in Canada does not mean they would be allowed to go to the U.S. In fact, they need to get a U.S. entry waiver. As part of the process to apply for a U.S. entry waiver, they have to have a copy of their Canadian pardon. Since 2010, Canada and the U.S. have been exchanging information on crimes committed, so the reality is that the U.S. knows who has a criminal marijuana possession charge on their record, and without evidence of a pardon, an expungement of that record would not allow them to go to the U.S. I want to read what it says on the web page. It states:I Have a Canadian Pardon, Do I Still Need a US Entry Waiver?Yes! Many Canadians incorrectly believe that as long as they have received a record suspension (formerly called a pardon), their criminal record is entirely erased and they can travel to the United States of America without problems. After all, once a pardon is granted by the National Parole Board it is only with written permission from the Minister of Justice that the sealed criminal record can be viewed.... The fact is, though, as of 2010 our neighbors...have access to... every Canadian's criminal record, and since the United States does not recognize Canadian pardons, they keep the conviction on file even when an individual is pardoned. A lot of the inaccurate information around this topic is...being disseminated by non-licensed individuals....Canadian Pardons Do Not Help with Entry into USAAmerican border officials use the United States National Crime Information Center...database, which is maintained by CJIS and the FBI and interlinked with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as with the RCMP and their CPIC database.(1345)What does this mean specifically? It continues:Now that marijuana has been legalised in Canada, the Liberal Government has announced that it will expedite the processing of pardons for any Canadian with a minor cannabis-related criminal conviction that involved less than 30 grams of marijuana. More than 100,000 Canadians have a criminal record for having cannabis on their person, and the Government has pledged to waive the $631 pardon fee and eliminate the waiting period typically required for record suspensions. Even after receiving an official pardon, however, these Canadians could still be denied entry at the US border. According to...the assistant commissioner of field operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), “we do not recognize the Canadian amnesty....” Consequently, even after being granted amnesty by the Government of Canada, a Canadian with a conviction for simple possession of marijuana may still require a USA Waiver in order to cross the border successfully.It is for this reason, with regard to pardons versus expungement, that those who want to go to the U.S. will have to produce a document showing a Canadian pardon in order to get a U.S. waiver to enter the U.S. That is certainly something to consider.With respect to the pardon process, I hope that in addition to considering the individuals who apply, the government will address our current judicial queue, which, as we know, is overburdened. In fact, under the Liberal government, we have not appointed enough judges to stop cases involving murderers and rapists from being thrown out because of the Jordan's principle, which means they have been in the queue for longer than two years. I hope the government is looking into the backlog to make sure that people in line with a simple possession charge will have their cases thrown out, as this will avoid all the bureaucracy that goes along with those charges.I have also heard commentary today that the legislation has come late in the process. I agree with this commentary. It was an election promise to legalize marijuana. There was lots of consultation and a comprehensive report. I was at the health committee when the bill was considered. There, many things were pointed out that were talked about years ago, and this issue was one of them. The bill has been left to the last minute and will likely not be passed, which means that the government is not sincere in its efforts to pass it.The legalization of marijuana was itself a similar exercise. Some pointed out to the government that it needed to put public education in place a year before legalization. Again, that did not happen. What was needed to support police officers and municipalities was clear, yet the timeline was rushed and too short.What is happening today?Although marijuana is legal, edibles are not yet legal. There is still much confusion about what is to come in that respect, and there has been no clarification.Also, we have seen many of the things that were predicted. There has been an increase of 32% in the number of people consuming cannabis. This is the same kind of increase seen in Colorado. This increase is problematic in the context of impaired driving. Canada already had a substantial problem in that regard. As MADD noted, in 2014, 42% of fatally injured drivers tested positive for cannabis. At that time we already had a big problem, and certainly under this government it does not seem to be getting any better.There are issues with Bill C-93, and with respect to the pardons, we have to be clear about who is going to pay for them. I am not sure why a taxpayer who did not commit a crime should have to foot the bill for a crime someone else committed, especially given that the person committing the crime would have had to spend $200 an ounce on marijuana. I certainly think that needs to be looked at.The pardon versus expungement argument is a valid one, and we should take it forward, but we should make sure that we do not pardon en masse. We should consider each case on its merits to make sure there were no other criminal offences that could not be proven but were documented in the files of those who received a conviction for possession.Application processBacklogsBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878645887865588786658878675887868588786958878705887871588787258878735887874588787558878765887877588787858878795887880588788158878825887883588788458878855887886GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, this idea of charges that have not been proven has come up in a few of the speeches today. However, we just call those “charges”. The person has not been convicted of them. It is not a conviction and it is not what we base our pardons on or what they seek pardons on, because it is not what they are sentenced on. I think we really need to be clear. A person may have been charged, but if the charge was not proven, it means the person was not criminally convicted. It concerns me when we slide that line in our conversations in this place. I want to underline that we are missing the point about why pardons or expungements are important. In fact, I voted in favour of expungement and I have no problem with that, if that is what we are speaking about. When we studied it at committee, we saw that people who do not have a pardon in fact cannot get jobs as easily, cannot rent homes, cannot adopt and might have problems with custody arrangements. Does my friend not see the value of a pardon in the case of simple possession, if that is what they were convicted of, and is that not something we should be doing as quickly and cheaply as possible?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878875887888MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, in fact there is a process today to get a pardon. We are not creating something that does not already exist. We are just talking about how fast we are going to do it and who is going to pay. I would argue that the person who committed the offence should be responsible for paying for it. I do not think the taxpayer should have to pay extra money to give a pardon to someone who committed what was at that time a crime. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887889JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, we can forgive Canadians trying to follow this debate who might not know the distinction between an expungement and a pardon. Pardons exist right now within the legislation. We also know that pardons can simply be revoked at some future date. A future parliament can decide that it was a mistake and bring those convictions back onto people's records. Liberal colleagues, time after time, have said that they think expungement was probably a better idea but that they just could not get around to it. We have about four or five weeks left in the parliamentary sitting. For a piece of legislation this important, this significant and this complicated to come this late expresses the government's lack of priority for the issue. There are 400,000 Canadians wondering what is going to happen to their criminal charges for possession, which is not trafficking or anything else. We know indigenous communities and people of colour are overrepresented in this group. They are wondering where they sit in the Liberal priorities for justice. They know any pardon they get can be reversed and that the legislation has been introduced so late that it may not actually pass into law prior to the election in October of this year.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588789058878915887892MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that this proposed legislation has come so late that it does call into question the sincerity of the government in wanting to get it passed. However, I hope he was listening when I talked about why expunging a record is not going to work. For example, for people who live in my community who may want to go to the U.S., the U.S. already has the information about who has a criminal record for possession in Canada. If they do not get a U.S. entry waiver, then they cannot get into the U.S. However, they cannot get a U.S. entry waiver unless they have a copy of their Canadian pardon, which they would not have if their record was expunged. I think this is a very important point, and I look forward to discussing this aspect further at committee.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878935887894NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate thus far, I am a little confused in terms of what the Conservative Party's position actually is. Could the member be clear on whether they are in favour of a pardon over expungement?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5887895MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, we look forward to a full discussion at committee. I am not sure that we can see from the comments today that we have jelled on where our position is. We will have to have more discussion on it. However, I am personally very much in favour of a pardon over an expungement for the reasons I have stated. People would not be able to go from my riding across to the U.S., which is a daily event, if their records were expunged. I think that the pardon process that exists is tried and true and is the correct path. We should see if we can streamline that path and make it more accessible.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58878965887897KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House. Once again, today, we have in Bill C-93 another progressive piece of legislation that is going to have a very positive outcome at the end of the day, from coast to coast to coast.I have heard a number of members across the way ask why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time. I can tell people who may be following the debate that, in the last three or three and a half years, we have had a government that has taken very seriously issues such as cannabis, tax breaks, or a wide selection of different areas of concern. We have been introducing legislation from virtually day one, all the way. I would suggest that we could see even more legislation.Canadians have an expectation that the government, and in fact hopefully the opposition too, will recognize that every day is a good day to be sitting, and when we are sitting, we should be doing work on behalf of all Canadians. This is just another good day. We are debating legislation that ultimately will have a very positive impact on Canadians.The question I just posed to the member opposite, the Conservative shadow minister, is something that I think Canadians are very much interested in. The New Democrats very clearly want expungement. Let us make this so that it really makes sense to our constituents. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, any one of our constituents living in Canada who want to go down to the States today. If they were to go to the States and the government said they could have an expungement, as opposed to a pardon, what we would be telling our constituents is that it is as if the act never took place. They can go across the border and if the issue is ever posed to them, they could say it never took place. They do not have to say anything about it. That would be a huge mistake, I would suggest, because they could find themselves in a position where an immigration or customs officer in the U.S. could make accusations of misrepresentation or possibly even accusations of lying. If they attempt to do that, they could be in a great deal of trouble, especially if they want to enter the States that day or in the future. That is just one example that I think has to be talked about of why an expungement is not necessarily what the NDP is trying to portray. A pardon does the job that is being requested. It allows our constituents to cross the border in a legitimate fashion.There have been consultations between border controls in both nations. Most importantly, we know that we can actually implement this policy for those individuals. We are talking about providing a pardon for an estimated 250,000 Canadians. That is a quarter of a million Canadians in all regions of our country who would now be eligible to receive this pardon. Some members asked why we expect only 10,000 Canadians to actually go through the process. We have confidence in our civil servants and believe these are the numbers that we have been told. If in fact they are too high or too low, the government can adjust, much like I can adjust to my time having expired.I will continue my speech at the end of question period.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588789858878995887900588790158879025887903588790458879055887906MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share thoughts on important pieces of legislation the government brings forward, such as Bill C-93.During the last federal election, the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the third party, made a commitment to legalize cannabis. Today we are discussing the second part of the legislation, which I believe will fulfill the commitment we made in 2015.I have had the opportunity to go over a couple of our election commitments, and I have been listening to the debate today on the matter of legalization, as I have done previously. I want to highlight at the outset what the NDP said in the last federal election when Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the New Democratic Party. When asked about the NDP's position on this issue, he said that the NDP did not favour the legalization of cannabis.That is why I find it interesting that today, NDP members are saying that we should expunge the records of those who were found in criminal violation of our former cannabis laws. On the one hand, prior to the election, NDP members said no to legalization. They were okay with decriminalization but not with legalization. Fast-forward a couple of years and now they have changed their minds. In fact, I recall that in one article, the current leader of the New Democratic Party took the position that everything should be legalized. He believes that any sort of illegal drug should be legal. Only now is this something NDP members want to talk about.If we were to look at the the way the Liberal government has managed this file, I believe we would see that Canadians, in general, have been very supportive of it.It has been interesting to listen to members of the opposition parties talk about the issue. The NDP has made a complete flip-flop, even suggesting now that the government can do more. Then there is the Conservative Party. One of the questions I posed to members across the way was whether the Conservatives, if they were in government, would make cannabis illegal again and retract the work the government has done over the last couple of years. They completely waffled on the question. In fact, they have implied that they would not change the law. Even though they voted against the legislation, they are not going to change it.An hon. member: That is correct. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, a member across the way just said that is correct. Even the Conservative Party has recognized that the idea the Liberals had back when we were the third party is solid and progressive, and one that is necessary at this stage.Indirectly, on behalf of the government and Liberal caucus members, I would like to thank members of the Conservative Party and the NDP for recognizing that we have brought forward sound legislation. I would encourage them to continue to follow the direction that we continue to provide on this very important topic.Bill C-93 would allow for pardons. Pardons are the best way to deal with the issues facing about 250,000 Canadians. I think that is the number.(1520)All we are talking about is simple possession, not possession and other issues, but simple possession of cannabis. What can we do to assist those individuals who have a criminal record based on simple possession of cannabis? The government's response is to issue a pardon and ensure that the finances are not going to be a part of the issue so that anyone who has a simple possession of cannabis conviction will in fact be able to get that pardon if that is what he or she would like to see happen. I am encouraged because the critic from the Conservative Party indicated that her personal position is favourable to what the Liberals are suggesting, which is a pardon. However, there have been some speakers in the Conservative Party who are saying that they are not convinced as of yet, but at least they are approaching it with an open mind on whether it should be expungement or a pardon. I suspect that once this bill gets to committee and they hear follow-up information, the Conservative Party will see the value in the recommendation that has been provided by science, experts and the department, which will clearly demonstrate that in fact a pardon is the best way to go. I do not know about my New Democratic friends. I am not sure where they will go on this issue. They always try to come up with something different, something unique. They seem to be on the expungement bandwagon, even though we have come up with an explanation as to why it would not do what is necessary for us to advance this further. They do not want to talk about that. If we listen to the New Democrats, we would think it is absolutely unanimous throughout the country that it has to be expungement and that the government does not necessarily know what it is talking about. I would highly recommend that we do not listen to New Democrats in the House.The best example I can give is that of a constituent crossing the border into the U.S. What are we telling people when we say that their record has been expunged? We are saying that the act they went to court for, were convicted of and got a criminal record for never existed. Therefore, when a U.S. border agent asks them if they were ever prosecuted and had a criminal offence dealing with cannabis, they might say no. Why? The government said that the record was expunged. That could lead to all sorts of problems for an individual. A pardon does not do what an expungement does. Millions of Canadians travel to the U.S. A pardon would allow a constituent the opportunity to go to the U.S., and the individual is not going to be misinformed. This is just one of the more blatant examples that I can provide.Of the 250,000 people we are talking about, it is expected that about 10,000 or so will go through this pardon process. In the questions and comments from across the way, members are asking why it is 10,000 and what happens if there are more than 10,000. Our civil service is one of the best of any country in the world. We have professional civil servants who have a very good understanding of our systems. I would suggest that the numbers that are being provided are not just coming out of the dark. The numbers come from individuals we have entrusted. If the number is higher or lower than 10,000, the government will adjust, but the predicted number is around 10,000. We have the flexibility to make the adjustment, if it is necessary. (1525)The idea of providing a pardon is of great value to Canadians and to society. People do get themselves into situations. Someone will be found in possession, but by pure luck another individual who also is in possession is not found to be in possession. The individual found to be in possession gets a criminal record. That does not mean the individual is worse than the thousands of others that were never found guilty of possession.Many would argue that the consequences are unfortunate. We have listened to many speeches as this has been going on for the last couple of years. We often hear of individuals not being able to get a job because they have a criminal record based on the simple possession of cannabis. As a parliamentarian, I find that is a hard thing to ignore and not do anything about.This legislation is good for Canadian society, especially now when we recognize that when we passed Bill C-45, the legalization of cannabis legislation, it only makes sense that we do what we can in regard to those who were found guilty of simple possession to enable them to dispose of that record via a pardon process.Once this legislation is passed, thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country will apply to get their criminal record pardoned. This will assist many of those individuals in applying for a job or performing charity work. Canada is very dependent on volunteers. There are many ways society can benefit, such as an individual having a job and being able to participate more fully. These are the types of things we are going to witness. All one has to do is talk to some of those individuals. There are plenty of them, a quarter of a million of them. That is a lot of people. These individuals will directly benefit and there are many more that will realize an indirect benefit.One of the things that is really important from the government's perspective, and even from a member of Parliament's perspective, is that we have to work towards making our communities safer for all of us. Individuals should feel safe in the communities in which they live. They should feel safe walking on the sidewalks in their neighbourhoods. They should feel safe being a part of their community and not be scared to walk down the street. We need to look at ways to reduce the amount of crime in our communities.I was pleased when the minister responsible for crime reduction came to Winnipeg North and joined me on Selkirk Avenue, where we met with James, a fellow from the Bear Clan Patrol and one of the board members. We were able to check out a bit of Selkirk Avenue. The minister used to be the chief of police for the city of Toronto.(1530)We understand how important it is that we strive to have less crime on our streets. With Bill C-93, working along with Bill C-45 and the legalization of cannabis, at the end of the day there is going to be less crime in our communities. These are the types of actions that are important for us to act on.Today we have a second bill on a very important issue, an issue that we made a promise about in 2015. We are fulfilling yet another commitment to Canadians.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminalizationExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588822058882215888222588822358882245888225588822658882275888228588822958882305888231588823258882335888234588823558882365888237588823858882395888240588824158882425888243GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a friendly comment for my colleague on his explanation of the logic between expungement and record suspension at the border, he might not want to post that on YouTube. I was totally lost on the logic of how one would explain to a border agent in the United States the difference between an expungement and a record suspension.If there are a quarter of a million people who could benefit from a record suspension, I would like to know all the reasons why the officials think only 10,000 will apply. One of my concerns is that if people do a Google search right now for “pardons Canada”, the first half-dozen are private organizations that charge a fee for individuals to get a record suspension. They could easily go to Service Canada, but Service Canada's site is way down below.Why does the member think that a record suspension that would create all kinds of bureaucratic delays is better than an expungement? A minister could do that, I believe, if I am not corrected, by regulation and simply eliminate these because the whole charge has been eliminated anyway.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588824458882455888246KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, in my comments, I made reference to the critic for the Conservative Party. In listening to what she had to say, we find that at least the critic for the Conservative Party seemed to be indicating that she prefers the pardon over the expungement. I suspect that she might be able to provide more details to the member opposite.He made reference to my example in terms of the U.S. border. Let me try to better explain it. One of the member opposite's constituents goes to the border, believing that, because he or she had an expungement, there is no obligation for him or her to say “I have a criminal record.” If it has been expunged, it means it has been wiped off the record books. However, they cannot say that when they go to the border because that might not be what shows up in system of the U.S. border officer or immigration official. That MP's constituent might think he or she can get away with saying that when in fact that is not the case. His constituent could get into a great deal of trouble. That is just one example. If we tell people that they have a pardon, generally speaking, people have a better sense of what a pardon is. That does not mean that they go across the border and say, “No, I have never had a criminal conviction.” They have been pardoned. I suspect that the likelihood of complications would be greatly diminished. That was just one example that I was using.In regard to the overall numbers, it depends on the individual in question. I suspect that our civil service and the people who maintain these records have a better sense, not only of how many people are eligible, but also of how many would be applying. Some people might have more of a vested interest in wanting to apply. Many others would have no interest in applying, for whatever reasons. They could be at a stage in life. It could be in terms of occupations. Who knows what the rationale is. However, I have trust and confidence in the system, and if there needs to be an adjustment, I have confidence in the government of the day making that adjustment.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888247588824858882495888250DavidSweetFlamborough—GlanbrookMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am going to need some time to fact check all the erroneous things that the member said.First of all, the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, like health officials in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, wants to decriminalize drugs, recognizing that these are dangerous substances, but also recognizing, as we would have hoped the government would, but it does not, that these are now public health issues.I want to walk the member through the NDP's position, since he seems to have had some trouble understanding it. The NDP advocated for decriminalization in the lead-up to legalization. Why? We understood that it would be a complicated process. We were right, because the government threw provinces under the bus while trying to get this process going. That being said, the NDP supported Bill C-45, supported legalization, and through that whole process asked government members why they would not decriminalize simple possession of cannabis, as Canadians continue to be taxed with criminal records. These are young Canadians, vulnerable Canadians, racialized Canadians. What do we have now? We have an eleventh-hour, half-baked, no pun intended, solution. Despite what the member thinks he is telling us to look forward to at committee, we are already at committee studying this bill before it is even out of the House. It is getting eviscerated by officials who cannot tell us where the numbers are that the member is quoting from, with the Minister of Border Security who said that this is a great injustice, and if we consider it a great injustice, maybe we should go toward expungement. The member would also know that lawyers have come before the committee to speak about expungement. Please stop saying “pardon”, because the government did not respect its promise to change a record suspension back into a pardon. A pardon means something else in the United States, so a pardon and expungement are equally worthless at the border.Does anyone know what one can do in Canada with a pardon or record suspension? Potential employers can ask if people have a criminal record for which they have obtained a record suspension. People have to say “yes”. With an expungement, they do not have to, so if they are racialized or vulnerable Canadians who want to get a job, expungement is the way to go. That is why witnesses at committee are telling us that it is the solution. That is why the member should get on board and stop believing his own hot air about this issue which the government has dropped since day one. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888251588825258882535888254588825558882565888257KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is attempting to mislead in his statements. If we stop and think, it was very clear. In 2015, in the last election, the NDP did not support legalization of cannabis. Instead, its members argued for mere decriminalization. If they had their way, if we followed what they advocated for in 2015, cannabis possession would still be against the law.In late 2017, in the Canadian Press, there is a quote from their leader of today which says that the NDP leader is urging the Prime Minister to consider decriminalizing all illegal drugs.The member can fact check all he wants, but everything I have said is factual. I would suggest that the NDP members, because they have such a progressive government on a number of social fronts, find themselves out of place, as if there is no room inside the chamber for them. They are trying to create opportunities. If they want to radically change their 2015 platform, good for them. I hope they do. They also advocated for balanced budgets back then. Today, they are advocating for a house for everyone in Canada, possibly gifting it to them. Who knows what we are going to see coming from the NDP. I anxiously await that platform.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888258588825958882605888261MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a comment more than anything. We have heard so much from the member in this Parliament, I am not sure I really need an answer from him. It is a shame that other members will not allow their voices to be heard and simply allow the member to do all the talking on that side. It is a lot of work to be elected to the House of Commons, and members should use their own voices.Be that as it may, the member spent a large portion of his speech dissecting opposition reaction to it, and castigating both the Conservative opposition, but not all Conservatives, and the NDP. Some Conservatives have spoken in favour of expungement. One of the NDP members had a private member's motion on expungement that they all supported.I noticed during both the vote and debate on the NDP's private motion, and in the debate earlier today on this bill, that a substantial portion of the Liberal backbench also favour expungement. This is not a matter of the member's party being unified in their approach; there are many Liberals who do not agree with the party's approach. If we must have a comment or answer, I would like him to address that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588826258882635888264KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, in regard to the amount of speaking, I am here to advocate and that is what I do. I take a great sense of pride in that. If we add up their words, a couple of the Conservative members have spoken more than I have in this chamber. We have a very strong, healthy caucus. All members of this caucus are engaged in different ways. I see that as a very strong and positive thing. I also see it as a positive when we have diversity in a caucus and where members can have differing opinions. It might not be unanimous regarding expungement versus pardon, just like it is not unanimous in the Conservative Party either. However, we are able to come to a consensus and move forward, and that is something this government has consistently done since day one of being in government.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58882655888266PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1540)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with the journalists who have to fact check one of Donald Trump's speeches. They must dread finding that the fact checking is longer than the speech. I felt a bit like that when I was listening to the member for Winnipeg North. The 10-minute question period was not even long enough to correct the facts. If the member had listened to the testimony from the minister and departmental officials in committee, he would have seen just how problematic his comments were. Bill C-93 arrived at the eleventh hour of this Parliament. Record suspension for simple cannabis possession should have been included in the government's legalization bill. It is crucial to make some distinctions here. I heard a number of members on both sides of the House, myself included, use the word “pardon”, but there is an important distinction to be made.First, the debate on this bill includes a lot of talk about Canadians being able to cross the border. In the United States, being granted a pardon has a different connotation. Any lawyer will tell you that. In the United states, that is something only the executive branch can do. Giving an individual a presidential pardon, for example, means eliminating their criminal record and giving them a full pardon. In Canada, however, the individual continues to have a criminal record. I will come back to that.Several years ago, when the Conservative government decided to call this a criminal record suspension, it had a very clear intention, namely to remind those concerned that they had not been pardoned and that the government had only done them the favour of suspending their criminal record. It is often the vulnerable who end up in a precarious situation. They generally try to get a pardon, which is now being called a record suspension, in order to get a job, rent an apartment or do volunteer work. Statistics show that 95% are not recidivists. Calling this a pardon did not pose any problems, since the program itself required these people to demonstrate good behaviour for a number of years before they were able to submit an application.This change might appear insignificant or semantic to some people who, like us, are in a position of privilege. However, a study done by the Department of Public Safety has acknowledged that these changes are needed. The minister himself said several years ago that this would be rectified in the course of a much-needed reform of the record suspension program, and yet it still has not been done. Unfortunately, with the election just a few months away, we do not expect this to get done, which is really too bad.This is part of the broader debate we have already had on several occasions. Let us deal specifically with record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Several things came to light during the debate and in committee. First of all, suspending the criminal record does not make it disappear, and this has a number of repercussions. For instance, on job applications, candidates are sometimes asked whether they have ever had a criminal record for which they were granted a suspension.At committee, like a good politician with several decades of experience, the minister was very careful to specify that the act prohibits employers from discriminating against candidates who have been granted suspensions. Fortunately, departmental officials were there, and they interrupted to clarify that there is nothing in the act to stop employers from asking the question. In fact, the act even specifies that candidates must answer honestly. (1545)I do not know what my colleagues think, but anyone who thinks people will feel protected just because the law prohibits discrimination and that candidates for all kinds of positions and in all spheres of life have never experienced discrimination must be dreaming. The people in this situation who would try to get a job are the very same people who would then struggle to get legal aid to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or even to launch more of a legal complaint. Anyone who says this is insignificant is completely ignoring the reality of those people.(1550)[English]Who are those people? They are racialized, indigenous and young Canadians, Canadians who are in a particular situation that makes it even more difficult for them under normal circumstances, much less with a criminal record in their file, one for which they cannot get proper recourse or remediation through expungement just by having a record suspension. Let me provide some examples. When we look at cities like Toronto and Halifax, black Canadians are disproportionately more likely to have a criminal record for nothing but simple possession of cannabis. In cities like Regina, indigenous people are 10 times more likely than white Canadians to have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. The Minister of Border Security, under the different portfolios he has managed since he has come to this House, said in 2016 that one of the great injustices in the country was that these Canadians were disproportionately impacted by records for simple possession of cannabis. That is interesting. Why? When Bill C-66 was adopted in this place, which sought to remediate the grave injustice LGBTQ Canadians were subjected to because of the criminalization of their lives due to their sexual orientation, the government rightly pointed out that it was a historic injustice.The problem now, and this is not to pit communities against each other, is that the Minister of Public Safety is using Bill C-66 as an arbitrary, legally non-existent crutch to identify that there is somehow a ceiling for what needs to exist to expunge criminal records, which is a grave injustice.[Translation]With regard to this grave historic injustice, I asked the Prime Minister himself questions about it in the House. He said that, yes, it was disappointing and distressing to see this, and that it was obviously unfair, but he refused to call it an injustice. When I questioned the minister in committee, he went out of his way to avoid using the word, even though another minister had used it back then, and he said that society's grave injustices should depend on what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines as a violation. This minister was wrong, because, as distinguished lawyer Kent Roach has said, the charter should be the minimum, not the maximum, in terms of our sense of justice. Citing rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada, Annamaria Enenajor, the director of the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, told the committee that a law can be discriminatory in its application without being discriminatory on its face. In other words, if a law starts out with good intentions but leads to a discriminatory outcome, it can still be considered a discriminatory law, and if a law or application of a law is discriminatory, that means an injustice has been committed. That is why we want criminal records to be expunged and not just suspended. The minister seems to be insisting on this point, but he cannot say why. He keeps referring to Bill C-66.Can we, as Canadians, say that while a grave, historic injustice was done to the LGBTQ community, we cannot say the same thing about the application of the law regarding the possession of a drug that is now legal, namely, cannabis? This was an injustice largely done to vulnerable communities. I find that really troubling.[English]On that note, Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer who was at our committee last week, said that this law is not a bad thing, and it is good that we are putting in place mechanisms for these Canadians to more easily receive pardons. In the words of many witnesses and experts, it is the absolute bare minimum. As Mr. Friedman said in committee, certainly we can do better than the absolute bare minimum, especially for indigenous, racialized and other Canadians who are in vulnerable situations.It is not just a distinction between expungement and record suspension. It is also an issue of whether it is automatic. This legislation would still make Canadians jump through the crazy hoops that exist to obtain a record suspension. The government thinks it has solved that because it would be free of charge and there would be no wait times. However, the reality is different.When the public safety committee, which I am the vice-chair of, did a study on how we can reform the record suspension program and fix all the issues it has, one of the things that came up time and time again, which all parties agreed on, was the fact the most exorbitant part of the process and the costs imposed on these Canadians is not the cost to apply, which is what the government would be waiving. It is the fact that people have to go to a municipal court and a provincial court. They have to get their fingerprint records. They have to go to the police station. Two Conservative members who are former police officers validated all this information. They said that it is indeed extremely labourious for these Canadians to obtain all those things.As officials confirmed at committee, indeed it would not be a cost-free process, no matter what members in this House on the government side attempt to tell us.(1555)[Translation]The costs associated with this process must therefore be assumed by individuals who often do not have the means and are actually applying for the suspension to be able to get a job. Bill C-93 currently before the House maintains certain mechanisms that prevent people from getting their criminal records suspended. It is not true that anyone who has a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis just has to fill out a form for that to happen. That does not just magically happen. This will not be the case for people who, for example, have administration of justice offences on their records. We are not talking about murderers. We are talking about people who might have an outstanding $50 fine, which would make them ineligible. Departmental officials confirmed that such individuals would not be eligible for the process being offered by the government. I would like the government to explain why an indigenous person who has a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and who was unable to go to court because he lives in a remote area cannot get the government to suspend his record because of an unpaid $50 fine. The government says that it cares about the interests of all communities. I do not understand how that is in the interests of people who are simply looking to sort out the criminal record they have for something that is now legal and ensure it is no longer a burden that prevents them from renting an apartment, getting a job or volunteering.I am also talking about travelling across the border. I almost fell off my chair when I heard what the minister said in committee. He got two bills passed in his name that increase the amount of information we share with the United States. He said that he was sorry, but that the Americans had been keeping a lot of information about us for far too long, and so we could not really control what they do at the border. In passing, I am astounded that the minister recognizes that this is a problem, but yet, every time we raise this issue in debate, he tells us it is not a big deal and we should not worry because the United States is our ally.There is, however, good reason to worry. I said at the outset that the Americans do not make the same distinction as we do between a pardon and a record suspension. The minister tried to give the most ridiculous excuse that I think I have ever heard in my eight years as an MP. He said that one of the reasons why it was better for people to have their record suspended was because a suspension leaves a paper trail, which would give them the documentary proof they needed at the border.I see two problems with that.After I asked the question, the department's staff confirmed that with the passage of Bill C-66, which would expunge records, those affected will actually receive written confirmation. It's a miracle.Second, no one can tell me that, in a G7 country, we are unable to implement a mechanism to provide confirmation that a record has been expunged. As some might say, my word, I do not understand how a government can look at something with such a narrow lens when it was elected by stating that it wanted to take a broader view. That is just crazy. It boggles my mind.(1600)[English]In the same vein, that was the one reason that was given, even though witnesses then came and said that a record suspension will not make it any easier to cross the border. A person would still have to jump through all the hoops that the Americans will impose, if they even choose to let the person in at all, which, at the end of the day, as the minister said, remains at their discretion. An expungement means that Canadians do not have to lie at the border, which is obviously the more egregious offence. However, the priority here is what is happening domestically. It is about these folks being able to get jobs, rent apartments, volunteer and do all the things that sometimes a criminal record can prevent them from doing.I want to go back to the notion of the administrative burden. The minister is talking about jumping through hoops, saying that it is about paperwork, this, that and the other thing. I asked the minister why it could not be made automatic, and he told me, basically, that it would be too much work. I am paraphrasing, and I am sure he would disagree with my characterization of this, but every other stakeholder I spoke to shared this characterization of what he said. Apparently, the federal government believes, and it told us, that it would take 10 years to expunge 250,000 records. Well, when we look at the Phoenix debacle, maybe it is right. Maybe the government finally recognized its own ineptitude in managing these files. However, it is absurd to think that somehow the government is going to put the burden on vulnerable Canadians and make them do this process on their own, which many will not even be aware of, will not have the money to pay for and will not even know where to go for. The government could make it automatic, but, sorry, the Parole Board of Canada might have too much work to do, God forbid. As far as I am concerned, that is completely unacceptable when we look at the individuals who are affected by this particular issue. Certainly, we understand that government databases are no treat to navigate, but there has to be a way that the government can somehow dream a little more, as the Liberals promised they would when they got elected, and somehow find a way to deal with 250,000 records. With Bill C-66, of the 9,000 LGBTQ Canadians who were criminalized by the Criminal Code, seven have applied so far through that process. Does the government expect me to believe that because officials came to committee and told us not to worry and that they are going to have a non-traditional marketing campaign using social media and other things, the government will make sure that these Canadians know that this process exists? It is laughable. Quite frankly, it is pathetic. [Translation]It should have been part of the process from the beginning.I want to qualify that. The previous speaker tried to explain the NDP's position in terms of decriminalization. It was to prevent these records from piling up that we wanted to move forward on decriminalization before legalization. It was also because we understand that we have to address this as a public health issue and not a public safety issue.It is exactly because of our core values that we are saying that the right approach is to expunge these records and not to offer a process that is fundamentally problematic.[English]I will conclude by saying that we had criminal defence lawyers in committee confirm to us that a record suspension, whether given through a process like Bill C-93 or the normal process outside of a special piece of legislation, is always conditional on continued good behaviour. What does that mean? That is not about someone who is going to go out and commit a horrific crime. That means that the Parole Board of Canada can decide that because someone got caught speeding, going 130 kilometres per hour on a highway, this could be considered. Those things have happened.[Translation]I believe this bill is a clear reflection of the Liberal government that has been in power for four years. It is a useless exercise that lets them claim to be progressive when, in reality, they are quite the opposite.Application processBacklogsBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationEmployment equityExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalitySecond readingSexual discrimination58882675888268588826958882705888271588827258882735888274588827558882765888277588827858882795888280588828158882825888283588828458882855888286588828758882885888289588829058882915888292588829358882945888295588829658882975888298588829958883005888301588830258883035888304588830558883065888307KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting toward the end of the member's speech when he said that the Liberal Party is trying to do something just to be boisterous without really any meaning. That is what I took from that.However, I also found it very interesting that right toward the end of the member's speech, he said that the New Democrats wanted to decriminalize before legalizing. I find that very interesting because that might be their position now, but it certainly was not in 2015. As a matter of fact, they were against legalization. All they wanted to do was decriminalize it. I find this very interesting, and I wonder if the member can clarify this for us. In addition to that, the member's leader, in 2017, right after the NDP convention, said that he wanted the Prime Minister to look at decriminalizing all drugs. Is the position of the New Democrats still that they do not support legalization and that all they want is decriminalization of cannabis, specifically? Further, are they extending that to all drugs? Are they suggesting that all drugs should be decriminalized, as their leader said in 2017? C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588830858883095888310MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I voted for Bill C-45. I think that is pretty simple for the member to understand.However, while the Liberals continue to try to relitigate the last election, I am standing in this House saying that what they could be doing is expunging records for indigenous Canadians, black Canadians and young Canadians, in places like Halifax, Toronto and Regina, who are disproportionately affected by these absurd criminal records for something that is now legal. New Democrats, both in the House and at committee, proposed to expunge criminal records for simple cannabis possession. With no offence to my colleagues to the right of me, I am sad to say that more Conservatives than Liberals voted for the bill that we proposed. While that member may want to live in 2015, I am fighting for those individuals who just want to get jobs and move on with their lives and not live with a black mark on their file because the government could not think on a bigger scale and more outside the box than what it is doing here today.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588831158883125888313MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was one of the Conservative members who voted in favour of the excellent bill that was before the House last week. I am very proud to have done so. I did so right after returning from Washington, D.C., where we were talking to American congressional officials about the merits of various proposals to legalize or reduce the penalties on cannabis in their country. One of the issues that arose is that there is currently a proposal being put forward by some members of Congress to remove the ability of their own border officials to stop Canadians from crossing the border for having used cannabis in Canada in the past, when it was not lawful.There is a fundamental distinction between the Liberal proposal that we are debating today and what was proposed in the private member's bill last week. It is that a person would never have to lie to an American border official if asked, “Have you been convicted for carrying cannabis? Do you have a record for that?” I want to ask the member this, and I would enjoy hearing a Liberal member answer it too: What happens to a person if he or she lies to an American border official while crossing the border, if that person is on American soil at that time?BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588831458883155888316MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1605)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his support for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Victoria.In fact, I cannot answer his question specifically. Part of me believes that we are better off not knowing. It is true that the minister himself often said throughout the process that he wanted to ensure that Canadians were well aware that they should not lie at the border. Often, as Liberal MPs have acknowledged, the process is so complicated in a bill like this that Canadians travelling abroad are not always clear on what they should and should not say.Personally, I have a hard time understanding why the minister could not simply say to his U.S. counterpart that Canada adopted legislation and all criminal records for simple possession of cannabis have been expunged.There is something else I want to talk about. The member went to Washington. The American example is very interesting. In jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis, like in San Francisco, where the initial process was similar to what the government is proposing today, almost no one availed themselves of the process. A dozen or so people out of hundreds of thousands of people with a record went through the process. California decided to institute an automatic process to expunge the records. People did not even have to request that it be done.Other jurisdictions similar to ours have been through this and they managed to do so. If I am not mistaken, the research we did even showed that artificial intelligence has been used to process cases.In conclusion I would say that the government simply wants to revive the last election campaign. It wants catch phrases and talking points. It has clearly decided to just throw us a bone, but there is not much meat on that bone. It is pretty bare at the moment, which is unfortunate. Jokes aside, actual Canadians are affected by this.I am proud that we are standing up for them. It is unfortunate that the government is not doing the same.I thank my colleague for his support.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58883175888318588831958883205888321588832258883235888324ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1610)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my Beloeil—Chambly colleague for his enlightening speech, which was based on evidence and explanations provided by experts on the subject. I am really concerned about the fact that the record suspension the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-93 means that individuals would still have criminal records.We know that most of the people with criminal records for simple possession are young people. They start out in life with a criminal record that prevents them from getting a job, finding a home, doing volunteer work or getting involved in the community. They are stigmatized for the rest of their lives because the bill will not expunge their record or help these young people. The Prime Minister loves talking about his youth council, but he does not give its members a say on public policy issues. Young people really should have their say on a bill that does nothing to destigmatize them. My colleague from Beloeil—Chambly talked about public health benefits, but I think this approach is just going to make things worse because of anxiety and stress. I think young people are struggling with that. There is no solution. Plus, this debate is happening in May, with just five or six weeks to go in this parliamentary session. That means no bill will be forthcoming as a result. This bill is a disaster. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingYoung people5888325588832658883275888328MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1610)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.I think if it were not for my colleague asking questions about young people, there would be little to no discussion about it in the House even though we have a minister responsible for youth, namely the Prime Minister. However, one thing is clear, and I talked about it in my speech. Imagine a young person who has a criminal record or a record for failing to appear in court, to attend a hearing or to pay a fine of $50, which is a lot of money for some. Imagine that young person not being eligible for the process the government is proposing because they failed to pay a $50 fine. That person would be disqualified for not serving his sentence, which was to pay a fine. That is outrageous because, as my colleague said, that person is just getting started in life. People do not seek to have their records expunged or, in this case, suspended, just for the fun of it. This can truly affect people's ability to get a job, rent an apartment, do volunteer work here at home.I will conclude with this. Is it illegal to discriminate against a potential employee, even when we know perfectly well that discrimination sadly exists in our society? Yes. It is illegal for an employer to ask whether a candidate has a criminal record that was suspended? No.I would ask the following question of all members. Why should Canadians who have criminal records because of a law that discriminates against the most vulnerable and racialized Canadians have to pay the price for something that is now legal and because of this government's failed policies?I am still looking for the answer. No one has been able to answer me that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingYoung people588832958883305888331588833258883335888334Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the great member for St. Catharines. I would like to start by picking up on a comment that was made in response to one of the questions by the previous member. He referred to what this government had done on the cannabis file as trying to relitigate the last election and as throwing a small bone, yet Canada is one of a few countries in the world that have actually legalized cannabis, with the intent of heavily regulating it so that we can make sure it stays out of the hands of people who should not have it. We are now taking another step, which is to put a pardon system into place whereby those with simple possession charges and convictions can be pardoned. The members opposite in the NDP are referring to this as throwing a small bone and as being a relatively ineffective measure, which is extremely unreflective of what is actually going on here.What this bill does propose is to make pardons, also known as record suspensions, much more readily available to people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Normally there is a waiting period of up to 10 years to apply for a pardon after a sentence is completed. Under Bill C-93, the waiting period would be eliminated for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. There would also be no associated application fee. It is worth pointing out that the usual fee for a pardon is $631, and this fee would be waived entirely. The goal here is to help rid people of the burden and the stigma that comes with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis and to do so as quickly and as early as possible.Since the Cannabis Act came into force in October of last fall, the simple possession of lawfully obtained cannabis is no longer a criminal offence. With this new legal framework in place, the time has come to address the lingering legacy that came before. Simply put, there are many Canadians who are saddled with criminal records only for simple possession of cannabis. These are relatively minor offences, especially when we consider the recent changes to the law, but the real-life consequences they carry can be severe and long-lasting. We know those consequences have disproportionately affected vulnerable and marginalized communities in Canada, including the black and indigenous communities. Studies have shown that rates of cannabis use are relatively similar across racial groups, and yet in 2017 a study conducted by the Toronto Star showed that Canadians of African descent with no criminal convictions were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than were white people with similar histories. A criminal record can represent a real roadblock when it comes to trying to cross an international border, applying for a job, looking for housing or volunteering in a community. A pardon removes that roadblock. The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as laws in many provinces and territories. The Parole Board of Canada is the agency that would handle the administration of streamlining and expediting the pardons process proposed in Bill C-93. The board's website would function as a primary window for applicants. A step-by-step application guide and forms with a full set of instructions would be made available online. In addition, there will be postings to assist applicants, including a 1-800 information number and a dedicated email address. Usually Parole Board members consider subjective criteria, such as whether the applicant has been of good conduct or whether the pardon will bring him or her measurable benefit. Under Bill C-93, those criteria would be waived. The decision would be based on an administrative review by a staff member, further speeding up the process. The administrative review would simply confirm that the only convictions being pardoned are for simple possession of cannabis, that there are no convictions for other offences on the applicant's record and that the sentence is complete. This streamlined process would give more people a chance to make a fresh start and to move on with their lives.To meet this important objective, it will be essential to reach out to as many interested people as possible and as early as possible. That is why I am pleased to note that the Parole Board is in full planning mode for the future outreach efforts with stakeholders.(1620)These stakeholders are community organizations and advocate groups, as well as courts; police forces; provincial, territorial and municipal partners; and the law societies of Canada. The purpose of these outreach efforts is to raise awareness of the proposed reforms so people with criminal records for cannabis possession know that the streamlined process exists and know how to avail themselves of it.People who have been convicted only of simple possession of cannabis should be able to play a meaningful role in their communities and Canadian society. They should have access to good, stable jobs and adequate housing for themselves and their families. They should not face continued burdens and stigma for having committed a crime that is no longer a crime. That is why I support Bill C-93 and the specific recourse the government is proposing. Waiving the fee and the waiting period are unprecedented and extraordinary measures, but they are appropriate in this instance. The government originally announced its intention to introduce legislation to this effect on October 17 of last year. On that day, Canada became only the second country in the world to legalize and regulate cannabis. I am proud that we had the courage during the last election to recognize the problems with cannabis prohibition and commit to changing things. I am proud that we upheld that commitment. I am proud the legislation we have today is before us and paves the way for law-abiding Canadians to turn the page on convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Allowing them to contribute to society to their fullest potential is not only good for them, but good for all of us. That is why Bill C-93 is so important and that is what it is all about. I urge all hon. members of this House to join me in supporting this very important piece of legislation.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalityReasonable timeSecond readingSplitting speaking time5888335588833658883375888338588833958883405888341588834258883435888344588834558883465888347MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's words very carefully. We know that the Canadians who are affected by this situation are particularly indigenous, marginalized and racialized Canadians, who have been long affected by marijuana laws. In particular, regarding the idea of pardons or expungements, I just came from the committee studying this bill. We heard from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and the Native Women's Association of Canada, two groups that are particularly focused on representing those Canadians. Neither of them was consulted by the government in drawing up this legislation. What is devastating to me is this. In putting this bill together, not only did the Liberals not consult with the people affected, but they also ignored a particular condition that both witnesses brought up today, which is that if there is an administrative penalty or charge against someone—for example, a “failed to appear” charge—and they have a simple possession charge, they are omitted from this bill. They cannot seek a pardon.Where I live in northern British Columbia, failures to appear, particularly for the marginalized, poor and indigenous people, are unfortunately quite common. We had a case last year of a young indigenous woman charged with simple possession and failure to appear. It was eight hours from her community by road to the courthouse. She had to hitchhike because there is no Greyhound or public transport service. All she could do was beg, borrow or steal a ride to get to court. She did not, and now she has an administrative charge, which my friend would know disqualifies her from receiving a pardon. We agree with his comments about returning to society and being able to be a fully participating member. However, does he not understand the need to amend this bill to make the changes to help those whom the government claims to be seeking to help? I do not understand why the Liberals did not consult. It is obvious now in this bill that their failure to consult has produced a flawed bill for Parliament.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSecond reading58883485888349588835058883515888352MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, there are many people who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis. We are talking about thousands of people throughout the country. The intent of this bill is to streamline the process and put a process in place that allows a staff person to be able to assess and use the criteria in the bill to decide very easily if this individual who is applying can be pardoned. I think the process that would be put in place is going to move the needle forward very quickly to make sure we can get as many people as possible through the process so that we can get as many pardons completed as possible. At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. It is about recognizing that simple possession is no longer a criminal offence. I think a lot of people in this House would agree that it should not have been for quite a while. This is about making sure we can get as many people pardoned as possible.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSecond reading58883535888354NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister, then only leader of the Liberal Party, indicated that we would move forward with the legalization of cannabis. Through Bill C-93 and Bill C-45, proposed a few years after we were elected, we are fulfilling a commitment we made in the last election. I see that as a good thing.I believe Canadians consider this a major change in public policy. It is a significant change. There have been relatively few bumps since its implementation. It has gone over relatively well.Does the member not believe that we should be giving a gold star to the civil servants who assisted in getting us where we are today?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588835558883565888357MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the member brought up a very good point. I believe that the vast majority of NDP members, if not all of them, support legalization. However, what they were not able to do in 2015, whether for political expedience or whatever the reason of the day may have been, was actually say that. What the Liberal Party and this government did was stand up for what it believed in, not what it thought would be politically palatable to the public. We put that commitment forward, and then we came here and delivered on exactly that. As a result, cannabis has been legalized. Canada is now only the second country in the world to legalize and regulate it.We are now taking another very important step, which of course the NDP wants to oppose as well. This step would ensure that those who were charged and convicted under the old law could now be pardoned.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58883585888359KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, it seems the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands touched a nerve in the NDP. We are still hearing about it. The NDP members keep chirping, and I am happy to keep rambling on while they keep chirping. We will get into it further. I am sure there will a question or two.It is an honour to rise at second reading of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. During the last election, we committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis and to legislation doing exactly what took effect last fall. At that time, the government signalled that it would turn its attention to dealing with the criminal records created under the old regime. Now we have before us Bill C-93, legislation that would make it easier for individuals who were previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis to have their records cleared.Bill C-93 proposes an expedited process for receiving a pardon, also known as a record suspension. The usual $631 application fee would be waived, as would the usual waiting period, which could be as long as 10 years. The bill would reduce barriers for full participation in society for those individuals. It would allow them greater access to job opportunities, educational programs, housing and even the ability to simply volunteer in their communities. It would make things fairer.It would enhance public safety by allowing people to reintegrate into society. It would fulfill an important commitment to Canadians in delivering on this new regime.This is the first time in history that both the application fee and the wait period for a pardon would be waived. This unprecedented measure is a strong statement recognizing that convictions for simple possession of cannabis have resulted in hardship for many Canadians and that certain populations, including members of black and indigenous communities, have been disproportionately impacted.For my part today, I would like to delve a little deeper into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. To begin with, Bill C-93 would amend the Criminal Records Act. It would waive the fee, waiting period and certain subjective criteria for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis under one of three acts: the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act, which existed until the 1990's, and the National Defence Act. Eligibility would not be based on the amount possessed but rather on the purpose. People would be eligible if possession was for personal use only. People would not be eligible if there was any trafficking or production involved. To qualify for the waived wait period, applicants would simply have to demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada these basic facts: first, that the substance they possessed was cannabis; second, that their sentence was completed; and third, that the conviction was only for possession for personal use. To do so, applicants would provide standard police and court documents. The Parole Board would be available to help people through the process by email or by phone. As a way of further expediting the process, the decision to grant a pardon would not be discretionary. Usually a Parole Board member assesses pardon applications to decide whether an applicant has been of “good conduct” and whether a pardon would give them some “measurable benefit”. This discretion based on subjective criteria would not apply here. Instead, the Parole Board would be required to issue a pardon as long as someone was eligible and had completed his or her sentence. There would be nothing else to consider. The application would therefore be processed much more quickly by Parole Board staff.Once a pardon was ordered, the Parole Board would notify the RCMP to have the records sequestered in the National Repository of Criminal Records. Once that was done, the RCMP would notify other federal agencies. The Parole Board would alert provincial, territorial and municipal partners. That means that a criminal record check, for instance, by a prospective employer or landlord, would come up empty. The records could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances. In practice, for cannabis possession, the only likely scenario in which anyone would ever see one's records again would be if someone committed a new criminal offence. Bill C-93 would fulfill our commitment to create a simplified process for people with convictions for cannabis possession to shed their criminal records along with the associated burdens and stigma.(1630)Work also is continuing on broader pardons reform informed by consultations held by the Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety as well as in a recent study by the public safety committee. That study, initiated by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, led to thoughtful and unanimous recommendations calling for pardons to become more accessible, not just for cannabis possession but across the board. I am glad that Parliament has been seized with the issue, and I look forward to progress on that front. For the moment, though, we have an opportunity to move forward right now with targeted recourse in Bill C-93. As I have noted, this would further enhance public safety by reducing the barriers to reintegration associated with a criminal record. Many Canadians are stuck with a criminal record for activity that is no longer considered a crime. It is about time we made things fairer for Canadians who have been living crime free. That is why I offer my full support for Bill C-93. I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and join me in making sure that the bill moves forward.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscretionary powersFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond reading5888360588836158883625888363588836458883655888366588836758883685888369588837058883715888372MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again. A Liberal is a Liberal, so let us talk to this Liberal about the idea that the Liberals talk about the two large groups of Canadians who have been impacted and overrepresented in our criminal justice system and overrepresented by criminal charges when it comes to marijuana possession. That is indigenous Canadians and black Canadians. The two largest representative groups were before committee just 30 minutes ago. When I asked if they were consulted, they said no. When we asked what the flaws were in this process, they both argued for expungement, which is what the NDP has suggested, which the Liberals voted against and killed. In fact, more Conservatives than Liberals voted for expungement, because they understand, perhaps, the effects of this on a person's life.The Liberals keep talking about wanting to reintegrate people and not having them drag around a criminal record for the rest of their lives. We agree. We have suggested an amendment, so I would like my friend's thoughts on this. If someone has an administrative charge, such as failure to appear, which all would consider a low-level crime, in combination with a simple possession charge, that person would be excluded from the bill. He or she could not get a pardon under the Liberals' proposed system. I would argue that the bill, introduced so late in the session, did not have proper consultation with Canadians who would actually be impacted by it. That is one of the reasons the Liberals did not understand why this was so important. For marginalized, low-income or indigenous Canadians, these administrative charges are common along with possession charges.Would my friend agree that we need to have some discretion in the application so that with administration charges along with simple possession of marijuana, someone might also be able to obtain a pardon under the bill? Would that not be a welcome change for those Canadians we are looking to help out?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecision-making processGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58883735888374588837558883765888377ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passion on this topic. I can assure him that marginalized Canadians have been consulted. I will acknowledge that it may not have been the groups that appeared before committee today, but this government moves forward on evidence-based plans and consults individuals who are impacted.The issue of an automatic system, though it may be ideal, would not necessarily work in this case, because the records are not detailed enough. Records may just say that there was a violation, that there was possession of a narcotic. They do not necessarily, especially post-1996, list the schedule the person was charged under. It would not work. It is a great idea in theory, but it would not work in practice. This is what happens when we engage in evidence-based decision-making. We ask questions across the board. We ask people from marginalized communities, but we also ask the individuals who are holding the records about what can be done to make life fairer for Canadians.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecision-making processGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588837858883795888380NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have misunderstood my colleague's question. He was referring to a specific example in which an individual was unable to come to a hearing and therefore had an administrative charge.If there is some evidence the member has that there is no record that this was the further charge that occurred, I would be interested to hear it. Those people now face an injustice, a real injustice, that really messes up their lives, maybe forever, and they cannot get rid of those records because of a purely administrative charge, a charge that is more likely to be faced by people who are disadvantaged, people who are racialized or indigenous. Those people are going to be excluded, and I want to hear why the member thinks it is okay to leave those people permanently unable to get pardons for something that was never wrong in the first place.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecision-making processGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58883815888382ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this passion from the other side, from two parties that did not support the legalization of cannabis. That being said, with the legal aid system we have in place, individuals are entitled to representation. One can appear on an individual's behalf. I have appeared in criminal assignment court. People can have their lawyers appear on their behalf; that is something that happens.I can appreciate that a breach of condition may be minor, but it may be more serious. This bill is targeted at individuals who have that one charge under their belt, and it would make it fairer for Canadians. That is the way forward. These charges can be avoided. There are some issues, and the hon. member and I have discussed this before. One issue that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has looked at is with respect to administrative charges. However, this is another criminal offence that was committed; it is a charge that has been dealt with. If it were something that was minor in nature, someone can petition to the court to deal with the judge and the situation that comes up.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecision-making processGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588838358883845888385ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.I would like to go back to the discussion we were just having. My two colleagues who just spoke supported the legalization of cannabis, and the discussion we have had over the last few minutes about these administrative charges was interesting. When talking to prosecutors about past charges around simple possession, they will tell us that many times people go into court charged with multiple offences, such as perhaps other drug offences or trafficking. Those kinds of things are tied in, and the charges are often pleaded down to simple possession. In that kind of situation, the offender would qualify for the Liberals' proposal; whereas, a teenager from a rural area who is charged and does not have the capacity to get to a court hearing, or who fails to appear and gets this administrative charge, would not qualify for that kind of hearing. Right from the beginning, we see the unintended consequences of poor legislation, and this is not the only bill where that has happened with the Liberal government. The present Liberal government will be known in the future as the government that brought legislation in without having thought through much of it. When bills come back with 25, 30 or 40 amendments, we know that the government has not done its job with respect to preparation.We have seen that all over the place. We have seen it with respect to a million different issues. We are seeing it at home right now in my area, on the canola issue. We found out early on that the Chinese government wanted us to do something about tariffs on steel, and our government refused to do that. It was more interested in kowtowing to the Chinese government than dealing with our biggest trading partner, the United States. As a result of not moving on it, we ended up with tariffs. Now we have further tariffs on canola. We have tariffs on pork. We have these tariffs because the government does not consider what it is doing. It does not take into account the consequences of its activities, and then we see all kinds of secondary effects. This legislation, when I get around to talking about it, indicates that as well.We see it on carbon taxes and other taxes imposed by the Liberal government. It has had the highest impact on Canadian people with the least effect of any type of carbon program that one could put in place.Aboriginal affairs would be another good example. We heard this afternoon about the fact that the government failed to consult the aboriginal community with respect to another bill. The government has not asked the aboriginal community what is best for its people. The Liberals claim that the majority of people who would be impacted by that legislation are aboriginal and those with a very low income, but they have not asked them what would work for them. Often aboriginal peoples do not have access to urban centres or easy access to the Internet and those kinds of things, and the Liberals do not ask them what would work for them. Instead, they come with a plan that for many people would not work.With respect to aboriginal affairs, the Liberals have divided communities. Many bands want to participate in the energy projects in our part of the world. They want to have a part of the prosperity that comes out of energy projects, and the government has basically divided those communities. That seems to be what the Liberal government does most effectively.The government talked about having consultations on this legislation, but it failed to do that. It also claimed to have had consultations at its firearms meetings in the last few months. It set the meetings up to make them work as well as possible for itself, but that did not quite turn out. There were 135,000 online responses, and basically it was 75% to 80% opposed to the government making a move and changing things. I guess the government did not anticipate that, but that was the reality of the Canadian population. Once again, the Liberals misread it.We see unintended consequences around energy disasters such as the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline. There was no need to do that.Probably the place where we have seen the most obvious set of unintended consequences is around financial management. We have seen those folks just blow through people's tax money.It was interesting. Last week, we were talking about the budget implementation bill. The deputy House leader, at every point, talked about the public purse. However, rarely did he talk about taxpayers and the fact that there is only one place that the government gets money, and that is out of the pocket of the taxpayers of Canada.On each of these things, whether it is budgets that are running deficits that are two and three times what were promised, or the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that no one wanted to sell and no one wanted to buy, the government has not thought about taxpayers. The proponents themselves were willing to spend the money on the project. However, now we have Canadian taxpayers who have dived into it to the tune of about $5 billion so far. If the government is going to get the project done, it will be another $10 billion. The government has committed that kind of money to it without even thinking about taxpayers.The Liberal government has also failed to spend its infrastructure money fairly and equally. (1640)Another area where there has been unintended consequences, probably one of the most obvious ones, was the summer jobs program. The Liberals completely misread Canadians, trying to force them to follow the Liberal ideology. Anyone who had a different perspective from the government was then pushed to the outside.I would argue that we are back here again. We have the late introduction of Bill C-93. It looks more like a public relations project than anything else. Again, this follows in the footsteps of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, bills that the Liberals passed without an understanding of many of the consequences of what they were doing. I was not one of the people who supported those two bills.The Liberals find themselves in a situation right now where they do not have the capacity to meet the demand. They did not prepare for that. They do not have capacity to set a realistic price. Those folks who are happily selling on the private market are doing just fine, in spite of the government's attempt to try to stop that.The messaging across the way has been that the government is going to keep this out of the hands of people who should not have it. When I am talking to junior high-school students, for example, they are telling me that this is more accessible to them than it has ever been in their lives.There is certainly no solution at the border either. I heard Liberal members say earlier today that they have had discussions and this is not going to be a problem for Canadians. We know full well that it is. We have a small crossing near my home. I went down to Montana a couple of weeks ago, to the post office down there, and came back. U.S. Customs agents are now stopping Canadians on the U.S. side of the border before we come into Canada.As members know, people stop at the U.S. side on the way down, and when they come back, typically they drive to the Canadian side and then out. They are now stopping everyone prior to being allowed to exit to Canada. I asked why they were doing this, and I was told that they have direction from on high. I asked when it happened and was told that, coincidentally, when Canada legalized cannabis. There is another problem here that the Liberals never thought of at all.I have another thing I want to talk about today as I am wrapping up. It seems like time flies very quickly here. We have talked a lot about the difference between pardons and expungement, and those kinds of things. The government has made its choice; others have very different ideas.One of the things I want to bring up goes back to the taxpayers. There is a bill here of somewhere between zero and $600 million to do this process. I have a question as to why the taxpayers should be stuck with this bill one more time. The government seems comfortable spending everyone else's money.This morning, we heard a Liberal member talking about his friend who, when he graduated from university, could not get a job at 7-Eleven, but now he is a public servant. He is a public servant and is probably doing really well. Why should the folks who are now working at 7-Eleven be expected to pay for his pardon or expungement, whichever direction the Liberal government finally goes in with this legislation?We have gone so far away from considering where money comes from. The government takes it out of the pockets of average people and does not think a thing about it. We have a situation here where people have broken the law, and they typically broke it knowing what the law was and that if they got caught there was going to be a punishment.The law is now changed, and I do not have any problem with people getting pardons or expungement of these records. The question is, why should the taxpayers, those folks who are working for an hourly wage, be expected to then pay that bill?I suspect that this is going to be much less successful than the Liberals said it will be. I was surprised a little earlier when one of my NDP colleagues talked about the pardons that have been made available to the gay and lesbian community. He said that only seven people so far have applied to the process. That probably means the process is too complicated for people to be bothered with and people have not done that.Today I have heard figures that 10,000 people will apply, that there are 200,000, up to 400,000, who will be impacted by this. My question to the government today would be, why does it expect that the taxpayers of Canada would once more pick up the cost for a government bill that has a number of unintended consequences that were not considered ahead of time?Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGay and lesbian personsGovernment billsGovernment performancePossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingSplitting speaking time588838758883885888389588839058883915888392588839358883945888395588839658883975888398588839958884005888401588840258884035888404588840558884065888407588840858884095888410588841158884125888413AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with some of the closing remarks from the member opposite. I do not now know whether the Conservatives support or do not support a pardon or an expungement. It is becoming more and more difficult. I think we are hearing a lot of personal opinions, but Canadians would be interested in hearing the official position of the Conservative Party on this important piece of legislation.It has been an interesting process, which dates back to the last federal election back in 2015. As members know, the NDP did not support the legalization of cannabis, and the Conservative Party also did not support it. Now, from what I understand, the NDP supports not only the legalization of cannabis but the legalization of everything else, and the Conservative Party would not retract the legislation, which I think is a good thing. My question for the member opposite is related to that. Over the last few years we have been evolving this progressive social policy. It has been going relatively well, and many would argue that it is going exceptionally well. Would the member not agree that when we look at Bill C-93 and Bill C-45 combined that in fact we are on the right track? Even the opposition critic's personal opinion indicated that she is in favour of a pardon. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588841458884155888416DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. David Anderson: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member did not touch on the issue that I raised at the end of my presentation, which is the cost to Canadian taxpayers. The member talked about progressive social policy. The Liberals will spend Canadians' money until it is all gone. That is what the Liberals specialize in. It is not a progressive social policy that works. They specialize in taking money out of people's pockets, spending it and then not being accountable for it. It started with a trip to the Bahamas. It certainly has continued with massive spending with deficits they cannot control and with very little interest in accountability for that money as well. This is just one more place where that kind of carelessness has shown up. They do not plan ahead of time. They do not think about the consequences. He mentioned Bill C-45. They were told that the bill would be taken to court pretty much immediately in terms of the impaired driving components of it. The people who said that were right. We see that has been challenged in multiple places across Canada, because the Liberals did not consider the charter in the application of that bill.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588841758884185888419KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, hon. members can be forgiven because it just happened a little while ago, but we just heard testimony from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, as we did from the Native Women's Association of Canada. Neither were consulted about the bill. This is kind of shocking and hypocritical of the government, because those are, in particular, two of the groups of Canadians that have been identified historically and presently as being discriminated against, particularly on marijuana laws and particularly when seeking a pardon. The Liberal system has been set up very well for middle- and high-income folks, folks who are white, folks in the suburbs, but not for folks who are overrepresented in our prisons and in our justice system.Mr. Cudjoe, a representative for the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, said that in his community, this will be seen as a token gesture. Why? When it comes to a simple possession charge combined with any charge of administrative justice, which is a failure to comply, a false identity presentation, and what Liberals themselves have said are very low level discriminate crimes, the combination of those two things will exempt people from this pardon process. They simply will not be able to get a pardon under this system. I ask Liberals consistently, if the whole target of the bill is to help people get back into the system, particularly those who are marginalized, racialized, low income, if those people will not be able to qualify under the rules that the Liberals have set down in the bill, then what is the point of this exercise and who is it actually going to serve?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588842058884215888422DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. David Anderson: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention. He asked if it is a token, and I think it is. When we take a look at the timing of the bill, it comes at the end of a long session with very little time to get it implemented. We can look at the lack of consultation that was put in place with those very communities, which we have heard all day today are the concern of the Liberals, and when we see the content in the bill, we have to take those three things, put them together and say that the Liberals are not really serious about this. This is one more of those public affairs exercises that they want to do to try to make themselves look good in front of people without actually having done the work. In regard to the consultations, the Liberals have a lot of consultations, but it is typically with the people they want to meet with, who say the things they want to hear. That is why so many of their other initiatives have gone badly, because they find out what Canadians really think, which is that they reject the leadership the government has provided. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884235888424NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-93. The bill has come forth from the lack of foresight from the government. The Liberals have tried to hurry this legalization through on a self-imposed political timeline of the Prime Minister's own making. This is done in spite of concerns which municipalities, law enforcement, health care professionals and other stakeholders have had with the legislation around the legalization of recreational marijuana in the first place. As issues arise with the recreational use of marijuana going forward, there have to be due diligence and proper steps taken to protect Canadians. Because of this, I will be very cautiously supporting this bill to see amendments come forward at committee.By its very nature, the process and rollout of marijuana legalization draws parallels with prohibition and re-legalization of alcohol in Canada during the first half of the 20th century. Prince Edward Island was the first province in Canada to successfully enact an alcohol prohibition statute and the last to repeal it. As such, there are some similarities to draw between the government's re-legalization of alcohol and the government's legalization of marijuana.In 1900, Prince Edward Island banned the possession or sale of alcohol except for sacramental or medical use. It could be prescribed by a doctor for a variety of ills. If a person were to be charged and found guilty of violating prohibition, he or she would face a $100 fine or two months in jail. This was a stiff sentence at the time, and the premier would often see many letters from convicted persons and their families asking for a pardon or an adjustment of the sentence. By the mid-1930s, Prince Edward Island saw some 1,700 convictions for possession, consumption or sale of alcohol, but after that point, attitudes began to shift on the subject of prohibition and it seemed to be rejected by a growing number of the population. This is very similar to how the social thought on marijuana use has changed over the last decade. Following the shift in social acceptance in both cases, enforcement efforts began to wane.In the last few years of prohibition, many bootlegging operations were running openly, quite similar to how we saw many illegal marijuana dispensaries openly operate all across the country in the last few years before the legalization of recreational marijuana. Even after the legalization rollout, there are still many illegal dispensaries operating, unlicensed and unregulated, across the country. There seems to be little being done about them. These illegal dispensaries are making it much easier for minors to get their hands on marijuana outside of the particular provincial regulation schemes, either provincially run stores or private businesses.The island's prohibition era ended with the Temperance Act effective in 1948 which established government liquor stores and regulated sale to residents and tourists through a system of permits and quotas. Many of the arguments we heard in favour of legalization of recreational marijuana were also used back then with the re-legalization of alcohol, everything from combatting the black market to collecting revenue. In both cases, the government's effort to mitigate the black market sale of these substances has had little effect in reality. Bootlegging operations still ran in P.E.I. until a massive crackdown in the mid-2000s, and today the black market accounts for 80% of marijuana sales, making for billions of dollars every year.In the wake of legalization, there are still so many questions that remain. It is clear that the government was hasty in its rollout of this legislation. Many groups, including law enforcement, were concerned about an increase in drug-impaired driving after legalization, but the Liberals assured the public that this would not be the case and they would equip police forces properly to deal with and enforce the new law. Now it has come out that the roadside marijuana testing devices that the Liberals quickly approved in time for last year's legalization rollout are giving regular false positives. This failure is taken right out of an episode of Seinfeld.(1655)During testing, these roadside testing devices were giving false positives for subjects who had recently eaten something containing poppyseeds, like a bagel or poppyseed loaf. All of these people tested positive for opiates in their saliva and in their urine. If someone ate a poppyseed bagel and then was pulled over and was tested positive by the police, the person would be arrested and taken to the station for a urine test. If that tested positive, then that person could be charged with impaired driving, all for having eaten a bagel or a slice of lemon poppyseed loaf with his or her coffee at Tim's that morning. This is just one of a long list of failures for the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. In 2015, we heard the Prime Minister say, as he was looking Canadians right in the eye, that he was going to balance the budget. It was in the same time frame that he admitted the budget would perhaps balance itself. We have learned that neither were true: promise made, promise broken. This will affect Canadians for a generation or more with deficits projected past the year 2040.The carbon tax is nothing more than a tax grab. It is a tax plan dressed up as an environmental plan. Hopefully, with enough HST charged on that new tax, the Liberals will be able to pay for some of the reckless spending by the Prime Minister. The same Prime Minister promised transparency and to bring a new level of ethics to politics. However, scandal after scandal has proven that to be a failure. With the illegal vacations on a billionaire's island and giving lucrative fishing contracts to family members, the Prime Minister is anything but ethical. That is not to mention him interfering politically in the criminal prosecution of his friends and Liberal donors at SNC-Lavalin, where he was caught pressuring the attorney general at the time, and when she talked, he fired her.Most recently, the Prime Minister has continued his string of failures on the world stage with his actions, or lack thereof, on China. Two Canadians have been arbitrarily detained. We have recently heard of an additional Canadian being sentenced to death. China has blocked billions of dollars' worth of Canada's world-class canola and we are adding pork exports to the list. All of this has been going on while the Prime Minister has been absent. He has not even replaced his hand-picked ambassador and we see the effects it has had on Canadian interests and security.With the Prime Minister's track record of failing to deliver on his commitments, it is important to be diligent and cautious when we are dealing with any piece of legislation that the government has put forward, particularly at this stage in this Parliament, when we know that the Liberals are looking to deliver on at least one of their campaign promises. However, when it concerns the safety of our children and the safety of the driving public, we need to be very diligent in ensuring we get this right. We hope that at committee we will be able to have the good work done that is necessary to implement a strategy that protects Canadians. I will be very cautiously supporting this bill to see it amended in the best interests of Canadians. We are hopeful this promise, having been made in the best interests of the safety of Canadians, is one promise the Prime Minister is willing and able to keep.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsGovernment performanceImpaired drivingPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884255888426588842758884285888429588843058884315888432588843358884345888435588843658884375888438DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the member's speech encapsulates a great deal of the Harper style of planning or strategy employed by the current leader of the opposition for the last couple of years. That is to try to make as personal an attack as possible on the Prime Minister, or if not the Prime Minister, another minister. It is to make it as personal an attack as they can. That has been the official opposition's mantra. That is what they have to do.While the opposition wants to focus on the character assassination of members of this government, we on the other hand have been saying that we will continue to be focused on Canadians and bringing in policies, legislation and budgets that are going to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That is what Bill C-93 is really all about. It not only delivers on an election platform issue but also delivers something that is going to make a very positive difference in every region of this country, I dare say even in the constituency of the member who just spoke.My question to the member across the way is this. Would he not agree that sometimes it might be nice to recognize legislation that is so progressive in its nature that it is going to be helping Canadian society and just leave it at that, as opposed to taking on the Harper style of personal attacks against the government?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588843958884405888441MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting question from the member opposite. On issues of character assassinations and attacks on the Prime Minister, I might say that the call is coming from inside the House. Those are Liberal issues that they need to sort out, and as the opposition, we will hold them to account.However, talking about progressive legislation that is worthy of the praise of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and of this member, I will absolutely say that a progressive piece of legislation that I am very supportive and very proud of is the child benefit. Under the former Harper government that the member opposite is referring to, we introduced a universal child benefit. Now that we are talking about attacks, the opposition at the time, the Liberals, said that parents could not be trusted and would spend it on beer and popcorn. Providing that type of choice to parents, to Canadians, is the kind of progressive legislation that certainly I support.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884425888443KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not know if anyone else is picking up on this point. It seems as though the Liberals want to rerun the 2015 election, and I wonder why that is the case after four years in office. One would think that they would want to run the 2019 election, but instead they want to go back and rerun the 2015 election, when they promised that it was going to be the last election under first past the post. Here is a news flash for my Liberal friends: Apparently 2019 is going to be under first past the post. The Liberals promised all sorts of things, so they are selective when they say that they are delivering on their mandate.Here is a specific question to the Liberals who know. Here are the facts of the matter: Marginalized Canadians, indigenous Canadians and poor Canadians will not have the same opportunity to receive a pardon as wealthier white middle-class Canadians will have. How do I know? It is because that has been the testimony on this bill at committee.I have a simple question for my friend, and I would like his personal position, not the party position. Marginalized, indigenous and poor Canadians again are overrepresented when there is a combination of a simple possession charge with an administrative justice charge, such as a failure to appear. These people have the worst access to the criminal justice system, and the Supreme Court of Canada has said they will face racism and systemic discrimination in that criminal justice system. The combination of those two things means that those Canadians will be excluded from ever receiving a pardon and will drag that criminal charge around for the rest of their lives. We know the impact that this will have on them and their families. Would my friend see an amendment to allow people with those administrative justice charges to also have an opportunity to receive a pardon under this legislation? Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588844458884455888446588844758884485888449MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly at committee the types of examples cited by the member are exactly what we would like to see studied and exactly the type of testimony that we would like to hear, so that if we as a country undertake a process to right administrative wrongs, we do it in a fashion that is equitable for all Canadians and provides equal access to justice for everyone, regardless of their means, where they are from or their race.I certainly look forward to having the opportunity to hear the proposed amendments at committee.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884505888451NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyRenéArseneaultMadawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89383RenéArseneaultRené-ArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArseneaultRené_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-93 at second reading. This bill will make things fairer for Canadians and their families. There was an ineffective prohibition of cannabis for far too long and, as a result, many Canadians ended up with a criminal record after being convicted of simple possession of cannabis. Criminal records can make it hard for people to get jobs, find housing or even volunteer in their communities. The associated stigma can create the impression that the individual will always be seen as a criminal. Criminal records are obviously necessary in the context of public safety. However, they can run counter to their objective when they prevent people who do not represent a danger from actively participating in society. This is particularly true when the activity for which the individual was convicted is no longer illegal and when the members of certain communities are disproportionately affected. This is why our government has introduced Bill C-93, which would streamline the process for getting a pardon, also known as a record suspension, by waiving the waiting period and the application fee. Generally speaking, an individual convicted of simple possession of cannabis must wait five years for a pardon, although the waiting period can be as long as 10 years. With Bill C-93, applicants could apply as soon as they have finished serving their sentence. The application fee, which has been $631 since 2012, would be waived. On top of that, the usual criteria, like determining whether people have shown good behaviour and whether a pardon would bring them a measurable benefit, would also be waived.The Parole Board of Canada is taking additional steps, such as simplifying application forms and doing community outreach, with the goal of allowing people with past convictions for cannabis possession to clear their records and move on with their lives as quickly and easily as possible.This is one of the final chapters in the unfortunate story of cannabis prohibition in Canada, which goes back almost a century. Billions of dollars have been wasted enforcing an ineffective legal regime, not to mention the billions that lined the pockets of organized crime.In spite of the prohibition, Canadian youth are among the heaviest users of cannabis in the world. Some of them, especially members of marginalized communities, were saddled with criminal records that limited their educational and economic opportunities. Because of the many different courts and police services in urban and rural communities all across our country, each with its own archives of convictions that go back decades, we do not know the exact number of Canadians with simple possession charges on their records. However, we do know that a simplified pardon process with no waiting period or application fee would make it easier for people to get the pardons they need to finally turn the page. During the last election, we committed to ending the ineffective and counterproductive prohibition of cannabis. The NDP, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the prohibition of cannabis, with a decriminalization system that would have seen police issuing fines to people in marginalized and low-income communities. As for the Conservatives, they still think that people who possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use should be thrown in jail. Canadians gave us the opportunity to enact our proposal in October 2018, and we did exactly that. With the coming into force of Bill C-45, we put in place a system of legal, strictly regulated cannabis production and distribution, designed to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep profits out of the hands of criminals. At that time, the government announced that it intended to provide recourse for individuals who had been convicted of simple possession of cannabis only. Once again, we have delivered on our commitment.A pardon with no waiting period and no fee is a very effective measure available to everyone in our society.(1710) When a person is pardoned, their criminal record is sealed and sequestered. A criminal record check by a prospective employer or landlord would come up empty, and U.S. border services would not find anything in the Canadian police database either.The criminal record could only be disclosed or reinstated in exceptional circumstances, for example, if a new criminal offence is committed.The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a person's criminal record.Many provinces and territories offer similar protection. Waiving the usual wait period and application fee are unprecedented measures. By doing so, we would be removing the major obstacles in the path of Canadians seeking to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record for possession of cannabis, allowing them to participate fully in society and become responsible Canadians. We cannot go back in time and give them back the opportunities they have lost, but we can give them a way of moving forward. When people fully reintegrate into Canadian society by going to school, getting jobs and generally participating in community life and Canadian society, we are all better off. It was in our collective best interest to end the prohibition of cannabis, because a system governed by a rigorous legal framework is safer for us all than a black market operating without oversight of any kind. Now that we have a legal framework in place, it is in our collective best interest to enable Canadians who have previous convictions for possession of cannabis to clear the criminal records imposed on them under the old regime.Bill C-93 is a step in that direction. I strongly support this bill, and I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same.Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond readingYoung people5888452588845358884545888455588845658884575888458588845958884605888461588846258884635888464588846558884665888467588846858884695888470MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, if we look back, the whole idea for legalization was to take marijuana out of the hands of kids and the profits away from organized crime, which we have not seen happening so far. In Oshawa, we had a horrible situation of kids taking marijuana edibles to school, and it was a big issue. The concern a lot of us have is that the Liberals have fumbled this legislation all the way through. With this piece of legislation for these pardons, what does my colleague think about the question of equity, as previous questioners have asked? There are low-income Canadians and Canadians who can afford to pay for pardons. What does he think about using Canadian taxpayers' dollars exclusively for these pardons, when in many cases these convictions were plea bargained down from more serious offences? Does he not see that there could be some potential danger to the public by giving across-the-board pardons to people?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884715888472RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheRenéArseneaultMadawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89383RenéArseneaultRené-ArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArseneaultRené_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. René Arseneault: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question.Before I answer, I would like to note that I have been involved in the justice system, since I am a lawyer by training. I did a lot of volunteer work in my community and I saw the damage caused by having a criminal record, even for simple possession of cannabis.There are people who wanted to do volunteer work in their community or coach a sports team, but they were prohibited from doing so. Some people wanted to get a job, but could not. Many fields of employment require people to have a clean criminal record.As far as the impact this could have on the public purse, there is no possible comparison between the government's finances and giving someone the opportunity to reintegrate into the working class, giving someone who wants to work the opportunity to rejoin the workforce.No measure can compare to that. The positive impact of a free pardon that is available to everyone is a billion times better.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCostsCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58884735888474588847558884765888477ColinCarrieOshawaGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/23915GuyCaronGuy-CaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaronGuy_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about the NDP's position.It seems to me the Liberals do not realize they can take yes for an answer. We voted in favour of Bill C-45. Anyway, let's get back to the difference between a pardon and an expungement.As my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly mentioned in his speech, most of the U.S. states that legalized cannabis have expunged simple possession offences from criminal records, and the sky has not fallen as a result. We know that expungement has brought relief to individuals and unclogged the system. As our neighbours to the south have shown, it costs society nothing.I would like to know why my colleague supports this bill's proposal to pardon an offence, leaving criminal records intact, rather than the record expungement approach, which most U.S. states have taken.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888478588847958884805888481RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheRenéArseneaultMadawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89383RenéArseneaultRené-ArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArseneaultRené_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. René Arseneault: (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, to which there is a simple answer. The Canadian pardon system has a proven track record. I know all about that, having been a lawyer and helped clients get a pardon. The Canadian experience is a success story.The United States, like every sovereign country, has their way of doing things. In Canada, the problem is that it is hard to find every conviction since you would have to go to the registries of every small town in every territory and every province, not to mention the various levels of justice. When an individual travels abroad and is asked if they have ever consumed cannabis and if they have been accused of cannabis possession, they can answer yes, then provide written and tangible proof of the pardon. We believe that is much more effective than doing the reverse.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588848258884835888484GuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question in English since this is a very complex subject.[English]Indigenous people and black Canadians are dramatically overrepresented in possession charges. We heard from the Native Women's Association of Canada, along with the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. Not only were they not consulted about this legislation, but the groups affected, particularly low-income Canadians, indigenous people and rural people, are much more likely to have also faced penalties for what are called administration of justice offences, such as failure to appear and false name. The combination of those, what is determined as a very low-level, non-violent crime plus a marijuana charge, would exempt them from the pardon system that the member's government is promoting.Would my friend comment on the idea of actually allowing the discretion of parole boards to allow those who face an administrative justice penalty along with a possession penalty to also receive a pardon? As he talked about in his speech, allowing people not to carry around that penalty, that criminal record, would open them up for opportunities of travel, but most importantly, jobs. We know the circular effect of the criminal justice system, which has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as inherently racist and systemically biased against these people. We do not want to circle around by having the simple combination of possession and administrative penalty exclude them from ever having that record pardoned and having the ability that all Canadians hope to have, which is to make their lives and the lives of their families better.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888485588848658884875888488RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheRenéArseneaultMadawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89383RenéArseneaultRené-ArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArseneaultRené_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. René Arseneault: (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is based on the premise that systemic discrimination might exist based on the background of the individual applying for a pardon. My wife and I practised law together for 23 years. We had a small law office in a very rural region. We assisted on loads of pardon applications for people from all walks of life: white people, indigenous people, francophones, anglophones, the rich and the poor, and people on social assistance. There were of course some difficult situations, but the only discrimination possible at that point was whether the individual could afford to pay for the pardon. Therefore the fact that this bill removes all costs associated with the pardon application makes it extremely accessible to everyone at any time. I cannot imagine how anyone, regardless of their background, could be discriminated against in that respect here in Canada.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588848958884905888491NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/23915GuyCaronGuy-CaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaronGuy_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Guy Caron: (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit my earlier question because I did not get a clear answer. Some of the U.S. states that decided to legalize cannabis expunged criminal records. It is very important to make the distinction between this process and a simple pardon.If you are crossing the border and are asked if you have ever been convicted of an offence such as simple possession of cannabis, you must answer yes, even if you have been pardoned. This is not the case, however, when the record is expunged. The United States decided to use expungement, completely erasing the record, which makes life so much easier for people convicted of simple possession who want to travel.Once again, I am trying to understand why the government is not doing what the U.S. did and making life easier for people convicted of an offence that no longer exists and that makes things very difficult when they want to travel or find a job?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888492588849358884945888495RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheRenéArseneaultMadawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89383RenéArseneaultRené-ArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArseneaultRené_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. René Arseneault: (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I will give just one real-world example.In the past, when describing a sentence for drug possession, the type of drug involved was typically not specified. There may be a difference between possession of cannabis and possession of cocaine. Because of the way things were done, it can be hard to determine, just from reading a criminal record, whether an offence refers to a specific drug or to drugs in general.When a person receives a pardon for simple possession of cannabis, they can firmly and compellingly argue that they were charged with this type of crime in the past and show their pardon. That is just a working example.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888496588849758884985888499GuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, this afternoon's debate on Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, gives me the chance I have long sought to make a clear statement in the House of Commons as to the principles that underlie my long-standing views on cannabis legalization. This is actually my second chance, as I was also able to do so in addressing the private member's bill on the same subject a couple of weeks ago.I have long favoured the legalization of marijuana. Indeed, I have favoured it since I first sought elected office, almost 20 years ago. My views on the subject were first expressed at a public policy conference in 2001 and published in Policy Options the same year, so my comments on this subject have been on the record for a very long time. I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than abstract terms. However, the debate today, like the one a couple of weeks ago, allows me to discuss the civil liberties issues associated with the war on drugs separate from the discussion of marijuana legalization. We are not discussing marijuana legalization today. That deed is done and cannabis is legal. If this bill is defeated tonight, cannabis will still be legal. If after tonight's discussion the bill goes on to receive royal assent by the end of this Parliament, cannabis will retain the same legal status.Tonight we are not talking about the impact that chemicals in drugs could have if we were to legalize them. Today we can say that this is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking purely about the harm caused by the act of turning a victimless act into a crime.Today, I want to say, as I did 18 years ago when I first published on the subject, that it is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any individual other than the user himself or herself. The act of ingesting cannabis or alcohol, for example, and then driving a vehicle on a public roadway endangers others and is not a victimless crime. That is why it is illegal. That is why it ought to be illegal. However, consuming cannabis and then staying home for the weekend is victimless. For that matter, consuming alcohol and staying home for the weekend is also victimless.When no person is victimized, other than the person engaged in the act, then it is a moral evil for the state to penalize the person who engages in that act. This principle would apply even if it were the case that none of the following conditions were true.This principle would apply even if it were not the case, for example, that some people suffer from trauma that causes them to make impulsive choices, especially with regard to mood-altering substances. When these individuals are penalized, the law in effect singles out for punishment those who have suffered from the abusive behaviour of parents or partners, or from the trauma of war, or from fetal alcohol syndrome, or from simple brain trauma. The principle that victimless acts should never be punishable would apply even if it were not true that some people are endowed from birth with genes such as the NRXN3 gene, which in 2011 was identified as being associated with a greater likelihood of becoming addicted. In this case, the law is singling out for prosecution those who have lost the genetic lottery.The principle would apply even if it were not true that those who have greater influence and power are far less likely to be prosecuted than an average Canadian who has committed the same offence. A case that makes this point is that of the Prime Minister's brother, Michel Trudeau, who escaped prosecution for marijuana possession 21 years ago because of the intervention of his father, who was at the time himself a prime minister.Here is how our current Prime Minister put this in a speech two years ago. He reported that back in 1998, his father, Pierre Trudeau, “reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away.” He continued, “We were able to do that because we had resources, my dad had a couple of connections, and we were confident that my little brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life.”(1730)The principle that no one should be punished for a victimless act would be true even if it were not the case that disadvantaged Canadians who are statistically more likely than their fellow citizens to be caught, prosecuted and saddled with a criminal record for life are far likelier to be members of social or racial groups that appear to be marginalized in other ways too.Two criminologists from the University of Toronto found that in the period of 2015 to 2017 in Halifax, black people were five times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession. The same researchers found that in Regina, in the same period, 2015 to 2017, very recent history, indigenous persons were nine times more likely than white people to be arrested for this offence. Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, who was one of the two criminologists, stated, “We know that rates of cannabis use are relatively similar across racial groups. So the fact that specific groups have been disproportionately targeted for drug law enforcement, especially black and Indigenous populations, strengthens that need for amnesty and for pardons. Because those groups have not only been disproportionately targeted, they have been disproportionately harmed by the consequences of having a criminal record.”Therefore, it is not merely the issue of cannabis legalization that affects people on a racial basis. It is the removal of those byproducts of that racialization of the legal system. Given these facts, I think we can say that this is the very definition of systemic racism, regardless of the proximate cause of each individual arrest. Of course, the foregoing examples of inequity really do exist and therefore, the provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of small quantities of marijuana, which happily is now repealed, was wrong at all of these levels too. If the underlying offence ought never to have been an offence in the first place, which is not merely what I feel but what has already been decided by Parliament when it enacted the Cannabis Act a year ago, then it stands to reason that the retention of any long-term penalty such as a criminal record for the formerly unlawful activity must be wrong for exactly the same reasons. This is true whether it is a charter-protected right that we are talking about or whether it is merely the practical impact on some groups that have been discriminated against in the application of the law. It is true even when the issue is not whether the wrong is a charter prohibited wrong but whether it is merely a wrong when viewed from the point of view of natural justice, a point which is of very considerable significance when we speak about the distinction of the reasons why the government will not issue record expungements as it has done for offences under the Criminal Code at a time when homosexual acts between consenting adults were illegal.To be clear, the retention of criminal records for persons who used marijuana when it was a criminal offence represented an ongoing injustice and represents today an ongoing injustice that must be remedied. Quite frankly, a provision expunging the records of persons found guilty of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis ought to have been included in the Cannabis Act a year ago. Why it was not, particularly given the heartfelt civil libertarian sentiment that must have been the motivation for the Prime Minister to share that very personal story about his father and late brother, remains a mystery to me. I note that in other jurisdictions that have legalized the non-therapeutic use of cannabis, the recreational use of cannabis, such as California and Vermont, provisions expunging the records of those convicted under the repealed statutes are part of the repeal legislation itself. Now, it is too late for Canada to make a perfect copy of that enlightened example, but it is not too late for us to correct the oversight. Bill C-415 standing in the name of my colleague, the member for Victoria, was an effective and well-designed instrument for achieving an end to this lingering injustice.(1735)Bill C-93 is a less perfect and less complete way of achieving the same end for many, although not all, of those who face this injustice. About 500,000 Canadians, which is around 1% to 2% of our adult population, have criminal records for the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. Had Bill C-415 passed, it would have expunged all these records.An expungement is not quite the same thing as a pardon or record suspension, which is what the current piece of legislation, Bill C-93, proposes. It differs in a number of ways. For one thing, a pardon must be formally requested. Any person can apply for a pardon, but under normal circumstances, only after waiting for a period of not less than five years, in the case of a summary conviction, and only upon the payment of a fee of just over $600. Had Bill C-415 gone forward, expungement would have been immediate and costless.Bill C-93 would not do quite the same thing. The bill's very long title tells the entire story. People would not pay a cost and there would be no waiting time, but they would have to make the application, and then the Parole Board would decide whether to issue that pardon, if the applicants met a series of conditions. It is therefore called an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. It would get rid of the five-year waiting period and eliminate the $600 fee, and that is it. As far as it goes, that is good, and for this reason, I will be voting for the bill in principle, to send it off to committee later on this evening. However, I want to be clear. Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement. Unlike an expungement, a record suspension does not result in the permanent destruction of a record of a conviction in federal databases. Unlike expungement, where the person is deemed under Canadian law never to have been convicted of the offence in the first place, one would still be guilty of that offence. One would still have been convicted. It is just that no one could see that anymore.There are some significant, meaningful differences here. As everyone knows, American border control officials reserve the right to ask Canadians who are crossing the border if they have a criminal record for using marijuana. Canadians are regularly turned back at the border if the answer is yes. Everyone should know that if people answer this question untruthfully and lie to an official of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while on American soil, as people do when they are going across a land border, as opposed to in the Toronto or Vancouver airports, where they do so while on Canadian soil, they can be arrested on the spot. If records were expunged, but not if pardons were issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they did not have a criminal record for this former offence. This is a very meaningful distinction.The government uses the following rationale for not using expungement in the case of cannabis offences. I am quoting from the Liberals' press release of March 1, 2019, which is the day Bill C-93 came out. It said:Expungement is an extraordinary measure reserved for cases where the criminalization of the activity in question and the law never should have existed, such as in cases where it violated the Charter.I just want to be clear about what is wrong with that logic. The Liberals were making specific reference to the fact that consenting homosexual acts were once illegal, and now any law that prohibits them is regarded as a violation of the charter. It is true that this is a charter distinction, whereas cannabis could be recriminalized without violating the charter. That is about the charter. It is not about the morality of the underlying act. We have said in Canada that there is nothing wrong with consuming cannabis for personal use and possessing small amounts for personal use. There is nothing wrong with it. I defy any member of the government to stand up here and say that she or he believes that it was morally wrong, that the underlying act was morally wrong a year ago or two years ago or 10 years ago or 50 years ago, that it was morally wrong then and it is morally okay now, any more than it was morally wrong to commit a homosexual act 10 or 20 or 100 years ago and now it is okay.(1740)The fact is that it was never wrong in the case of a consenting gay act between adults, and it was never wrong with regard to cannabis. This distinction, which has to do with what made it into the charter and what did not, because sexual orientation almost did not make it into the charter, is just nonsense.The fact is that more people who are marginalized because they are poor, mentally ill or come from a group that suffers racial discrimination, and there are different kinds of racial discrimination in different parts of the country, are being prosecuted and persecuted, and they have been in the past. The fact that the cops have been acting in a racist way in different parts of the country at different times does not make what happened to these people somehow less bad than what happened to people who were convicted for committing the supposed crime of engaging in consensual homosexual activity. This is a nonsense distinction. I point out that I was down in Washington, D.C., last week meeting with members of the House of Representatives in the Senate, who are considering making changes to their cannabis laws. They are not necessarily looking at legalizing it for recreational purposes, as we are doing here, although some favour that. Many want to look at medical marijuana changes, which would make it available to veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. One bill would prohibit officials of the U.S. border services from asking Canadians if they have a cannabis-related conviction. Another one would deal with interstate banking laws as they affect cannabis operations that are legal under state law.In the United States, they are very aware of the civil liberties issues and the racially inequitable way in which these laws have been applied in their country. The word that is used universally when discussing getting rid of criminal records is “expungement”. There is no reason in the world the government should not accept expungement of these records.This bill, as I have said, is good as far as it goes. Later on this evening, I will be voting for it, and I encourage my colleagues to do so. However, it is not good enough. It is not acceptable to leave a systemically racist pattern of law enforcement in effect after we have said that the crime itself should never have been a crime and that it was never wrong and is not wrong. It was okay for the Prime Minister, who was never caught, to use pot when it was illegal. He just did not get caught. He admitted after the fact that he used it. Somehow that is okay, right? I never heard him say that he used it when it was illegal and that it was morally wrong then. I never heard him say that if he had been caught, it would have been right for him to go to prison or to have a criminal record for life. He did not say that. He said that it should not have been wrong, so we are getting rid of that law. He was right about that. He would have been right to make sure that nobody who did not have a prime minister for a dad or the world's best Rolodex would ever face a situation of having a criminal record for life. The bill is good; it is not good enough. I will be voting for it. I will be very much encouraging members on the committee to vote for some form of amendment to encapsulate the very important consideration brought forward by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley about taking care of those who have some kind of minor procedural item on their criminal records and are therefore going to face this being left on their records for life. It is an excellent idea. I hope the Liberal government will show some flexibility in this regard. It would be an excellent litmus test of whether the purpose of this bill is to help people or to simply take an issue away from the New Democratic Party, which produced an earlier and better bill on the same subject.Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalityReasonable timeSecond reading588850058885015888502588850358885045888505588850658885075888508588850958885105888511588851258885135888514588851558885165888517588851858885195888520588852158885225888523588852458885255888526588852758885285888529588853058885315888532RenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the intellectual arguments the member opposite brings forward, whether it is in the House or during filibusters. I would like to ask him about one he brought forward tonight related to victimless crimes. Does he believe that administrative penalties, such as not showing up for a parole hearing, etc., for any crimes are victimless crimes and therefore should not be crimes?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5888533ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1745)[English]No, Mr. Speaker, that was not what I meant. I do think there needs to be some kind of penalty for these kinds of behaviours, or else people who have been charged and are allowed out on parole or who are awaiting sentencing would not have to be compliant with the law. That is absolutely not what I am saying.What I am saying is that in this case, we have said that the initial offence should not have been wrong. We have gotten rid of the offence. Things can happen that are contextual. Certain acts committed in a time of war are more serious at that time, and once we are no longer at war, those items that were unlawful are no longer unlawful. That is not what we are saying with regard to cannabis.The problem here is that we have said that the particular offence ought not to be an offence and the kind of procedural problems that arose were in the context of having a hearing in relation to that particular offence, which ought not to have been unlawful in the first place. That is where the problem lies, and that is the item we can address. I certainly would not classify that as a victimless crime. A victimless crime is where one does something that only involves oneself. One might harm oneself, but that is one's affair, not the affair of the state. The state, as the Prime Minister's dad once said, has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. He was right then. It was the wisest thing he ever said. Now that the state is out of the bedrooms of the nation on this issue, maybe it should also allow us to shut the door and the windows and have a little more privacy.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588853458885355888536588853758885385888539LarryBagnellHon.YukonRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for supporting and mentioning my colleague, the member for Victoria, and his private members bill, Bill C-415, that calls for the expungement of all criminal records for people charged with simple cannabis possession.The member mentioned the fact that the Liberals have said that the reason they do not want expungement is that it is very special and is only for crimes that we now think, through the charter, should never have been crimes. Yet most of the charges of possession of cannabis have come about from arguably charter-related incidents, where racialized Canadians, Canadians of colour, poor Canadians and indigenous Canadians have been vastly overrepresented in these charges. This could be easily related to our charter. I am just wondering if the member could comment on that aspect of it. These are crimes that we do not believe are crimes anymore, and we should just expunge these records so that people do not have records anymore and we can let them get on with their lives.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588854058885415888542ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, first let me say something about Bill C-415. After it was over, the member for Victoria, who is always a gentleman, sent out letters to members who had voted in favour of the bill to thank them. I wrote back to him and thanked him for having raised this issue in such a thoughtful, intelligent way and that the entire country owed him a debt of thanks for having done so. I am glad to get that on the record. I feel quite strongly about what a service he did for all of us.With regard to the issue of these being charter-related incidents, this is a matter that was before the House. There was a committee struck to deal with the issue of systemic racism, Motion No. 103, in the name of the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills. That is to say, as one witness put it, the racism that exists when the racists are gone. The shadow of administrative racism exists, and it is very hard, as a practical matter, to address these in the form of charter challenges. We can see why this would be the case. There is a pattern of arrests, for example, a statistical phenomenon, but no one act has caused this. It is very hard to engage in charter litigation on it, although better minds than mine have been put to that question.This is fundamentally a civil liberties issue, and I use that advisedly. However, it is important to point this out. If the member heard all my remarks, he will be aware that I mentioned two examples of racial groups, indigenous people in Saskatchewan and blacks in Nova Scotia, who have been arrested at several multiples of times as the rate for whites in those areas.This is also an issue in an electoral district like my own, which is almost entirely white. Those who are poor, who are members of the social underclass, who suffer from mental illnesses, who have fetal alcohol effect, have genetic disorders, a gene that makes people more prone to becoming addicted, or an impulse control gene, are more likely to face prosecution and therefore institutional persecution. It is inherently unfair to them as well.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58885435888544588854558885465888547RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the March 1 press release. Within it, the Government of Canada sets out a basic standard referencing the charter issue in terms of expungement versus a pardon. That provides a great deal of clarity.If one contrasts that to what the member across the way is suggesting, he is saying that in this legislation a charge should be expunged as if it did not ever happen. However, for all intents and purposes, a future government could make cannabis illegal again. If one looks at the debates in the last federal election, I think there is significance in terms of the difference between a charter and a non-charter issue and using that as a reference.I am going to go specifically to the example that the member gave. He made reference to crossing the U.S. border and how it would be inappropriate for someone to lie. If that person is told that their record has now been expunged, in other words, it is as if it never happened, when the person goes to the border, he will say that he does not have a record. Does the member not recognize that the U.S. border control might still have the record and that could lead all sorts of issues? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588854858885495888550ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the example that the member offered and I referred to in my comments, by definition, there would have to be some form of record or else the border control agent would have no basis on which to execute an arrest, which is what happens to people who lie to a border guard. The person can answer truthfully, “I have no criminal record. I have broken no Canadian law.” If the border agent asks it differently and asks if the person has used marijuana before, the person should also not lie. When I cross the border, I have the advantage of never having used marijuana. It comes in handy to be able to tell truth. However, everyone I have spoken to thinks that the danger is much greater for the scenario I am describing than the one the member is describing. After all, the Americans are not trying to gratuitously arrest people. If we adopt this expungement, it will ensure that those people will not find themselves in a situation where, when an American border official is making inquiries, it causes them, if they choose unwisely, to lie to that official.BordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading588855158885525888553KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, following up from the previous member, I would like to say that I too would not have to lie at the border, as I have never used marijuana or even inhaled a cigarette. I am happy to make that task easy.I want to comment on several items that have come up in debate. The first is that one of the members suggested that one of the goals of legalizing marijuana was to take money away from organized crime and that it had not occurred. That is, of course, patently false. The facts are totally different. There have been a lot of legal sales of cannabis, so huge amounts of funds have been taken away from organized crime. I do not think anyone in this House would argue that is not a benefit to our community.There was another point by the same member, that there was a danger of pardoning someone who had a more serious offence than simple possession of marijuana for personal use. That was a good point. The bill has been crafted to make sure that in the investigation of that pardon, it was not for some other crime. Sometimes the records may be vague and not specify exactly what substance was involved in the offence, or it may not be clear at the outset that the possession was not for personal use but was for the purpose of trafficking. That is one of the reasons that the bill was crafted the way it is, so that these things are investigated. I have to agree that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley brought up a good point. I hope that is looked at by the committee when witnesses are brought forward. The effects of an administrative offence coming out of the possession offence needs to be investigated, especially in difficult circumstances, to see how that should be dealt with.One of the big points which was brought up quite well by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques related to crossing the border. Before I address that, I want to say that I have great respect for that member and the way he comports himself. I was hoping to meet him in the halls in the next few days to tell him this. He is very positive. He does not attack people personally. He makes his arguments in a very rationale, positive and diplomatic way, the way that parliamentarians should. I want to commend him for that.However, on the point about crossing the border, expungement would make it easier. This is where some members might be confused. It could be more difficult. As members know, with an expungement, the record disappears. When crossing the border, a person could think that if the Americans ask if they have had a record for the use of marijuana, they could say no, thinking the record has totally disappeared. The record has totally disappeared in Canada. However, unfortunately, when there are pardons, expungements and things in Canada, the Americans do not erase their records. Something could show up in the American records that the person had an offence for marijuana, but they said no because they thought it was erased. That person is then caught not telling the truth to the border agents, and, of course, we know the serious results of not telling the truth to an American border official.(1800)Expungement does not necessarily make crossing the border easier. In some ways, it could make it more difficult, especially if an American border agent wants reaffirmation from Canada of a record suspension and an assurance that everything is fine. If a Canadian official cannot find the suspension, then the American border agent will wonder whether this is because there was no record originally or because Canadian officials cannot find it because of poor administrative practices. This may, in some cases, make things more difficult under certain circumstances.I will begin by noting that I will be referring to record suspensions as pardons, even though they are technically called record suspensions.Bill C-93 is about making things fair for Canadians and their families. For far too long, many Canadians have had the burden of a criminal record simply for possessing cannabis. Imagine trying to apply for a job, only to be turned down due to something like this. Imagine being unable to find housing or even to volunteer in the community just because of a conviction for simple possession of cannabis. Imagine the stigma of a criminal record, which can be difficult to navigate even when the burden is removed.Indeed, a pardon would help many Canadians get back on their feet. That is why the government wants to do the right thing and the fair thing.Bill C-93 would streamline the pardons process by waiving the wait periods, which could last up to 10 years, for applicants whose only convictions were for simple possession of marijuana. This means that they will be immediately eligible to apply for a pardon, provided they have completed their sentence and have not incurred any other convictions.An interesting point was brought up by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley related to administrative convictions of simple possession. I hope the committee will look at this issue, should the bill pass second reading.Previously I made another a point related to administrative provisions. I would like to remind members that the private member's bill I brought forward related to FASD. People with fetal alcohol syndrome disorder have brain damage, through no fault of their own. They do not necessarily understand that it is important for them to show up for their appointments and that there are ramifications for not doing so. As a result, they get into a never-ending spiral, going into and out of prison through a revolving door. This should never occur.Although I was not able to get that bill through during this Parliament, I hope that someone will move that concept through the next Parliament so that people with FASD are not unreasonably convicted for things they do not even understand are crimes.In the past, there were barriers to applying for pardons. Not only could getting one take a huge length of time, but there was also a cost. The $631 Parole Board application fee was definitely a barrier for many people, especially because many of those convicted were earning low incomes.Under Bill C-93, this fee would be totally waived. This would allow people to turn their lives around, as they would no longer have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That is the approach the government has determined to be the fairest and most sensible.Of course, there has already been a robust debate and conversation about how best to approach this issue. Much of it predates the introduction of the Cannabis Act itself. In fact, it goes back decades.Recreational use of cannabis has been unlawful in Canada since the prohibition era of the 1920s. However, its use was not popular until the 1960s.(1805)In 1961, following the enactment of the Narcotic Control Act, convictions for simple possession of cannabis began to rise. The Narcotic Control Act was replaced with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which remains in force today.We know that charges and convictions for simple possession have disproportionately targeted marginalized groups in society, including indigenous and black Canadians, which is definitely a point that should be dealt with at committee when this bill is discussed. All of this underlines the fact that, in understanding that a legalized cannabis regime would someday be a possibility in this country, the debate about pardons for those convictions has been around for a long time.Fast forward to the royal assent to the Cannabis Act in June of last year, and its coming into force in October, at which point we made the public announcement of our intent to provide recourse for those convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. We promised and we delivered. On the topic of pardons, the debate has largely centred on amnesty in the form of either pardons or expungement as a possible recourse. A number of parliamentarians had also expressed public support for granting amnesty for simple possession. We now have a variety of experiences to learn from and a wealth of ideas at our disposal as we move forward. What we do now must be in the best interest of Canadians to make things as fair as possible, in the most sensible and practical of ways.The government has chosen to allow Canadians who have served their sentences for convictions related only to simple possession of cannabis to apply for a pardon with no Parole Board application fee or wait period. This is a fair approach. For instance, we could have authorized the expungement of convictions for simple possession of cannabis, as was suggested earlier. However, possession of illegally obtained cannabis continues to be unlawful today. That is why a pardon, which we are proposing under Bill C-93, is a very effective remedy.Under this proposal, it bears no extra waiting time following completion of the sentence, and it bears no $631 Parole Board application fee. Under this proposal, an individual's record would be sealed and sequestered. This record could be examined again only in extraordinary circumstances, for example if some other offence is committed in the future. The suspended record could be disclosed in those exceptional circumstances only with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety. As we can imagine, anything that needs the approval of a minister of the Crown would not occur very often, and the suspended record would be disclosed only in these very extraordinary circumstances. The effect of a pardon is fully recognized and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that the crime previously committed but pardoned cannot be used as any form of discrimination in areas of federal responsibility. Most provinces and territories have similar legislation that protects against discrimination. Usually, when the federal government issues a pardon or a record suspension, the province or territory will do the same.Waiving the wait period and application fee is unprecedented, and it carries the impact we want, which is helping to lift the stigma and burden of a criminal record from many Canadians and allowing them to participate meaningfully in society. We can imagine how many members of society are affected. There are tens of thousands of people in Canada who have used marijuana for personal reasons. Therefore, the procedure of legalizing cannabis for personal use that is not harming anyone, and then granting pardon to those who were criminalized in the past for such use, is a very important thing for our society. People can feel good about themselves and be able to compete in society for jobs or houses or for anything else on a level playing field with everyone else. (1810)The practical effect and purpose of a pardon is to reduce the barriers to reintegration so that people can apply for jobs without being discriminated against or so they can become involved in a number of NGOs, things which they could not participate in if they had a criminal record. Sometimes housing is not allowed for people who have a criminal record. When they apply for any of these things, if they have a pardon, people would not know their past because the records would be sealed and would not be available to the people asking about them. We believe it is the most effective tool at our disposal to achieve the result we want for those people who have been carrying that record and that stigma around for too long.The first step is to get the pardon in place. Bill C-93 would allow Canadians who have been previously convicted of simple possession to apply for a pardon. Once their sentence has been served, there would be no application fee or wait period. Barriers to reintegrate into society would be reduced for those individuals. I look forward to the tens of thousands of people who were unjustly harmed by these rules and considerations in the past now being treated the same as anyone else in society. I commend Canada's leading role in this. I think a previous speaker said that we are only the second country in the world to do this. It will be another example of how Canada has provided some examples for the world on how to provide true justice for individuals who really did not harm anyone but were charged with simple possession of the substance for their own use and enjoyment, which in and of itself has certainly not been harmful to other people. There are other substances that could be more harmful to people and society because of what people do while under the influence of those substances, some of which are legal, some of which are not. Certainly, this has had such a massive effect on Canadian society and I think it is really uplifting that it is now legalized and many Canadians will be able to get a pardon so that it will not have a negative effect on their lives.I thank those who are looking at this as a positive change.Application processBordersC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceRacial equalityReasonable timeSecond reading58885545888555588855658885575888558588855958885605888561588856258885635888564588856558885665888567588856858885695888570588857158885725888573588857458885755888576588857758885785888579588858058885815888582588858358885845888585ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1840)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReferred to Committee after second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5888598BruceStantonSimcoe NorthDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)(1020)[English] moved:MotionThat, in relation to Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; andThat, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586370358637045863705GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, again, we see the use of closure by the government. I want to ask a question about the particulars of the legislation it is bringing in closure on.The Liberals call this, in the title of the bill, “no-cost” pardons. Of course, it is not no cost. It is just that the taxpayer would have to cover all of those costs.I would like to know, given how limited the debate has been, the answers to a few key policy questions: How much is this legislation going to cost? Why is the government not considering targeting that cost relief to those who need it and those who cannot afford pardons while having those who can afford pardons still pay for them? Why is the government not considering alternatives, such as those proposed by other parties in this place that remove the records without the cost associated with the process that the government would put in place?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586370858637095863710GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. We believe that, overwhelmingly, those individuals who have these criminal records have been impacted by them and that impact is disproportional to these offences.One of the reasons we brought forward the legislation changing the way in which we regulate cannabis was to create a regulatory regime that is far more proportional to what is required to control this substance. We believe that there is strong consensus in the House that those records should be dealt with in an appropriate way. We are anxious to have the bill sent to committee so that its members can examine this issue at committee and, perhaps, provide greater insight into the questions posed by my friend opposite.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637115863712GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer the question, even though he thanked me for asking it. I asked how much this is going to cost. I asked a number of other things, but maybe he can answer that point right off for us. Of course, it can be studied at committee, but it is his legislation and he should know the cost.How much would this proposal cost taxpayers if the legislation passes?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637135863714BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can provide a little more specificity. As the member knows, the current pardon system of records suspension, as implemented by the Conservative government, had a very substantial fee of $631 imposed on these applications.We know that for many of the people who have a conviction for simple possession, that fee is, frankly, a significant impediment to their ability to access these records and, therefore, to get on with their lives, to get a job and to realize their full potential as citizens. We believe this should be accessible.The exact amount the cost would be is proportional to the number of people who will actually seek this. The high cost is such an impediment for so many people that it would strictly limit those who could take advantage of this opportunity for a fresh start.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586371558637165863717GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we are seeing again, for the 60th time, the government imposing closure on important discussions that need to take place in the House.I recall, as I am sure members do, back in 2015 the Prime Minister said it would be sunny ways, that Liberals would respect Parliament and that they would allow parliamentarians to debate these important issues. Instead, 60 times the government has imposed this legislative bulldozer and pushed aside the ability of members of Parliament to speak to the issue.The issue is pretty fundamental. In this particular case, we are talking about a very complicated, convoluted and admittedly expensive process that the government wants to put in place, yet at the same time, the member for Victoria has presented a solution to this whole issue, which is the expungement of these records. The member for Victoria brought his private member's bill forward and has support from across the length and breadth of this country. Curiously, at the same time as his bill gains momentum, we see the government now bringing in the legislative bulldozer to push through its deeply flawed bill to try to head off the member for Victoria.Is that not the real reason for closure today and why the government is trying to head off what is a very credible and legitimate bill from the member for Victoria that all members of Parliament want to vote on?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863718586371958637205863721BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's question gives me an opportunity to explain that we examined the issue of the best way to deal with these existing records and what would have the greatest benefit to Canadians who have these records.Let me say that the practical effect of pardons and expungements is virtually identical. The exception is that pardoned records are sealed and segregated. They can be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps most important, a pardoned record is actually protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, whereas expungement is not.I can say from experience that because these records are not indictable records and for decades the vast majority of people who were charged and convicted of this offence were not fingerprinted, these records do not reside in a single, simple database from which expungements could be applied. In fact, they are often recorded in provincial and territorial databases, so the pardon process where an individual must come forward and identify the existence of the record so that it can be dealt with in an appropriate way is the right way to do this.Although I know I share with the member opposite and his party a strong desire to redress those records for those individuals, I very sincerely believe that a pardon process is the right way to do it, the appropriate way to do it and will provide the most benefit to those who have these records.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863722586372358637245863725PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right that there is a difference between expungement and pardons. Expungement, of course, is a legal process that essentially declares that the offences for which people were convicted are no longer an offence and the offences never happened. Therefore, it is obviously superior to a pardon for clearing a person's record.My question really has to do with the fairness of this. We know the Conservatives made pardons much more difficult for Canadians to get. They lengthened the time period that Canadians had to wait before they could apply. They imposed a drastic increase in the costs of pardons, over $600. We know that cannabis offences disproportionately hurt the most marginalized Canadians: indigenous Canadians, young Canadians, poor Canadians. It is exactly that population of people who are probably the least likely to have the resources to go and apply for pardons in the first place, whether there is a fee or not. Therefore, the legislation the government is proposing would leave many Canadians effectively without a pardon where, with a simple act of this Parliament, we could expunge the records of all Canadians for simple possession. We should do that because it is no longer a crime in this country. The current government did that for crimes that were on the books against homosexuality. The Liberals used expungement then. Why did the government use expungement to clear the records of Canadians who were convicted of homosexual offences, but will not do it with respect to Canadians convicted of cannabis offences?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586372658637275863728BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this.With respect to those offences, they were expunged earlier as a result of an acknowledgement that certain criminal charges and the criminal law were in fact unconstitutional and were a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In acknowledgement that the application of those laws was in fact a violation of both our laws and our human rights legislation, we believed that expungement of those records and dealing with them in that way was the appropriate path forward.I would differentiate that with the legislation that existed in this country for over a century with respect to the criminal prohibition of the possession of cannabis. That law has been ruled many times to have been constitutional and not in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has also never been suggested that it is a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That law was properly enacted, it was properly enforced, those prosecutions were properly conducted and those convictions were properly registered. That is a fundamental difference from those charges that related to the LGBT community and that is why we treated them in a very different way.Those offences and those convictions for cannabis have had a disproportionate impact on the individuals who have those convictions. In particular, I am happy to acknowledge, as I acknowledged when I first spoke of this issue in the House nearly two years ago, that this disproportionate impact is something that requires redress. The impact on minority communities, indigenous communities and poor communities has been disproportionate and the impact on those individuals has been more significant in the quality and the outcome of their lives. Therefore, we believe that the right thing to do is to move—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863729586373058637315863732DonDaviesVancouver KingswayBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, here we are again with a government that is so disorganized and preoccupied with its scandal that it cannot seem to get anything organized and moving through this House, so we are faced with closure again.My constituents have a lot of questions about this issue. One of them is the cost of these pardons, as well as the precedent. My hon. colleague has had a wonderful, honourable career in the police force for many years, and I have a question for him today regarding precedent. We know that in the past, many Canadians have applied for these pardons and paid for the pardons themselves. Now the government is moving forward with this initiative without even allowing us to debate in the House how much the pardons would cost and how the Parole Board would filter out those who have been convicted of marijuana offences in conjunction with other offences.I would like to find out, and my hon. colleague should know, is if this is a precedent. Is this something for which people who have had pardons in the past will be expecting the government to refund them or anything along those lines? How much is this going to cost us?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863734586373558637365863737BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in Bill C-93 that we speak very specifically to a certain set of offences. On October 17 of last year, legislation came into effect that fulfilled our promise to legalize and strictly regulate the production and distribution of cannabis. We have done that for a number of reasons, but overwhelmingly, our intent is to reduce social harm, to do a better job of protecting our kids, to displace the criminal market from this enterprise, to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to provide the opportunity to individuals with records to have those records properly pardoned so that they can get on with their lives. We deal with regulatory offences in a far more effective, far more proportional and far more appropriate way. It is an acknowledgement of that significant change and the way in which we control cannabis in this country that we believe it is absolutely appropriate, and I believe we have agreement on this, for individuals who have such records, who otherwise have led exemplary lives, to be pardoned of those records so that they might get on with their lives.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586373858637395863740ColinCarrieOshawaLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am a little stunned to hear the hon. member, who is a former senior police officer in this country, arguing that a pardon is the same as expungement. If anyone would know, it is he who would know that expungement means that when people go to the border or volunteer for a soccer group or boys and girls club, they can honestly declare they do not have criminal records, whereas with a pardon, people have to declare at the border they have criminal records. Remarkably, I read in the news this week that one of the Liberal MPs said that if people with pardons have a problem at the border, there is a number they can call and they will get help. It was the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard.I would like to hear from the member how he can argue that a pardon is the same as expungement, which is exactly what the member for Victoria is calling for.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586374158637425863743BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to offer a little perspective from my experience.We know that many Canadians have records and have gone through the border. We also know that American authorities and authorities in other countries may have access to information about that historical conviction. Quite frankly, if the question put at the border to a Canadian attempting to enter the country is whether that person has ever been charged or convicted of such an offence and he or she says no, the Americans may have evidence of that historical record. From their perspective, there is no legal effect of expungement, and they would deny entry to that person, perhaps permanently, on the basis of that individual not telling the full truth.However, a pardon has a legal effect at the border. Under our Canadian Human Rights Act and as acknowledged by the U.S. authorities, if a Canadian goes to the border and says he or she has no record for which he or she has not received a pardon, then that is the truth, and the Canadian will be able to enter that country. It is actually much to the advantage of Canadians who are travelling to and from Canada into other countries, particularly the United States, to have a well-documented record of that pardon so that they can tell the truth at the border and not be impeded from entering the country.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586374458637455863746LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1040)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863747BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1040)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863750586375158637525863753BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): (1040)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586375458637555863756BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1040)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863757586375858637595863760JohnBarlowFoothillsKentHehrHon.Calgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89111KentHehrHon.Kent-HehrCalgary CentreLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/HehrKent_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Kent Hehr (Calgary Centre, Lib.): (1045)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637615863762BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1045)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5863763586376458637655863766KentHehrHon.Calgary CentreDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Don Davies: (1045)[English]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 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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637675863768586376958637705863771BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1045)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637725863773DonDaviesVancouver KingswayCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1045)[English]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?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637745863775BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1050)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586377658637775863778CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvillePeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35699PeterKentHon.Peter-KentThornhillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/KentPeter_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): (1050)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637795863780BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1050)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586378158637825863783586378458637855863786PeterKentHon.ThornhillTedFalkProvencher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1050)[English]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? C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation586378758637885863789BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bill Blair: (1055)[English]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.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation58637905863791TedFalkProvencherBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1135)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5863804BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessExpungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1745)[English]We committed to legalizing and regulating cannabis as part of our platform for the last election. We upheld that commitment, and last October the new system took effect. At that time, we said we would introduce legislation to make it easier for people with criminal records left over from the old regime to have those records cleared. We have upheld that commitment too with Bill C-93, which was debated earlier this week.It is worth remembering that while we were advocating for legalization, the NDP was merely calling for decriminalization. In other words, if the NDP had had their way, cannabis prohibition would still be in effect, and people found to be in possession of cannabis would be getting hefty fines. That would obviously be a bad idea, because many of the people who have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition are from marginalized and low-income communities. Instead of adding to their financial burden, we have proposed legislation that will eliminate the fee to the Parole Board to apply for a pardon, which is normally $631. As well, we have proposed eliminating the waiting period, which can be as long as 10 years. Under our proposal, the pardon application will be reviewed and decided expeditiously by Parole Board staff, rather than being referred to an appointed Parole Board member for review, as is the current process. The usual subjective criteria, like evaluating whether the applicant has been of good conduct and whether the pardon will bring them a measurable benefit will not apply. Plus, the Parole Board will implement an outreach strategy that will involve community partners and civil society organizations to help people take advantage of this new process.Once a successful pardon is issued, the relevant authorities will be notified and the record will be sealed. It will not show up during a criminal record check, and can be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances, such as the commission of a new criminal offence.The bill proposed by the member for Victoria would use the mechanism called expungement rather than expedited pardons. As I said during debate on Monday, the practical effect of expungement is for all intents and purposes the same as a pardon, unless the person commits a new offence. At that point, they are going to have a criminal record again anyway, so the reinstatement of the old cannabis possession conviction will have minimal impact. When it comes to international travel, expungement may cause unnecessary complications. For example, if the United States had previously noted a person's conviction in its records, they could still have that information, despite one's pardon or expungement. If U.S. authorities ask someone to provide evidence of their pardoned conviction, they can get that from the Parole Board. With expungement, there would likely be no Canadian records to provide. We created expungement as a concept in Canadian law last year as a way to deal with historic convictions for consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners. That was a situation of grave injustice, where the law at issue itself was a violation of fundamental human rights and contrary to the charter.That is distinct from the situation we are discussing today. The criminalization of cannabis was a bad idea, but it was not a charter violation. Nevertheless, because of its differential impacts on racialized communities, we have proposed a dramatically expedited pardons process. The NDP has also called on us to follow the example of some American jurisdictions that have moved to automatically clear past misdemeanour convictions for possession of cannabis.In Canada, while federal records are held by the RCMP, there are also records, including paper records, held by provinces in local police offices and local courts. Going through all those records to find all the drug possession convictions and then digging into the details of each conviction to determine whether the substance involved was cannabis is a process that would take years.(1750)There was a suggestion on Monday that we hire an army of summer students to go through hundreds of thousands of police and court records in cities and towns across the country. I could not tell whether it was serious or not. The fact is that an application-based process will result in people getting their records cleared much faster.After careful and deliberate consideration, we chose a streamlined pardons process as the best approach. Under the bill that we have proposed, Bill C-93, there would be no waiting period and no application fee. Applications would be dealt with through an expedited administrative process, with no subjective criteria. People who have served sentences for simple possession of cannabis with nothing else on their records would get their pardons, full stop.Once again, I want to thank the member for Victoria for his work, his contributions to this discussion and his thoughtful concern for the people of his riding and across this country. I know we have a difference of opinion about the modalities, but we share the objective of letting people who have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis move on with their lives. Those individuals should be able to get jobs, find places to live, study and travel without the burden of a criminal record for an activity that is now legal. We are all better off when people living law-abiding lives can put their criminal records behind them and contribute fully to our communities. I look forward to the passage of the government's bill, Bill C-93, which would allow for exactly that.Application processC-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictionsCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading58646775864678586467958646805864681KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessExpungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions ActInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate on Bill C-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions, gives me the chance I have long sought to make a clear statement in the House of Commons as to the principles that underlie my long-standing views on cannabis legalization. I have favoured the legalization of marijuana since I first sought elected office. My views on the subject were first expressed at a policy conference in 2001 and were published in Policy Options the same year, but I have always couched my arguments in practical rather than in abstract terms.Here today, I can express my underlying belief. I believe today, as I did when I first published on the subject 18 years ago, that it is morally wrong to criminalize the personal use of any substance when the said use or misuse of that substance would cause no harm to any person other than the user himself or herself. When no person is victimized other than the person who is engaged in the act, then it is a moral evil for the state to penalize the person who engages in that act.This principle would apply even if it were the case that none of the following were true.The principle would apply even if it were not true, for example, that some people suffer from trauma that causes them to make impulsive choices, especially with regard to mood-altering substances. When these individuals are penalized, the law in effect singles out for punishment those who have suffered the abusive behaviour of parents or partners, or the trauma of war, or fetal alcohol syndrome, or simple brain trauma.The principle that victimless acts should never be punishable would apply even if it were not true that some people are endowed from birth with genes such as the NRXN3 gene, which in 2011 was identified as being associated with a greater likelihood of becoming addicted, in which case the law is singling out for prosecution those who have lost the genetic lottery.The principle would apply even if it were not true that those who have greater influence and power are far less likely to be prosecuted than an average Canadian who has committed the same offence. A case that makes this point is that of the Prime Minister's brother, Michel Trudeau, who escaped prosecution for marijuana possession 21 years ago because of the intervention of his father, who at the time was himself a former prime minister. Here is how our current Prime Minister put this in a speech two years ago. He reported that back in 1998, his father, Pierre Trudeau:...reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away,… We were able to do that because we had resources, my dad had a couple of connections, and we were confident that my little brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life. The principle that no one should be punished for a victimless act would be true even if it were not the case that disadvantaged Canadians, who are statistically more likely than their fellow citizens to be caught and prosecuted and saddled with a criminal record, are far likelier to be members of social or racial groups that appear to be marginalized in other ways too. Two widely cited statistics in this regard are from Halifax, where black people have historically been five times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession; and Regina, where indigenous persons have been nine times more likely than white people to be arrested for this offence. This would appear to be the very definition of systemic racism, regardless of the proximate cause for each individual arrest. Of course, the foregoing examples of inequity really do exist, and therefore the provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of small quantities of marijuana, which happily is now repealed, was wrong at all of these levels too.If the underlying offence ought never to have been an offence in the first place—which is not merely what I feel but what has already been decided by Parliament when it enacted the Cannabis Act a year ago—then it stands to reason that the retention of any long-term penalty, such as a criminal record for the formerly unlawful activity, must be wrong for exactly the same reasons. That is true whether it is a charter-protected right that we are talking about or whether it is merely the practical impact on some groups that have been discriminated against in the application of the law. It is true even when that is not the issue, but simply the case that a law was fundamentally wrong.To be clear, the retention of criminal records for persons who used marijuana when it was a criminal offence represents an ongoing injustice that ought to be remedied.(1755)Quite frankly, a provision expunging the records of persons found guilty of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis ought to have been included in the Cannabis Act. Why it was not, particularly given the heartfelt civil libertarian sentiment that must have been the motivation for the Prime Minister to share the story about his father and brother, remains a mystery to me.I note that in other jurisdictions that have legalized the non-therapeutic use of cannabis, such as California and Vermont, provisions expunging the records of those convicted under the repealed statutes are a part of the repeal legislation itself. It is now too late for Canada to make a perfect copy of this enlightened example, but it is not too late for us to correct the oversight. Bill C-415 is an effective and well-designed instrument for achieving an end to this lingering injustice.About 500,000 Canadians, which is somewhere between 1% and 2% of our adult population, have criminal records for the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. The bill would expunge their records.An expungement is not quite the same thing as a pardon or record suspension. It differs in a number of ways. For one thing, a pardon must be formally requested. Any person can apply for a pardon, but only after waiting for a period of not less than five years, and only upon the payment of a fee of just over $600. Expungement would be immediate and costless.I am aware that the government recently proposed a measure of its own in an apparent effort to supersede Bill C-415. The government bill, Bill C-93, has a title that tells the entire story of what the government is proposing: an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis. In short, Bill C-93 would remove the five-year waiting period and would eliminate the $600 fee.As far as it goes, I think this is good, and if the bill comes up for a second reading vote, I will vote for it in principle. However, Bill C-93 does not go far enough, because a record suspension is not an expungement.Let me show members how they differ.As everyone knows, American border control officials reserve the right to ask Canadians who are crossing the border if they have a criminal record for using marijuana. Canadians are regularly turned back at the border if the answer is yes. Everybody should know that if people answer this question untruthfully and lie to an official of the immigration service while on American soil, as people are when at a land crossing, as opposed to the Toronto or Vancouver airport, they can be arrested on the spot.If records are expunged, but not if pardons are issued, it would be possible for people to answer truthfully, whether travelling by land or air, that they do not have a criminal record for this former offence. This is a meaningful distinction. I hold no remit for marijuana itself. I never used it unlawfully when it was banned and I have never used it since. I care only about sensible, generous laws and about doing all that we can as lawmakers to make Canada a place where nobody is punished for actions that hurt no one else, and where no person faces long-term penalties for actions that we now think should never have been unlawful in the first place.I congratulate the sponsor of the bill and I plan to vote in favour of his excellent proposal.Application processC-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictionsCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading5864696586469858647005864701KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCredit Card Fairness ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1835)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it always a pleasure to rise to support a colleague's bill, especially when that colleague is the hon. member for Victoria. I admire the way he manages files and provides pertinent answers to our questions when we are discussing the matter with him. I must admit, he has a talent for getting to the heart of the issue. One thing that is seriously starting to grate on me after nearly eight years in the House of Commons is having to say that a bill is a step in the right direction. It is as though we are never able to fully resolve an issue and close a file and say that the matter is resolved and we can tackle another problem and find the best solutions.That is exactly what the member for Victoria has done with this bill, however; he even stated what he sadly cannot do within the confines of a private member's bill. Nevertheless, he still very much hopes that Bill C-415 will get the ball rolling and motivate the government to either add what he was not able to include and pass this bill or, alternatively, overhaul Bill C-93, the counterpart of this bill that, to my mind, is not up to snuff.After speaking with my colleague from Victoria, I was preparing a theoretical and even intellectual presentation on the merits of expunging records for simple possession of cannabis compared to the suspension of records. However, reality caught up with me in my riding. I will therefore provide an overview of a case I had to deal with in my own riding and which clearly shows, in black and white, that the government's Bill C-93 does not go far enough and that Bill C-415 really does take a step in the right direction. I do not believe you could find a better example.I got a phone call from one of my constituents who was in a bit of a panic. Actually, it was a complete panic. I will not name names or say anything that would give away this person's identity, but he is a musician. I have a soft spot for those in the music business because I was a musician myself for many years. This particular musician is on an international tour with a band. They have played in England, several European countries, and many cities across Canada. Now the band is set to play 15 or 20 American cities. Things are going well. It is probably the best tour of this musician's career. A musician's life is not necessarily easy and it is not always a very lucrative career either. Artists really have to have a strong conviction that they are making an essential contribution to society.Everything is going well for this musician. The whole group, both the musicians and the trucks with the equipment, arrive at the American border. They fill out the necessary paperwork and cross the border. Everyone gets through no problem except for this individual, because border officials saw that he had been charged with simple marijuana possession 25 years ago for one gram of cannabis that he forgot was in his pocket. He is barred from entering the U.S. The band is supposed to play 15 to 20 shows in the United States and they have just lost one of their musicians. They either have to find a replacement or cancel that leg of the international tour because this individual was charged for the possession of one gram of marijuana 25 years ago.(1840)Obviously, the conviction happened 25 years ago and it is on his record. It is not difficult to imagine how someone could forget this after 25 years. It is kind of laughable, especially since society has evolved in the meantime.This musician is therefore unable to do the tour. He called me to ask how this situation could be fixed as quickly as possible so that he could join the band for the rest of the American tour, since this record did not cause problems anywhere else in the world.There are all kinds of conditions that you have to meet. You cannot request a pardon until at least five years have passed since the conviction. After 20 years, that condition is fairly easy to meet. Then, you must pay $631 to apply. Whether this amount is high or not high enough is a matter of perspective, as it is directly linked to the individual's annual income. For a musician, $631 could easily represent one or two shows where he is working for the Crown and not for his family or himself. In addition, he has to track down certain documents, like police reports and legal documents. This takes time, and deciding whether he can continue the tour is a time-sensitive decision.To top it all off, you have to wait 24 months for a response. There is your answer for the American part of the tour. This is a real problem, since Parliament decided this was no longer a relevant issue in 2019. We legalized simple possession of marijuana. The whole time that this government was preparing the legislation, it never bothered to consider what would happen the day after this bill passed.How do we make sure that a crime that is not considered a crime anymore no longer weighs on people who committed it in the past? If society has evolved to the point of recognizing marijuana as legal, there is no reason in the world to make people suffer permanently for doing something that is no longer seen as a crime. However, their records live on. If we go with the record suspension approach proposed in the government's Bill C-93, it would be too little, too late, because the suspension would not make the criminal record disappear. The name says it all. The record is suspended. I will admit that the government is showing openness by eliminating the fee to apply for a record suspension. In contrast, the process of expungement is very clear. With expungement, all existing files relating to the conviction are erased, and the slate is wiped clean, as if the crime had ever happened. That also enables anyone with such a conviction on their record to answer “no” with perfect confidence and honesty whenever they are asked if they have a criminal record, because the record has basically disappeared and the offence is deemed never to have been committed. That is an important difference proposed in Bill C-415. My time is almost up. I had so much more to talk about, but the case I mentioned is probably more compelling than anything I could say. I urge all members to make sure they really understand the difference between expungement and suspension and to support the bill introduced by my colleague from Victoria.BordersBureaucracyC-419, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (credit cards)CannabisCredit cardsCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading5859055585905658590575859058585905958590605859061585906258590635859064585906558590665859067GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairHon.Bill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Bill Blair (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (1210)[Translation]moved that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the second time and referred to a committee.Bill C-93. Second readingC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGoodale, RalphGovernment billsMinister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852790BruceStantonSimcoe NorthKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to begin our debate on Bill C-93, which will amend the Criminal Records Act so that individuals who have criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis can quickly clear their record and live their lives to the fullest.[English]This bill proposes the unprecedented and exceptional measure of eliminating the waiting period and the application fee for people seeking a pardon for cannabis possession. This means that instead of waiting five years and paying the Parole Board $631, applicants would not have to wait a single minute and would not owe the Parole Board a single cent. Bill C-93 is the next logical step in a process that began during the last election campaign, when we committed to ending the prohibition of cannabis in Canada. The result of decades of prohibition was that Canadians were among the heaviest and youngest users of cannabis in the world. Under the former system, the illegal cannabis trade put $7 billion annually into the pockets of organized crime, and Canadian law enforcement agencies spent over $2 billion every year trying to enforce an ineffective and counterproductive legal regime. Last October, we finally put an end to the old way of doing things, and cannabis is now legal and strictly regulated, as promised. However, one of the lingering consequences of the previous system is that it saddled many Canadians with criminal records, making it harder for them to get jobs, rent apartments, travel or volunteer in their communities. The people affected are disproportionately from minority communities. To be sure, they broke the law. They committed what, at the time, was a criminal offence, and there were consequences for that. However, people who were convicted only of possession of cannabis for personal use, an activity that is now legal, should be able to shed their criminal records and the associated burdens and stigma as quickly and as easily as possible. That is exactly what Bill C-93 would allow. This proposed legislation would create a pardon process for people convicted of simple cannabis possession that would be streamlined and simplified in multiple important ways. Currently, to apply for a pardon or record suspension, which has been the legal term used since 2012, a person who has completed a sentence has to wait several years before submitting an application. It can be five or even 10 years, depending on the circumstances. Under Bill C-93, there would be no waiting period at all. Currently, the Parole Board charges a $631 application fee, which is obviously a major barrier. That is especially true for low-income Canadians who need to clear their records so that they can get jobs and earn salaries. However, without those jobs and salaries, they cannot afford the fee. Bill C-93 would eliminate the application fee.Ordinarily, in addition to requiring police and court records, the law puts the onus on the applicants to demonstrate that they have been of good conduct and that receiving a pardon would provide them with measurable benefits. These subjective factors are considered by government-appointed Parole Board members who make a judgment call about whether to grant the pardon. Under Bill C-93, for people whose only offence was simple possession of cannabis, the good conduct and measurable benefits factors would be eliminated. Applications would be quickly processed by public servants at the Parole Board, because there would be no judgment call to make. If the police and court records showed that a person's only conviction was for possession of cannabis for personal use, that person would get a pardon.In short, there would be no application fee, no waiting period and no need to convince the Parole Board to grant a pardon based on subjective criteria. This would dramatically simplify and accelerate the process. However, these are just some of the measures in the bill. There are additional practical steps the Parole Board is taking to make it even quicker and easier for people to apply. For instance, it is redesigning the application form to make it simpler to understand and faster to complete. It is devoting resources to work with people to ensure that applications are properly submitted. It is updating and clarifying the information on its website and preparing a step-by-step application guide, a 1-800 number and a dedicated email address specifically to help people with cannabis possession convictions make use of this new expedited process. Plus, it is developing an outreach strategy that will involve community partners, civil society organizations and social media to make people aware of the new process and how to access it.(1215)[Translation]It should not be harder for people to work, go to school, travel, find housing or volunteer because they once committed an act that is no longer illegal.All the legislative and operational amendments that I just mentioned will ensure that individuals who have a criminal record for nothing more than simple cannabis possession will be able to move forward in life as fully reintegrated members of society.[English]The process of developing our approach for dealing with criminal records for cannabis possession involved a great deal of discussion, both internally and with stakeholders, such as the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. We ultimately settled on the streamlined pardons process I have described, but we carefully examined other possibilities, such as amnesty and expungement, and I will address both approaches to explain why we did not choose them.The amnesty approach is being used in California, where the state is proactively and automatically clearing people's records without requiring applications. I completely understand the appeal of that approach, but in Canada at the moment, it is, unfortunately, a practical impossibility. Canadian law has never had an offence known as “cannabis possession”. The record of a person convicted of possessing cannabis might say something like “possession of a controlled substance in Schedule II”, without referring to one of the several substances in that schedule. Therefore, to find everyone who was ever convicted of cannabis possession, we would first have to find everyone who was ever convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the same category as cannabis, and then, in each case, go through the court documents to find out what the substance actually was. That would be challenging enough if all those records were held in one central repository, but that is not at all the case. We have a patchwork of different law enforcement authorities at various levels of government, each with its own records and record-keeping systems.Some of these systems are sophisticated and computerized, but others are literally papers in locked boxes in a courthouse basement. In other words, proactively clearing people's records for cannabis possession would require a massive amount of resources at all levels of government, and it would take a very long time. People would still be waiting to have their records cleared years from now. It is much simpler to receive applications in which people provide the specifics of their particular cases. That would allow the Parole Board to process the files much faster and would allow applicants to have their records cleared much sooner, and that is the point.(1220)There have also been calls for expungement instead of pardons. The difference is that a pardon sequesters a person's record so that it does not show up in a criminal records check, whereas expungement eliminates any mention of the offence from all records, as though it never happened in the first place.Expungement actually did not exist in Canada until last year, when we used it for the very first, and thus far only, time to deal with historic convictions for consensual sexual activity between same sex partners. The idea was that the laws in those cases were unconstitutional. They should never have existed, and they were, by their very nature, fundamentally and inherently unjust.The prohibition of cannabis was bad public policy, but it did not violate the charter. Still, there is no question that in its application, it had a disproportionate impact on certain groups of Canadians, especially members of black and indigenous communities. It is in recognition of that fact that we are proposing the exceptional and unprecedented measures contained in this bill.Practically, for the applicant, the effect of a pardon or an expungement would be virtually the same. With either approach, a prospective landlord or employer would not be able to find out about a past conviction. In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Act expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of a pardoned criminal record. The goal of letting a person move on with his or her life without the burden of a criminal record would be achieved in both cases. The only realistic scenario in which a pardoned record for cannabis possession could be reinstated would be if a person committed a new offence, and at that point, because of the new offence he or she committed, the person would have a criminal record anyway. The impact of reinstating the cannabis conviction would be pretty minimal.When it comes to international travel, in particular to the United States, an expungement could cause additional complications that a pardon would not. That is because the U.S. might have a previously existing record of a person's conviction, likely from when that person crossed the border or tried to cross it in the past. Even if a criminal record check came up empty today, which would happen with either a pardon or an expungement, the American border officer would have a note in the file from the last time. The officer could insist that a person get a waiver or provide more information about the conviction. If the record was pardoned, the person could contact the Parole Board and get the information needed to satisfy the U.S. border officer. However, if the record was expunged, there would be no documentation for the Parole Board to provide, and one might simply be denied entry.(1225)[Translation]The bottom line is that the approach we are proposing in Bill C-93 is a practical and efficient way of clearing the criminal records of those who were charged with simple possession of cannabis.[English]We would waive the fee, which is $631, and we would waive the waiting period, which is usually five years. We would eliminate the subjective factors, such as whether the applicant has been of good conduct and whether the pardon would provide a measurable benefit. We would make the application process simpler and more user-friendly.I am proud that during the last election campaign, whether others were talking about maintaining the status quo or proposing timid half-measures, such as decriminalization, our party had the courage to recognize that bold action was needed. We made a commitment to legalize and regulate cannabis, the better to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth and the profits out of the hands of criminals. We upheld that commitment, and now we have put forward a bill that would help people criminalized by the previous system turn the page so that they would no longer bear the stigma and the burden of a criminal record. I invite all hon. members to join me in supporting this important legislation.Application processBordersBureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsFeesGovernment billsInformation disseminationLegalizationParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substancePovertyPublic consultationReintegration into working lifeSecond readingSecurity checksSocial integrationUnited States of America585279158527925852793585279458527955852796585279758527985852799585280058528015852802585280358528045852805585280658528075852808585280958528105852811585281258528135852814585281558528165852817BillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, for example, we have a significant number of people who are impacted by having a criminal record. As well, racialized communities like the black community and the indigenous community have a much higher number of individuals who have been charged with possession of cannabis. In our community, if a person has to go through a process of getting a pardon, it sets up a barrier for them. Many people would not be able to engage in that process, accordingly. One of the reasons the NDP has called for an expungement of the criminal records is to simply facilitate this process. We are now in a situation where cannabis possession is no longer illegal. Would it not make sense for the government to expunge the records of every single individual who was previously impacted? That would be a fair process to embark on. I would urge the government to reconsider this process, with particular consideration to its impact on the indigenous community and people from racialized communities. Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528185852819KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her advocacy.I think that what we are trying to do is to make this happen quickly. The Parole Board has made it quite clear that part of its plan is an outreach strategy to connect with community organizations, to connect with the people who do this kind of work and who support these kinds of changes. The member will find them in her community. They will be out there and will be active in order to help people take advantage of this.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528205852821JennyKwanVancouver EastPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the purpose of Bill C-45 was to keep some $7 billion out of the pockets of organized crime.Does she know whether organized crime revenues have dropped or, instead, stayed the same?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528225852823KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have seen news reports that they are tracking that change. They have seen it. Of course, this is not going to happen overnight. We are only six months in, but they have already seen changes.We still have more work to do in order to get the full effect of the bill that we are looking for. However, we are heading in the right direction.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528245852825PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.However, there seems to be a problem of substance and process in Bill C-93.I will certainly have a chance to come back to the substance. As far as the process is concerned, although I am not the dean of the House, it seems to me that at the rate we are doing our work, I do not see how this bill will pass and receive royal assent before we rise for the summer.I have a very simple question. Is this just a bill that does not go far enough or is it a smokescreen to appease the public? C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852826585282758528285852829KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite clear through the process of the legalization of cannabis that this would be one element of it. We could not introduce it before the original bill was put forward, as this is part of that process. The way this bill was drafted, it is quite clear what we are trying to achieve. Having it come to the House for debate is an important first step. We believe there is time in the legislative calendar to make it happen.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528305852831RobertAubinTrois-RivièresHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a number of people from the Canadian Police Association last week when they were here on the Hill. They have some concerns about the bill. My colleague mentioned waiving the fee of $631. However, on the other side of that, I think before we pass the bill we as parliamentarians need to know what the cost would be to the treasury if we totally eliminate all of the fees.More importantly, regarding the concern of totally eliminating the waiting period, I agree the inordinate amount of time that people are currently waiting is too long. However, would my colleague not agree that simply shrinking that waiting period to at least give the board a few days to research the final outcome would be a wiser solution than simply eliminating it totally and making the waiting period less than a minute?Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond reading585283258528335852834KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, the cost of a pardon at $631 makes it prohibitive for people, especially people who have been disadvantaged their entire lives. This is what we are trying to change. We are trying to make it so that people have access to this, so they can get a job, rent an apartment and change the trajectory they are on. The waiting time commenced at the time of the conviction. With this bill, people who were convicted four years ago could apply today. They do not have to wait that extra year. They can move forward with their lives and shed the stigma of having a criminal record. That is exactly what we are doing.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReasonable timeSecond reading58528355852836HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that, over the last couple of years, we have seen the department work with many different stakeholders to ensure that when it came time for the legislation, in essence, everyone would already have a good sense of the process. To highlight the importance of the legislation's passing, it will have a very profound and positive impact on the lives to those individuals who require a pardon. The member across the way made reference to their being able to apply for a job, among many other things. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on the manner in which the bill has been rolled out, by working with the different stakeholders. That is one of the reasons why we have seen very little resistance to it. It seems to me that we have really crossed the t's and dotted the i's to make sure we got it right.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSecond reading585283758528385852839KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We understood the kind of impact this could have on the lives of people and really wanted to make sure we rolled it out well. We have talked to a lot of people and we have listened. However, we decided that this approach to a pardon, making it quick, accessible and at the community level, will have the most significant impact, not only in the short term but also the long term. The impact on the individual is the same whether it is a pardon or an expungement. We just want to make it happen sooner. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSecond reading5852840KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, in response to my question, the parliamentary secretary said that the parole officers could be in touch with the individuals to move the issue forward. However, in cases where the charge was some time ago and the person may not be connected to the criminal justice system anymore, how would that connection be made? The truth of the matter is that this process will create a bureaucracy. It will create costs that, in my view, would be unnecessary. If the government went forward with an expungement process, it would apply to everybody who has the record, regardless of whether or not they are going forward with a pardon procedure and process. Would that not be a far more effective and efficient way of doing it to ensure that nobody is left behind? If that is the goal of the government, to make sure nobody is left behind, then it should go forward with an expungement process.On the issue regarding the border crossing and the concerns there, the government has brought forward an expungement process in other situations, particularly for those who were faced with criminal charges in the LGBTQ community. Therefore, if we can deal with it in that instance, surely we can apply the same principle in this instance with respect to cannabis possession.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585284158528425852843KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, we wanted to achieve something that would make this happen quickly and give people a chance to build new lives. The impact on individuals, whether an expungement or a pardon, is virtually identical and a pardon allows us to move this along a lot quicker. We are going to be reaching out to civil society organizations, community outreach people and community partners to make sure that this information gets out there. That connection with the people who are looking after people at the community level is going to be key.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528445852845JennyKwanVancouver EastPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.The first thing I want to tell the government is that we think this is pretty reasonable, but there are “buts”. We think most Canadians are okay with erasing records for simple possession of cannabis. We agree on that, especially when it comes to young people. A lot of young people get caught when they are just trying marijuana. They might be in a park, the police happen to be there, and they end up with a record for something that is really just a youthful indiscretion.Of course, there are also adults who have tried marijuana or used it while it was illegal. After he was elected, our own Prime Minister admitted to smoking cannabis while it was still illegal. As we see it, that is not very good, considering what one represents once one is elected and becomes a federal MP and then the Prime Minister. Still, he admitted to smoking while it was illegal. That is not a good example to set for Canadians.However, we understand that for younger people, minors or youth, this can fall under the category of youthful mistakes. What we are accepting with Bill C-93 is the clearing of the criminal records of people who were convicted of simple possession once in their lives. We are not talking about people who were caught many times, like 200 or 300 times, or people who have a criminal history or other offences on their criminal records. In the case of a one-time conviction for simple possession, we can accept that it was a mistake and grant a pardon. Although we are prepared to support the idea of Bill C-93 at second reading, we would need to study the bill in detail in committee, because much of it is unclear. There is no preamble and no clear explanation of the goals of the bill or who could benefit from it and why. That is why the committee study will be important. It will be vital to dig into the details and get down to the nitty-gritty to figure out what is not being said. It is often the unspoken elements that require clarification.Let us talk about the costs involved, for example. It is estimated that about 500,000 Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. The cost of applying for a pardon is a little over $600. If you multiply those numbers, it comes to $315 million, so that is how much would normally be paid by those taxpayers who have a criminal record. The government wants to make it free. This means that Government of Canada resources will be used to process the files of these individuals, who would normally have to pay for it themselves. If they were paying, that would cover the cost of processing these records, which amounts to roughly $315 million. That is not insignificant. We in the Conservative Party are wondering why other taxpayers should have to pay indirectly for these individuals to apply for a pardon.It is typical of the Liberal government to believe that money is no object. The Liberals never consider taxpayers, who pay a lot of money in taxes. They never say “no”, and they throw money around left, right and centre. We have been watching them do this for the past three and a half years. This comes as no surprise. To us Conservatives, however, these are important considerations.I want to come back to Bill C-45, which is one of the things that led to Bill C-93 currently before the House. Bill C-45 is the notorious marijuana legalization bill, which was introduced in a hurry to fulfill an election promise. However, it raised a great many questions that have never been answered. The government says it consulted experts and received information. We know that is completely false—or perhaps its did not really listen to the feedback given in those consultations. Police forces had all kinds of concerns, as did the medical community. Issues were raised but were never taken into consideration. Landlords also had questions about cultivation and use inside apartment buildings. Those issues were never resolved, and this creates uncertainty.(1240)Given the way Bill C-45 was passed and expedited in order to fulfill the famous election promise and pander to young voters who voted Liberal because of it, we think that there will always be questions, especially since the government did not want to listen to law enforcement and doctors, among others. Even if I started out by saying that we are prepared to support Bill C-93, we must still thoroughly examine this bill, because we do not want the Liberals to pull a fast one, as the expression goes.First of all, the legalization of marijuana was supposed to reduce the proceeds of organized crime. The parliamentary secretary spoke about it in his speech. Sales of marijuana alone by organized crime are estimated at $7 billion. The Liberals said they were legalizing marijuana to take this money out of the pockets of organized crime and put it in the government's coffers. However, this was a false argument and a public relations exercise. We know that organized crime continues to sell marijuana. It even copied the labelling of products sold in legal stores in developing its packaging. This law did not stop organized crime from continuing to do business.Furthermore, since it is now legal, no one is afraid of getting arrested, which is kind of odd. People are still using illegal drugs and organized crime continues to profit. The concerns we raised while we were debating Bill C-45 have now proven to be valid.Again, we do support the spirit of the bill, but we want to study the bill in committee to be sure that the final version is very clear. This is my first term as a member of Parliament, but I have been learning quickly. I learned rather quickly that the Prime Minister is not to be trusted. Recent events are proof of that. The Prime Minister raised a lot of hopes, but the promises turned out to be snake oil. He made promises to everyone, but at the end of the day, we now know they meant nothing. He claimed to be a feminist. He said that the status of women was important and that he would make it a focus of debate as much as possible. Everyone knows what he did with the three female MPs who now sit as independents.The Prime Minister also mocked Stephen Harper, saying he did not take the needs of indigenous people into consideration. He said that he cared about indigenous people and he was going to fix the situation. Last week, however, we saw young indigenous women turn their backs on our Prime Minister here in the House. Indigenous communities in Canada heard all the lofty promises that were made, but the Prime Minister kept breaking those promises.Getting back to the legalization of marijuana, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister was in such a hurry to fulfill his election promise that he did not listen to the municipalities, law enforcement, employers and scientists. The Conservatives are often accused of not believing in science, but the first to ignore scientists were this Liberal Prime Minister and his team. They keep shaking their heads, but they ignored scientists from across Canada regarding the problems associated with marijuana.The government also promised to create a legal framework for derivative products and set standards for the sale of edibles and concentrates such as hashish within 12 months of legalizing marijuana. That was six months ago, and we still have not seen a plan to make that happen. This is yet another unfulfilled promise, and seeing as this session is about to end, it will probably be another broken promise. It is easy to see why the majority of Canadians feel betrayed by this Liberal government. Much like Obama, the Prime Minister made a lot of noise but over-promised and under-delivered. All too often, we have heard the Liberals downplay the dangers of marijuana, and now that they have legalized it, future generations will think cannabis consumption is no big deal. Even my own children are now saying that it is legal and smoking it just to try it out is fine. That is not how it works though. It may be legal, but it is still very dangerous. Young people need to understand that it is hazardous to their health, not a harmless consumer product.(1245)Experts say it is especially dangerous for young people, and everyone agrees. In a Globe and Mail article published in April 2017, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and other organizations representing front-line health care providers express their concerns about the ill effects of cannabis, especially for chronic smokers under the age of 25.In this article, the experts say to please keep the public health focus front of mind as this legislation is unrolled. That is a direct quote from Dr. Gail Beck, the clinical director of youth psychiatry at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. She also says that lots of people think this is harmless.I would like to read out this article to show the House that cannabis consumption really does have consequences. These are the words of experts, not politicians. The experts quoted in this article say that the medical profession in this country has long had misgivings about medicinal marijuana, namely that there is not enough solid evidence of pot's efficacy in treating chronic pain and other ailments to warrant a doctor's endorsement. However, with the advent of legal recreational marijuana, doctors have a different set of worries.A major concern is the potential for marijuana addiction, in particular among teens and young adults. Christina Grant, a professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, says that one in seven adolescents who start using cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder, which is significant.Dr. Grant, a principal author at the Canadian Pediatric Society, released a statement last fall, saying that cannabis use crosses over into disorder territory when it begins to cause dysfunction in users' day-to-day lives, derailing their commitment to school or work and sowing conflict in their families.Cannabis has also been associated with certain mental illnesses. We still do not know how the medication, depression and anxiety all connect. Science has not yet established a cause and effect relationship between the two. In other words, we cannot be certain whether people smoke cannabis because they are depressed and anxious or if they are depressed and anxious because they smoke cannabis. Dr. Beck says there is stronger evidence that heavy use of cannabis can lead to psychosis, especially among people who have a family history of mental illness. However, the vast majority of the research involved people who use cannabis daily. The scientific literature is virtually silent on the mental health effects of occasional use.Dr. Grant noted that we do not know the lower limit that is safe and there is no evidence to suggest that nothing will happen if a person uses cannabis once or twice. There is good evidence that teens who smoke pot frequently suffer long-lasting damage to their still immature brains, including problems with memory, attention and executive functioning. Dr. Grant added that, for teenagers who use cannabis regularly, there are actually structural changes that are visible on MRI. She adds that certain areas of the brain are visibly smaller, there is thinning of a part of the brain called the cortex, which is very important in terms of thinking and planning and organizing. The adult brain appears capable of recovering from chronic pot use in a few weeks. According to Dr. Beck, that is not what happens in young people. Citing concerns about the adolescent brain, the Canadian Medical Association, which represents the country's physicians, last year urged the federal government to ban the sale of marijuana to people under the age of 21 and to restrict the amount and potency of the drug available to those younger than 25.Most of the health concerns associated with cannabis apply to heavy users. However, occasional tokers can wreak havoc if they get behind the wheel while high. For an occasional user to consume some pot and then get behind the wheel is a recipe for disaster. According to Amy Porath, director of research and policy for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, cannabis impairs our ability to safely drive a vehicle. It impairs our reaction time, our ability to multitask and to pay attention. Police across the country are currently piloting a roadside saliva test to see if it adequately detects cannabis-impaired drivers.Whether it is tobacco or cannabis, Dr. Porath said, there are concerns with smoking anything. Smoking can cause coughing, wheezing, sore throat and tightness in the chest. It can also aggravate asthma.That article was published before marijuana was legalized. Major concerns were raised in this 2017 Globe and Mail article, which looks at the problems with marijuana.(1250)I am bringing it up again and members may be wondering why I am talking about this. It all comes back to the basic concept, which is the way marijuana was legalized. The government completely ignored experts, scientists and police officers. It completely ignored the proposals that the opposition made in committee. It also completely ignored the work of the Senate. Senators proposed a lot of amendments but the Liberals rejected all of them, just like they rejected the proposals of the official opposition.That is why we are prepared to say that Bill C-93 might make sense. Given the way the government works, we would never go so far as to say that the bill is extraordinary and that we will vote in favour of it without any debate. That would be impossible because there are always grey areas, things that are unclear.The Liberals know what they want. They have a course of action and a way of doing things. As for us, our duty is to examine the issues, ask the right questions and propose any necessary amendments.We are therefore prepared to support Bill C-93 at second reading. However, it needs to be reworked in committee, and I hope that the government will listen to and understand the amendments that will be proposed. I am sure that the NDP will also propose amendments.Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to immediately pass the bill in its current form. We need to go a little further, to dig a little deeper. After the committee does its work and the Liberal government makes some decisions, we will decide how to move forward. At this point, we have some doubts. We will see what happens, and then we will respond accordingly. C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDrug use and abuseFeesFood and drinkGovernment billsImpaired drivingLegalizationLung diseasesMental healthOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationPublic financePublic healthSecond readingYoung people585284658528475852848585284958528505852851585285258528535852854585285558528565852857585285858528595852860585286158528625852863585286458528655852866585286758528685852869585287058528715852872585287358528745852875585287658528775852878585287958528805852881KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians have been waiting anxiously to see this legislation come forward. It would put in place an opportunity for people to eventually get a pardon. This would enable them to maybe get that job, or a driver's licence or other opportunities as a direct result this. It would also be affordable. We have seen the legislation regarding the legalization of cannabis, which has been done in a fairly holistic way. Others in the chamber have argued that we should have done more, gone further. However, the Conservatives seem to be saying that we might have gone too far. I may have missed it, but I am curious to know the Conservatives' position on this legislation. Do they see themselves supporting it or voting against it?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585288258528835852884PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we are prepared to support the bill at second reading. However, there are many factors to consider, and we are not entirely confident because certain details are missing from the bill.We will have to delve deeper in committee. We will propose amendments and hope the Liberal government accepts them.At second reading, we will vote to send this bill to committee for further discussion. We accept the principle of the bill, but we have many questions regarding the details.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585288558528865852887KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.The part where he referred to youthful indiscretion really caught my attention. There was a time not so long ago when it was illegal to use or possess marijuana. When someone was caught for possession of marijuana, most people thought it was a minor crime that did not require major investment and could be overlooked. Today, it is entirely legal. It is no longer a matter of youthful indiscretion, since it is now possible to use or possess marijuana.Since we are no longer talking about youthful indiscretion, does my colleague agree that we should not just suspend records, but expunge them?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852888585288958528905852891PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.We have to stop saying that what happened in the past no longer matters because it is legal now. At the time, it was illegal.Forget about marijuana use for a minute and think about any other crime. If the crime in question becomes legal in 20 years will it no longer matter because it was committed today? No, it was a crime at the time that it was committed. The action has to be considered criminal. Just because it is legal today does not mean that the crime no longer matters.As far as expunging records versus suspending them is concerned, I think record suspension is enough.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852892585289358528945852895RobertAubinTrois-RivièresLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to my hon. colleague. Earlier, he talked about legalizing cannabis. We consulted people in my riding, and this was a major policy shift in Canada.My colleague talked about problems associated with cannabis consumption and mental health as well. In his view, how will legalization and the government's direction on this enable researchers to do more research aimed at avoiding any links there might be to mental health?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationMedical researchMental healthPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58528965852897PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.I am trying to understand her question, but, as far as I know, legalization has not helped mental health. According to reports and comments we have been getting from medical professionals, some mental health problems are related to cannabis consumption.As I said in my speech, people can now buy cannabis legally, but the black market is still flourishing and continues to supply cannabis to young people. Cannabis does not even make people bat an eyelid now. During our earliest speeches on Bill C-45, we said that legalization would make people think of cannabis consumption as no big deal, and that is exactly what is happening.The goal was to implement measures to ensure that young people would not use it or would use it only once they reached legal age. That is not what we are seeing. With respect to mental health, I would encourage my colleague to check with the Minister of Health, who I am sure has more up-to-date information than I. What I have been hearing is that the situation has not improved.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsLegalizationMedical researchMental healthPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852898585289958529005852901LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1300)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles speak to this bill, which is the logical follow-up to the legislation enacted on October 17, 2018.I especially appreciated hearing about how the passage of the previous act completely disregarded science. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles pointed out, a number of scientists, studies and doctors highlighted the real public health dangers when someone sadly uses this product.I have a question for my colleague that touches on what my NDP colleagues were saying earlier. Naturally, once it is legal, it is legal. This does not necessarily mean that it is trivial, but it is legal, as Dr. Carmant, the minister responsible for health and social services for the Government of Quebec, so aptly pointed out. However, it was not legal in the past. The member said earlier that, in his opinion, a pardon would be the best option for those who committed what was previously an illegal act. I would like to hear more about this.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852902585290358529045852905PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1300)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for the question.The difference between pardons and expungement, which is what the NDP is calling for, is that with a pardon, the offence is kept separate on an individual's record. That means the offence will not show up on a background check if the person applies for a job. However, if the person goes on to commit another crime, the judge may consider the fact that they had previously been charged with cannabis possession.The important thing now is to make sure that people who have a record just for simple possession are able to work, to get a job, to be free, by keeping the offence separate. However, if they decide to commit other crimes, the offence will go back on their record. Expungement means the offence is erased completely, as if it never happened. That is what we are opposed to. Crime is crime. We need to remember that the law is the law and must be obeyed.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852906585290758529085852909GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, the conversation has been not only about record suspension for cannabis possession but potentially other criminal offences. I am hearing from many of my constituents who feel that taxpayers should not be on the hook for paying for the suspensions. They do not necessarily disagree that suspensions should be available for minor possession, but they are concerned that taxpayers should have to cover the cost to the system. I am wondering what my colleague is hearing with respect to the cost and whether there is common ground we could arrive at that is fair to both the people seeking the suspensions and the taxpayers.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic financeSecond reading58529105852911PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1300)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.That is indeed the kind of thing we are hearing. People are asking us why they, as taxpayers, should indirectly pay for people who committed a crime in the past. Can the cost be re-evaluated? That is something we could discuss in committee. The previous government did an evaluation of the cost of applying for a pardon. It costs $631. That is the exact cost that was calculated back then. It includes the time it takes for public officials and all the bureaucracy to process a pardon application. We realize that the fees could be too high for low-income people. We are ready to have a discussion about the possibility of changing the costs. However, to go back to what I was saying in my speech, we cannot waive all the fees for everyone, because other taxpayers would have to pay for it through their taxes, and we think that is unfair.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic financeSecond reading585291258529135852914GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain at the outset that the NDP will oppose this legislation. Over the next 20 minutes that I have available, I hope to explain why record suspension is not the way to go, and record expungement, which I will describe, is the way to go. Record expungement for simple possession is the basis of my private member's bill, Bill C-415, which will be up for second reading debate in the chamber on Thursday.I have risen on previous occasions in this place to call Bill C-93 a half-baked measure, and I am still of that opinion. Let me explain: It is too little and it is too late. It is too little, because record suspension is just that, putting a criminal record aside where it could potentially be used again against the individual. It ignores the historical injustice, the disproportionate impact of cannabis possession offences on marginalized Canadians, on blacks and particularly on indigenous people.It is too late, because it is almost six months since October when we had the historic legalization of possession of cannabis. Here we are, almost at the end of this parliamentary session, starting second reading debate on the bill. It has to go before committee. It has to go to the Senate. It has to go before Senate committees. I am anxious that this will not be law in Canada, as it will die on the Order Paper until the next Parliament addresses that.It is especially disappointing because the Liberals have had years to do this. Their excuse was to wait until possession was legal on October 17, 2018. Now we are almost six months later, in the dying days of this Parliament, and suddenly talking about it. I hope that cynicism is not warranted. I hope there is goodwill on the part of the government to fix the bill and move it forward expeditiously. However, I have my doubts.My private member's bill, which is the counter to this piece of legislation, would require an application process for expungement. In an ideal world, my bill would have had automatic expungement, which is the case in Delaware and California, where officials sweep the records, find out whether a person has a record, for simple possession in effect, and if so, the record is deemed never to have existed. It is gone. It is zapped from the system.This legislation would require an application. My bill does too, but that is because, as the House well knows, it is a private member's bill, and due to a technicality called the royal recommendation, I could not ask the government to expend money. I was not able to do what has been done south of the border with automatic expungement. That would apply universally and automatically and benefit, disproportionately, indigenous and racialized Canadians.Let us just stand back from this. We have an activity which is perfectly legal now, but for which hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps that high, have a record for past consumption of cannabis, possession of cannabis, when it was illegal, and now they cannot get on with their lives.Why does that matter? It matters because blacks cannot rent apartments because they have a criminal record and are on the bottom of the list in a tight housing market. As I will explain later, there are way more people in Halifax who were charged with a cannabis offence and have a record for cannabis than the non-black population.Believe it or not, it is most glaring in Regina, Saskatchewan. This is government data; this is not me. This is from records disclosed under access to information. An indigenous person in Regina is nine times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession than a non-indigenous person. A black individual is five times more likely in Halifax and three times more likely in Toronto to have the same. An indigenous person in Vancouver is seven times more likely to have a cannabis record. This matters. We would call this law, adverse effects discrimination. We would call this constructive discrimination. (1310)That is why it is so galling that the government wants to bring in a half-baked measure in Bill C-93, rather than doing what is done in California. In San Francisco, there is an automatic intelligence system that simply sweeps the records to make them disappear for those who have a possession of cannabis offence on their record.Let us contrast this with what the government wants to do today. To its credit, it wants to bring in a bill that says people no longer have to pay $631 for having a criminal record suspended, which is what Mr. Harper introduced, and they no longer have to wait for five years. I congratulate the government for that minor step in the right direction.In the U.S., a person's record is automatically expunged in the states I have mentioned. These records are deemed not to exist. This matters because it allows people who are asked by a landlord whether they have a criminal record for anything to tell that landlord they do not. When asked by an employer if they have a criminal record, people who have only a cannabis possession charge from several years ago in their background can say they do not, because under expungement, it is deemed not to exist.The government tells us not to worry and that we do not understand, because there is a human rights statute federally and in all the provinces that says people cannot face discrimination on the grounds that they have a criminal record for which a pardon has been granted. Tell that to an inner city landlord in downtown Halifax or to an inner city employer or small business operator in downtown Vancouver. It is ludicrous. Why would the government not do the right thing, getting this all done at the same time and done properly, rather than bringing in this half-baked measure? It is too little, too late, which I am sad to say is my theme.I am not the only one with this opinion. I am pleased to say that the Liberal member of Parliament for Beaches—East York acknowledges the limitations of the bill. He said:Only full amnesty recognizes the disproportionate impact of cannabis prohibition on people of colour and the fact that cannabis should never have been criminalized in the first place. Our government’s solution is better than nothing, but it’s not enough to be better than nothing when we have an opportunity to make historic injustices right.I am quoting a Liberal member, not someone who has an axe to grind, if you will, on this issue. This is a Liberal who realizes we can do so much better. One of the arguments the Liberals have used to explain why we cannot have expungement is that many people would be affected and it would cost so much money and take so much time. However, that is not true anymore, because we have new data suggesting that only some 10,000 people would be positively affected by the bill. That is not a very large number. Why can we not expunge their records rather than simply giving them this record suspension, after which records move from one filing cabinet to another and can come back and bite people later in a subsequent event if the state deems that they have committed another crime?What about crimes such as failure to appear? These are called administration of justice offences. They are not like the actual offence of cannabis possession. They occur when people do not pay a fine or do not show up in court. In these situations the criminal justice system is continually on a person's back, even though the root of it all was a cannabis possession charge.I have been advised that indigenous women are sometimes affected down the road in this way when they have custody issues with their children. This occurs not because of the cannabis offence but because of the other matters on their record that have resulted from that. It is ludicrous.The government says our most important relationship is with indigenous people. Here it could make a tiny but critically important change in the lives of so many. Why would it let this opportunity pass to expunge the records of people so they could say they have no criminal record, allowing them to get their foot on the social ladder in order to get employment, housing and the like? I do not understand the government's reluctance in this context.Professor Kent Roach is one of Canada's leading criminal law specialists. Recently, in the Criminal Law Quarterly, he wrote, “The government's approach to cannabis convictions in the wake of legalization is even more problematic than the expungement act,” which is another bill I will come to.He continued, “It has announced plans to allow the National Parole Board to grant pardons under the Criminal Records Act. This again requires case-by-case applications. This places challenges on the most disadvantaged people who have been convicted of cannabis possession.”(1315)He goes on, “By not relying on expungement, the government's approach leaves applicants vulnerable to records of convictions and arrest being retained by the RCMP and other federal departments and to questions from prospective employers and landlords about whether they ever had a criminal conviction. It falls behind states such as California and Delaware in terms of reform.” He then goes on and says about my bill that it “...takes a better approach by proposing to expunge cannabis convictions including the destruction of records of convictions.”I am not here to score political points. I am not even running again in the next election. I am fully convinced that automatic expungement is the way to go. It is what people deserve. I implore the government to amend this bill and do the right thing by so many people who are affected, whose lives are on hold until we get this right.Record suspension simply removes criminal records from the main database, CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, and puts the data somewhere else, where it can be used prejudicially later and potentially shared with other departments, thereby having a negative effect.Expungement means those records disappear for all purposes and for all time. A record suspension or pardon indicates the government is forgiving or excusing individuals for criminal behaviour, and that is all; expungement acknowledges it was wrong to criminalize it in the first place.At this time, let me give the House the other government excuse for not doing the right thing. It brought in, to its credit, Bill C-66, which was called the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act. That bill dealt with same-sex sexual activity, which is no longer criminalized but was in the past. The government said it was going to deem those offences to no longer be on a person's record—gone. I have two things to say about that.Number one is that since October, from the last statistics, do members know how many people have even bothered to apply, of the 9,000 eligible? It was seven. That hardly gives confidence that this application process is going to make a difference.Number two is that the government says, “Oh, member for Victoria, do you know what we will do? We will say that this is to be reserved for things that are constitutionally over the line, such as same-sex sexual activity.”There is no principled reason for that smokescreen. I have talked to criminal law specialists and constitutional specialists across the country who say that this argument is not valid. Second, even if it were valid, which it is not, what about the constructive discrimination I just talked about, the adverse effects discrimination, whereby the policy and application affect blacks and indigenous people dramatically more than others? What about that?Not doing the right thing for cannabis expungement as for same-sex sexual activity, which the government is prepared to expunge, makes no sense at all. It is another Liberal smokescreen. I am not here to score political points; I am just trying to persuade the Liberals to do the right thing. Why would they not do it? That is what is so complicated for me to understand.The NDP has been calling for this measure for years. I will not go through the whole background of it, but there are deficiencies in addition in the bill that is before us today. The Parole Board does not have the resources to do the job, so there are going to be even further backlogs for other applications from people seeking pardons. There is a whole industry, sadly, out there to help people get rid of their criminal records. If members go on the Internet, they will see everybody who wants to help if they give them a few hundred bucks. The forms are complicated. Members might not think they are, but for a poor person with little education who is living in the inner city, this measure would impose another burden, and I do not understand why, when our friends south of the border figured it out much more readily.There are also eligibility gaps in Bill C-93. Only those people convicted of simple possession are eligible, meaning anyone with prior record suspensions of crimes related to the simple possession charges will not be able to use this process. I gave the example of failure to appear or not paying the fine or the like. If there is another offence on the record, then they are facing an inability to apply. (1320)Someone pointed out that if a person has a summary conviction offence and then four years down has another cannabis offence, there may be a total wait of nine years to apply under this bill. I do not believe that was intended, but it is a function of the drafting of the bill, according to experts I have consulted. That is problematic.The Liberals have had six months since they brought in legalization to do this. This bill is maybe four and a half or five pages in English, so how on earth did it take that long? The elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse. Bill C-75, which was 302 pages, was before the justice committee, and it rammed that one through. This bill is five pages in English and maybe nine pages in total with English and French. It took the Liberals that long to produce this tiny bill, this weak bill. Presumably they can just check it off on the list that another promise was kept, except if the bill dies on the Order Paper, as most people are anticipating.This is a real problem. This is an opportunity for the government. My hope is that if the private member's bill that I have before Parliament for debate on Thursday goes to the public safety committee at the same time as this bill, perhaps there will be a way in which some of the provisions that I have suggested for expungement could be brought into the bill that is before us and we could get it right for the victims as they are.It is not just me saying this. The Prime Minister has been quoted as follows: “...there is a disproportionate representation of young people, from minorities and racialized communities, who are saddled with criminal convictions for simple possession as a significant further challenge to success in the job market....” He seems to get it.The statistics that the government has produced under access to information confirm what I am saying. I am not making up those shocking statistics about overrepresentation of blacks and, particularly, indigenous people. The Prime Minister gets the consequences, so why would the Liberals not do it right? I do not understand.Professor Doob, the famous criminology professor at the University of Toronto, stated:There is no justification for forcing those who were convicted to live with a criminal record for behaviour that will soon not be criminal. A procedure for dealing with the problem has been devised by the current government. They should ensure that relevant drug records are expunged for the thousands of Canadians who have them.Senator Pate, who has been very powerful on this issue in the other place, has made similar arguments, and I hope that those points are taken into account by the Liberals opposite.I have been working with a very talented lawyer in Toronto, Annamaria Enenajor, who is the director of Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. She is a prominent lawyer in Toronto and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is volunteering for this important cause and she states: ...the government...leaves the impression that restrictions exist on the government's ability to issue expungements for the offense of simple cannabis possession that are beyond its control. This is false. There is nothing in Canadian law that prohibits our government from issuing expungements for offenses that, in their application, unjustly targeted racialized and indigenous communities. It simply chooses not to. This is a policy decision.That is the nub of the argument. Let us do it right. There may be some good arguments in theory. I talked about the theoretical ability to apply the human rights legislation when people have been given pardons and so on, but it does not work in the real world. We have an absolute dearth of money for legal aid, and legal aid rarely covers human rights complaints if one has been discriminated against because of one's record. Theoretically, I guess, the Liberals could hang their hat on that, but they sure have not visited many inner cities if they think that is a viable argument in practice. Many small businesses and landlords draft their own applications and may not be aware of human rights legislation.(1325)We have a historic opportunity in the dying days of this Parliament to do it right. Let us expunge criminal records for small quantity cannabis possession and help those thousands of Canadians who need a head start and a chance to get their foot on the rung in the social ladder. Let us do the right thing for those people as soon as we can.Application processBacklogsBureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisConstitutional lawCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationExpungement of convictionsFeesGay and lesbian personsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingVulnerable persons58529155852916585291758529185852919585292058529215852922585292358529245852925585292658529275852928585292958529305852931585293258529335852934585293558529365852937585293858529395852940585294158529425852943585294458529455852946585294758529485852949585295058529515852952585295358529545852955585295658529575852958585295958529605852961585296258529635852964585296558529665852967585296858529695852970PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesJohnOliverOakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88881JohnOliverJohn-OliverOakvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OliverJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. John Oliver (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the laws for cannabis have changed in Canada, it is only right that people with simple possession charges have them removed, which the bill would do. It would allow a pardon and waive both the fees and the waiting period.There is one area on which I want to challenge the hon. member. The NDP and the member for Victoria seem to want the process to be automatic rather than requiring applications. The member may not be aware that records across Canada are kept in different ways in many jurisdictions. often in boxes in courthouse basements. Therefore, a proactive automatic process could take years for all those simple possession charges to be found and reversed. An application-based process would get people their pardons much faster.Why does the NDP favour an approach that will make people wait possibly for years for their records to be cleared when this bill would offer a much faster route for them?BureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585297158529725852973MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, it may be that certain changes will be needed to make automatic expungement efforts happen. In the United States, it was not an obstacle in states like Delaware, where the same issues arose. Second, if as few as 10,000 people would be affected by Bill C-93, which is according to the number we have just heard, then I do not understand why the government could not find summer students to go through those files and determine who could be relieved of that burden. I do not understand why it is such an obstacle to get a few summer students to do the work.It is easy to overstate the administrative burden of automatic expungement, but it is also not easy to stand by and watch so many people's lives being wrecked by the government's failure to act.BureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585297458529755852976JohnOliverOakvilleGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay my respects to my hon. colleague from Victoria. He has served with dignity as well as a good, positive and strong attitude to defend his will, ideas and principles. I will always remember when we met almost four years ago. We worked together on very important legislation. At the committee that dealt with assisted suicide, the issue was addressed from members on both sides of the debate, with a lot of thought going into what was best for Canadians.[Translation]I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks, and I want to say two things. First, we obviously have different views on the legalization of marijuana, but we did agree on one thing. The Conservatives and NDP agreed that marijuana should be decriminalized. For the first time, on this file, I also agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that cannabis would continue to be illegal until the bill was passed. An illegal act is and will always remain illegal. Now here we are with this bill, which seeks to determine what to do about people who committed illegal acts when those acts were still illegal.I would like to hear what the member has to say about the proposal my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles made a few moments ago. He believes that the best approach to take here is to grant pardons. That way the offence would not show up in the person's criminal record, but it would become public if the person happens to reoffend.What does he think about that?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852977585297858529795852980MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his contributions to this place. Saying that I remember fondly would be the wrong word to use, because it was a very trying and emotional experience being on the committee that dealt with physician-assisted dying. One of the highlights of my career, and I suspect of his as well, was the spirit of collaboration and co-operation that marked that important debate.We agree on decriminalization, which was a common policy between our two parties. The government chose legalization. Now it is choosing record suspension over expungement. Why would I say there are problems with that? I want to make a few quick points on the subject. First, record suspensions can be revoked by subsequent parliaments. If people's records have been expunged, they are gone. Second, if people are no longer of good conduct or have what are called administration of justice offences that go along with their cannabis possession, then they can be removed by the National Parole Board. This cannot happen if they are being expunged. Third, some police and government agencies would still be able to access those records. In other words, there could be leaks that happen from time to time. As we know, some people who claimed to have no record in fact did have prior ones. Why would we take that chance with the lives of people?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852981585298258529835852984GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I support the private member's bill by my friend, the member for Victoria. Certainly, it makes more sense to me to expunge a record. However, I want to put this for the member. Now that we have government legislation in front of us that, while inadequate, goes part of the way toward what we want to see achieved, which is to remove the absurdity of criminal charges against people for an act that is no longer considered illegal, I wonder if he does not think we should work to get this bill through or, potentially, have it amended to achieve the scope of what a private member's bill cannot do and fix it at committee.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58529855852986MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have this go to committee. I hope there would be a will on the part of the government to do the right thing and amend it.Normally, I would agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, the problem I have found is that after months of effort, the government seems to have a closed mind to expungement. Therefore, I do not see that there will be any uptake on this. As a consequence, I am loath to simply say that. Maybe there is a procedural way with the private member's bill, if it gets to committee, and this Bill C-93 at committee, to be somehow amalgamated. Perhaps there could be a positive change out of that.However, I cannot support a bill that does not do the job and will continue to affect the lives of so many people.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading585298758529885852989ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria, for his exemplary work on this file.As we know, people from indigenous and racialized communities tend to have a higher criminal record because of the have been charged in the past with marijuana possession. Earlier I asked the parliamentary secretary why we would not have expungement in recognition of this issue. The fact that people would be required to go through a process to be pardoned already would set a barrier for them. The parliamentary secretary's response was to say that parole officers and people in the community would work with them.Therefore, I would like to ask the member this. On the issue around fairness, with respect to ensuring everyone who has a criminal record for cannabis would no longer be faced with that record, is expungement not the best option? Does the suggestion that somehow parole officers can reach out to people to help them with this process make sense? I would also love to hear from the member about the impact on the racialized and indigenous communities as well.BureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingVulnerable persons585299058529915852992MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, people in the riding of the member for Vancouver East are seven times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession if they are indigenous. That is particularly acute in Vancouver East. The notion that parole officers will help people fill out forms when they are overburdened already is ludicrous. A new government could come in and take away those officers. It could have gigantic cuts and that would be gone as well.The barrier for applications cannot be overstated. It is real. If one understands marginalized communities in Canada, one will know that it is real. Why will the government not recognize that and do the right thing?BureaucracyC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscriminationExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingVulnerable persons58529935852994JennyKwanVancouver EastMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague shot down many of the arguments presented by the Liberals, who do not want to completely expunge the criminal records of individuals who have been convicted of simple cannabis possession. One of those arguments was economic in nature. The Liberals are saying it would cost too much. However, I think that we can further refute their argument by reminding them that individuals who were convicted of simple marijuana possession and who will still have a criminal record, because it will not go away completely and could be reinstated, will find it harder to get a job and will therefore be less able to contribute to the economy than someone who has no criminal record.Does my colleague agree that that further refutes the Liberals' economic argument?C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsLabour marketPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58529955852996MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga made an excellent point, which, frankly, I had not thought of before. The cost benefit of this is staggeringly in favour of expungement. If people cannot get jobs, they are likely to be collecting some sort of social assistance, employment insurance, or the like. Whereas, if they can get jobs, because one no longer has a criminal record and can say that truthfully to the employer, then obviously the benefit to the economy and to individuals, their self-worth and so forth, is self-evident. I could not agree more with the member's helpful suggestion.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionExpungement of convictionsGovernment billsLabour marketPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading5852997MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest pot plan, Bill C-93, an act to give pardons to people who were charged with possession of an illegal substance in years past.I would like to salute the NDP members for their ability to bring pressure to bear on the Liberals and force them to address this issue. The government did not respond until after the NDP brought this forward in the House, calling for action. They need to be recognized for forcing the government into acting.The Liberal government of course has said that it has always had a plan. However, it sure seems to have been rushed for something that was a long time in the planning. In the public safety committee, we have the Liberal government's plans that are poorly developed, they lack consultations and they often miss the point or have negative consequences and unintended impacts on the Canadian public. The Liberal government has proven that virtue signalling is a bad way to manage a country because it creates more problems than it solves.Bill C-93 makes its first mistake on the very first line of the bill, “An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions.” While I am sure the Liberals meant no-fee record suspension, there is no such thing as a no-cost record suspension. The process of suspending a criminal record costs the taxpayers money, $630 specifically. It is a cost recovery process in that an individual pays for the administrative costs for an application. Taxpayers will be on the hook for each pardon request, each suspension request. While providing the record suspension for an individual with historical convictions for a minor offence is not a big issue, allocating taxpayer money to the cost of that at a time when millions of Canadians are saying that everyday costs are out of reach, just shows how out of touch the government is to the everyday working Canadian.This can hardly be called a priority for Canadians and the average Canadian family. That is the main issue I hear from many in the justice and policing community. The priorities of the government seem to be out of step with the needs of Canadians, the needs of our country and the needs of community safety, whether it is in the cities fighting gangs or in rural areas, providing police response to support and fight the rising crime rates. As I have said many times in this place, it must be the top priority of the House of Commons to put protections of Canadians ahead of political priorities, parties and election. Protecting Canadians is far more important than one's political fortunes. Clearly, this is not the case for the Liberal Prime Minister, his senior cabinet ministers and staffers. While we can draw this conclusion from their priorities in the public safety portfolio, the SNC-Lavalin scandal brought this in clear view. The Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Minister of Finance and senior staff, including Gerald Butts and Ben Chin, noted that elections were more of a priority than the independence of our judicial process. Intervening in a criminal prosecution, quite possibly attempting to obstruct justice, and undermining the independence of our justice system was not as important to them as helping out their friends from a Montreal-based employer. “I'm an MP in Quebec” the Prime Minister is said to have responded. Sadly, the few jobs that might have been impacted, and SNC-Lavalin says almost no jobs would be impacted, pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of jobs lost in my province of Alberta in the energy sector. The Prime Minister is fond of suggesting his words are important, but sadly his actions are found wanting. The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities—C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationPublic financeSecond reading585299858529995853000585300158530025853003585300458530055853006MurrayRankinVictoriaJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about an issue that is very important and has been raised by many people in my community, and that is the issue of pardons in the context of cannabis legalization. There is an issue of relevance here as to what the member across is speaking about, which is not at all about the bill before him. I would ask if he could be directed to speak about the bill. It is an important bill and I would like to hear his thoughts.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPoints of orderPossession of a controlled substanceRelevancySecond reading58530075853008GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and yes, I would ask my hon. colleague to be patient. I will get to my point forthwith.The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of this Liberal Prime Minister and his government, and this could not be more clear than when two former cabinet ministers were removed from their party. They were banished last week, and there was a breakdown in trust. Sadly, the fault lies clearly with the Prime Minister and his cronies, while the penalties continue to be placed on the members who were removed. The Prime Minister has offered one falsehood after another trying to it explain away. Quite bluntly, it has been painfully obvious to the rest of the country that he put politics ahead of the best interests of Canadians. The Liberals have tabled their bill for taxpayer-funded records suspensions. There it is; I am back on the issue. How does this align with the needs of Canadians? In general, how does it fit with public safety? The many issues facing our country in protecting our communities and ensuring a strong, fair justice system go well beyond the Prime Minister trying to interfere with the independence of the former attorney general or the director of public prosecutions. We know where Canada is struggling with public safety. According to Statistics Canada information, Canada has a gang problem in our cities. We have a justice problem, with backlogged courts and court appointments for judges. We have a rural crime problem. We have a sentencing and recidivism problem, with revolving doors in the justice and jail system. We have evidence-lab challenges and RCMP police-resourcing challenges. Stats Canada has shown that gang-related shootings are primarily responsible for recent increases in violent crime in this country, and to date, the only Liberal response has been unfulfilled promises.Instead of action, the Liberals' legislative changes, like Bill C-71, for example, went after licensed firearms owners instead of criminals. As the Department of Public Safety noted in its own consultation document, the vast majority of licensed firearms owners are not involved in crime. In fact, statistics provided to the public safety committee suggest that it is under 1%. The Liberals' legislative response to gang violence and illegal weapons has been to crack down on less than 1% of the problem and to ignore the 99%.What would help? I know a number of items that could help improve public safety and reduce violent crime. First is spending the money the government promised for policing and to go after organized crime. Second is to put more resources into public prosecutions, courts and evidence labs. These have all been shown to be under-resourced, especially with the recent court decision to limit trial length. Third is to stop softening sentences for violent criminals, as proposed in Bill C-75. Serious crime needs serious punishment for reform to work, and all these ideas have evidence to show that they are needed and would have an impact.What will not have an impact is a taxpayer-funded pot pardon. No one would be safer because of this policy. A very small number of Canadians would benefit from it. The truth, from my experience, is that most individuals likely to seek record suspensions may have a number of other convictions as well. While they may receive a single free record suspension, their other charges may not be so free. Possession might be only one of the many charges on a person's record. Where would Bill C-93 leave this House and Canada on the constant effort to combat crime in an ever-changing and evolving world? After three and a half years of Liberal mismanagement, we have a strained legal system that sees more and more criminals going free, rather than facing charges, or pleading to significantly less-serious charges. Prisoners will now have access to needles whenever and wherever they want in prisons. As our correctional officers have told us and have pointed out more than once, even in Europe, which the Liberals claim to be copying, the needles are never in the general population; they are in the hands of medical staff. Rather than dealing with the cause of crime, most often addiction, the Liberal plan is to continue the addiction. Under the current Liberal government, we have seen a horrific record of protecting communities from returning ISIS fighters. When we asked the committee how many outstanding monitoring warrants were placed on the 60 ISIS terrorists who have returned, the number was zero.(1345)While I have no doubt that teams at CSIS and the RCMP are working to keep tabs on these individuals, and are doing a great job, limited by the legislation from the government, the red tape and oversight rules proposed under Bill C-59 would no doubt make it harder to watch known radical extremists who have participated in horrific, hate-based crimes. To me and many Canadians, a desire to join ISIS is itself an admission that someone supports violence.The Prime Minister is happy to talk about being opposed to radicals and extremists, but none of his actions suggest that he is serious about combatting the sources of radicalization or the threat of domestic terrorism. Words matter, but actions have impacts.We have seen a radical and damaging string of policies that have increased drugs in our communities and have not helped make anyone safer. Whether it was the poorly thought-out and rushed legislation on marijuana, which ignored reasonable requests from police and medical professionals, or the unnecessary risk of drug-impaired driving, to my knowledge, we still do not have a reliable roadside mechanism to test for drug impairment or to increase supervised injection sites.Nothing so explains the potential harm of the Liberal approach to crime as the issue of rural crime, which we are dealing with in rural Canada. My riding has a small city and an expansive rural region. Across Alberta, Saskatchewan and other parts of our country, we have heard from Canadians about the rampant, escalating crime in rural communities committed, for the most part, by urban criminals victimizing rural Canadians where police response is minimal, delayed, or in some cases, nonexistent.Canadians have told us heartbreaking stories of violent encounters, financial hardship and trauma from repeated thefts and victimization. Canadians have spoken of fear, alienation and abandonment. That is not Canada. That is not my Canada, but it has become an unfortunate reality in the Prime Minister's Canada. With Bill C-93, the government is proposing a no-fee, no-waiting-period record suspension without any enquiries or reviews of personal history or conduct. The reason we have a Parole Board, both the administration and the regional organization, appointed to conduct hearings is to exercise discretion in the review of individual cases. Parole hearings can uncover vital information about convictions, such as a plea deal with lesser charges despite the person having been involved in serious and violent crimes.While there are likely to be a very limited number of cases like this, such cases may be separated from simple possession issues. Moreover, some plea deals may have been arranged with lesser charges but with specific instructions, such as an agreement to have no record suspension, as appropriate to the person's personal history.This means that these pardons would be granted as a matter of process, and the board would take up no inquiry of the person and would have little or no opportunity to exercise discretion. This means that even in cases where it was patently obvious that the person continued a criminal lifestyle but did not have a conviction entered against him or her, a pardon would be granted.The police in this country have raised some concerns about Bill C-93. They suggest that our officers need to feel confident that individuals who are a threat to public safety and the public order are going to be popping up on CPIC, even if they have been convicted of simple possession.Here is a scenario as an example. There are many individuals who have been charged with more than one serious criminal drug offence, but once they have gone to court and worked out a plea deal for simple possession for a multitude of possession charges, these charges are then reduced for multiple reasons, such as to ease a court backlog, to save witnesses from testifying or to secure testimony for the conviction of a bigger criminal player, etc. The plea to a simple possession charge would be used by the Crown with the understanding, as I said previously, that the conviction would still be a permanent part of that individual's record, ensuring that any future investigation of a similar nature could be appropriately linked and applied to that person's own personal history.(1350)This does not serve the best interests of officer safety or community safety. It does not promote the rehabilitation of those entrenched in the criminal element, the ones who threaten to be repeat offenders.I appreciate the fact that we cannot hold unproven facts against individuals. That would be unfair. However, we cannot ignore the circumstances that would lead to the arrest, charging and conviction of individuals using the available laws and the discretion of the day, which is key. The Crown and the courts would not have accepted the lesser pleas knowing the proposal today. This itself would affect the administration of justice. There are two very different scenarios at play here: one person who is stopped and charged for carrying a dime bag of marijuana versus a person who is caught up in a drug ring and pleads to a simple possession charge. They are two very different people, but the proposed changes would treat them the same way. One is not a danger to police or the community, and the other continues to pose a risk. That is what should be screened. There should not just be blanket pardons.While the Liberals are happy to talk about there being discretion in our justice system, they have removed the discretion of the public service at the Parole Board as well as the discretion of the Parole Board itself. It is important to keep in context the arrest charges and plea deals, especially since many plea deals would never have considered the possibility of a future government legalizing drugs and imposing record suspensions without any review or context. The House should consider that no individuals would benefit from this act who would be excluded otherwise, and I can see no way to make that happen without an appropriate review.I hope that members of the committee are not prevented from making minor and common-sense amendments to the legislation that would ensure public safety. Already we have seen too many pieces of legislation from the Liberals that ignore common sense and public safety in favour of policy and division. To be clear, I know, and I believe members know, that these are not the public safety priorities of Canadians. This bill would not help victims recover from the trauma of violent crime. It would not prevent criminals from victimizing rural Canadians. It would not stop gang violence or deter youth from joining gangs. It would not address illegal firearms in our country. It would not address the many concerns and challenges faced by prosecutors and police across the country. I see Bill C-93 as a continuation of the Liberals' plan: more minor gestures without the requisite actions to combat addiction, crime and poverty to improve public safety. It is a plan that would provide a benefit to a select and small group of Canadians at taxpayers' expense, a plan that would double down on legalizing marijuana while ignoring real, serious and important threats to Canada's public safety. These are not the priorities of Canadians. This bill does not address the issues, and from what I have heard from police and prosecutors across the country, it does not address their concerns.I can only assume that Liberal MPs will once again be called on to vote in blind faith with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, because today more and more Canadians are seeing clearly that the priorities of the Liberals are not the priorities of Canadians.Application processC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionDiscretionary powersFeesFirearmsGovernment billsGovernment performanceJustice systemNational securityParole Board of CanadaPossession of a controlled substancePublic financeSafetySecond reading585301158530125853013585301458530155853016585301758530185853019585302058530215853022585302358530245853025585302658530275853028585302958530305853031585303258530335853034585303558530365853037585303858530395853040BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to be on the public safety and national security committee with the member across the way. At committee, we worked together on a joint report on record suspensions, which was tabled in the House in December. We all agreed in the report that a criminal record has a negative impact on a person's ability to find employment, housing and education, to travel and in the adoption and custody of children. We recognized that an applicant's financial situation and ability to pay may be a barrier to applying. In fact, we asked the government to review the record suspension system and the cost of it. Therefore, I was actually very surprised to hear the member now speak from what seems to be a position that is contrary to the report he agreed to when it was put forward in the House.Perhaps the member could explain why it makes sense for people to face a financial barrier in achieving a record suspension for something like simple possession.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58530415853042GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that there is no dichotomy in what I have said and what I support at committee. I fully appreciate that when moving on in life, an individual's record could limit his or her ability to acquire appropriate employment, housing and all those things. We need to approach this in a manner that is fair and just. That does not mean the taxpayer foots the entire bill. It means there is a balance that has to be struck.Not once did I suggest that the record suspension should not be considered. I think it is something that needs to be considered. However, we need to look at this. We need to be open to amendments to the current legislation. We need to understand its implications. We need to make sure we do not give record suspensions straight across the board because someone has a minor possession. We need to have the Parole Board continue to examine each file and, where appropriate, issue those suspensions potentially, but not completely, at the taxpayers' expense. As a government, we need to look at that.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionFeesGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58530435853044JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have seen a pattern of behaviour by the current government and it is too little too late. It is a lazy approach. It is half-measures. I do not understand the concept the Liberals are proposing now, when the member for Victoria proposed a reasonable bill that had support and could have run through this House. Mediocracy and a lack of willingness to work on things is what really exemplifies the current government. Here is an example where we have some unification in the House and some half-forward progress presented in front of us and the government has refused to do it. Housing is a good example. It is something that is serious for people. This bill is not going to help people who have been affected by this type of a record historically. I would ask the member to highlight that, because it is a very significant consequence. Again, I cannot understand the half-measures.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsGovernment performancePossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58530455853046GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records ActInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, we do see the impact one's past can have on one's present and future. Although I am new to the House, at times I often wonder why as parliamentarians we cannot come together on legislation of this importance to find a common ground and to be accepting of amendments from all parties who have the best interests of Canadians in mind. I am hopeful that when the bill is sent to committee, the government members will be open to amendments that are designed to better the lives of Canadians.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsGovernment performancePossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading58530475853048BrianMasseWindsor WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal Records Act [Bill C-93—Notice of Time Allocation]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing 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 respective stage of the bill. I hope that we can find a better way forward.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsNotice of motionPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingTime allocation5853571BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a charter statement for Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.8525-421-100 Charter Statement — Bill C-93: An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisAttorney General of CanadaC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCannabisCriminal record suspensionPossession of a controlled substance5834099DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCriminal Records ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1205)[English]Bill C-93. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsIntroduction and First readingPossession of a controlled substance5803601CatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' Business Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1420)[English]Madam Speaker, to answer the member's comment about a pardon versus an expungement, an expungement can be used, and should be used, when there is a historical injustice in how a criminal record was obtained. A pardon can be used for any criminal record, but an expungement is what we need for a criminal record that came about because of a historical injustice. I will talk about that in my speech.I would first like to again thank the member for Victoria for bringing this important bill forward. I think it is something Canadians want. He has stepped into the breach where the government has failed to go, even though it had plenty of time to get ready for this, as we have been planning for the legalization of marijuana for many years.I will start off by saying that there are a lot of people in my riding who use cannabis and who used cannabis before it became legal. This is obviously true in many ridings. We all carry out some unofficial polling when we go door to door, and one of the things we notice when we go door to door in my riding is how many people use cannabis. It is quite a popular thing in my riding. It is not everyone who is doing it, but we notice how many people do it. It is not just people of colour or indigenous people, it is everyone. It is business people. The whole point of this bill on expungement is that in the past, arrests for simple possession of marijuana were disproportionately handed out to marginalized Canadians. Young Canadians, black Canadians and indigenous Canadians are by far the people who have suffered the most for this. That is one of the reasons expungement is much more appropriate than a simple pardon.As other people have said, many people in Canada have criminal records simply because they were found in possession of marijuana, something we now say is completely fine; it is legal, it should not have happened before, so let us get on with it. We are talking about 500,000 Canadians, and some have suggested that it might be as high as over 900,000 Canadians. This is not something that is relegated to the dark criminal backwaters of Canada. This is the bulk of Canadian society. It has left people with criminal records. They cannot cross the border. They have difficulty finding work, in many cases. They cannot even volunteer. A lot of times, if they want to coach a soccer team for their kid's school, they demand a criminal record check, and they cannot do that. It really affects the lives of Canadians, Canadians who we now say have done nothing wrong.As I said, the government has had a lot of time leading up to this to prepare its legislation. Other jurisdictions, such as California, Delaware, Vermont, and I think North Dakota, are moving in this direction. They are bringing expungement provisions into their legalization legislation. However, the current government has not. We have been pressing it to have something like this since we began sitting in this Parliament. Now it is saying that maybe next year it will bring legislation that will make it easier for people to apply for a pardon.I want to go back to the point that it is really marginalized Canadians who have been hit hard. That is why expungement is the way to go. As other people have said, someone who is indigenous is nine times more likely to be arrested for simple possession in Regina and seven times more likely in Vancouver. A black person is five times more likely to be arrested in Halifax and three times more likely in Toronto. These simple possession arrests disproportionately affect people of colour, indigenous people and young people.I can quote what government members have said with respect to this. The Prime Minister said this:People from minority communities, marginalised communities, without economic resources, are not going to have that kind of option to go through and clear their name in the justice system. That's one of the fundamental unfairnesses of this current system is that it affects different communities in a different way.(1425)The Minister of Border Security said that “the failed system of criminal prohibition has resulted in the criminalization of hundreds of thousands of Canadians and contributed to an unjust disparity and impact on vulnerable communities.” The Minister of Public Safety said that “the law as it stands today has been an abject failure”. The MP for Hull—Aylmer said, “We do know that black Canadians have been disproportionately charged with and are imprisoned for possession of small amounts of cannabis.”Much of the cabinet is admitting that this is what has been going on, but this can only be justly dealt with through a simple expungement of all of those criminal records so that these people can get on with their lives and get work or cross the border. In Toronto, 15% of people on social welfare say that their cannabis possession records are a key barrier to their getting work. We all want those people to work and to take part in this economy and society. However, that is the barrier they are facing, and only an expungement would help with it.I see that I do not have much time left. The government says that it is going to bring in pardons. time. I will just say—Black CanadiansC-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictionsCannabisExpungement of convictionsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond readingUnited States of America5722987KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 1988--Mr. Bev Shipley:With regard to forensic toxicology tests and the National Forensic Laboratory Services (NFLS) section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (a) how many blood tests were conducted by the NFLS from 2015 to date, broken down by year; (b) how many blood tests are projected to be conducted by the NFLS in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (c) what is the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis; and (d) what is the projected increase in turnaround time for test results as a result of the legalization of cannabis?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the RCMP's National Forensic Laboratory Services, NFLS, receives requests for different types of forensic services from across Canada, excluding Ontario and Quebec, who manage and operate their own public forensic laboratories. NFLS tracks the number of service requests, not "blood tests", it receives for forensic analysis.With regard to (c), at this time, the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis is not available.The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.With regard to (d), the NFLS currently has established target diary dates for its toxicology services program. Included in the above-mentioned proposal to confirm funding is a plan to build NFLS capacity to meet any increase in demand for services. The NFLS service model already includes a monitoring function that assists in prioritization of urgent service requests.Question No. 1994--Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:With regard to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act: what are the projected implementation costs of the legislation, broken down by each policy measure contained in the Bill?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, eliminating the use of administrative segregation within Canada's correctional system and replacing it with structured intervention units, SIUs, will require both the enactment of new legislation, Bill C-83, and the investment of new resources.The objective is to ensure that the system can properly separate certain offenders as necessary for safety and security reasons, while still providing them with on-going meaningful human contact and the interventions, programs and social supports that their circumstances require, including access to program officers, indigenous liaison officers, elders, chaplains and others. If the new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest close to $300 million over six years, and then some $70 million annually thereafter, to implement the new SIU approach.For this approach to be successful, the correctional system must also strengthen its mental health programming. This will include the enhanced assessment and early diagnosis of inmates at intake and throughout incarceration at all levels, plus enhanced primary and acute mental health care, support for patient advocacy services and 24-7 health care at designated institutions. If this new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest more than $150 million over six years, and then more than $70 million annually thereafter, to implement these mental health care improvements.More specific financial details will become available through the on-going budgetary process, including the usual estimates presented for approval to the House of Commons.Question No. 1996--Mr. John Brassard:With regard to the government’s announcement that it will be waiving the record suspension application fee for individuals who have criminal records related to the possession of cannabis: (a) how many individuals have criminal records solely from possession of cannabis convictions; (b) how many individuals have criminal records from possession of cannabis convictions in addition to convictions on other charges; and (c) what is the projected cost to the government of waiving the record suspension application fee for those convicted of cannabis possession?Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, CCRTIS, maintains the RCMP national repository of criminal records. The repository is a record database and was not designed to provide statistical analysis. As a result, the content of the repository cannot be aggregated and disaggregated in a way that would accurately depict answers as they relate to these questions.With regard to (c), at this time, the implementation costs of the proposal are not available.The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.Administrative feesBloodBrassard, JohnCannabisConservative CaucusCorrectional servicesCriminal record suspensionGoodale, RalphImprisonment and prisonersLiberal CaucusNational Forensic Laboratory ServicesPaul-Hus, PierrePossession of a controlled substanceQ-1988Q-1994Q-1996Schiefke, PeterShipley, BevSobriety testWritten questions5708006570800757080085708009KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.I rise once again to speak to Bill C-45 on the legalization of marijuana, on behalf of the millions of Canadians who would like to be standing beside me or in my place.Let us not forget that the Prime Minister promised that legalizing marijuana would take street drugs out of the hands of children and take the production and sale of drugs away from organized crime. That is the line the government adopted to support this bill, but we can clearly see that it is completely false.Last fall, we voted under the guillotine of time allocation, and naturally, given the Liberal majority, the bill was passed and sent to the Senate.I am pleased to see that the senators felt free to propose the 46 amendments we are studying today. Interestingly enough, 29 of these 46 amendments are from the government. We have said all along that Bill C-45 is a botch job, that it would not work, and that we could not support it. Today we have proof, because the government itself had to make 29 amendments to a bill it rushed to ram down the throats of the members of the House of Commons. Now the Senate, comprised mostly of government-appointed independent Liberals, agrees with the opposition and made a total of 46 amendments. Clearly, Bill C-45 was botched from the beginning, and we still do not understand the logic. The Prime Minister appears to be living in a fantasy world. We often hear people taking about a magical land of unicorns and Care Bears. I think those people have a point, considering what is going on and how the Prime Minister sees and does things. It really is a fantasy land, and nothing we are being told makes any sense.The government's official position was that Bill C45 was supposed to resolve the problem of marijuana trafficking controlled by organized crime and keep marijuana out of the hands of children, but it is really having the opposite effect. It is also going to cause other problems. No, legalizing marijuana will not reduce access to it. Yes, organized crime will find ways around our laws. No, police officers cannot use magical Care Bear powers to fight drug-related violence and crime.All that because the Prime Minister decided to make this an issue, to make it an electoral promise. He decided that this was urgent and that he had to legalize cannabis as quickly as possible without any respect for the concerns of scientists, doctors, or law enforcement officers.What is more, the Prime Minister, who is supposedly a great friend to the first nations, did not even take into consideration their extremely serious concerns.On top of all that, Canadian employers will have to deal with this situation. How will employers be able to monitor employees who work in manufacturing, in industries that require the use of dangerous equipment? We still do not have any answers on that. The government is rushing to legalize cannabis, but there are still unanswered questions.The basic premise had to do with children. I will talk later about plants in homes, about how organized crime will get around the law, and about how children will be allowed to be in possession of marijuana. They will not be allowed to buy any, but they will be allowed to have it on them. It really does not make any sense.Let's also talk about police officers. Over the weekend, a police officer gave me an example. He said that, under the existing legislation, when a police officer stops a vehicle and can smell marijuana, he or she has the right to search the vehicle. Most of the time, or quite often at least, when police officers conduct such a search, they find other drugs, such as amphetamines or cocaine, hidden in the vehicle. Having the authority to intervene because of the smell of marijuana often enables the police to discover hard drugs in such vehicles.Three years ago, in Quebec City, where I live, the police stopped a tractor-trailer. They smelled drugs, searched the vehicle, and found a million dollars from the sale of drugs by organized crime hidden in it.(1205)Now, police officers who smell marijuana will have to do some kind of yet-to-be-determined test to find out if a person is intoxicated, but they do not have the right to conduct other searches. These are real-life situations, not imaginary hypotheticals. Instead of helping police officers, the government is creating problems for them. Bill C-45 defies logic.There is also the issue of market adjustment. Organized crime is not going away. Independent Liberal Senator Serge Joyal mentioned that, according to police, organized crime has already infiltrated Canada's medical marijuana market. He also said that 35 of Canada's 86 legal cannabis producers are financed in part by investors who use tax havens to hide their identity and that Cayman Islands investors have already pumped $250 million into the Canadian cannabis industry.Despite the Liberals' attempt to get this bill passed as quickly as possible, senators made a number of amendments, including an amendment that would require cannabis companies to publicly disclose the identity of their shareholders. That is a reasonable solution that the opposition can get behind. This amendment would make it impossible for organized crime to use tax havens to infiltrate the Canadian cannabis market. That should have been in there from the get-go. I hope our friends on the other side of the House will accept this amendment. As far as possession of marijuana is concerned, that will be legal. Retailers will be allowed to sell marijuana and people will have to be at least 18 to buy it, but children like mine, who are 13 and 14, will be allowed to have marijuana in their possession. At the risk of sounding unparliamentary, that seems stupid. They will not be allowed to buy it, but they will be allowed to have between 10 and 15 joints on their person. My son could have between 10 and 15 joints on him and that would not be an offence or a crime, but he would not be allowed to buy those joints. There are so many things like that that we do not understand and that do not work. We think that there are still too many inconsistencies in Bill C-45.Then there are the property owners. In Quebec, the Corporation des propriétaires immobiliers du Québec, or CORPIQ, cannot fathom why we would pass a law that would let people grow cannabis plants in apartments in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. These plants need humidity to grow. People will grow them in closets and are going to do all sorts of things that will damage the apartments and cause problems for the owners, not to mention the issue of the odours. There still remain unanswered questions.In that regard, I would like to sincerely thank the governments of Quebec and Manitoba, which resolutely refused to let people grow cannabis at home. However, the Prime Minister of Canada told the provinces that they could not prevent people from doing it. Now that the bill has passed and Quebec is saying no, while the federal government says yes, there could be a constitutional challenge over pot plants. Society has far more important problems. We do not need a constitutional battle over pot plants grown at home. I hope Quebec will continue its fight, and I will be supporting it 100%.This issue is even creating problems at the Canada-U.S. border. The bill does not address those Americans who may travel to Canada with marijuana on them, thinking that it is legal. According to the legislation, when a Canadian border services officer stops an American who is in possession of marijuana, the traveller must be turned back to the United States, where he or she will be charged. Similarly, Canadians who are not careful and who are in possession of cannabis when they are stopped at the U.S. border will also be charged. This problem has not been fixed.According to a report from US. Homeland Security, there is a significant problem with drugs being trafficked from Canada to the U.S. Nothing has been fixed.(1210)I could have used much more time, but I can say that I am very happy with the Senate's work. I hope that the government will at least listen to reason here.Aboriginal peoplesAccountabilityBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsDrug trafficking and drug seizureEmployersEvidence gatheringGovernment billsImpaired drivingOrganized crimePlantsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceProvince of QuebecRental housingSplitting speaking timeStocks, shares and shareholdersUnited States of AmericaWorkplace health and safetyYoung people5502583550258455025885502591CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to clarify something for the member. He mentioned his concern that under our legislation a young person under the age of 18 would be able to legally possess cannabis in the province of Quebec. I want to inform him that the Province of Quebec recently enacted legislation which makes it an offence under provincial regulation to purchase, possess, or consume cannabis for any person under the age of 18. It is legislation that is enforceable. It is an absolute prohibition that the police will be able to enforce, but it does not result in a criminal record for the child. It is exactly what the police have asked for. It is a ticketing regime that results in real consequences. Police can seize the drug, issue a ticket, and there is a fine. There are other restorative measures that can be instituted, but it is a complete prohibition. I would also advise that virtually every province and territory has introduced legislation that has made it a provincial offence to purchase, possess, or consume cannabis for all young people under the age of majority. With that information, I wonder if the member might be reassured about his concern.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionYoung people550259455025955502596PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, I wonder why Bill C-45 includes a provision that would make cannabis possession by minors permissible. Youth under 18 would not be allowed to buy cannabis, of course, but they would be allowed to have the drug in their possession. The provinces are going to have to deal with that measure.The federal government could have defined all the prohibitions. Instead, the government is allowing cannabis possession by minors and leaving the burden of regulation to the provinces, which will each handle it differently. Quebec has set out its rules, but if someone goes to New Brunswick there will be other rules. At some point, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that we have regulations that help the provinces instead of making things more complicated for them.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionYoung people55025975502598BillBlairScarborough SouthwestGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the cannabis act, a bill that would have a profound impact on our Canadian society.The Liberal government's plan to legalize recreational marijuana has created a lot of uncertainty and unanswered questions. It is pushing this legislation forward without giving it the due diligence it requires. That is why it comes as no surprise this legislation has been sent back to us with so many amendments.The priority of the government should be the health and safety of Canadians, but through legislative process, it has been clear that the Liberals are rushing to fulfill a political promise. At the outset, the Liberals set an arbitrary deadline to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and the rush to legalize this harmful drug continues. This is despite concerns that have been raised from scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials.In this legislation, the Liberals have included a section outlining its purpose. The stated purpose of the cannabis act is to protect public health and safety, particularly that of young people, and that its purpose is to restrict access to cannabis for young people and to discourage its use. It also states that it sets out to reduce illicit activities and the burden on the criminal justice system. It states the goal of providing access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis. Lastly, it wants to enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis.Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not and will not achieve these goals. It is important to consider why this legislation does not achieve its stated purpose. We often hear from those in favour of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana that it is just a harmless drug. That is a myth. There is scientific evidence that marijuana is not a harmless drug, especially for young people. To quote the Canadian Medical Association:Children and youth are especially at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development.Our understanding of the health effects of marijuana continues to evolve. Marijuana use is linked to several adverse health outcomes, including addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects..., mental illness, and other problems, including cognitive impairment and reduced educational attainment. There seems to be an increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders, including schizophrenia, in persons with a predisposition to such disorders. The use of high potency products, higher frequency of use and early initiation are predictors of worse health outcomes.The health effects I just described are very serious. They come at a high cost to Canadian taxpayers, and an even higher individual cost to the person experiencing any of these health problems. Knowing this, the recreational use of marijuana should never be encouraged. This is particularly critical when it comes to young Canadians. A young person's brain continues to develop until the age of 25. Although provinces are able to set a higher age, the cannabis act recommends the age of 18 as a federal minimum. That means the Liberals are recommending legalizing marijuana for individuals seven years before their brain finishes developing.Medical professionals have testified that increased use before the age of 25 increases the risk of developing mental disorders by up to 30% compared to those who have not used marijuana before the age of 25. I would argue that what one permits, one promotes, and knowing what one allows, one encourages. Knowing the medical facts we know, it is irresponsible to allow an 18-year-old to legally smoke recreational marijuana. The Liberals are normalizing drug use and knowingly putting Canada's young people at a disadvantage.A concern was raised during the study of this bill at the House's health committee that by setting the age at 18 for legal recreational use, there was a greater chance it would land in the hands of even younger children.(1215)The point was raised that children 16 or 17 years old are more likely to be around 18-year-olds than, say, a 21-year-old. This means that the legislation as it is could increase the likelihood of a minor using marijuana. Let us not forget that this legislation actually allows children aged 12 to 17 to possess up to five grams of marijuana. That is the equivalent to 10 to 15 joints. If the message the Liberals are trying to send to the youth is that they should not use marijuana, they have missed the mark. The legal quantity of marijuana possession for children aged 12 to 17 should be zero. Zero sends the right message.A public education and awareness campaign would also help send the right message. A campaign of this regard should be implemented before the legalization of marijuana and not after. While Health Canada is putting together a program, there has been no indication that it will be rolled out before the legalization of marijuana, and there is no requirement of sorts. There are no provisions in the cannabis act for public education. If not rejected, this legislation should at least be put on pause until a public education plan is rolled out. It also should not be rushed ahead when provinces, municipalities, police forces, and employers are not ready to implement it.The belief that legalizing recreational marijuana use will eliminate the black market is also flawed. That outcome is dependent on a wide variety of factors, many of which are being left up to the provinces. The fact that this act legalizes home grow plants is actually more likely to result in an increase in the size of the black market. This bill allows individuals to grow four plants per dwelling, with no height restrictions on the plants. Four plants could yield up to 600 grams of marijuana. That is a large quantity and it could easily be trafficked. A network of home grows could easily contribute to organized crime. There is also the question of how the four plant policy will be enforced.In addition to the impact on the black market, the home grow provision in this legislation also raises other concerns. When marijuana plants are grown in homes, marijuana becomes even more accessible to young Canadians. There is also no ability to control the quality of the marijuana that is grown in someone's home. This directly counteracts a stated purpose of this legislation.The impact of marijuana plants on a home could be very significant. It is a known fact that the moisture from marijuana plants can create mould and spores in the structure of a home. This can impact the structural security of a home. It can also result in air quality that is harmful to a person's health.There is also the concern that there is a 24 times greater incident of fire in residences growing marijuana. This creates even more danger for individuals living in apartments and multi-unit dwellings. This legislation also creates a unique concern for landlords.I have raised many concerns with the legislation before us. I did not even get to the very valid concerns of many Canadians who are concerned with the odour of recreational marijuana use, or the issues of second-hand smoke and drug-impaired driving. Employers are also concerned with marijuana use in the workplace and its impact on workplace safety.The cannabis act is irresponsible legislation. It fails to meet its intended purpose. It does not keep marijuana out of the hands of children. It does not keep profits out of the hands of criminals. It does not address the many concerns that have been raised by scientists, doctors, and law enforcement.The cannabis act is being rushed through to fulfill a political promise, and doing so sacrifices public health and safety.Conservatives will not support the Prime Minister's ill-conceived plan to legalize this harmful drug. Canadians deserve better.Adverse effects and reactionsC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsHarmInformation disseminationLegal ageMental healthOrganized crimePlantsPossession of a controlled substanceRental housingYoung people5502616PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite listened to what I had to say. The way this legislation is written, children aged 12 to 17 can be in possession of it. This is alarming. We do not have a public health campaign out there right now teaching children or talking about it with children, that this is potentially harmful and dangerous for them. I do not see how the government would protect children when the legislation is written as it is and the Liberals have refused amendments from the other place that would address this.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsDrug use and abuseGovernment billsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people5502635AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to advise the member opposite that one of the harms we are trying to protect children from is getting criminal records, and so we worked with all the provinces and territories. The Province of Saskatchewan has actually enacted legislation that creates an offence for the purchase, possession, and consumption of cannabis for anyone under the age of majority. Therefore, the member's concern that young people would have legal access to this is simply not correct. It will be dealt with in provincial legislation, which is the proportional and appropriate legislative regulatory response.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionYoung people5502636RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I find that statement to be a little rich. It seems we have a government right now that decides when it wants to respect provincial jurisdiction and when it does not.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionYoung people5502637BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Provencher.I am here today to speak against Bill C-45 and its legalization of cannabis. This bill is supposedly intended to protect youth, regulate the industry, and eliminate the black market. Not only would it not do any of those things, it would also prevent Canada from upholding several of our international treaties, something very dear to me as a former diplomat, and would likely cause additional tension with provincial governments. Doctors and other medical professionals have found that the brain continues to develop until the age of 25 and that marijuana use before that age will actually increase an individual's risk of developing mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety, by up to 30%. For this reason, one of the principal intentions of this bill was to keep marijuana out of the hands of children. This legislation would be unsuccessful in that regard for two reasons.The first reason is that the legislation would allow possession for minors, children aged 12 to 17. I have a son who is seven years old, and the thought that he would be able to possess cannabis five years from now is terrifying to me. They would be allowed to possess up to five grams of marijuana, which is approximately 10 to 15 joints. There is also no provision to prevent them from selling or distributing cannabis to other 12- to 17-year-olds. The amount minors are allowed to possess should be zero so that we can send the right message on the dangers for youth. Youth should not be using it and therefore should not be allowed to carry it. Again, the thought of this being anywhere near my young son frightens me.The second reason is that this bill would also set the age of 18 as the federal minimum. The Canadian Medical Association and other medical professionals recommend increasing the age at which a person can legally consume marijuana to at least 21. Although under the age of 21 there is potential for mental disorders, as previously mentioned, they also recognize that if the age is set too high, people will continue illegal consumption. If we want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children, 18 is too young an age. Typically, 16- and 17-year-olds hang out with 18-year-olds. The majority of us in the House have certainly been to secondary school.Another goal of this legislation was to help eliminate the black market for marijuana. Having worked in Central America and Latin America, the black market for narcotics is very well known to me and concerns me very much. This is extremely unlikely to happen, because it is dependent on many factors. Factors such as pricing, distribution, production, and packaging are not included in this bill. They are, rather, left to the provinces to legislate. Additionally, allowing people to grow marijuana at home would only increase the size of the black market, as Canadians would be permitted to grow yields of up to 600 grams in their homes. Such a large amount of marijuana can easily lead to trafficking and make it extensively harder to enforce.We heard this from Joanne Crampton, the assistant commissioner for federal policing criminal operations in the RCMP, who stated:organized crime is a high priority for federal policing, in particular, for the RCMP. We target the highest echelon within the organized crime world. We're very cognizant...and realize that the chances of organized crime being eliminated in the cannabis market would be.... It's probably naive to think that could happen.She said it is “probably naive”. This is yet another goal of this legislation that would not be achieved.This legislation is also being rushed through Parliament without necessary debate or consultation. We have heard repeatedly from municipal and provincial governments that they will not have the necessary time or resources to adequately respond to the impact Bill C-45 would have on both Canadians and our communities.There are numerous organizations and associations that have asked to push back the arbitrary deadline. For example, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police asked the government to extend the deadline. I think “asking” is a subtle word. I would say that “begging” would be more appropriate. (1255)Over 68,000 police officers in Canada will need specific training in the wake of this monumental legislative change, and a few months is not a realistic time frame within which we can do this. If police are not prepared to deal with the legalization of marijuana due to inadequate training, this may lead to poor decisions and result in bad case law for any new legislation. This is important, because law is based upon precedent, and we are going into a time when these precedents will be set for the future. We need our law enforcement in Canada to have the proper ability and resources to uphold the law. Police will require final legislation from all levels of government before being able to begin their planning and training. The government should have provided police forces with clearer direction in this regard. Provinces, municipalities, police forces, and our indigenous communities have made it clear that they are not ready to implement this legislation and that more time would have allowed for adequate consultation to develop a successful framework.There will also be major international implications from implementing this legislation. The legalization of marijuana does not comply with three United Nations treaties: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Might I add, as a former diplomat, that I cannot see how this could not possibly affect the Vienna Convention as well in regard to consular matters. We also know that this could cause additional tension with our southern neighbours, the United States. Officials at United States' border crossings have been asking individuals whether they have consumed marijuana, and if the response is yes, these individuals have been denied entry by our next-door neighbour. This will be problematic when individuals' legal marijuana use in Canada results in their consistently being denied entry into the United States. At the health committee, we heard that the former mayor of Grand Forks, Brian Taylor, was barred from going back to the United States due to a “relationship with marijuana”. A relationship: those are pretty strong words. By the way, Grand Forks is a beautiful place. I went there as part of my honeymoon. I loved it there. It sits near a river. There is a presidential museum there, which we had the opportunity to visit. Getting back to the bill, not having a solution to this problem may cause additional tension in the context of already hostile NAFTA negotiations. This is a serious issue that is still unresolved.This legislation is also likely to cause jurisdictional problems here at home. Quebec and Manitoba have taken a strong stance against home grown marijuana, but the government will force all provinces to allow home growth, contrary to a unanimous amendment from the Senate. Provincial governments will bear much of the burden of this legislation when it comes to regulations on distribution, production, and enforcement, so it is only fair that they have discretion in this area. This is yet another case of the federal government forcing its policies on provincial governments, much like it is trying to do with the carbon tax. It is very similar indeed.The bill is extremely worrisome, as it contains some major issues. The Standing Committee on Health heard from many witnesses on Bill C-45, and the government keeps failing to implement their recommendations. These concerns are from respectable establishments, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Some significant and well-known organizations in the nation are saying that they are not ready, that this legislation is not ready, and that they require more time. I always say that we will be the official opposition that holds this legislation to account through enforcement, through distribution, and through education.If my Liberal colleagues across the floor truly cared about the well-being of Canadians, they would not be putting this legislation forward in its current form. We need to stand up for the safety of all Canadians and vote against Bill C-45.Agreements and contractsBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsLegal ageMental healthNorth American Free Trade AgreementOrganized crimePlantsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionSplitting speaking timeTrade agreementsTravel restrictionsUnited States of AmericaYoung people5502693BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, as a former principal, students having alcohol in a high school was something we really did not allow. However, under this legislation, those youth in high school would have it. The member has very large concerns about youth and possession. Would she like to make a statement about youth and possession?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people55027285502729StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I have a young son. He is seven years old, and the thought that he could possess any amount of marijuana, never mind the amount outlined in this bill, within five years is terrifying to me. I like to think that I am a good parent in the sense that we would have conversations about the things that exist out there in the school and in the friend environment. However, the reality is that there could be other children his age who have possession of this substance and are distributing it at school.This is something that very much concerns me as a parent, and as my hon. colleague pointed out, is something that is and should be of concern for educators as well.It just shows again how—C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people55027305502731MartinShieldsBow RiverCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on Bill C-45, an Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts. Bill C-45 was first introduced in this place on April 13, 2017, just over a year ago. It is remarkable that the Liberal government, in just a little over a year, is desperately trying to force this proposal through. Although there has been a great deal of work done around the bill, it is abundantly clear that this has happened far too quickly. The Liberals are rushing through this legislation to meet their political deadline, not a well-thought-through plan, but a deadline that is self-imposed. This is despite very serious concerns that were raised by scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials.I want to note from the outset that I do not support the legalization of marijuana. The Conservative Party has adopted a much more measured and responsible approach to keeping minor marijuana possession illegal, but to make it a ticketable offence. This is the position that has long been adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Unfortunately, Liberal backbenchers appear willing to support the Prime Minister's dangerous proposal. I believe we have a moral responsibility to soberly consider the consequences of legalizing marijuana in so many areas of Canadian life.The fact that the Liberals are continuing down this reckless road without having a fully fleshed-out legal framework in place for the significant supplementary conditions is irresponsible. The only appropriate way to move forward with a bill of this scope, if that is truly what the Liberals wish to do, is to move cautiously and carefully. Anything less represents a profound failure to ensuring that these changes do not increase risks to Canadian children and families. It is the primary duty of any government to keep its citizens safe. The specific goals of Bill C-45 are outlined in clause 7, and they include protecting youth, regulating the industry, and eliminating the black market. The problem is that Bill C-45 will accomplish none of these goals. I will focus for the most part on my concerns around protecting our youth.Mr. Marco Vasquez, a former police chief in the town of Erie, Colorado, had this to say to the Standing Committee on Health: When you increase availability, decrease perception of risk, and increase the public acceptance of any commodity, you will see increased use. Once we see that increased use, it's very difficult to keep marijuana out of the hands of our youth. We know from validated studies that marijuana use for youth under 30 years old, especially chronic use, can have an adverse effect on brain development. We also know that one in six youth become addicted to marijuana. We've certainly seen an increased use of marijuana in Colorado, and I believe that the increased use will ultimately increase disorder and risk factors for our youth. We're already seeing signs of increased disorder within our communities. Dr. Laurent Marcoux, president of the Canadian Medical Association also noted: Children and youth are especially at risk of harm, given their brain's development. And they are among the highest users of cannabis in Canada. To better protect this part of the population, we are recommending that the age of legalization be set at 21 years. The quantities and the potency of cannabis should also be more restricted to those under age 25. Despite these increased risks, however, evidence shows that youth today do not believe cannabis has serious health effects. A comprehensive public health strategy for cannabis must therefore include education, similar to what has been done with tobacco. Educational strategies should be implemented before, and no later than the enactment of any legislation in order to increase awareness of the harms and to conduct further research on its impact. These are just a couple of the comments on the matter of youth consumption of cannabis. Currently, Bill C-45 recommends the age of 18 as a federal minimum, but medical professionals have testified that the brain continues to develop until the age of 25. Increased use before the age of 25 increases one's risk of developing mental disorders like schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety by up to 30%, compared to those who have not used marijuana under the age of 25. This is why the CMA and the other medical professionals recommended raising the age at which a person can consume marijuana to at least age 21. Another challenge with the bill is that children ages 12 to 17 are able to possess up to five grams of marijuana. As the points I have just raised will underscore, this is ridiculous in light of the medical evidence of the harm it can cause to youth. Bill C-45 offers no provision to prevent them from selling or distributing cannabis to other 12- to 17-year-olds.(1310)I turn now to the home grow provisions included in this bill. Bill C-45 would allow four plants per dwelling, with no height restriction on the plants. If grown in optimal conditions, this could yield as much as 600 grams of marijuana. What we heard from plenty of testimony at the health committee is that there is a great deal of apprehension around home grow. These concerns were raised by most medical groups and police forces who appeared.For one thing, this proposal absolutely would not keep marijuana out of the hands of youth. If it is in the home, youth will have access to it. Furthermore, there is no requirement to lock up the marijuana if the home has people under the age of 18 living in it, or even just frequenting it. What we have seen in other jurisdictions is that by legalizing homegrown marijuana, that area has been hugely penetrated by organized crime. This is why the State of Washington, for example, does not allow home grow, except for medically fragile persons who cannot get to a dispensary. It has been able to reduce organized crime to less than 20% of the market.Dr. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, told the health committee:We are deluding ourselves if we think that major drug trafficking organizations will not exploit every chance they get to have a way to be legitimized through the legal market. We're seeing this in other states. We're also deluding ourselves to think that they will go away and not try to undercut the government price of cannabis. The economies rule the day here in terms of price. The lower the drug price, the more likely someone is to use, and the illegal market can easily undercut the legal market.I want to speak for a moment about my province of Manitoba as well. The Government of Manitoba made a responsible decision to prohibit home grow in the province. This decision will cut out more of the black market and better protect children. Unfortunately, the Liberals appear poised to reject an amendment that would confirm the ability of provinces to make these sorts of localized decisions within their own territories. Quebec and Nunavut have also expressed a desire to take similar steps in their respective legislatures.The Liberal government has thrown a lot at the provinces and territories with Bill C-45, and to reject an amendment that would help provinces better manage this transition to legal marijuana would indicate a significant lack of judgment. I hope that the Liberals will make the right choice and help provinces make the best decisions possible for their residents.My wife is a very good cook and baker, and when she bakes a batch of cookies or cakes or brownies, not cannabis brownies, but real brownies made with cocoa, she does not put them on the counter thinking that they are not available to children. With the legislation before us, we are going to see home grow marijuana readily available to youth in kitchens, living rooms, family rooms, and dens. The ill-conceived and poorly thought-out plan of legalizing home grow operations makes one of the Liberals' priorities, which is protecting youth, completely unattainable, because it is going to be easily accessible.When I get a prescription for pain medication after surgery, I do not take that prescription and leave it lying on the counter where it is easily accessible to children, for example, in the sunlight where it can grow. I put that prescription in the cabinet where it is inaccessible to children.We tell children not to play with matches. We do not keep matches within the reach of children, yet we are going to have homegrown marijuana within the reach of our youth and children. We are absolutely going to be inviting them to play with this dangerous chemical.It is irresponsible for the government to think it is reaching this objective of protecting our youth by allowing home grow operations to be legitimate and forcing the provinces to agree. It talks about provinces having the ability to set their own regulations, and indeed some of them have. I compliment my Manitoba government for establishing stricter regulations as far as the age by which possession and use will be accepted. However, not allowing the provinces to establish restrictions on home grow is irresponsible.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsDrug educationDrug trafficking and drug seizureDrug use and abuseGovernment billsLegal ageMental healthPlantsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsProvincial jurisdictionYoung people5502748CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88364GinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Ginette-PetitpasTaylorMoncton—Riverview—DieppeLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PetitpasTaylorGinette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (for the Minister of Justice) (1610)[Translation]Motion moved:That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House:agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today and to rise to speak to Bill C-45, Cannabis Act. I would first congratulate the other chamber for its excellent work and careful study of this bill. Once again, I want to point out the great work done by all senators over the past seven months and by committees that did remarkable work over many meetings.We are about to witness an historic moment in Canada. When this bill comes into effect, it will change the way our country controls access to cannabis.It will be an important change for every one of us, including governments, indigenous peoples, law enforcement agencies, health professionals, and Canadians.As I have said many times, our objective for legalization is to replace a system that is not working. We need to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the hands of organized crime. Bill C-45 gives us the tools we need to accomplish that. As we know, the bill before us today is the result of more than two years of study and consultation.[English]It builds on the extensive work of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. The task force consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, from the provinces and territories, to law enforcement, to health and safety experts. It also reached out to young Canadians, indigenous people, and many others. Their feedback and recommendations certainly helped shape this bill.The proposed legislation is informed by lessons learned from jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere that have legalized and regulated cannabis. It included effective practices from other regulatory regimes such as tobacco, for which we have implemented a public health approach with demonstrated success.As a result, the proposed legalization strikes the right balance between making cannabis legally available to adults and protecting all Canadians.(1615)[Translation]Over the past few months, this bill has been studied and debated by the other place. Five of its committees carried out comprehensive studies and heard from over 200 witnesses. This work led them to propose a number of amendments to the bill. Several of those amendments made Bill C-45 stronger.[English]For example, senators had proposed an amendment that would strengthen our ability to keep organized crime out of the legal industry by giving the minister the power to require specific persons associated with a licensed organization to hold a valid security clearance. There is no doubt that this change improves Bill C-45 and the government will fully support it.We are, however, concerned that other proposed changes could undermine the bill. After careful thought and consideration, we have decided not to support some of the proposed amendments. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, will speak in more detail about this decision.In the meantime, I would like to focus on two specific issues that have captured the interest of the other place. Let us talk about the indigenous perspective. The first concerns the indigenous perspective on Bill C-45. In a recent letter, the Minister of Indigenous Services and I acknowledged the interests and concerns raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. We have committed to continue to take action in specific areas including supporting mental health and addiction services, public education and participation in cannabis production, and addressing jurisdictional and revenue-sharing issues.We have committed to report to both chambers on progress in these areas within 12 months of receiving royal assent. I would like to assure members that our government has noted these areas of interest and concern. We will address each area through continued engagement with indigenous communities, indigenous organizations, and with the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.[Translation]Home growing was the other issue that received careful consideration from the other place. As we know, the bill allows adults to grow four plants per household. There are three reasons why limited home growing should be allowed. First, allowing people to grow a small number of plants for personal use will prevent the needless criminalization of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Second, limited home growing will help displace the black market, an unsafe, unregulated market that supports criminals and organized crime.[English]The bill sets out strict rules for growing cannabis at home. Setting a very low limit on the number of plants is a reasonable way to allow adults to cultivate cannabis for their personal use while prohibiting larger-scale grow ops.Under the proposed legislation, provinces and territories have the flexibility to impose additional restrictions on personal cultivation should they wish to do so. This flexibility will allow provinces and territories to tailor their legislation to local circumstances and priorities in keeping with the public health and safety objectives set out in the proposed cannabis act.[Translation]This new legislation is an essential component of our overall public health strategy for cannabis. The purpose of this approach is to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use and decrease the probability of substance abuse. Our public health approach includes significant investments in budget 2017 and budget 2018 for promoting awareness and providing information. It also provides for close monitoring of the impact.In accordance with this strategy, we will provide the facts on cannabis to Canadians. The government will then be able to measure and understand the impact of these policy changes over time.We know that there are health risks associated with cannabis use. These risks are higher in certain age groups and among people with specific health conditions. Our objective is both to give people the information they need to make informed decisions about cannabis and to minimize the risks.[English]Through all of this, our top priority is to protect our youth. Youth face the greatest health risks from using cannabis and are especially vulnerable to its effects. For this reason, the bill contains many measures that have been designed to restrict access to cannabis and to protect young people. This is essential, given that Canadian youth use cannabis at a rate that is among the highest in the world. This is why Bill C-45 proposes serious criminal penalties for those who provide cannabis to anyone under the age of 18. The bill also includes prohibitions on promotion and advertising and on products, packaging, and labelling that would be appealing to youth.(1620)[Translation] The bill introduced today was carefully crafted to address the long-standing problem of immediate access to and prolonged use of cannabis in Canada. There is a pervasive illegal market that is deeply entrenched. This market does not comply with any rules or regulations to protect the public, and especially our youth.We promised a solution to Canadians, and we have kept our promise. Over the past two years, our government carried out a huge amount of research, analysis, and planning for Bill C-45. We consulted various stakeholders and we spoke with our partners.We made strategic investments to inform Canadians about the health impacts of cannabis and the risks associated with driving under the influence of drugs.We also examined and accepted a number of sensible amendments, and we will do so again today.[English]I am convinced that Bill C-45 gives us the legal framework we need to protect Canadians, especially our young people.Canada is well positioned to make this change. We already have a world-class system for the production and regulation of cannabis for medical use. The bill proposes to build on this strong regulatory regime. We will continue working closely with our partners at the provincial and territorial level and indigenous communities to ensure a successful implementation of this legislation once it is passed.[Translation]The provinces and territories are ready. Canadians are ready as well.As parliamentarians, we have done our job and produced an historic package of legislative measures in the interest of Canadians.Aboriginal peoplesAdvertisingC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConsideration of Senate amendmentsDrug educationDrug trafficking and drug seizureFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsHealth educationInformation disseminationLegal ageMinister of JusticeOrganized crimePackaging and labellingPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionPublic consultationRegulationSecurity checksTask Force on Marijuana Legalization and RegulationTask forcesWilson-Raybould, JodyYoung people5485974GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this will probably be my last opportunity to speak to Bill C-45, so I want to make sure I give it full coverage.The government says that the reason it is bringing in this legislation is that what is in place now is not working. What is proposed under Bill C-45 is not going to work either, even with the many amendments that have been brought forward.What was this bill supposed to do in the first place? If we refer to the purpose of the bill, it is supposed to “protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis”. We can see right away a couple of things in the bill that are going to put cannabis into the hands of young children. First is clause 8, which would allow young people aged 12 to 17 to have up to five grams of cannabis. That is the wrong message in any universe.We have talked about home grow and how when people have in excess of 600 grams of cannabis growing in a house, young people are likely to get hold of it, in the same way they get hold of liquor in the liquor cabinet. This is certainly not going to keep cannabis out of the hands of young children. Furthermore, I would say that if the government has a belief that the systems being put in place in some provinces are going to help out, let me assure the House that Kathleen Wynne put in a process in Ontario of LCBO-type stores and delivery. For people in Sarnia—Lambton, the closest store is in London. If they called their drug dealers today, in about 30 minutes they could have whatever quantity they wanted delivered to their houses for about $7 a gram. The government has proposed a price of $10 a gram, with $1 in tax on top of that. If it thinks that is going to work to displace the organized crime that is in place, it is sadly mistaken.The other item I want to talk about with respect to youth is the public education that was supposed to happen. The Canadian Medical Association has been clear that among young people under the age of 25 who use cannabis, 30% will have severe mental illness issues, such as psychotic disorders, bipolar, anxiety, and depression, and 10% will become addicted. Where is the public education on that? Where is the message to tell young people today that this is harmful? That message is not out there. Young people are saying, “It's no more harmful than alcohol.” They are not getting the message.The only public campaign that has been done was done by the Minister of Public Safety, who did a brief TV commercial to let kids know that they should not drive while they are drug-impaired, which, while true, is totally inadequate to have the kind of public education that was recommended by Colorado and the State of Washington. Colorado did $10 million worth of public education for a population that is lot smaller than what Canada has. The State of Washington did the same.We are certainly not going to achieve the first objective of keeping it out of the hands of children. What about some of the others? Will we provide for only the legal production of cannabis “to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis”? If we look at all the places that have legalized marijuana, we see that in Colorado, which allowed home grow, it still has significant issues with organized crime. The police have a lot of nuisance complaints, and there are entire residential neighbourhoods that smell. There are lots of problems there. We can look at the State of Washington, which decided that it would not allow home grow, except in the case of medicinal marijuana. It was able, in three years, to reduce organized crime to less than 20%. Because it had set the age at 21, it was able to make it difficult for young people to actually get hold of marijuana. It is unlikely that 21-year-olds would be sharing with 17-year-olds, unlike with the legislation we have before us.Another problem that has not been addressed by the government with respect to home grow concerns property-owner rights. In Ontario and Quebec, once this legislation is passed, property owners would be unable to prevent people from growing marijuana in their houses. For those who are maybe less experienced, when growing marijuana, there can often be a mould problem in the house. I have been approached by the real estate associations, which have asked questions. Currently, when there is a home grow in a house, and the house is sold, they have to do a total remediation for the mould and a recertification of the house. They want to know if they are going to have to do that for all the home grows. That question has not been answered by the government.(1635)The other question that has not been answered by the government has to do with the impact at the border. I live in a border community. Conversations have been had with Homeland Security and with border officials. They have said, “Canada is changing its law. We are not changing our law federally. It still is illegal federally, and we are not adding resources because of Canada's law.” Dogs will sniff. If people have second-hand smoke residue on their clothes, if a kid borrowed the car and happened to be out with other kids who were smoking marijuana, if people smoke themselves and do not happen to have any with them but have the residue, the dogs will sniff it out, and people will be pulled over into secondary, and they will go through the standard procedure there. The problem is that there is not enough secondary for the number of people who will be pulled over. When asked what they will do then, they said they would put a cone in the lane the person is in and perform the secondary inspection there, which will back everything up. They have informed us to expect an increase of up to 300% in wait times at the border. The government has known about this for two and a half years. It has done nothing to establish any kind of agreement with the government of the U.S., other than to say to make sure that people tell the truth. That, of course, is great advice, but it will not prevent the wait times and the problems that are going to be seen at the border. Furthermore, the government has not educated young people to understand that if they are caught with marijuana in the U.S., it is a lifetime ban from that country. The U.S. is not the only country that will ban people for the possession of marijuana. There are a lot of countries in the world. Young people who intend to have a global career are not being informed about this, and there could be very adverse consequences from the public education that has not happened.This bill was also supposed to “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system”. Unfortunately, we know that the justice minister is behind the eight ball in terms of putting judges in place. She is about 60 short. Because of that, we see murderers and rapists going free due to Jordan's principle. If there were an intent on the part of the Liberals to try to clear the backlog and make sure that those who have committed more serious crimes receive punishment, one of the things they could have done, as was suggested many times, even since last September, was let those who have marijuana charges drop off the list and get out of the queue so that the more serious offences could be prosecuted. Of course, the Liberals have done nothing with respect to that, and so again, they are not going to actually offload them from the system. In fact, there would be more criminal charges under this legislation than previously existed, because now, if people had five plants instead of four, that would be an offence. Now, if they had 31 grams instead of 30, that would be an offence. Now there would be offences for transferring it to younger people. There would be a lot of offences that did not exist previously, so definitely, we will not achieve that goal.There was the goal to ”provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis”. Now that they would allow home grow, and everyone is going to be doing their own thing, there would actually be no management of the quality control of this product. That is also not acceptable. Some of the other unanswered questions we see have to do with workplace safety. This was raised when the marijuana issue was studied by the original council. There was testimony brought to committee. There were questions raised all over the place. How are we going to protect the employers, who have the liability, and the other employees, who are worried? They are worried about people who may come to work drug impaired. We do not want to be flying with Air Canada and have the pilot impaired. We do not want to have people operating nuclear plants who may be drug impaired. Bill C-46 was supposed to be the companion legislation to Bill C-45. Bill C-46 was going to allow mandatory and random testing on the roadside, because, as people know, it is dangerous to smoke drugs and then drive a car. That was going to open the door, then, for people to say that if it is dangerous to smoke drugs and drive a car, perhaps it is also dangerous to then drive a plane or drive a train or operate a nuclear plant, or any of these other things. The question of workplace safety and how we are going to protect and what legislation is going into place is a total blank space. We have not looked to our neighbours to the south that have legalized and have both mandatory and random testing in place. I worked on many projects, and I actually had an office in the States at one point in time, so I know that American employers are able to screen people before they hire them. They are able to mandatory test them, and they are able to random test them. The government has totally lacked leadership in addressing the issue of workplace safety, etc.With respect to the actual amendments that have come, some were good and some were not good. One amendment that was brought would allow 18-year-olds to share their marijuana or allow parents in a home to share their marijuana. I am glad the government decided not to accept that one.(1640)I am still concerned about the fact that there is even marijuana in the house. However, if that amendment was accepted it definitely would not have not been keeping marijuana out of the hands of young children. One of the amendments that they did not accept had to do with the banning of promotional things like T-shirts, caps, and flags that would have a cannabis symbol on them. The government did not accept this amendment from the Senate. I am very concerned about that. There are a lot of Canadians out there who are worried that when marijuana is legalized in Canada they are going to use Canada Day flags that have cannabis on them. Everybody will have a T-shirt with cannabis on it. That will be disgusting. It will absolutely denigrate our country and the people who have served our country and made Canada a proud country. It will deface that. The government has allowed people to continue to have that kind of paraphernalia by refusing the language here. It is total hypocrisy because under Bill S-228, which talks about prohibiting unhealthy advertising to children, we would not want to see pop or something like that on a T-shirt or a flag. However, with cannabis, it is okay. I am totally opposed to that.Another thing that the government should have taken into account was the amendment that was brought on capping the potency of THC. We have heard reports from all over Canada, as people are increasingly trying marijuana for the first time or experiencing B.C. bud, which purportedly has one of the highest THC contents and a lot of potency, that people are presenting at the emergency wards with uncontrollable vomiting due to THC poisoning. Knowing that a part of the intent of this bill is to protect the health of Canadians and of youth, I cannot understand why the government would not recognize that there needs to be some control on the potency of things that are out in the marketplace.Some of the amendments were compassionate and talked about giving people more time to pay their fines. I thought that was good that the government accepted those. I also thought it was good that they would, for young people, ages 12 to 17, who were experiencing an offence, look at ticketed offences, which is something that we would have supported, and restorative justice options. If we look to countries that are doing the best job of intervening and helping people to get off drugs, look to Portugal. If anyone is found in possession of drugs there, they are given an intervention with a medical person, a psychiatrist, and a legal person. They then try to figure out what the root cause is of why these people are self-medicating or why are they becoming addicted, and what can be done to help get them off of it, in terms of mental health therapies or drug addiction therapies, etc. We need to look at this whole thing.The other part that I think is unfortunate is that the indigenous people have not been adequately consulted. I was very disappointed to find that in September of last year, when we first heard at committee from Chief Day and from the Métis nation, they said they had not been adequately consulted. It is disheartening to hear that again when this went before the Senate, the same message came out that they had not been adequately consulted, and that they wanted to have the ability within their own communities to define whether or not cannabis would be allowed. Apparently under federal law, it was clarified to them that if it is a federal right of Canadians to possess cannabis, then it is not something that they would be able to go against. There was some resistance about that based on the sovereignty of the indigenous peoples. I think that was not resolved to their satisfaction. It is worrisome that the government continues to rush ahead. It says that this is the most important relationship, the nation-to-nation relationship, yet it is willing to go and throw gasoline on a fire in terms of moving ahead when it has been asked not to do so.Some of the other questions that arose at committee that really have not been adequately answered have to do with a lot of the detailed specifics about who is going to pay. Municipalities are saying there will be a cost to them to implement it, but they have not been included in the cost breakdown or the agreements that have happened. That is of concern. There have also been concerns raised by people who currently are consuming medical marijuana, and their understanding is that they are going to be paying tax on that.(1645)Typically, in Canada, prescription medicines are not taxed. Therefore, as long as people have a prescription from a doctor for their medicinal marijuana, my expectation would be that it would not be taxed. However, that is not what the government is saying. Also, there is language in the budget bill that is a little suspicious, which states it would exempt people from paying tax on medicinal marijuana that has a drug identification number. The problem with that is that there are no medications that have a drug identification number because there are so many different components in marijuana that the companies have not been able to spend the research dollars required to characterize them or to effectively control the quality of them so that they could acquire a number like that. Therefore, that is a meaningless promise, for sure.There were some amendments that were brought to bring this legislation in line with the tobacco legislation. I am in favour of having those things aligned. However, it seems unusual that the government would be spending $80 million to get people to stop smoking and then $800 million to get people to start smoking marijuana, especially when the Minister of Health just stood up and talked about how the government knows there are harmful effects.One of the things I find very interesting, from a timing point of view, is that today Health Canada took the harmful impacts of cannabis off of its website. That was something that had been on the website. I had someone that brought it to my notice, and sent me a screenshot of what used to be there and a screenshot of what is not there now. It is very interesting that on the day that the Liberals want to see this legislation pass into law, it would suddenly take off of the website the information that shows there are harmful effects from cannabis not only to young people but also others.Therefore, I would request that the government not hide things. Rather, it should try to be open and transparent, as it says it is always trying to be, and put that information back on the website. Every place that has legalized marijuana has said that one of the most important things to do is to invest in public education, and target that education not just to young people so that they understand the harmful effects this would have on their brains, but also to adults and parents who can influence young people, and the general public so that they can understand as well. I am very concerned about some of the unintended consequences that will happen as a result of this legislation. I know there are people already smoking marijuana in Canada today. However, when it becomes legal, there will be many more who will decide to try it. They may not be informed about what the impact will be when they cross the border or what the impacts might be on their mental health or that of their children. They may not understand what the health impacts will be for them. They may not understand the ramifications with respect to their place of work and how they are going to impact both their employer and those who work around them.That said, I am very opposed to the legalization of marijuana, which I have said on many occasions, not just because it is bad for people but because this bill has so many holes in it and so many unanswered questions, and there will be so many bad, unintended consequences for Canadians, that it will be left to the Conservative Party, when we come to victory in 2019, to clean up the mess made by the current government's moving forward in this rushed and irresponsible fashion to implement this bill. This bill will absolutely not keep marijuana out of the hands of young children. It will not get organized crime out of this business. It will not unload our criminal justice system. It certainly will not provide access to a quality-controlled supply. What we can expect is that on Canada Day there will be a lot of people out with their T-shirts on, totally insulting those Canadians who are proud of our country and who are not in agreement, and there are a lot of Canadians who are not in agreement with this legislation.Aboriginal self-governmentBacklogsBordersBrandingC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCannabisColoradoConsideration of Senate amendmentsCostsDepartment of HealthDrug addiction treatmentDrug educationDrug trafficking and drug seizureExcise taxesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsHealth educationImpaired drivingInformation disseminationJustice systemLegal ageOrganized crimePenaltiesPlantsPortugalPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsProperty lawRegulationRetail tradeSmokingTetrahydrocannabinolTobacco productsTravel restrictionsUnited States of AmericaWashington StateWeb sitesWorkplace health and safetyYoung people5486019GinettePetitpas TaylorHon.Moncton—Riverview—DieppeBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, as I tuned in to listen to the Senate debate on the cannabis bill, Bill C-45, I was given a stark reminder of why so many Canadians have so little confidence in that unelected, unaccountable body. Certainly it is legitimately questionable whether an institution capable of producing such baseless fearmongering and ignorance has any legitimacy blocking legislation passed by an overwhelming majority in this democratically elected House of Commons. Disturbingly, in the hours leading up to the final vote on Bill C-45, the Liberal government was forced to quietly swear in two new senators to ensure its passage, even though they were not present for one minute of testimony, one minute of debate, or one minute of review of the bill. However, they cast their vote in lockstep with the government. Some democracy. Some sober second thought.After studying this legislation for over six months, it is not even clear that all 93 senators actually understood the most basic facts about cannabis, such as the most basic facts about cannabis quantity. While reviewing the act, Senator Nicole Eaton, a Conservative from Ontario, said this: [F]ive grams is about four tokes. So, in other words, if I’m a high school student—I’m 16—I have four tokes in my pocket, which is under five grams. So you just don’t take it away from me, but I’m allowed to possess it, right?... I’m allowed to have less than five grams, or I’m allowed to have zero grams? This is what I don’t understand. There is quite a bit the senator does not understand. For the record, five grams of cannabis is enough for some 10 joints. That is far more than four tokes.Given this statement, l was rather surprised to learn that both Senator Eaton and Senator Frum were forced to abstain from votes on the cannabis bill because they stand to profit from legalization. Senator Eaton declared a conflict of interest over the bill “due to an impending investment in the cannabis industry.” However, until she recused herself, Senator Eaton was an active participant in debates and committee work on legalization, including voting against Bill C-45 at second reading.For her part, Senator Frum has a property “that will be leased for the purposes of selling recreational cannabis”. After initially indicating her opposition to Bill C-45, she recused herself from debate, deliberation, and voting on the matter.While it may seem like a contradiction to publicly oppose Bill C-45 while privately investing in cannabis, such behaviour has become disturbingly common in the lead-up to legalization. An emerging group of so-called cannabis capitalists, notably composed of the same police officers and government officials who have spent years prosecuting the war on drugs, has already begun staking its claim to the new recreational market.Some prominent names include the following. Kim Derry, who served as deputy chief when the current Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest, the Liberals' point man on cannabis, was Toronto police chief, is now the security adviser for THC Meds Ontario.Former Ontario Liberal deputy premier, George Smitherman, who once served as the province's health minister, is tied to THC Meds Ontario as well.Former Liberal prime minister John Turner is a board member for Muileboom Organics, Inc. Chuck Rifici founded Tweed Marijuana Inc., the country's first licensed provider to go public, while he was chief financial officer of the Liberal Party of Canada.Former police chief and Conservative cabinet minister Julian Fantino, who once compared cannabis to murder and voted in favour of harsh mandatory minimum sentences for cannabis as a member of the Harper cabinet, has now gone into the cannabis business himself with former RCMP deputy commissioner Raf Souccar.It is a travesty of justice and a hypocrisy of the highest order that those who fought hardest for legalization may benefit the least from it, while those who spent a lifetime enforcing prohibition are now lining up to fill the boardrooms of the cannabis industry.(1705)Those who put their liberty on the line as activists for legalization, and who, in the pursuit of their defence of cannabis, often took legal liability and got criminal records, not for any violent activity but in their drive to get sensible cannabis policy in this country, now carry the burden of a criminal record for their efforts. Not only have they been shut out, but the federal government has not even offered them a path to participate in the cannabis industry, or to obtain pardons. Are they now supposed to sit back in admiration of the moral flexibility and business acumen of their former detractors?The inescapable truth is that Bill C-45 is principally about legalizing the cannabis industry, not the plant or its usage. This bill is not about legalization, but about making cannabis less illegal. If this legislation were truly about legalizing the cannabis plant, it would herald the end of criminalization, the end of stigmatization, and the end of the prohibitionist approach to cannabis policy that has been such a failure for almost 100 years. Instead, this legislation would create an incredibly complex criminal framework that legal experts and police chiefs predict will result in more, not fewer, cannabis offences post-legalization.There have been many opportunities to change course as Bill C-45 worked its way through Parliament. I want to be clear. I do give the government credit for rejecting the most harmful amendments proposed by the Senate, and for accepting the NDP's proposals in a number of ways, including to legalize the sale of edibles and concentrates, albeit not for one year post-legalization. This is unjustified, but it is the best the Liberals would do. The government has also agreed to remove the misguided 100-centimetre plant height limit. Unfortunately, the Liberals have also rejected a number of key improvements to Bill C-45.I would like to take a moment to focus on some of the Senate's key proposed amendments and the government's response to them.First is home growing. Based on the advice of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, the federal government has proposed to allow the personal cultivation of cannabis for non-medical purposes, with a limit of four plants per household. However, after considering a proposal to ban home growing outright, the Senate chose to amend Bill C-45 to allow provincial governments to ban home growing themselves. Now, this is not a rational or evidence-based approach to cannabis policy. As the College of Family Physicians of Canada put it, “Banning home growing for personal use defeats the purpose of legalization, which is to reduce the harms of criminalization.”New Democrats believe that, under legalization, the personal production of cannabis should be permitted, similar to the home production of alcohol, such as beer and wine. Personal production would play an essential role in eliminating the illicit cannabis market since it would ensure that individuals who want to consume cannabis can afford it and have access to it in regions without nearby retail storefronts. For many Canadians, particularly those in rural areas who would not be served well by the retail marketing of cannabis, this may be the only way to get access to cannabis. I would point out that under the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, medical cannabis users are allowed to grow their own cannabis. In some cases, they are growing eight plants, and they can obtain a licence from another person and grow for that person. Would it not be the height of folly if across Canada one house on a block could grow cannabis, because it is grown for medical reasons, but the house beside it could not, because it is for recreational purposes? That is the height of inequity and it would make a mockery of the law.I would point out that the health and safety issues generally associated with home cultivation are overwhelmingly the result of large-scale, industrial, illicit growing operations that operate covertly in residential buildings due to prohibition. This can result in damage due to improper ventilation, and the illegal electrical hook-ups pose a fire risk. However, the personal cultivation of four plants would obviously not pose similar risks any more than growing four plants of any other species in the home. I daresay that most Canadians in an average household have more than four plants in their house. By contributing to the dismantling of the illicit market, home cultivation would actually serve to help eliminate those covert industrial growing operations.Furthermore, I would point out that raw cannabis plants are non-psychoactive. According to University of British Columbia botany professor Jonathan Page, who testified at committee, if anybody, including a child, were to eat the raw bud of cannabis, that person would get the acidic form, which is non-psychoactive. The fresh material is not capable of getting one high. One needs to bake it, heat it, or smoke it in order to obtain that result.(1710)The government chose to reject this amendment because it said, “t is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market.” Canada's New Democrats agree. On potency limits, the Senate also proposed an undefined potency limit for cannabis products. I think the Conservatives are supporting this. On this point, it is important to note that the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation rejected potency limits for a number of reasons. It believed that if prohibited these products would continue to be available on the illicit market. The task force also concluded that there was insufficient evidence even to identify what a safe potency limit would be. The task force emphasized the significant risks associated with the illicit production of high potency concentrate, and instead called on the government to regulate them within a legal market. I would point out that illicit producers often use flammable solvents, such as butane, to extract cannabinoids from plants, an inherently dangerous process that can also leave carcinogenic residues on the end product. Product safety was also a concern as the extraction process may also concentrate contaminants, such as heavy metals and other impurities in addition to THC. The government rejected this amendment because “the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation.” While we support the decision to reject this amendment, Canada's New Democrats believe that the government should heed the advice of the task force in this area.On branding, the Senate proposed deleting a provision of Bill C-45 that currently would allow a person to promote cannabis, a cannabis accessories or a service related to cannabis by displaying a brand element on the thing, provided that it would not be associated with young persons, appealing to young persons, or associated with a way of life that would include glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk, or daring. The government rejected the Senate's amendment because “the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion.” Again, Canada's New Democrats agree. Branding restrictions on cannabis in Bill C-45 are there now. Indeed, they are already more stringent than those applied to alcohol. I do not need to remind any of the members of the House of the tragedy that occurred just a few months ago. A young Quebec girl died after consuming a high alcohol volume drink and ended up drowning in a river. If we look at that product, it is definitely marketed to young people, even to children, and there are no similar restrictions on alcohol. The House should look at closing that in the future.With respect to parental sharing in the home, just as is currently the case with alcohol, the Senate proposed to allow parents to share cannabis with a younger family member of at least 17 years of age in the home. Canada's New Democrats believe this was a sensible proposal and the government was ill-advised to reject this amendment. We currently allow this approach for alcohol because we understand that parents can be trusted to model responsible behaviour to their children and to make positive choices for their family's well-being. In fact, the New Democrats believe parental education will be a key component of low-risk use of cannabis and should not be criminalized. After the bill becomes law, parents will be able to legally consume cannabis in the house, and if they want to pass a joint to their 17-year-old and discuss responsible use of cannabis, the bill would make that a crime. We do not think that is sensible. The government has also rejected the Senate's parallel proposal to ensure that sharing among individuals close in age within two years would not be criminalized, and that a cannabis offence carrying a sentence of less than six months would not be used in deportation proceedings for someone without citizenship status. The government justified its rejection by saying, “the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities...”. If criminalization and the threat of imprisonment or deportation prevented people from using cannabis, then Canadians would not be consuming an estimated 655 metric tonnes of it per year and we would not have the second highest rate of cannabis use among youth between 16 and 24 in the world, and that is when we have full criminalization and life sentences for trafficking. (1715)Contrasting that, a single bottle of liquor is enough to kill a child, and yet I know of no 14-year prison sentence arising from the distribution of beer or liquor. However, a parent who shares a joint with his or her son or daughter who is 17 would be a criminal under this legislation. An adult who possesses 31 grams of cannabis in public would be a criminal. A youth who possesses more than 5 grams of cannabis would be a criminal. An 18-year-old who passes a joint to a 17-year-old friend would be a criminal. An adult who grows five cannabis plants would be a criminal. This kind of continued criminalization is inconsistent with a rational and evidence-based criminal justice policy and will only serve to reduce the positive impacts of the bill. The prohibitionist approach has been repeatedly discredited by its failure throughout history.For far too long, we have wasted billions of dollars in resources in the criminal justice system by criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens at an alarming rate for simply possessing and consuming cannabis. In fact, we are today. According to Statistics Canada, in 2016, the most recent year of available data, there were about 55,000 offences related to cannabis reported to police and police charged 17,733 people with pot possession.A recent Vice News investigation found that black and indigenous men and women have been overrepresented in cannabis possession arrests across Canada just in the year since the Liberals formed government, and yet Bill C-45 would preserve the criminalized approach to cannabis, along with the damaging paternalism of the war on drugs.I want to be clear that from the very beginning Canada's New Democrats have worked hard to reach across the aisle with constructive proposals to improve the bill. These changes included the following: providing pardons to Canadians saddled with a criminal record for offences that will no longer be offences under Bill C-45. This amendment was ruled outside the scope of Bill C-45. However, given the Prime Minister's previous statements, it is shocking that the Liberal government would structure a so-called cannabis legalization bill in such a way that pardons could not be included through amendment.We proposed empowering provincial governments to create parallel production licensing regimes in order to give provinces the flexibility to implement legalization in the manner best suited to their jurisdiction. For example, this would have allowed provinces to let craft growers, small scale producers, and outdoor growers compete against the federally licensed corporate giants.As said earlier, we proposed the legalization of edibles and concentrates, which are among the safest ways to consume cannabis and are the growing part of the market. This would allow Canadians and entrepreneur of businesses across the country to provide safe, regulated products to customers instead of allowing this to be provided underground.We proposed decriminalizing the penalties section in line with the Tobacco Act. We proposed that the legalization should take a regulatory approach with significant fines for offences rather than criminal ones. One of the purposes of Bill C-45, as laid out in section 7, is to “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.” Penalties in the bill should be consistent with that stated intent.I am disappointed that the government chose to reject these vital proposals, but I am heartened that the bill at least contains a mandatory review of Bill C-45's operation in the next Parliament. I view this as a tacit admission by the government that it knows the bill contains problematic sections that will need to be fixed.To be clear, Canada's New Democrats will support this motion and this legislation because we have fought for an end to prohibition ever since the 1971 LeDain Commission. The bill before us today is an important step forward but it is far from perfect.After the last election, Canadians rightfully expected that the Liberals would produce a timely and fair cannabis law. As it now stands, the federal government has left the heavy-lifting of legalization to the provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous governments. The bill will lead to the emergence of a patchwork approach to legalization that will shut out the most long-standing cannabis activists, the folks who have spent decades honing their craft and providing world-leading medicinal cannabis to patients across Canada.Some provinces have chosen to impose a government retail monopoly, some have chosen to shut out existing compassion clubs, and some provinces are pushing to ban home growing outright. This is disappointing. It is a lost opportunity. It is a betrayal of the clear promise that the Liberals made to Canadians in 2015.Done properly, an appropriate legal approach to cannabis can achieve impressive benefits economically, technologically, and medicinally. The New Democrats will continue to work to provide the best cannabis legislation in the world for Canadians.(1720)Aboriginal peoplesBlack CanadiansBrandingC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisConflict of interestConsideration of Senate amendmentsCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersDrug trafficking and drug seizureFood and drinkGovernment billsHarmInvestmentLegalizationPenaltiesPharmaceutical compoundingPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionPsychotropic drugsRegulationSenate and senatorsStatutory reviewTetrahydrocannabinolYoung people5486113MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessControlled Drugs and Substances ActInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-330, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This private member's bill proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow regulations to be made that would require written consent from landlords in the event that their tenants were producing or selling a controlled substance within leased space. If applicable, Bill C-330 would also establish a mandatory requirement for the Minister of Health to report back to Parliament on an annual basis to explain why such regulations had not been made. As my colleagues know, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a legal framework for the control of substances that can alter mental processes and that may produce harm to individuals or society when diverted to an illegal market. Under this act, it is illegal to conduct certain activities with respect to controlled substances or precursors, unless authorized by regulation or granted by an exemption. If I may, I will take the opportunity to correct an issue of language. My colleague and friend across the aisle, in his remarks, referred frequently to a prescription for medical marijuana. I want to take the opportunity to clarify, if I may, that there is no such thing as a prescription for medical marijuana. It is, in fact, an authorization, which provides for an exemption under the current criminal prohibition, as directed by the courts in the Allard decision, and as incorporated into regulations under the new ACMPR regulations. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act includes broad authorities that enable the government to strictly regulate the production and sale of controlled substances. I would like to articulate a number of the reasons the government is unable to support Bill C-330. When introducing the bill on December 14, the member for Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo indicated that it sought to address concerns from landlords about tenants growing cannabis for medical purposes in leased premises. Bill C-330 could, in fact, have implications for a number of parties that are regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act who operate within leased facilities. This could include, for example, licensed producers of cannabis for medical purposes and licensed producers and dealers of other controlled substances. If a licensed producer or dealer of a controlled substance is operating in a commercially rented facility, the lease agreement will typically include details on the specific activities that are taking place within the facility, making the landlord aware that controlled substances are being produced there. The landlord would, therefore, consent by way of approving the lease. To obtain a federal licence to commercially produce cannabis for medical purposes in cases in which the applicant is not the owner of the site, an application must be accompanied by a declaration by the owner of the site consenting to its use for the proposed activity, and like federally licensed producers and dealers of controlled substances, including licensed producers of cannabis for medical purposes, individuals authorized to produce cannabis for their own medical use are subject to regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Cannabis for medical purposes is regulated under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. These regulations aim to provide reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes for Canadians who have received an authorization from their health care practitioners. Under these regulations, Canadians can legally cultivate a determined amount of cannabis for their own medical use or designate someone to produce it for them. These regulations contain landlord consent requirements applicable to personal and designated production if the production site is not the ordinary place of residence of the applicant or the designated producer, and the site is not owned by them.Finally, as members of this House also know, Bill C-45, the cannabis act, is currently before the other place. This act would create a strict framework to control and regulate the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis using a public health approach, in which public health and public safety objectives would be at the forefront. Should it receive royal assent, cannabis would no longer be regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Regulations with respect to cannabis, for both medical and non-medical purposes, would be enacted under the cannabis act, and this would include the landlord consent requirements that currently apply to cannabis for medical purposes, about which I have previously spoken. (1340)Under this new legal framework, adults would be permitted to legally possess and purchase limited amounts of cannabis through a government-licensed retailer. Subject to applicable provincial, territorial, and municipal rules, adults may also be allowed to cultivate up to four plants at their place of residence. Allowing for the cultivation of a small number of cannabis plants at home supports the government's objective to displace the illicit market. It is a reasonable way to allow adults to cultivate cannabis for their own personal use, while prohibiting any commercialization and sale of that which is produced for personal use and which prohibits large-scale grow ops, which will attract the criminal sanctions contained within that bill. The approach our government is taking with respect to home cultivation is consistent with the advice we received from the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation and with the approach that has been taken by most jurisdictions in the United States that have legalized and regulated cannabis for non-medical purposes.Provinces and territories have the authority and can assess the need for additional restrictions within their jurisdictions, and they will be responsible for enforcing those rules. In fact, some provinces have already chosen to incorporate such restrictions in their proposed legislation, and I will give some examples. New Brunswick would require a locked enclosure around outdoor cultivation and a separate locked space for any indoor cultivation. Alberta has proposed that all cultivation will take place only indoors and it will allow landlords and strata councils to restrict cannabis cultivation.Nova Scotia has recently proposed to provide landlords with the ability to ban the smoking and growing of cannabis within rental units.These are just a few examples of how provincial legislation would be used and relied upon to establish rules that are tailored to each province. Additionally, each municipality has the ability, through its zoning and bylaw jurisdictions, to enact additional regulations to control and to ensure this conduct is done in a way which is safe and socially responsible. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the sponsor of the bill for providing us with an opportunity to debate this important matter.AlbertaC-330, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (landlord consent)CannabisCommercial real estateControlled drugs and substancesDrug trafficking and drug seizureMunicipal governmentNew BrunswickNova ScotiaPermits and licencesPlantsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsPrivate Members' BillsProperty lawProvincial jurisdictionRental housingSecond reading5434736PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25467MarkWarawaMark-WarawaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WarawaMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSalaries ActInterventionMr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak on this important piece of legislation, which is terribly flawed, and hopefully the government will listen.Before I speak to Bill C-24, the previous Liberal speaker shared with this House, with great gusto, that he was shocked about a question of young people having access to cannabis. He asked if the member was not aware that people under the age of 25 are using cannabis. Yes, that is happening. That is why, as a country, we need to better control cannabis and access by youth.The new scientific Liberal approach is to make sure our young people, 12, 13, and 14 years old, who do not currently have access to cannabis, could have access to it. What they are proposing with the marijuana legislation is that youth between the ages of 12 and 18 would be able to legally possess five grams. When they hit the age of 18, it would go up to 30 grams. Five grams of marijuana is 15 joints, and 30 grams is 90 joints. Their new scientific approach is that they are going to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth by allowing them to have in their possession up to 15 joints each. That is a science course that I never have taken. Maybe it is the new Liberal science course.However, we are here to talk about the government's approach to appointments of ministers, and I think everyone in this House fully supports the proposal and goal of having gender equity in cabinet. That starts with encouraging women and girls to get involved with politics much more than in the past. I am really excited seeing the pages here today; many of them are female.I could not do my job as a member of Parliament without my partner, my wife of 45 years, Diane. When I am not in my riding of beautiful Langley—Aldergrove, my wife represents me, and many say she is a better speaker than I am. I would not argue with them. She is very bright, very capable, and very much my equal, maybe even my superior. I love her. I fully respect and agree with the goal of gender equity, and it needs to start with pay equity. Everyone in this House, on this side anyway, supports pay equity. The government says it does but if only it had a majority government then it could get it through and get pay equity. In fact, it does have a majority government, a strong majority, and it could get it through if it were a priority.There is this parable that a tree is known by its fruits. If the tree has apples on it, it is an apple tree, and if it has oranges, it is an orange tree. If the government says it believes in gender equity, what kind of fruit is on its tree, its tree of truth? Unfortunately, Canadians are saying that what the government says and what the government does are two very different things. We are talking about changing appointments to ministers, changing junior ministers, ministers of state, to now be paid the same amount as a full minister, but not having the title, responsibility, or support. Tokenism is not what this side believes in, and Canadians do not believe in tokenism. It has to be true gender equity. Some of the most intelligent women I ever worked with in this House include Rona Ambrose, the former leader of our party. Before that, she was minister in a number of portfolios and was very capable. I was her parliamentary secretary, and I was honoured to be given that responsibility. She is a very intelligent woman. I learned from her, and it was an exciting time to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment.(1250)Before being elected, I was with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Aileen Shibata was our regional manager for loss prevention and road safety, a very intelligent woman. There are very intelligent women who should be given responsibilities in the House based on their skill level. That is how it should be: pay equity based on the work people do. If they have those skills, we need to honour those skills and give them responsibility, regardless of their gender.The goal of encouraging women to get involved is very important and needs to be encouraged. We need to encourage the government to truly give women opportunities. I am thinking of what is said and what is done. There is a by-election going on in Canada. There are four ridings. One of them is South Surrey—White Rock, and the Liberals chose a man to run for them. He is a very nice, retired man, but there was a very capable and intelligent woman who wanted to run for the Liberals and they said, no, they wanted a man. It was very unfortunate because, if the government really believes in gender equity, it would have given that woman the opportunity to run.The woman who is running is Kerry-Lynne Findlay, who is a former cabinet minister, and I hope she returns here after December 11, because she is very capable and again an example of our party's supporting women to get involved in politics.Having been in the House for 13 and a half years, elected in 2004, I have experienced the importance of regional development ministers. The regional development minister for British Columbia is very successful. That regional minister's office is where the provincial representatives went to meet. In a coordinated, prioritized way, they were able to put the money into infrastructure where it was needed and would have long-term benefits. Without an organized approach, removing the regional ministers, we lose that organized approach and that voice, that consultation between the federal government and the provincial governments. It is a big mistake.The other problem I have with Bill C-24 is the so-called mystery ministers. The Liberals are saying to trust them, pass this, and they are going to appoint some mystery ministers. Who are those mystery ministers? The last speaker said possibly the minister for the status of women. What about a minister for seniors? The largest demographic in Canada is seniors. Canadian seniors for the last two years have been ignored by Parliament because the government says it cares about seniors but it does not.The most recent example was the announcement with confetti in the air and great splendour when Liberals announced the Canadian national housing strategy. There was mention of seniors 18 times in the report and not once was there any solution or announcement of how they were going to take care of Canadian seniors. How could that happen that they acknowledge the needs of seniors but nothing is announced to address the needs of seniors? That is because there is no minister for seniors.With great sincerity, because Bill C-24 is going to be rammed through as it rams through everything, I would ask that it seriously consider the plight of Canadian seniors. Right now, 70% of Canadians who need palliative care in the last days, last weeks, and last years of their life have no access to it. That again is because there is no minister for seniors. There used to be, in the previous Parliament. The previous government had seniors as a priority, and l again ask that the government put its words into action and appoint a minister for seniors.C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration ActCabinet ministersCannabisDecriminalizationEqual opportunitiesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsLegal agePay equityPossession of a controlled substanceRegional development agenciesReport stageSenior citizensWomen51746915174692MattDeCourceyFrederictonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): (1000)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you from the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.I rise to take the opportunity to speak today against Bill C-45, a rushed and ill-conceived piece of legislation, which many of my colleagues have already pointed out has many flaws. Please allow me to amplify their concerns and add mine.First and foremost, what is the rush? What is the rush with one-step, full-scale legalization, without interim steps? What is so important about the arbitrary deadline of July 1, 2018?Really, if we are looking to do something substantive in a rush, maybe the Liberals could listen to my NDP colleagues who have been calling, for a long time, to make sure that the records of people who have been found guilty and have a criminal record for simple possession would be eliminated, so they could get a good job. If the Liberals want to rush something, why do they not rush at that?Why ignore police and medical professionals' advice and push ahead with Bill C-45? Why not allow police, provincial and municipal governments, as well as health officials to better prepare for the onslaught of issues this legalization will unleash?Believe me, there will be an onslaught of issues. All members need to do is look at other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana to find that there will be a slew of issues that the government will need to deal with.To date, why has there been no public education of the risks of smoking marijuana? What we have heard most often about many of the risks of marijuana is that they are so much more detrimental to our youth. No one should assume that some of us who are speaking against this, because we are parents and public figures, are trying to be condescending. None of us are trying to be patronizing. No one should assume that any of my colleagues or myself are trying to stereotype anyone either. We do not have some outdated notion of society.What we are saying is that there is a massive number of risks that we are concerned about, and the government has not taken them into consideration. Data shows 30% to 40% of young people who use cannabis under the age of 25 will develop psychotic disorders, depression, and anxiety disorders. Let me repeat that, upward of one-third of people under 25 who use marijuana will develop psychotic disorders, depression, or anxiety disorders. That is far too many.Where are the human rights champions over there who know already of the growing mental health epidemic with our youth, and who are not speaking up about the way drugs exacerbate those mental health issues? Where are they?As a father of a daughter who suffered mental health issues to the point of taking her own life this past summer, I have seen first-hand the risks of drugs at an early age. My family and I have seen this path and what it leads to, the hurt and the pain, the suffering. We have felt the consequences most directly as many, too many, other families have.Our heart aches thinking about what could have been, what should have been, had Lara not been exposed to drugs, on top of all the other demons she had to fight on a daily basis. It is tragic, and it is all to common.That is why I am particularly concerned about the provisions in Bill C-45 when it comes to possession by children ages 12 to 17. As currently written, the bill allows children aged 12 to 17 to be in possession of five grams of pot. This is approximately five to 10 joints. What is positive about that, in any way, shape, or form? How is that good government? How is that having a concern about the safety and security of Canadians?I am profoundly concerned. At 12, children cannot buy cigarettes, they cannot drink, they cannot drive, they cannot vote, they cannot enlist to fight for our country, but they can possess five to 10 joints. Really?Medical professionals have told us that the number should be zero. In fact, they oppose Bill C-45 based on the harm it would do to our youth, and they are concerned about the young age at which it allows youth to possess pot, thereby condoning and encouraging it.(1005)I do not accept the argument that, just because we pass legislation, we do not endorse something. Come on, that is always the case. Whenever we legislate, we are saying that we are doing it for the public good and are endorsing the behaviour. How can I stand by as a parent who has lost a child to the struggle she had with many anxieties and depression, or as a member of Parliament whose primary concern is the safety of Canadians, and allow legislation that would exacerbate those depressions and anxiety in Canadian children as young as 12? How could I not speak out? It would be unconscionable.I am not blind to the obvious. I know, and all members of the House know, that whether by peer pressure or otherwise, there are many teenagers who use marijuana; too many, and I wish it were far fewer. I wish they could see the damage they are doing to themselves. I wish they could have had a conversation with Lara in her later years. She would have counselled them otherwise. She would have warned them of the harm of smoking marijuana and the consequences on their cognitive abilities, how it amplifies any mental health issues, and how it is a slippery slope from one joint to a few joints to harder drugs, and on and on. There are other reasons why Bill C-45 is flawed, not the least of which is that legalizing marijuana would not remedy the underground economy. We need only to look to tobacco. By some estimates, 40% of tobacco sold in Ontario is contraband. In fact, a study that came out last month by the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco found that one in three cigarettes sold in Ontario is contraband. Do members opposite honestly believe that it will be any different with pot, that it would be above board, and every single joint is taxed?There was a similar experience with gambling, so we are not talking about something that does not have a track record in the past. After gambling was legalized, the stranglehold of organized crime continued in that business. It did not stop the gambling. In fact, by all measures, it increased it. In legalizing it, we inadvertently made matters worse for our young people. Studies indicate that up to 60% of children and adolescents engage in some form of gambling each week. This is because they are a generation that was exposed to legal gambling from a young age and it was not frowned upon, which is why the predominant concern about problem gambling is not primarily for adults but young people. I heard some heckles about that, but we are not talking about somebody who is buying a lottery ticket. Are those members out to lunch? I am talking about someone who begins in gambling and then is trapped in gambling, and then that is a lifestyle. They can never ever enjoy their job or buy a house or anything, because they fritter away all their money on gambling. If that is what some members feel is okay for youth, then fine with that. We must question the signals that we are sending to our teenagers. What precedent are we setting? Are we fully ready for all the social impacts that this will have on the years ahead?My colleagues have raised a number of other points about Bill C-45, such as drug-impaired driving, the super-sized amount of pot one could grow at home, the lack of a public education program, and scientific evidence. However, the point I want to stress today and the question I want all members of the chamber to think through clearly is the exposure of marijuana to young children and adolescents. It is not too late to change it. It is not too late to stop it. It is not too late vote no on Bill C-45.In closing, I will ask again, as I did at the outset. Why ignore police and medical professionals in regard to Bill C-45? Do we really think that 12 to 18 year-olds having five or 10 joints in their bedroom is a wise thing to advocate? Why do we not have more public education right now? Why not allow police, provincial and municipal governments, and health officials to better prepare for the massive upfront cost? I say again, what is the rush? Officials are not ready. I implore members to listen to the experts, doctors, scientists, and law enforcement. I ask all members to vote against Bill C-45.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCompulsive gamblingCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug trafficking and drug seizureGambling and lotteriesGovernment billsHealth educationMental healthPossession of a controlled substanceSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionYoung people514986351498645149865AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)(1535)[English]Bill C-45. Third reading moved that Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, be read the third time and passed. She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-45.On October 13, I introduced two pieces of important legislation in the House of Commons. First, Bill C-45 proposes a framework for legalizing, strictly regulating, and restricting access to cannabis in Canada. The second complementary piece of legislation, Bill C-46, proposes new and stronger laws to more seriously tackle alcohol and drug-impaired driving, including cannabis. I am proud to note that Bill C-46 has been passed by the House and is being studied in the other place. I am pleased to speak again today about Bill C-45 and discuss some of the amendments that were carried during the Standing Committee on Health's extensive study of the bill. I would like to thank all committee members for their considerable amount of work on this file. The committee reviewed 115 briefs and heard from nearly 100 different witnesses, who provided their invaluable perspectives on a wide array of issues, ranging from law enforcement to public health. Groups represented at committee included the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Métis National Council, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Officials from Colorado and Washington state also provided testimony on their states' experience in the legalization of cannabis. After hearing from the witnesses, several amendments were proposed at clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I will speak to some of these worthwhile amendments in a moment, but first I would like to remind members what Bill C-45 is all about. Bill C-45 would create a legal framework whereby adults would be able to access legal cannabis through an appropriate retail framework sourced from a well-regulated industry or grown in limited amounts at home. Under the proposed legislation, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments will all share in responsibility for overseeing the new system. The federal government will oversee the production and manufacturing components of the cannabis framework and set industry-wide rules and standards.To that end, our fall economic statement of 2017 has earmarked $526 million of funding to license, inspect, and enforce all aspects of the proposed cannabis act. Provincial and territorial governments will in turn be responsible for the distribution and sale components of the framework. Beyond the legislative framework outlining the rules for production, retail sale, distribution, and possession, cannabis will remain a strictly prohibited substance. Division 1 of part 1 of the proposed act clearly sets out that many of the offences that currently apply to cannabis under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will continue to exist under the proposed cannabis act. This is very much in keeping with the recommendations contained in the final report of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. In its report, the task force recommended that criminal offences should be maintained for illicit production, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, possession for the purposes of export, and import/export.I will now speak to the amendments adopted by the committee. Let me begin by saying that our government supports all the amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Health. At this time, I would like to speak about five specific amendments that were adopted during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45.First, the height restriction for cannabis plants permitted to be grown at home was eliminated. The 100-centimetre height restriction was intended to balance the interest to allow personal cultivation while safeguarding against the known risks associated with large plants, including the risk of diversion outside of the licit regime. The height restriction, indeed the proposal to allow even limited personal cultivation, attracted significant commentary both before the health committee and in the general public. We understand the complexities leading to the task force's recommendation of a 100-centimetre height limit and accept the health committee's conclusion after it listened to several witnesses about the problems that such a limit might realistically create.(1540)Our government agrees that this issue is best addressed outside of the criminal law. Should they wish, provinces and territories. relying on their own legislative powers. could address plant heights and if legislative authority exists or is extended to municipalities, they could do so as well.Second, the addition of the good Samaritan provision will exempt individuals from criminal charges for simple possession if they call medical services or law enforcement following a life threatening medical emergency involving a psychoactive substance. Evidence demonstrates that individuals experiencing or witnessing an overdose or an acute medical condition are often afraid to call emergency assistance due to the fear of prosecution. A good Samaritan clause in the proposed cannabis act will help to ensure that individuals contact and co-operate with emergency services in the context of a medical emergency, knowing that they will not face prosecution for minor possession offences.Third, the amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act, provides flexibility to prohibit the smoking or vaping of tobacco or cannabis in specific outdoor areas or spaces by regulation in federal workplaces to protect people from exposure to tobacco or cannabis smoke. This aligns with the recommendation by the Canadian Cancer Society.Fourth, courts will have the discretion of imposing a fine of up to $200 for an accused convicted of a ticketable offence rather than imposing a fixed fine in the amount of $200. This will ensure that the courts can consider a range of factors in setting the fine, including the ability of the accused to pay the fine.Finally, an amendment was adopted to require a review of the proposed cannabis act three years after its coming into force and to table a report in Parliament on the results of this review.Given the transformative nature of the proposed legislation, it is important that our government clearly communicates to Parliament and to the Canadian public the impact the legislation will have on achieving our objectives of protecting youth and reducing the role of organized crime. This will enable us as parliamentarians to determine whether future changes to the legislation are necessary to help ensure the protection of public health and safety.I will now speak to the significant discussion that has occurred in relation to the treatment of young persons under the proposed cannabis act. On the one hand, the Standing Committee on Health heard from witnesses, including criminal defence lawyers and the Canadian Nurses Association, who argued that youth possession of cannabis should not be subject to criminal penalties, because making it a criminal offence for a youth to possess five grams of cannabis would not deter them from possessing. It would only serve to perpetuate the disproportionate enforcement of laws on young, marginalized, and racialized members of our society.On the other hand, others, including opposition members, have called for a zero tolerance in relation to the possession of cannabis by youth. Our government is mindful of the concerns raised in relation to the exemption of young persons from criminal prosecution for possession or sharing of up to five grams of cannabis and the suggestion that this decision is sending the wrong message to youth.As I discussed at my appearance before the committee, our government has drafted Bill C-45 to specifically ensure that there are no legal means for a young person to purchase or acquire cannabis. Young persons should not have access to any amount of cannabis. At the same time, criminalizing youth for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis recognizes the negative impacts that exposure to the criminal justice system can have on our young people, particularly marginalized young persons.Our focus aligns with what the majority of respondents conveyed to the task force; that criminal sanctions should be focused on adults who provide cannabis to youth, not on the youth themselves. This does not mean that our government sees youth possession or consumption of cannabis as acceptable. Our government has given much thought as to how we will keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and discourage them from using cannabis at all.(1545)Our government has been encouraging the provinces and territories to create administrative offences that would prohibit youth from possessing any amounts of cannabis without exposing them to the criminal justice system. Police would be given authority to seize cannabis from youth with small amounts. Provinces and territories use this measured approach for alcohol and tobacco possession by young persons, and it has proven to be successful. We were pleased to hear that Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta have already announced their plans to create just such prohibitions, and we expect other jurisdictions to follow suit. This approach is complemented by the other significant protections for youth in Bill C-45. The proposed act creates new offences for those adults who either sell or distribute cannabis to youth, or who use a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. It protects young people from promotional enticements to use cannabis, prohibits cannabis product packaging or labelling that are appealing to youth, and prohibits the sale of cannabis through self-service displays or vending machines.In addition to these legislative mechanisms, I would also like to remind members that our government will be undertaking a broad public education campaign to inform Canadians of all ages about the proposed legislation, including penalties for providing cannabis to youth and the risks involved with consuming cannabis. This public education campaign will focus on helping young Canadians make the best choices about their future and to understand the risks and consequences of using cannabis. This public education and awareness campaign has already begun, and it will continue to be an ongoing priority. To that end, last month our government announced $36.4 million over five years in funding for public education and awareness. This is in addition to the $9.6 million over five years toward a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign, and surveillance activities that we announced in budget 2017. I will now turn to the implementation and timing of Bill C-45. Much has been conveyed about the timing of the implementation of the proposed cannabis act, with the suggestion being made that provinces and territories will not be ready, or that law enforcement will not be ready. Several witnesses at committee, however, rightfully pointed out that we need to act now. The Canadian Public Health Association responded to claims that we are not ready for legalization by advising the committee of the following:Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of time, as Canadians are already consuming cannabis at record levels. The individual and societal harms associated with cannabis use are already being felt every day. The proposed legislation and eventual regulation is our best attempt to minimize those harms and protect the well-being of all Canadians. Witnesses at committee further pointed out that there is always a perception that more time is needed, but that any delays would contribute to confusion among the population. Our government agrees that we need to act now, and we have been working closely with provinces and territories on many fronts, including through a federal-provincial-territorial senior officials working group. The working group has been kept apprised of developments on this file over the last year through meetings via teleconference every three weeks, as well as in-person meetings. Most recently, a meeting took place here in Ottawa on October 17 and 18. Since the introduction of Bill C-45, several federal-provincial-territorial issue-specific working groups have also been established to collaborate more closely on a range of complex issues, including drug-impaired driving, ticketable offences, taxation, and public education. Our government recognizes that providing support to provinces and territories for this work is critical. That is why we have committed, for instance, up to $81 million specifically to the provinces and territories to train front-line officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of impaired driving, build law enforcement capacity across the country, and provide access to drug screening devices. Our government is encouraged by the tremendous amount of work that has already been carried out in the provinces and territories. Many jurisdictions committed to and have completed public consultations on how cannabis legalization should be implemented. (1550)Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta have released proposed legislation and frameworks describing how they will approach recreational cannabis, and Manitoba has enacted the Cannabis Harm Prevention Act. Clearly, many provinces are moving forward in anticipation of the July 2018 time frame.Recognizing that some provinces and territories may not have systems in place by the summer of 2018, our government is proposing to facilitate interim access to a regulated quality controlled supply from a federally licensed producer via online ordering, with secure home delivery through mail or courier. Our government's intention is to offset the broader costs associated with implementing this new system by collecting licensing and other fees, as well as through revenues generated through taxation, as is the case with the tobacco and alcohol industry. Discussions with provinces and territories around the proposed taxation plan have already begun and will continue. As part of our consultations on this matter, we welcome the feedback of all Canadians to ensure that we achieve the goal of keeping prices low enough to put criminals out of business while helping to offset the costs of education, administration, and enforcement.In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Canada's current approach to cannabis continues to contribute to the profits of organized crime, risks to public health and safety, and exposes thousands of Canadians to criminal records for minor cannabis offences each year. Most Canadians no longer believe that simple possession of small amounts of cannabis should be subjected to harsh criminal sanctions. I would like to conclude by encouraging all members of this House to support Bill C-45, as amended by the Standing Committee on Health.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationDrug educationDrug trafficking and drug seizureDuty to provide assistanceElectronic commerceFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFeesGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGovernment revenuesInformation disseminationNon-smokers Health ActPackaging and labellingPassive smokingPenaltiesPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial governmentProvincial jurisdictionRegulationSales licenceSentencingStatutory reviewTask Force on Marijuana Legalization and RegulationThird reading and adoptionYoung people51470775147078514708051470815147082AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingLenWebberCalgary Confederation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has acknowledged from the beginning the devastating impacts that criminalization of simple cannabis possession and usage has had on Canadians. In fact, the government knows that those impacts have been particularly damaging for marginalized Canadians, such as the young, racialized, indigenous, and poor. Yet one of the ironies is that this legislation maintains that criminalized prohibitionist approach. Any Canadian caught with 31 grams of cannabis in public, who grows five plants, or is an 18-year-old in Alberta selling to a 17-year-old faces criminal prosecution, conviction, and penalties of up to 14 years in jail. She is the Minister of Justice and knows there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who carry criminal convictions today that have devastated their lives in many respects. What plans does she have, as the Minister of Justice, for granting those Canadians pardons for engaging in activities that, come next July, will be entirely legal in this country? C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionYoung people51471005147101JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-45, as all members of the House have heard me state before, and what we are committed to, is legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis to keep it out of the hands of young people, and the proceeds of its sale out of the hands of criminals. As I have stated many times, simply decriminalizing it at this point would not assist us in achieving those objectives. What I have been doing, and what I am committed to continue to do, is to work with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. We have recognized that over-criminalization of the possession of small amounts of cannabis is something that needs to be addressed. We have sought to address this in Bill C-45. Again, in conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, we are considering how we can approach record suspensions. However, our focus right now is to change the status quo to ensure that we put in place a comprehensive framework for the legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis by young people. C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoptionYoung people514710251471035147104DonDaviesVancouver KingswayKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89012CherylHardcastleCheryl-HardcastleWindsor—TecumsehNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/HardcastleCheryl_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify this idea of what some police chiefs may or may not believe. I have many family members, including children, who are in law enforcement. Many people reflect a lot of the emotion that sometimes goes along with this issue. The idea of mandatory minimums and a war on drugs approach is not as effective as had been envisioned at one time. As a matter of fact, a criminal record for this non-violent offence is a social determinant of health.I wonder if the member has had a chance to consider what the public health approach might be, because we need effective solutions moving forward. Would the member agree that we need to have a regulated environment? Would he also agree that a public campaign should include how to keep children away from this product? What does he think would be the most effective way for us to do that as we move forward with this?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDrug educationGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5147201DaveVan KesterenChatham-Kent—LeamingtonDaveVan KesterenChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31765DaveVan KesterenDave-VanKesterenChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/VanKesterenDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Dave Van Kesteren: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, we must not confuse Bill C-45 with the decriminalization of marijuana, although that is part of this legislation. Conservatives also agree that for minor possession that portion should be struck from the Criminal Code.Educating children and youth from the ages of 11 to 17 is important. Those under the age of 18 will not be allowed to smoke marijuana, but allowing them to have possession of up to five joints certainly is not the type of education that we on this side of the House envision.Sweden has spent a lot of money and has done a lot of training and as a result has seen its rate of usage drop, and that country has not legalized marijuana. The member is correct. We should and we must educate. We should be telling people. The report that I referred to from Health Canada should be in every home and in every school. We should be warning children about the dangers. We should warn young people about what marijuana can do to them if they use it before the age of 25 and who knows what could happen after that. That should be a part of our education system. If we put the time and energy that the Liberal government is prepared to spend on this legislation into education, we would have a whole different scenario in this country.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDrug educationGovernment billsInformation disseminationPossession of a controlled substanceThird reading and adoption5147204CherylHardcastleWindsor—TecumsehStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals promised Canadians cannabis legalization last election, I think that reasonable Canadians understood legalization to mean the end of criminalization, the end of stigmatization, and the end of the prohibitionist approach to cannabis. It is why I, along with millions of other Canadians, was somewhat surprised to read the fine print of Bill C-45 only to discover that it is not legalization at all, but would just make cannabis less illegal. The proposed legislation would create a litany of new cannabis-related criminal offences, most of which carry a maximum sentence of up to 14 years in prison. As renowned criminal defence attorney Michael Spratt put it:[Bill C-45] is an unnecessarily complex piece of legislation that leaves intact the criminalization of marijuana in many circumstances. An adult who possesses more than 30 grams of marijuana in public is a criminal. A youth who possesses more than five grams of marijuana is a criminal. An 18-year-old who passes a joint to his 17-year-old friend is a criminal. An adult who grows five marijuana plants...is a criminal...This continued criminalization is inconsistent with a rational and evidence-based criminal justice policy and will only serve to reduce...the positive effects of [the bill]. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has claimed that these harsh penalties are reserved for some “gangster in a stairwell” selling cannabis to children, but this is exactly the sort of reefer madness rhetoric that has fuelled prohibition for nearly a century. The evidence before the health committee was directly contrary to this view. In fact, 95% of cannabis producers and consumers in this country are non-violent, law-abiding citizens who have nothing to do with organized crime whatsoever. If criminalization and the threat of imprisonment prevented people from using cannabis, then Canadians would not be consuming an estimated 655 metric tons of it every year when we have full criminalization and life sentences for trafficking. Indeed, the prohibitionist approach has been repeatedly discredited by its failures throughout history. Cannabis consumption has increased steadily throughout the so-called “war on drugs”, and Canadian youth consume cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world today. Of the 4.6 million people the parliamentary budget officer projects will use cannabis at least once in 2018, nearly 1.7 million, or more than one-third, would be in the 15 to 24 age group. For far too long, we have wasted billions of dollars in resources in the criminal justice system by criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens at an alarming rate for simply processing and consuming cannabis. In fact, we still are. According to Statistics Canada, in 2016, under the Liberal government after it promised Canadians legalization, the most recent year of available data, there were 55,000 offences related to cannabis reported to police, and police charged 17,733 people with pot possession. Given that cannabis possession will soon be made legal in Canada, the NDP has been clear from the outset that we should immediately decriminalize the possession of recreational cannabis for personal use pending full legalization. Now, petty possession is a crime that the Prime Minister himself has admitted to committing while serving as an elected official. This admission of past cannabis use belies his repeated assertion that “Until we've changed the law, the current laws exist and apply.” I guess he meant that they apply to other people and not to him.It is a shame and hypocrisy of the highest order that the current government continues to prosecute and convict Canadians for simple cannabis possession, which is something the government admits should be legal. The government knows full well that current cannabis laws are not applied consistently across this country. Indeed, their discriminatory impact has been well documented by Canadian researchers, like Simon Fraser University's Dr. Neil Boyd.(1640)Furthermore, given the extensive body of research on the negative impacts of carrying a criminal record, it is clear that pursuing thousands of convictions for actions that we no longer view as criminal will needlessly harm vulnerable Canadians, particularly young people, racialized communities, indigenous people, and other marginalized groups, mainly the poor.I want to be clear that because I support genuine cannabis legalization, I acknowledge that Bill C-45 is an improvement on the status quo. That is why Canada's New Democrats will support this legislation. This bill allows for the legal possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis, permits the legal cultivation of up to four cannabis plants per dwelling or house, and creates a framework for the development of a legal recreational cannabis industry in Canada.I must note, however, that Bill C-45, inexplicably, allows the provinces and territories to derogate from these basic freedoms. This should be a major concern to anyone who wants genuine cannabis legalization in Canada, and those who are urging this House to rush this legislation through.I also want the record to show that after we revealed gaping holes in the Liberal government's cannabis legislation, the NDP worked in the best spirit of Jack Layton to reach across the aisle to give Canadians what they actually voted for, genuine cannabis legalization.For anyone who doubts the positive role an effective opposition can play, I will point out that we were able to convince the Liberals to do the following: drop the ridiculous 100-centimetre plant height limit belied by all evidence and the experts; bring in edibles and concentrates, albeit not immediately, but within a year; and recognize the necessity of craft cannabis growers being brought into the legalized production framework.Mark my words, these improvements would not have happened had the New Democrats not worked diligently at committee to bring forth the witnesses and evidence, and push the government to do the right thing. I will give the government credit because, unlike the previous Conservative government, which hardly ever took any suggestions from this side of the House, the Liberal government has proven able to listen to the evidence and make adjustments, albeit not as far as we would like.In addition, at the health committee, we put forward 38 practical amendments to fully align Bill C-45 with its purposes section and the evidence we heard from expert testimony. The purposes include bringing the illicit industry into the light; making sure that Canadians have access to safe, well-regulated cannabis products; and taking the production and distribution of cannabis out of the hands of organized crime and bringing it into the regulated legal industry.That is what the New Democrats paid attention to when we moved our amendments to make sure that this legislation aligned with those purposes. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has refused to do that in all cases, edibles being the most notable example. The government is content to leave edibles and concentrates in the hands of the black market, in the hands of organized crime, totally unregulated for up to another year and a half to two years from now. It cannot explain why.Our proposed changes, besides legalizing the sale of edibles and concentrates, included providing pardons to Canadians saddled with a criminal record for offences that will no longer be offences under Bill C-45. This amendment was ruled outside the scope of Bill C-45. However, given the Prime Minister's previous statements, it is rather shocking that the Liberal government would structure a cannabis legalization bill in such a way that pardons cannot be included via an amendment, with these ruled outside the scope of the bill. When the Liberals say they have taken their time and consulted widely, maybe they could explain to Canadians how, after two years, they somehow forgot to deal with the issue of pardons for the criminal convictions that Canadians carry for cannabis possession when they Liberals know how devastating the effects are of those criminal convictions on people's economic and social lives.We also proposed amendments to empower provincial governments to create parallel production licensing regimes to give them the flexibility to implement legalization in the manner best suited to their jurisdiction. For example, this amendment would have allowed provinces to let craft growers, small-scale producers, outdoors growers, and artisanal growers compete against large federally licensed corporate entities. That was voted down by the Liberals.We proposed decriminalizing the penalties section in line with the Tobacco Act, proposing instead that the legalization take a regulatory approach, with significant fines for offences, rather than criminal ones. One of the purposes of Bill C-45, as laid out in section 7, is to “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis”. Penalties in the bill, in the NDP's view, should be consistent with that stated intent.(1645)With the Liberal government's rejection of these amendments, I am very concerned that Bill C-45 will continue to harm many Canadians after it becomes law in this country. Unconscionable prison sentences, arbitrary possession limits, and barriers to small craft and artisanal producers are just a few of the damaging provisions that need to be corrected. However, I am heartened that this bill would at least require a mandatory review of the act's operation in the next Parliament. I view this as a tacit admission by the government that it knows that this bill contains problematic sections that will need to be fixed. In fact, it was a Liberal amendment to move the review from five years to three years. I think the Liberals know that this bill has flaws that will need to be fixed. Truthfully, I would prefer to get it right the first time around. As it currently stands, the federal government has left the heavy lifting of legalization to the provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous governments. The task force on cannabis legalization was very clear in the lead up to legalization that the federal government should “Take a leadership role to ensure that capacity is developed among all levels of government prior to the start of the regulatory regime”. Yet, when asked if the federal government had even been talking with first nations and indigenous governments on a nation-to-nation basis to ensure that capacity were developed, Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day told the health committee, “No, they haven't, and again, it's going to be really critical.”By freezing out stakeholders and insisting on meeting an arbitrary politically motivated deadline, the Liberal government is clearly sacrificing quality legislation for speed. This has led to the emergence of a complex patchwork of different approaches to cannabis across Canada, and will put many Canadians in the position of perhaps breaking the law unintentionally. For example, some provinces may not allow any home growing. In fact, Quebec just announced this very measure. Some provinces may choose to lower the public possession limit from 30 grams. Some provinces may forbid public consumption. Some municipalities may ban cannabis sales and consumption completely.I want to be clear to any Canadians watching this. The Liberals put forth legislation that will allow the provinces to deviate from people being allowed to grow four plants at home and from being legally able to carry 30 grams of cannabis in public. For those who are searching for and have waited for decades and decades for cannabis legalization, they should be aware that federal leadership in a national legalized structure for cannabis is not going to be delivered by this bill. We see that already, as I have mentioned, with the Quebec example. In that province, one will not be able to grow plants at home. I do not think that is what cannabis advocates have been working for all these years. The Liberals' recent attempt to unilaterally impose an excise tax without consulting other jurisdictions directly contradicted the recommendations of the McClellan report. The Liberals' attempt to keep half the excise tax revenues at the federal level ignores the fact that the bulk of expenses related to legalization will fall to the provincial, territorial, and municipal levels.For our part, Canada's New Democrats will continue to reach across the aisle to help ensure that legalization is done right and on time. Ever since the Liberal government of the day ignored the recommendations of the 1971 Le Dain commission, our party has been calling on successive governments to stop saddling Canadians with criminal records for using cannabis. We strongly believe and continue to maintain that these unjustifiable arrests must end as soon as possible.I would be remiss not to use this occasion to outline some simple truths about cannabis that I fear are far too often drowned out of the public discussion by prohibitionist fearmongering. Number one, in almost all contexts, alcohol and tobacco are far more personally and socially harmful than cannabis. Cannabis does not make people aggressive, a person cannot fatally overdose on cannabis, and cannabis is not a carcinogen. We heard this point repeated over and over again by experts at the health committee.Number two, cannabis has a broad range of therapeutic benefits. It is used as an effective medicine by Canadian patients suffering from conditions ranging from epilepsy to PTSD, from cancer to arthritis. I believe if this point were properly understood by the Liberals, they would not recently have announced a plan without consulting patients to impose a new excise tax of $1 per gram on medicinal cannabis, or 10% of the final retail price, whichever is higher.(1650)At the end of 2016, there were 129,876 Canadian patients with authorizations from physicians to use medicinal cannabis, and since the first Canadian veteran was reimbursed on compassionate grounds in 2007, Veterans Affairs Canada now covers the cost of medicinal cannabis for over 3,000 Canadian veterans, yet the government wants to tax them. Shockingly, however, the federal government does not cover medicinal cannabis for indigenous people, a discriminatory policy that puts a lie to the Prime Minister's claim that his most important relationship is with indigenous communities.The Liberals' medicinal cannabis tax is misconceived, unfair to patients, and damaging to public health. It is simply poor public policy. The cost of medicinal cannabis is already high, given that unlike prescription drugs and medically necessary devices, it is not tax exempt under federal law. Medicinal cannabis is neither exempt from the GST nor eligible for reimbursement under nearly all public or private insurance plans, so patients are currently forced to spend hundreds, or thousands, of dollars each month to acquire a sufficient supply of medicinal cannabis, or choose a riskier option, like a prescription opioid because it is tax exempt and covered for reimbursement. That is perverse. Medicinal cannabis should be treated like other medically prescribed therapeutic medicines. Looking forward, New Democrats will use every tool at our disposal to scrap that flawed policy decision.Third, just yesterday, in the House, the Conservative member for Thornhill told Canadians that legal cannabis is just as dangerous as fentanyl, and home-grown cannabis is “virtually the same as putting fentanyl on a shelf within reach of kids”. This is an outrageous and dangerous falsehood, and grossly insensitive to those who have lost loved ones to fentanyl overdoses. Trying to capitalize on their personal tragedy for political purposes is shameful, callous, and unsupportable. I call on the Conservative Party to correct the record and for the member to offer a sincere apology to every Canadian who has been affected by the fentanyl crisis.That brings me to truth number four. Cannabis and cannabis concentrates have been consumed by humans for thousands of years without bringing about the alarmist predictions peddled by prohibitionists. Cannabis is not a carcinogen, there are no lethal overdoses from cannabis and cannabinoids, and cannabis can be used to reduce anxiety and enhance enjoyment of many activities. Much like unwinding with a glass of wine, millions of adult Canadians find occasional cannabis consumption a relaxing and pleasurable way to spend their free time. Ultimately, I have come to understand that a genuinely legalized and properly regulated cannabis industry in Canada has enormous potential in many respects. Done right, an appropriate legal approach can achieve impressive benefits economically, technologically, and medicinally. It can advance Canada's cannabis producers, retailers, and innovators on a global scale. It can generate world-leading intellectual property, innovation, and sustainable development benefits, and it can help establish an evidence-based understanding of cannabis that has been so marred by decades of misinformation and mythology. At the very time that many other jurisdictions are also grappling with the failures of prohibition, why on earth would we pre-emptively cut ourselves off at the knees by legally prohibiting cannabis exports to markets where it would be legal to import it, and yet Bill C-45 explicitly prohibits all importation and exportation of recreational cannabis. The world is rapidly waking up to the potential of safe, regulated, and legal cannabis products. Countries like France, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Croatia, and Slovenia look to reexamine their approaches to cannabis, and Canada should be establishing itself as a first-to-market world leader. While the U.S. cannabis industry continues to be hindered by the Trump administration's reefer madness thinking about cannabis, Canada should be taking advantage by empowering our entrepreneurs and developing export markets all around the world.Millions of Canadians use cannabis. They have used it in the past, they will use it today, and they will continue to use it in the years to come. They are not criminals. They are our parents, teachers, friends, colleagues, loved ones, and citizens of this great country who voted for genuine cannabis legalization in the last election. The NDP will continue to work positively and constructively to develop the smartest, safest, and most effective cannabis legislation and regulations in the world, because it is time we delivered.Aboriginal peoplesC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug use and abuseExcise taxesExportsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment revenuesOpiates and opioidsOrganized crimePenaltiesPlantsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsProvincial jurisdictionRegulationSales licenceStatutory reviewThird reading and adoption5147217514721851472195147220514722151472225147223514722451472255147233514723951472405147242AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis Act [Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, we keep hearing the justice minister say that this is all about keeping pot out of the hands of children. What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that? Clearly, when they are 12 years old, they will be able to possess five grams of pot. How do mothers or fathers go to their children and tell them that pot is not good for them, when the government says that it is okay for 12 year olds to have five grams of pot? How is that keeping pot out of the hands of children?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenDecriminalizationGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageTime allocation5145349JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis Act [Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has asked this question in previous forums.Nothing in Bill C-45 makes it legal for a young person to possess cannabis. In having the five grams in Bill C-45, we have sought to ensure that we find a balance between the over-criminalization of young people and to ensure we do everything we can to protect the health and safety of, and restriction of access for, young people.In the legislation, the provinces and territories have the ability, much like they do with respect to tobacco and alcohol, to put in place measures to ensure that cannabis can be seized from a young person by law enforcement officers, much the same way they do with respect to alcohol and cigarettes.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenDecriminalizationGovernment billsMotionsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageTime allocation51453515145352KerryDiotteEdmonton GriesbachAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1120)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about the motions moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Standing Committee on Health in its study of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts. The committee heard from nearly 100 witnesses in five days. The committee's deliberations resulted in the adoption of 20 amendments that contributed to improving various aspects of the bill. These were informed by the insight and advice of the many witnesses, both domestic and international. I want to thank the members of the committee for this thoughtful review of the bill and its efforts to improve the proposed legislation.Bill C-45 follows through on our government's commitment to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis in a way that protects Canadians, including our youth, and removes profits from the hands of criminals and organized crime. In my remarks today, I would like to further explain some of the reasons our government's approach to cannabis is the right one. The motion put forward by the member for Sarnia—Lambton would effectively prohibit adults from cultivating any cannabis plants on their own property. This stands in sharp contrast to the approach proposed by our government, which would allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants on their property for personal use. First, let me remind members of the House that our proposed legislation was informed by the sound and extensive advice of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which was chaired by the Hon. Anne McLellan. The task force consulted extensively with Canadians across Canada on how best to approach the legalization and regulation of cannabis. The members heard from youth, cannabis consumers, industry, indigenous communities, provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement, municipalities, regulators in other jurisdictions, public health and safety experts, and researchers, and the list goes on. Overall, the carefully weighed and diverse range of perspectives expressed during these extensive consultations suggested that small amounts of cannabis for personal use can be safely and responsibly grown at home by adults. The proposed new framework for cannabis, which permits a small number of plants to be cultivated by adults on their own property, is consistent with the approach recommended by the task force. There is no doubt that our government's proposed approach, allowing a small number of cannabis plants to be cultivated at home, is balanced and supports the objectives of Bill C-45. One of those objectives is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for minor offences related to cannabis. The current approach to cannabis has resulted in thousands of Canadians being charged, convicted, and sent to jail for possessing small amounts of cannabis, which indeed is counterproductive. Should the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton be adopted, Canadians would continue to be exposed to criminal charges for minor, non-violent offences. This would create an unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system, which is one of the reasons these motions should not be supported. We all know that criminal records can result in lifelong consequences by, for example, limiting employment opportunities. Another key objective of the bill is to reduce illegal activities in relation to cannabis. Significant profits are generated by the illegal cannabis market every year, and some of this profit ends up in the hands of organized crime. Allowing adults to legally cultivate a small number of cannabis plants on their property would represent an alternative to the illegal market and should not be prohibited completely. Completely prohibiting personal cultivation, as proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, may undermine the government's ability to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities. Setting a limit on the number of plants an adult may grow is a reasonable way to distinguish between responsible adults who wish to grow a limited number of cannabis plants at home and cannabis cultivated to supply and drive the illegal market. This is why other jurisdictions have taken a similar path. As the federal framework has also been informed by international experience and best practices, I would note that in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal and strictly regulated, only one, Washington state, has maintained a prohibition on personal cultivation. Other jurisdictions, including Colorado, Oregon, and California, set provisions that restrict the number of plants that can be grown, such as the ones included in Bill C-45. Permitting personal cultivation in limited amounts is consistent with our government's approach to allowing Canadians access to a legal source of cannabis while setting a clear threshold to help law enforcement identify criminal organizations that are supporting an illegal market. (1125)To be clear, permitting personal cultivation of a limited number of plants would not mean open season for cannabis. On the contrary, the selling of home cultivated cannabis would still be a criminal offence, and growing more than four plants would be prohibited and prosecutable.Finally, it is important to clarify that under the proposed framework, the provinces, territories, and municipalities would have the flexibility to impose further restrictions related to personal cultivation, beyond what is found in Bill C-45. This is an important point, as our government believes that they would be in a better position to assess the necessity and feasibility of such additional restrictions and their enforcement.Through our government's proposed approach, Canadians would no longer run the risk of having a criminal record for possessing, sharing, or growing small amounts of cannabis. Canada is more than ready for a new approach, one that includes the ability of Canadians to grow small amounts of cannabis plants at home for personal use.Again, the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton goes against the key objectives of the bill. Therefore, we recommend that all members of this House vote it down. It would also undermine our government's efforts to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities around cannabis. I am confident that the new legal framework we are proposing, including the current provisions of the bill that would allow personal cultivation of a small number of plants at home, is the best path forward for all Canadians.Best practicesBlack marketC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsMunicipal governmentPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionPublic consultationReport stage51453945145401GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Marco Mendicino: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, just to be clear, there has been no rush. This has been a stated objective of this government since the time of the election campaign. We have been speaking and debating about it thoughtfully, methodically, for over two years, and that debate has been informed by the work of the Hon. Anne McLellan who chaired an independent task force, stripping it from any politics. Although my hon. colleagues want to heckle, they have to take a look at that work and view it with objective eyes. Those objective eyes will tell members that much work has gone into it on the issue of personal cultivation and decriminalization. We do not want to see our youth criminalized, not for possession of small amounts, when we know that will have a dramatic impact on their ability to get jobs and travel abroad. Therefore, the bill, which is informed by the independent task force and was amply supported by 30,000 submissions from across the country, attempts to strike that balance, and it will do so. I encourage all members to vote this motion down.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5145416CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35950JoyceMurrayJoyce-MurrayVancouver QuadraLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MurrayJoyce_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Joyce Murray: (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, adults who are found in possession of a small amount of cannabis, up to a maximum of 30 grams, will no longer be treated like criminals. Instead, Bill C-45 will give responsible adult consumers a way to legally obtain this substance, which will be strictly regulated in order to meet the high national safety and quality standards.[English]This new approach will help reduce the disproportionate burden imposed on the 18,000 individuals who were charged with possession of cannabis in 2016. We know a simple possession charge can have life-long impacts on a person's life prospects. Bill C-45 will reduce this travesty. It will also reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. Our government believes that law enforcement and the courts should devote their resources to criminal activities that are truly detrimental to society, as well as to education and prevention in the case of public health issues like cannabis use. The expert witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health agreed with our government's proposed approach. For example, Karey Shuhendler, from the Canadian Nurses Association, stated: Bill C-45 promotes the removal of harms associated with the prohibition model, while recognizing the need to protect vulnerable populations, including youth. Under our current regime, Canadian youth have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15-19 reported using cannabis in the past year. Some Vancouver Quadra citizens have expressed concerns that legalization of cannabis will increase its use by young people. I think the evidence will show that use will decrease over time with the prevention and education programs put in place by the government.Let us be clear that many youth are using cannabis now under a system controlled by criminal gangs. That is why the bill includes strict controls and penalties to protect young people, and measures to deter and punish adults who provide cannabis to under-aged Canadians. Deterring the illegal market is necessary to protect Canadian youth. Experts such as Dr. Christina Grant, from the Canadian Paediatric Society, have cautioned that too high an age limit will preserve an illegal market that provides a supply of illegal, unregulated, and unsafe cannabis to Canadians between the ages of 20 and 24. These are the young people who currently have the highest rates of consumption among Canadians and among their peers from other developed countries.[Translation]It is also important to keep in mind that the bill gives the provinces and territories the flexibility to establish additional restrictions that can go even further than those set out in the federal framework, depending on their own specific needs and circumstances.[English]This includes raising the national minimum age if a province or territory so choses.Beyond the proposed minimum age restriction and severe penalties for selling cannabis to youth, Bill C-45 proposes a number of additional controls to protect young Canadians. For example, the bill includes provisions that would prohibit the sale of cannabis and cannabis products that are considered appealing to youth. It would ban the advertising and promotion of cannabis, except in limited and very restricted circumstances. It would also set out requirements for packaging and labelling to ensure they are not appealing to youth. Also, as various expert witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Health reminded us, these measures need to be supported by significant and effective public education to explain the risks and harms associated with cannabis consumption, especially for youth. Our government fully agrees with these experts and we have already started a national public awareness and education campaign, in collaboration with the provinces and territories. This campaign will be augmented by the additional $36.4 million announced recently.Finally, in light of the tragedy of the current opioid crisis, I would like to note how an evidence-based public health approach to drug use can save lives. We know that cannabis use for medical purposes like pain relief is safer and less addictive than opioids. In the United States, the legalization of medical cannabis in many states has resulted in a 25% drop in opioid-related deaths compared to states where medical cannabis remained illegal. In Canada the opioid crisis took at least 2,458 Canadian lives in 2016 and it is only growing worse. British Columbia and Vancouver have a disproportionate share. However, I am optimistic that those tragedies will be reduced by the legalization of cannabis.To sum up, this is a thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation that has been designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians while saving lives. AdvertisingBlack marketC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsInformation disseminationLegal agePackaging and labellingPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsProvincial jurisdictionReport stageStatisticsYoung people51454575145458CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45 on the legalization of marijuana.Does the Prime Minister really think that legalizing marijuana will protect Canadian youth and my 12- and 14-year-old children? When I hear him say that sort I thing, I cannot help but think that he lacks judgment or that he is being insincere. What I find even more troubling is that the member for Scarborough Southwest, a former long-serving police officer, also believes that organized crime is simply going to disappear as soon as Parliament passes Bill C-45. These men are living in a world of make-believe, where botched, simplistic bills can be used to magically solve extremely complex problems and where heroes can simply sprinkle some fairy dust and make organized crime disappear. Problem solved.Here in the House, we have to forget that world of make-believe and deal with the real world like grown-ups. We have to make sure that our actions produce real results, keep Canadians safer, and protect young people from a life of drugs. Bill C-45 only complicates the drug-use problem in Canada. No, legalizing marijuana will not make it harder for our children to get their hands on drugs. Yes, organized crime will find ways around laws it has no intention of obeying. No, police officers cannot use fairy dust to fight drug-related crime, violence, and death.The Liberals say that Bill C-45 will regulate the industry. What a joke. Once Bill C-45 comes into force, the government will have to come up with a retail pricing strategy. How is organized crime likely to respond? Are criminals going to step back and do nothing? I have a feeling criminals already have a plan to deal with this new reality. When the government raises tobacco taxes, organized crime adjusts its prices accordingly. The market is constantly adjusting. History has shown that to be the case every time, and marijuana will be no exception. Also, young people are more easily drawn to the black market's low prices because they do not have the same means as adults. They cannot afford to pay higher prices. If he wants, the Prime Minister will be able to buy marijuana at any price, but our young people cannot. They will have to choose between the government's price and the criminals' price. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to legalize marijuana to keep it out of the hands of young people, but Bill C-45 shows us that youth 18 and over will be able to buy cannabis. I have some figures I would like to share, and I hope to make things clear.Bill C-45 says that those 18 and over will be allowed to buy cannabis. However, in Colorado, you have to be at least 21. That should be the minimum. Another problem is that young people will still be allowed to carry marijuana. This means that people will have to be 18 to buy it, but they can have it on them at age 12. That does not make any sense. In addition, minors aged 16 and 17 are often friends with people who are 18. They are less likely to be friends with people aged 21 and older. Thus, an 18 year old, who has reached the age of majority and can legally purchase cannabis, can give it to his or her 16- and 17-year-old friends. I am not the one saying so. All the witnesses, especially those from the medical community, are saying that the minimum age should be at least 21 years.I am thinking of my kids, who are 12 and 14. Under this bill, they will be allowed to possess up to five grams of marijuana. To be sure that everyone understands clearly, that is the equivalent of 10 to 15 joints. If my 14-year-old son is caught with 10 joints in his pocket, that will be completely legal. He would not be able to purchase it, but he would be allowed to have it in his possession. That is one of the gross inconsistencies of Bill C-45.In addition, under this bill, youth aged 12 to 17 will be allowed to distribute it among themselves. I would like to see Bill C-45 prohibit young people from possessing marijuana altogether.(1205)Young people should not have any opportunity to get their hands on drugs. There are also questions about the various cannabis-based products and the as yet undefined licensing strategies. Rental property owners are having problems as well, because the legislation currently allows up to four plants per home, and the height is not regulated at present.Four healthy, well-fertilized plants up to eight feet tall can yield up to 600 grams of home-grown marijuana. Incidentally, most of the witnesses were against the idea of allowing plants to be grown at home. Medical groups, law enforcement, and everyone else said home growing should not be permitted.I am very proud of the Province of Quebec right now. The Quebec government has drafted its own law based on what the federal government had proposed, and it has decided to ban home growing. To the Quebec government, I say well done.Another problem is that police forces are not getting any answers to their questions. They want to know how they are supposed to properly enforce traffic laws starting July 1, 2018. Furthermore, how will those provinces that do allow plants to be grown in houses and apartments monitor what people are doing? How will they check every apartment in Canada to make sure there are only four plants, not five, six, seven, or eight? A lot of questions remain unanswered. This government is quick to ram Bill C-45 down our throats by claiming that it is a national priority. In Canada, there is nothing more important than legalizing marijuana. That is just great.Police officers are also telling us about other problems that will arise with plants in homes: odour, the number of plants, the height of plants and the nuisance that could be created. Once again, there are many unanswered questions about this bill. What will happen with plants at home? Young people will be able to make joints with these plants, and then they are going to take these joints and visit their buddies. The joints will be sold, and then resold, creating a criminal network from plants legally grown at home. Young people will be able to sell pot to their friends. The black market will not shut down. It will be legal at home, but illegal in the streets. It is just a lot of nonsense, and I have not even touched on insurance problems resulting from having plants in homes.There will also be problems at the border. We saw that recently with the serious problem of illegal immigrants at our borders. The RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency are devoting much of their resources to the borders. Now the government wants to legalize marijuana and border services officers are wondering what they are supposed to do.Are the officers supposed to arrest Americans who come to the border with marijuana? Do we tell the American authorities? It is illegal on the other side of the border. If Americans show up here with their pot thinking they can come to Canada to smoke their joints, are we to report them to the American authorities and leave them on the other side of the border? Those types of questions still remain unanswered. If people go on vacation thinking they can bring their own pot with them across the border, they are mistaken. All of these questions are left unanswered.The Liberals want us to vote in favour of this bill. This is amateur hour. If the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, votes in legislation like this, we will truly be a bunch of rank amateurs. Those of superior rank are often referred to as pros, but here, we are dealing with rank amateurs who will never make it to the big leagues.An hon. members: They are called Liberals.Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: As I see it, the Liberals are turning our country into a frat house, a kind of campus club where anything goes. They would have us believe that these are just innocent games, not serious at all.Still, for the sake of my children, I will vote against this bill. Aquatic and marine plantsBlack marketBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCanada-United States relationsCannabisDecriminalizationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsLaw enforcementLegal ageOrganized crimePlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionReport stageYoung people514548751454885145489JoyceMurrayVancouver QuadraLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the duties of the democratic system is that Canadians send representatives to the House of Commons to debate the issues of the day. We have differences of opinions on a number of important issues and they are all worthy of respect. I do not think it is a surprise to point out to my colleague that the New Democrats do not share the Conservatives' view on the criminalization of drugs.Does my hon. colleague think that the continued criminalization of cannabis is a policy that should be pursued, even if it results in young Canadians, marginalized Canadians, poor Canadians getting criminal records for simply possessing small amounts of cannabis for personal use? Is it his position that we should continue that policy so Canadians get criminal records for imbibing that substance? C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5145514PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1210)[Translation]I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, the Conservatives and the NDP see things differently.However, I can say to my colleague that at the Conservative Party convention in Vancouver two years ago, the Conservatives voted in favour of decriminalizing marijuana possession. That way no one would get a criminal record for simple possession. It is now part of our platform. We agreed with that and we are open to the idea. However, there is a big difference between fully legalizing marijuana by creating a marketing system and decriminalizing marijuana by removing the criminal aspect for young people or people who get caught. It is totally different. I think that Canadians have not seen the difference between legalization and decriminalization.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage5145516DonDaviesVancouver KingswayBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague. It is my honour today to speak to Bill C-45, our government's bill to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis consumption in Canada. The future cannabis act represents a new approach to cannabis, one that puts public health and public safety at the forefront and will better protect young Canadians. [English]The current approach to cannabis does not work. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit while also failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth. In many cases, it is easier for our kids to buy cannabis than cigarettes. Canadians continue to use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world. It is the most commonly used illicit drug among young Canadians.In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported using cannabis in the past year. That is one out of five young people in this country. In the Laurentian region, it is almost 50%.[Translation] Too many young people see cannabis as a benign substance. They are often ill-informed about the harm it can do, and they do not realize that early use of cannabis increases susceptibility to long-term effects. Youth are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and function. This is because the THC in cannabis affects the same biological system in the brain that directs brain development.[English]At the same time, too many young people today are entering the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of cannabis, potentially impacting their long-term opportunities. Clearly, there has to be a better way of educating and protecting our young people.Given these facts, I would like to focus my comments today on the benefits of this legislation for youth. This is one of our government's primary objectives for Bill C-45, to protect youth by restricting their access to cannabis.[Translation] I would first like to note that this legislation is just one piece of the overall approach to addressing cannabis use by youth. Our government's commitment to keeping cannabis out of the hands of children comprises several complementary measures to protect their health, keep them safe, and ensure their well-being. [English]Our government is trying to reduce cannabis use by youth, to restrict their ability to obtain the product, to provide them with better information on its harms to health and its risks, and to keep them out of the criminal justice system for possessing even small amounts of cannabis.This approach requires legislative and regulatory measures, and support for public education and awareness. To that end, our government has begun a public education campaign with a focus on youth and their parents to better inform them about cannabis, its harm and risks to health.[Translation] Considering all of these measures combined, I am confident that our government's overall approach will be effective in better protecting our youth from the potential harm of this mind-altering substance.[English]I would like to explain the specific measures in the cannabis bill that would help safeguard our youth. As a society we have learned from the health and safety controls that have been put in place for other potentially harmful substances, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and prescription medication.Bill C-45 uses these best practices as the starting point, and contains a number of measures that are designed to protect youth.[Translation]At the outset, Bill C-45 prohibits the sale of cannabis to anyone under the age of 18 and prohibits adults from giving cannabis to anyone under 18. It also creates an offence and penalty for anyone caught using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. Any adult found guilty of engaging in these activities could face a jail term of up to 14 years.[English]To avoid the kind of enticements to use cannabis that we have seen in the past with cigarettes, Bill C-45 would prohibit any form of cannabis designed to appeal to youth. This means that things like cannabis-infused gummi bears or lollipops would be illegal.To further discourage youth from using cannabis, cannabis producers or retailers would be prohibited from using any kind of packaging or labelling that might be appealing to youth, or to use any kind of endorsement, lifestyle promotion, or cartoon animal to promote their product. The promotion or advertising of cannabis products will not be permitted in any place or in any media that could be accessed by youth, such as grocery stores, movie theatres, or on public transportation, just to name a few examples. To further reduce the chance that youth might be able to access the product illegally, cannabis will not be sold in any kind of vending machine. Bill C-45 also includes authority to make regulations that could require cannabis to be sold in child-resistant packaging, to protect our youngest ones from accidentally consuming this product.Taken together, these measures constitute a comprehensive approach to protecting the health and safety of our youth.(1220)[Translation]In addition to protecting public health and safety, one of our government's goals is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for relatively minor offences. Having a criminal record for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis can have significant consequences. Having a record can seriously impact opportunities for employment, housing, volunteerism, and travel. The question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to continue to saddle Canadians with these burdens for the possession of small amounts of cannabis? Our government's response is an emphatic no.[English]The proposed legislation sets out a 30-gram possession limit for dried cannabis in public for adults aged 18 and over. As I stated earlier, it would also establish offences and strict penalties for adults who give or try to sell cannabis to a youth, or who use a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.Under Bill C-45, youth would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis. Any activities by youth involving more than small amounts of cannabis, defined as over five grams, would be addressed under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.[Translation]Our government will be working with the provinces and territories to support the development of legislation in each jurisdiction that would allow law enforcement to confiscate any amount of cannabis found in the possession of a young person. This would allow authorities to take away any amount of cannabis they may have in their possession.[English]Let me be clear, the proposed approach addressing youth possession of cannabis does not mean that such behaviour is encouraged or acceptable. It is not. Rather, it recognizes that a more balanced approach that uses a range of tools, and does not rely on the criminal justice system, would provide a better way to reduce cannabis consumption among youth.This approach is consistent with the findings of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. The task force's final report noted that cannabis use among youth could be better addressed through non-criminal approaches that discourage youth from possessing or consuming cannabis. I believe this strikes the right balance between avoiding the criminalization of youth for the possession of small amounts and ensuring that cannabis remains tightly regulated and controlled.In conclusion, our government has put the health, safety, and well-being of youth at the core of this proposed legislation.[Translation]I am convinced that, through this balanced approach, our government will be able to help Canadians access recreational marijuana in a way that is safe and regulated and that will take this substance out of the hands of our children.AdvertisingC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationFood and drinkGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInformation disseminationLegal agePackaging and labellingPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSeizure of assetsStatisticsYoung people51455315145544514554551455465145547514554851455495145550PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMarkWarawaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25467MarkWarawaMark-WarawaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WarawaMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. The first point I want to bring to her attention is that she said her government does not want youth to have a criminal record if they have possession. I think we will find unanimous support for that position, but the question is how do we get there?The Conservative Party believes marijuana possession should be decriminalized so it can be taken out of the hands of children without making them have a criminal record. Right now, it can be confiscated if found in the hands of children. Decriminalizing it would continue that, where it could be removed out of the hands of children.We are having difficulty with this so-called balanced approach. Approximately 20% of children now have it in their possession, and maybe even more actually use it, but right now it can be confiscated. The member's solution is that 100% of children aged 12 to 18 could have up to 15 marijuana cigarettes in their possession and it could not be confiscated. By moving from 20% to 100% being able to have possession does not seem logical.Could the member try to explain how what is illogical is now supposed to be balanced?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSeizure of assetsYoung people5145553514555451455555145556LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I am going to repeat some of the points that I made earlier. In the past year, 21% of Canadian youth under the age of 18 had access to marijuana. In the Laurentian region, which is north of Montreal and home to my riding, that number was 50%. Right now, cannabis is illegal. Children should not have access to it.Under the legalization framework, we are proposing that cannabis be made inaccessible to children under the age of 18 and that any adult aged 18 and over who gives or sells this drug to children under the age of 18 would face a penalty of up to 14 years in prison.The existing approach is not working. Young people under 18 already have access to cannabis. That is what we have to stop.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisGovernment billsLegal agePossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51455585145559MarkWarawaLangley—AldergrovePierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.I do indeed come from the retail sector. Retail stores are forbidden from selling cigarettes to children under the age of 18. Selling cigarettes through legal channels means it is harder for youth to buy cigarettes than any other drug. That is a fact. That is why it is important to make sure cannabis is sold through legal channels and is unavailable to children under the age of 18.You mentioned the speed at which we are moving. We held a consultation in my riding in September, and Dr. Goyer, director of public health in the Laurentian region, was there. He said it is important to regulate and legalize cannabis as soon as possible because youth already have access to it.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisGovernment billsLegal agePossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51455665145567PierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I last rose in this House to speak to Bill C-45 back in May. I began my remarks then by speaking favourably of the government for taking an important first step in the move toward rectifying the failed crime-and-punishment approach that we have held in this country since the 1920s. It is quite obvious from all of the literature and evidence in the history of our country and indeed around the world that the war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. The billions of dollars that have been spent and the countless lives that have been lost in that approach speak volumes about this failed approach. I believe that our resources as a country can be spent on a different approach, especially when the results have absolutely nothing to do with the objectives that were set out. We have a country where our youth are among the highest users of cannabis, despite decades of an approach where the use of cannabis and the trading of cannabis were criminalized. Since that time in May, much has transpired with this bill through the committee stage in the Standing Committee on Health, and there was an enormous amount of witness testimony packed into a very short amount of time. We were optimistic that there were opportunities that could have been used to improve the bill that the government had introduced, but sadly that did not happen.While the government introduced this legislation in a clumsy attempt to keep an election promise, it is now shutting down debate at report stage and limiting our debate at third reading on this very important and revolutionary change to Canada's drug laws. The Liberals are in a sense disenfranchising us as parliamentarians from doing our due diligence on this bill, from speaking for our constituents in this the people's House, and all for the reason of meeting some arbitrary deadline of July of next year. The government members know the government has a four-year mandate. The Liberals are going to be in power until October 2019, and yet they have set the date of July 2018 to get the bill passed into law. It just feels like a very slapdash approach to the whole thing, where we are not taking the time to get it right, because there is obvious room for improvement. While we do support the bill in principle and we have a lot of witness testimony to go on, it is clear that much could have been done to improve the legislation. I would like to continue by focusing my remarks on a few key areas where I see the serious shortcomings in the bill at this stage.I have to recognize the outstanding work of my colleague the member for Vancouver Kingsway, on the Standing Committee for Health. As our health critic, he did yeoman's work on that committee and was responsible on behalf of the NDP for bringing forward 38 amendments to the bill, which would have gone a long way toward improving it. Unfortunately, every single one of those proposed amendments was rejected by the Liberal majority on the committee. Amendments that were brought forward included a proposal to remove the 30-gram possession limit for adults. In his speech, the member for Vancouver Kingsway noted that any adults in the room could go to a liquor store and purchase enough alcohol to kill themselves. That is a legal thing, yet we are proposing an arbitrary 30-gram limit on cannabis, and if people step outside of that limit they would meet with the criminal justice system.The member proposed decriminalizing the penalty section to bring it more in line with the Tobacco Act. Regarding the removal of the 100-centimetre plant height restriction, the member proposed that first but the Liberals decided they were going to vote against it so their own amendment to get rid of the 100-centimetre plant height restriction would pass and they could get all the credit for it. The member was also looking to allow the provinces to have the capacity to create their own licensing framework so that small producers and craft growers could exist within the government's legalization scheme. I certainly hope that, when the government members draft the regulations under the bill, they pay attention to the existing reality, especially in my home province of British Columbia. We have a number of dispensaries that are opening everywhere. This is just the reality on the ground. If the bill and the government fail to take notice of that reality, not much would be done to counter it. (1230)It is very much a legal grey area that exists on Vancouver Island and, indeed, most of British Columbia. I certainly hope that there is room made so that this industry is not solely dominated by big weed producers that have an undue amount of influence on the government through their lobbying activities.The other thing my colleague moved is to allow for the legalization of the sale of edibles. Government members have been very fond of quoting the Hon. Anne McLellan as the head of the task force. I would like to read into the record some of her testimony at the Standing Committee on Health. She stated:Obviously, if you're concerned about public health....If you want to move from the illicit market into a regulated legal market, then you have to offer the quality and choice that the illicit market can provide. It's fair to say that we heard that over and over again from a wide variety of people we talked to. There are public health reasons and public safety reasons why you would want to authorize or allow edibles in various forms. That was said by none other than the chair of the task force.The government claims that this bill is going to legalize cannabis, but I contend that this bill would merely make cannabis less illegal. In fact, more prohibitions would exist when this bill comes into law than currently exist under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is a bit of a misnomer to say that we are legalizing cannabis, because it is going to be very tightly regulated, and if someone were to step outside of the boundaries or the confines of this law, the punishments are quite severe. For example, a Canadian in possession of 31 grams would be a criminal, a person in possession of five cannabis plants would be a criminal, and an 18-year-old kid sharing a joint with a 17-year-old best friend would be a criminal.The penalties associated with some of these offences under this “legalized regime” are extremely harsh, and I look no further than the 14 years that are provided for under clause 9 of the bill. I will read into the record the testimony at the Standing Committee on Health from John Conroy, the lead counsel in Allard v. Canada. He stated: ...having this maximum of 14 years, hybridized by indictment, and so on, is frankly totally unrealistic in terms of what goes on on the ground. Even in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which is not known to be the most liberal court in the country, the range for trafficking, for example, is 12 to 18 months. Most sentences are up to two years. For tobacco and alcohol, all your maximums are two and three years. Therefore, this 14-year provision is completely unrealistic and flies in the face of the government's stated aim to reduce the burden on our criminal justice system, especially when we would be operating under the constraints imposed by the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Criminal Code is going to be designed to regulate gardening. There was some very colourful testimony from defence lawyer Michael Spratt in that regard. When this bill comes into force, the criminal regime would still be quite onerous on our criminal justice system. The government likes to say it operates in the spirit of being open, accountable, and transparent, but now we are operating under time allocation. I do not believe many members have had the chance to voice their concerns, all the while marching toward this arbitrary deadline of July 2018. We are doing a disservice to Canadians and our constituents who sent us to this House to make sure that the bill we pass is the very best possible.We know the legalization regime is coming, but we owe it to Canadians to make sure it is done in the best way possible and recognize the government's stated objectives in this very bill. Clause 7 states that it would “deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures” and “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis”. Those are two stated objectives in clause 7, and there are very valid questions as to whether this bill would actually accomplish that. I do not believe we are able to fully explore those with a rushed committee process and a rushed process in this House. This is a revolutionary step to Canada's drug laws, so that is a disservice.I will end by offering my qualified support for this bill, recognizing that a much better job could have been done, and when New Democrats form government in 2019, we will be looking to improve it.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal convictionCrop productionDecriminalizationFood and drinkGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersLaw enforcementLobbying and lobbyistsPlantsPolitical behaviourPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionReport stageSales licence5145572LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I mentioned in my speech that we have very high use among our youth right now. If the law, as it is currently written, is not doing the job, and is indeed a failed approach, after having spent all this money and using considerable police and justice resources to not even meet the objectives set out in our current drug laws, obviously it is time for a change.I come from a region of Canada where the approach to marijuana is quite liberal. People already regard it as a semi-legal substance. That is the reality on the ground. Therefore, it is time for our drug laws to change to acknowledge that fact.With respect to children, a lot of the debate on this bill has been slightly misguided, particularly with respect to the sections that deal with youth aged 12 to 18. The way I read the bill, it is very much designed to take kids out of the criminal justice system by specifying an amount they could be in possession of without burdening our criminal justice system. I truly believe that the social harm imposed by a criminal sentence does far more harm to a person's future than any possible use of the drug could itself.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5145590KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-45, the pot legalization bill, or as I call it Phoenix 2.0. Why do I call it that? It is because it is an example of government rushing through a bill to meet some nonsensical, arbitrary deadline, despite warnings from everyone involved that we are not ready. In this case, instead of hurting those solely in the public sector, we are going to be hurting Canadians across all demographics, and especially the young. With Phoenix, we had the opposition, the public sector unions, and department chief financial officers saying not to rush forward. With pot legalization, we have police chiefs from across the country, the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP, and members of the U.S. enforcement agencies saying not to rush forward. Sadly, as with Phoenix, the government seems intent on barrelling ahead, regardless of the warnings. The Liberals are desperate to show they can keep a promise after all. “Look at me” the PM will say on July 1, hiking up his pants to show off his socks with marijuana leaves. He is going to spark up the first ceremonial doob on Parliament Hill, and run around taking selfies with those lighting up. No doubt, the clever Liberal marketing machine will say the PM just happened to be running by, shirtless no doubt, and a crowd toking up. Of course, his official photographer will just happen to be there taking some pictures. No doubt they will come up with some clever tag about the PM and hashtag it that he was “photobonging” some group. However, there are real consequences to rushing forward when law enforcement is not ready. Let us look at the Liberal policy on pot from its web page, broken down by statement. The first statement is that current laws do not “prevent young people from using marijuana.” The Liberal solution to legalize the substance that is being consumed defies logic, to argue normalizing pot use and making it available everywhere will somehow prevent young people from using it. Consider some real-world examples. Colorado went from 13th place to first place overall for pot consumption among its youth, after legalization. Washington State's pot use among students, post-legalization, is 42% higher than the rest of the country. Studies from the U.S. show that the young people have a perception, post-legalization, that pot is harmless and does not cause mental issues. Allowing every citizen to legally grow pot, up to four plants worth at that, means by definition there will be more pot. The government has so far neglected to adequately explain how it plans to keep the extra pot off the streets and out of our schools. Next it states, “Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses.” Let us be frank, things have changed since many of us in the House were younger. Police are no longer focusing on arresting kids for having a joint or two, because they are far too busy working on other important issues. The police chief of Edmonton stated it clearly. He said that police may use the presence of pot as a cause to search a car or search someone, where they may find guns, opioids, or stolen goods. However, to argue for legalization because too many Canadians are trapped in the criminal system simply does not jive with what the experts are saying.Next, the Liberals say, “...the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs”. Here is a clue for the government. The Hells Angels are already involved in the legal part of marijuana. I quote from the RCMP report to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. “There is no shortage of organized criminal groups who have applied to produce medical marijuana under Health Canada's new MMPR, including...Hells Angels”. Legalization is not keeping out organized crime. Organized crime is already taking advantage of the legal regime.The Liberal plan goes on to state, “To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.” In summary, they will keep pot out of the hands of children by legalizing the substance we want to get rid of, legalizing possession for children as young as 12, and making production legal, thus ensuring the supply will skyrocket. At the same time, they say we will keep the profits out of the hands of criminals, even though they have not said how, and they are ignoring the fact that the criminals are already involved in the legal system. The government seems to expect the Hells Angels will just turn over and say, “Well, we had a great run, guys. I guess I'll use my Harley to be an UberEATS driver now”. Maybe the government could offer the Hells Angels some of those reintegration services they are offering returning ISIS fighters. Honestly, if people have been buying pot from someone for the past five years, getting a great price, and having it delivered to their door, are they now going to trudge down to the local government-run store, 9 to 5 only, Monday to Friday, of course, and on camera, to buy weed at a higher price? I do not think so. Mind you, Kathleen Wynne would offer them Air Miles points, so there is something.(1330)Continuing on with the Liberal plan, it states we will, “create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who...operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the...framework.”Here is a great one. We have no standards on measuring impairment. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently met and narrowed down the roadside testing devices to two. We have not yet decided on the best one, much less have them in the hands of the police. More importantly, the failure rate on the device is as high as 13%. Let us think about that. Every single person charged will have a lawyer begging to take on his or her trial. What judge is going to say, “Hey, a 13% failure rate, that's pretty good. You're guilty”? None.If the courts are jammed now, what happens once every one of these offences is taken to court? The government is letting accused rapists and murderers walk free under Jordan's principle because of its absolute ineptness and inability to appoint judges, and we are about to add thousands of new cases. We could do blood testing, but that would require the officer to take someone to an emergency room. Our emergency room wait times are legendary as it is. Do we think any nurse or doctor is going to keep someone with a broken arm or a child with a runaway fever waiting just to draw blood for a cop for a weed DUI? The costs of these roadside devices are $45 to $90 per use. The training for every one of these operators is about $20,000. How many locations are there to train these officers? There are two in all of North America, in the United States. Edmonton currently has only 24 officers trained out of a force of 1,800. Calgary has fewer, about 10. Maybe the Liberals are hoping that, contrary to decades of experience with drinking and driving, people just will not drive when high. Let us again look at the statistics in the U.S. In Washington state, after legalization, DUIs with pot increased from 18% to 39%. In Spokane, youth pot DUIs grew 1700% versus pre-legalization. The Liberal plan goes on. Next is those who sell cannabis outside of the regulatory framework. Our police forces are already stretched to the limits. We are not enforcing casual possession right now to focus on hard criminals, yet somehow, by waving a magic wand, we will have people available to go after those who are selling illegal drugs.We have told the public that they can set up a legal grow op in every house and apartment in town. In Alberta, people are allowed to buy 30 grams of pot per store visit, not per day. That is 75 joints just from one store. How are we going to monitor every single person who can legally buy 75 joints at a time to make sure that they are only those of age, those who are not driving, and those who are not part of a criminal gang? Finally, the Liberals have said that they will create a task force with input from experts. The experts in public health say that smoking pot before the age of 25 is damaging to brain development. Law enforcement is similarly clear. The chiefs of police are near unanimous. They have said they are not ready, that we should decriminalize not legalize, and that we should slow down. The government simply dumped sales and distribution onto cash-strapped provinces and municipalities, so we will have a patchwork framework across the country. The Liberals have not listened to the task force. I realize we are on the road to legalization. However, I implore the government to slow down until our police and communities are ready. It should not put public safety at risk just to meet an arbitrary political deadline. I met with Edmonton's chief of police last Friday, and he had a poignant warning. He said that in 20 years we would look back at this as the worst piece of legislation ever tabled in Canada. Let us slow it down and do what is right for our youth and our country, not what is right for the Liberal mandate tracker.BacklogsBlack marketC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal gangs and gangstersDrug screening deviceEvidence gatheringGovernment billsImpaired drivingJustice systemLaw enforcementLegalizationPlantsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSamples of bodily fluidsWork-based trainingYoung people51456975145698DavidLamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (1350)[English]It is funny, Mr. Speaker. I hear a lot of Liberals talking about the opioid crisis and the cannabis legislation when in fact the opioid crisis is a legitimate public health emergency and yet, for some reason, they do not consider it enough of an emergency to declare it a public health emergency.Cannabis is a bit different. While I believe it is imperative to legalize it, there is certainly no emergency to do so. It is not the NDP or the Conservatives who are asking the government to slow the process down; it is the provinces, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Police forces, indigenous communities, and municipalities are also asking the government to slow the process down. We are not talking about defeating the legislation like the Conservatives are doing. New Democrats believe that cannabis should be legalized and we want to work with the government to do so.My question has to do with pardons, which this legislation does not deal with. Could my hon. colleague tell me if the Liberal government has any plan whatsoever to issue pardons to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who carry criminal records for possession, an offence that this legislation would no longer make a crime after July 1, 2018?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsGovernment billsOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSafety5145758LeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89147RandyBoissonnaultRandy-BoissonnaultEdmonton CentreLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoissonnaultRandy_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Lib.): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts. In my remarks today I would like to focus on why a new approach to cannabis is needed in this country and why we need to act now. The evidence is clear. The current approach is simply not working. All that it has managed to achieve is to unduly criminalize Canadians for possessing small amounts of cannabis and to encourage them to engage with criminals in order to consume products of unknown origin, potency, quality, and safety. It has also allowed criminals and organized crime to profit.[Translation]What the current model does not do is protect Canadians, especially young people, against the risks and dangers of using cannabis.Although cannabis has been illegal for decades, the usage rate among young Canadians is one of the highest in the world.[English]We cannot allow this to continue. A new approach is required as soon as possible to better protect our youth and to make sure that adults have access to products that are quality controlled and have known origins, and so that they no longer run the risk of having a criminal record for possessing or sharing small amounts.During the hearings at the Standing Committee on Health, Mr. Ian Culbert, the executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, said: Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of time, as Canadians are already consuming cannabis at record levels. The individual and societal harms associated with cannabis use are already being felt every day. The proposed legislation and eventual regulation is our best attempt to minimize those harms and protect the well-being of all Canadians.Any further delay in implementation would simply perpetuate a system that is already failing to protect the health and safety of Canadians. This is exactly why our government is committed to bringing the proposed legislation into force no later than July 2018. Upon the coming into force of Bill C-45, Canadians who are 18 years of age or older would be able to possess, grow, and purchase limited amounts of cannabis for personal use. This would mean that the possession of small amounts of cannabis would no longer be a criminal offence, and it would prevent profits from going into the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs. The bill would, for the first time, also make it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and would create significant penalties for those who engage young Canadians in cannabis-related offences.[Translation]Canada is more than ready for a new approach that will better protect the health and safety of Canadians. As my colleagues are well aware, Canada has already gained valuable experience that will help us create a sound framework for cannabis legalization and regulation. We already have a system in place that provides access to medical marijuana, and that system is recognized as one of the best in the world.[English]Let me share some more of the features of that system we are building upon. Under the existing health regime that has been in place since 2014, Health Canada is responsible for licensing and overseeing cannabis producers. These producers are required to operate within strict regulations to provide quality-controlled cannabis to registered patients. This rigorous licensing process ensures, for example, that entrants to this market have gone through a thorough security check and that producers have appropriate physical security infrastructure in place.Canada also has a world-class compliance and enforcement regime intended to ensure that licensed producers fully comply with the rules in place.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCrop productionGovernment billsLegal ageLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSales licenceYoung people5145768AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89147RandyBoissonnaultRandy-BoissonnaultEdmonton CentreLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoissonnaultRandy_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue my remarks on Bill C-45. As I shift into my discussion and the details of the legislation, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the former deputy prime minister of Canada and former member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, the hon. Anne McLellan. Her work, and the work of her task force, has laid a foundation for a new legislative regime that will make Canada a leader in the safe regulation of recreational cannabis. Let me share some of the details found in the legislation. Under the existing regime, which has been in place since 2014, Health Canada is responsible for licensing and overseeing cannabis producers. These producers are required to operate within the regulations to provide quality-controlled cannabis to registered patients. This rigorous licensing process ensures, for example, that entrants to this market have gone through a thorough security check and that producers have appropriate physical security infrastructure in place. Canada also has a world-class compliance and enforcement regime intended to ensure that licensed producers fully comply with the rules in place. Over the course of the last year, a licensed producer in Canada was inspected an average of seven to eight times, for a total of approximately 274 inspections. In May, 2017, Health Canada announced it will require all licensed producers to conduct mandatory testing for the presence of unauthorized pesticides in all cannabis products destined for sale. This adds to the system of controls in place that oversee the quality of federally regulated cannabis products. This experience will have a direct impact on the health of Canadians who may choose to use this product.Believe it or not, a large number of Canadians who get cannabis on the black market cannot rely on quality control regulations. This bill is about safety. It is working when it comes to medical cannabis, and it is going to work under this framework. The commercial industry now has more than four years of experience and serves over 200,000 active patient registrations. This licensed production under the medical regime provides a solid basis to support cannabis production under the bill. With the world-renown regime for producing cannabis for medical purposes, the government is on solid ground to successfully move to a new approach to cannabis that would better protect Canadians. Our government has been working and will continue to work very closely with provinces, territories, municipalities, and indigenous communities to support the implementation of this new framework. In fact, I had a meeting with councillors from my own city of Edmonton, who met with the parliamentary secretary for the minister of justice on this file. It was a very frank and open conversation about the work the Government of Canada will be doing with the province and with the City of Edmonton. This collaboration will be critical to ensuring that all the pieces are in place to support the success of the new approach. We are pleased to note the progress being achieved by our provincial and territorial partners in developing their respective approaches. Canada is a federal system. Provinces and territories will and must have a key role to play in the success of the new system. They would be responsible for the oversight and regulation of the distribution and retail sale of cannabis, in close collaboration with municipalities. [Translation]In cases where provinces or territories do not have a fully functional retail sales system in place once the bill takes effect, adults will be able to buy cannabis directly from the authorized federal producer by ordering it online for secure home delivery by mail or courier. [English]Industry representatives have indicated they are getting ready to support the timely implementation of the new regime and to ensure that high standards are met in the production of regulated product. A representative for the Cannabis Canada Association, Colette Rivet, pointed out: Licensed producers are eager to work in collaboration and compliance with the federal and provincial governments to quickly establish effective, low-risk distribution and retail models that are well regulated, highly secure, and tailored to the needs of each province. Upon the coming into force of the bill, adult Canadians would have access to a range of quality controlled products, including dried cannabis, fresh cannabis, and cannabis oil, which could be consumed in a number of different ways. In jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis, these products constitute the largest part of cannabis products sold on the market. Our government also recognizes the need to permit the legal sale of cannabis edible products and cannabis concentrates as part of the federal framework as soon as possible. While it would be irresponsible to further delay the implementation of the framework to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis, it would be equally irresponsible to move in a rush when it comes to regulating edible cannabis products and concentrates. Experience in other jurisdictions, such as Colorado, as well as expert testimonies heard during the hearings of the committee, have underlined the unique health and safety challenges and risks associated with these products. Under this proposed timeline, the government would not have to rush to put these novel cannabis products on the market at the expense of public health and safety.(1515)As I mentioned earlier, the existing system is a failure. It is a failure at keeping cannabis away from Canadian youth. It is a failure to Canadians who have faced criminal sanctions for something as simple as possessing a joint. It is a failure to health professionals who are prevented from having honest conversations with patients who hide their cannabis use because of its criminalization. It is a failure to Canadians who face the risk of purchasing cannabis on the black market.The time has come for Canada to adopt a new approach. The time has come to bring cannabis use out of the black market and into a safe and regulated market that will protect Canadians and keep cannabis out of the hands of youth. I am proud of the work of the Standing Committee on Health in this matter, proud of the work of the department, and proud to stand as a member of this government in seeing that cannabis is safe and legally regulated in Canada.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisControlled drugs and substancesCriminal chargesCrop productionFederal jurisdictionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFood and drinkGovernment billsInspections and inspectorsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsRegulationReport stageSales licence5146044GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I note the member sits on the committee with my colleague, our health critic, and so he is well aware of the fact that our party has tried to get the Liberal government to address the issue of pardons and that a bill has been drafted that would not allow for expedited pardons for the tens of thousands of youth who are going to have a criminal record despite the fact this is going to be legalized.The hon. member said that he had frank discussions with officials in Edmonton and Alberta. I am wondering if he is aware of the letter that went from the president of the treasury board in Alberta to the federal Minister of Finance remonstrating that the provinces are only going to be given 50% of the revenue of the tax on cannabis despite the fact that they have to cover enforcement, road safety, justice, health and education, as do the municipalities? Is he going to support Alberta's needs, or is he going to stand with his own government?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSales taxesYoung people5146051RandyBoissonnaultEdmonton CentreRandyBoissonnaultEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in this House today to speak in opposition to Bill C-45, the Liberal government's bill to legalize marijuana. I say I am pleased to speak to it because this is perhaps one of the most controversial bills that the current government has brought forward; very seldom have we seen new drugs being legalized in this country. I am pleased to speak to it because my constituents have spoken to me about it, but also because there are very few members in this House who will have an opportunity any longer to speak to this, because earlier today the government moved time allocation. The Liberals moved closure so they could rush this legislation through. Many different groups are telling them to slow down, and they went in the opposite direction and decided to rush it. That is what the government is trying to do. It is trying to bring forward full legalization of marijuana. With full legalization, the Liberals know the fears. They know the concerns around rushing. They know the adverse effects it would have on children, and they know that others who are most susceptible to the dangers of marijuana would now have greater access to it. This bill is not about decriminalization. The Liberal government is not proceeding slowly on the legalization of marijuana. It is not proceeding carefully on this file. The government has been warned by many groups that it is moving too fast and it should not.We are debating the release of a narcotic on the people of Canada. This past week, we have seen that the provincial government in Quebec unveiled legislation that would severely curtail what the Liberals in Ottawa have planned for the entire country of Canada. On the other hand, we have seen the NDP provincial government in Alberta unveil the most liberalized of all provincial pot legislation that provinces have brought on; the NDP in Alberta has gone even further. Again I will repeat that by far the majority of constituents who have emailed, phoned, and stopped into my office to talk to me from Battle River—Crowfoot are opposed to the full legalization of marijuana.That being said, many of my constituents are not opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana. That is, many of them believe that some young individuals who have been caught with a joint or with one marijuana cigarette should perhaps not be given a criminal record for life. However, that does not mean that we have to put the entire population of our country at risk by giving the go-ahead to our Canadian society, and that is what the Liberal plan is. Everyone knows that marijuana can be a powerful intoxicant. It impairs judgment. It impairs a person who drives a vehicle or operates a tractor or any other type of equipment. We know, according to Perrin Beatty and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that it would have an adverse effect on productivity in the workplace; it would be diminished, not enhanced. Innocent people would be hurt, and some would be killed. This is the record of the states and areas that have legalized marijuana.The Canadian Medical Association says that our youngest Canadians are going to be placed at risk because their mental capacity and their brains are still developing until after the age of 25. After the legislation, moving forward, there would be marijuana available to the youngest children in homes across Canada. Parents, perhaps even grandparents, could buy marijuana and have it at home. Again, it would become more accessible for young children. Members can bet their boots that young Timmy and Jane are going to do everything they can to get hold of “one of those marijuanas” and try it. They will be determined, just as children are. We have seen it with alcohol and with tobacco. They will try it. Kyle Peterson: They are trying it now.Hon. Kevin Sorenson: One member across the aisle is chuckling and saying they are trying it right now. This legislation would even allow them the opportunity to have it legally in their home, and we know many more will try it. Maybe he will laugh at that as well.(1525)They do it now, they will do it then, and they will do it even more; the member is right. They may get hurt if they manage to get greater access to it. I really believe that the Liberals have not thought out the long-term consequences of what they are doing. Many constituents have written me with concerns about these very types of scenarios.The Liberals speaking in this debate continue to say our current marijuana laws are not working. Indeed, that is what the member just hollered across the hallway: “They are trying it now”. My constituents say that, if they are doing it now, Bill C-45 is not an answer to anything. How can police determine what marijuana has been purchased legally and what marijuana has been obtained from criminal organizations, the dealers? They cannot. The Liberals are not helping our police with that question and many more. Our border guards will also face a major dilemma. We have already heard about the lineups at border crossings. We have also heard that patrol dogs at Canada's border crossings can detect marijuana. Many vehicles will be held up in long lines for many hours as our border agents try to find out what the particular vehicle has in it that the dog is reacting to. Sometimes the agents will be satisfied that the vehicle merely had an occupant who had smoked marijuana a day or two before. The agents will find out that the driver of the vehicle may not be intoxicated and there are no drugs or marijuana in the vehicle now, but they may find that out after an hour of searching. It has taken a long time for the border agents to do their job. It will not be the Canadians' fault. They are trying to comply. It will not be the border agents' fault. It will not be the dogs' fault. It will be the Liberals' fault. It will be the Liberals who have to deal with the long lineups, and already we have lineups. The delays will be longer and longer. Trade between Canada and the United States, our largest customer, will be at risk and will slow down. The border will become thicker.Knowing the health risks, are we not trying to discourage Canadians from smoking tobacco? The answer is yes. We see health agencies and government agencies continuously trying to do it, so why now would the Liberals try to allow Canadians to smoke marijuana? We know baked goods are not included in the bill. Goods baked with marijuana, such as cookies, brownies, and candies, all pose a major concern to Canadians, but they will not be allowed. There will be people who decide to bake with marijuana, if they have access to it, and people may consume it without even being aware. The Canadian Medical Association has said that cannabis has a significant impact on mental development. The Canadian Paediatric Society considers that young people using marijuana up to age 25 are jeopardizing their mental health, yet the government rushes through.Bill C-45 proposes to regulate and legalize the production, possession, and distribution of marijuana across Canada. The Liberals want to impose it by July 1, 2018. Canada Day will be the celebratory day for the Liberal Party, as then it would be legal. Stakeholders across this country are saying, “Please do not rush this legislation”. The Liberals will not allow another six months or any extra time. That is their deadline. They have moved closure today. Clauses 8 and 9 of the legislation state that an individual can possess or distribute four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering. Children in the household would have access to marijuana.Bill C-45 states the quantity of marijuana that children may legally possess. Paragraph 8(1)(c) says that children under the age of 18 are prohibited from possessing the equivalent of five grams of marijuana or more. A child under the age of 18 can use or distribute marijuana as long as he or she has less than five grams.I have already heard from families with children who have been using marijuana and now have developed schizophrenia. They are concerned about this. They believe it triggers something that causes the disease.(1530)I see that my time is up. Again, I would caution the government. It is moving too fast and does not know the ramifications. It has not studied where it has taken effect in the States, and there are problems.Adverse effects and reactionsBlack marketBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenCriminal recordsDrug use and abuseFood and drinkGovernment billsLegal ageLegalizationMental healthPlantsPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthReport stageWorkplace health and safetyWorkplacesYoung people51460615146074RandyBoissonnaultEdmonton CentreChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1550)[English]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was indeed a bit distracting.First, we are concerned, as I think everyone here is, about the use of marijuana by children and young people, and recognize there must be no advertising of these products to them. We are happy to see that Bill C-45 recognizes these concerns as well.Second, there must be a taxation strategy that produces a long-term revenue stream for programs that promote public health, education, and research. One of the big problems with the criminalization of marijuana is that it has made research into its effects, particularly its long-term effects, very difficult. Hopefully, legalization in this country will stimulate serious research on this critical issue and, hopefully, there will be sufficient funds provided by the government to ensure that this research can take place.Third, there must be legislation in effect to deal with drivers impaired by marijuana. This is covered under Bill C-46, which has already passed the House. I stated my concerns about this issue during debate on that bill earlier. Suffice it to say that I was disappointed with the government's faith in roadside saliva testing, which will not relate to impairment at all and will undoubtedly result in charges being laid against people who are not impaired. I hear that there are already groups lining up to challenge that bill in court.However, our main concern with the marijuana legalization route the government has taken is that it has not considered immediate interim decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana, or at least allowing discretion on the part of prosecutors and police not to enforce an unjust law. Here we have a government that was elected on a clear promise to legalize marijuana, and yet two years later courts across the country are still giving people criminal records for simple possession. On the one hand, the government is saying that using marijuana is okay, and on the other hand, it is ruining people's lives, often those of young people, visible minorities, and racialized Canadians, by giving them criminal records for using marijuana. It does not make sense. It is really a cruel injustice.Also, it is clogging our courtrooms for no good reason. We are seeing more and more real criminals go free because they cannot get a trial in a reasonable time frame. We should be looking for ways to clear up the courtroom logjam, and stopping the prosecution of simple possession charges would be an obvious place to start. We should also be pardoning Canadians who have a criminal record based only on past convictions for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. These people have a very hard time finding work because of their criminal records and cannot cross borders, yet we are now saying that what they did was not criminal at all and, in fact, will now be completely legal. Let us pardon them so they can get on with their lives.I want to change gears a bit and talk about some of the lessons we might have learned from alcohol prohibition. Marijuana became illegal in Canada back in 1923 at about the same time alcohol was illegal. Alcohol prohibition was rather short-lived and alcohol consumption was made legal again in most provinces by 1930. However, early regulations made consumption of alcohol not much fun. When I was growing up in British Columbia, there were separate entrances for men and women in beer parlours, people had to be sitting when they drank, could not listen to music, and certainly could not dance. Things have changed, and I think most people would agree that the earlier restrictions seem rather silly now, and certainly were not effective in curbing public intoxication.Beer was once produced only by large, monolithic brewing companies, but now we have hundreds of small craft breweries springing up across the country. They not only produce good beer, but provide good jobs and diversify the economy of many small towns. In my riding, we also make the best wine in Canada. There are hundreds of small wineries in B.C. and Ontario, and a growing number in other provinces. The wine industry is a huge part of the economy in my riding, not only through the sales of wine but also by boosting the tourism industry that is so important in the Okanagan Valley. What most people like about small estate wineries and small craft breweries is that they are small. They produce diverse products. People can go to meet the people who make the wine and beer. A lot of it is made from organic products, and many advertise the small ecological footprint of their operations.A lot of my constituents say they feel that Bill C-45 will be like prohibition 2.0. This is not what they voted for when they voted for marijuana legalization. They do not want to buy marijuana from huge companies that produce huge quantities of product in indoor facilities that use a lot of power and pesticides to keep production levels up.(1555)I recently met with a group of farmers and business people in my riding who want to grow marijuana on a smaller scale. They would like to grow outside, using sunlight instead of indoor grow lamps and heaters. They want to grow outside so they go organic. They will not have to use the chemicals needed to keep indoor plants free from fungus. They would like to grow co-operatively, each farming maybe a hectare of highly secure land and processing the crop at a central location for distribution. It sounds great. It sounds like the 21st century. It is allowed just across the border in neighbouring Washington state, but all of this would be illegal under Bill C-45.In committee, the NDP moved 38 amendments to improve the bill and one amendment would have given the provinces the option to create their own licensing frameworks, such as those to allow for craft growers and small producers. The government side voted every one of these amendments down.I agree that we need to legalize marijuana. We need to get the industry out in the open, away from gangs and organized crime. We need to tax it so we can fund the education, research, and health programs necessary to deal with drug use and addiction that are already so prevalent in our country. However, restricting the production of marijuana so tightly by making producers grow indoors and banning co-operative ventures, we will be incentivizing an ongoing black market that will defeat the original purpose of the bill. Therefore, let us learn from alcohol prohibition. Let us not go back to 1930 for legalizing marijuana. Let us regulate it in a modern and intelligent way so Canadians who wish to use cannabis can do so in a practical, safe, and healthy manner.AdvertisingAlcoholic beveragesC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCooperatives and mutualsCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImpaired drivingMarijuana grow operationOrganic farming and horticulturePossession of a controlled substanceReport stageResearch and researchersSales taxesSamples of bodily fluidsYoung people51461375146138AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89527WilliamAmosWilliam-AmosPontiacLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AmosWilliam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. William Amos (Pontiac, Lib.): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-45, because so many Canadians are talking about it right now. If one goes to a school in the Pontiac, and I have visited several, or to a municipal council to talk about what the federal government is doing that is new, much of the same thing is heard, which is that Canadians are interested and concerned. More than anything, they are open-minded about finding the right path on this issue of marijuana and cannabis legalization. Why? Simply put, it is because they know that what has been done in the past has not worked. At the end of the day, Canadians expect the government to not simply stick its head in the sand but to react to evidence and the problems of everyday communities, where we see rates of the consumption of cannabis by our youth that really concerns them. It is very important that we are taking this opportunity today to debate this bill and to consider what our communities are saying. I would like to report a bit on what I have heard and speak about why I am hearing support from my constituents in the Pontiac for this bill. Number one, there is an appreciation that a public health approach is being brought on this matter. At the end of the day, slapping criminal sanctions on individual Canadians for engaging in the consumption of cannabis is an approach that has not worked. It has landed a lot of people in jail, and in particular, it has landed a lot of indigenous Canadians in jail. That is a major concern for constituents in the riding of Pontiac.It has allowed criminals, organized crime, to take advantage of a market and sell products in an uncontrolled fashion to the most vulnerable in our community. That is simply not acceptable. We need to do better. I was playing ping pong the other day in a high school in Fort-Coulonge, and I was thinking about how great it was that we were able to play a sport in a school and have fun. I knew that just down hall, at some other point in the day, there would be an opportunity for a kid to buy marijuana. Why? It is because the market is uncontrolled. The market is unregulated, and it is being run by criminals. We can no longer hide, and we can no longer fail Canadians on this important issue.Our youth deserve protection. It should not be easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack of beer. It should not be that way. I am proud of our government for acting and for all the consultation it has done. It has consulted with law enforcement, with health experts, and with safety experts, road safety experts in particular. There was a Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, and pursuant to its advice, this legislation was developed. This was not done in a hurry. It was done after careful consideration.I am so pleased that caucus members, in particular the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health at the time, came to visit the Pontiac to discuss the concerns of our community. If we are going to get to a place where we legalize but strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis, we need to do so in a manner that has the full confidence of Canadians. I appreciate that it is the opposition's job to oppose and to raise issues it is hearing from constituents as well, and that is a good thing. However, this issue of cannabis legalization and strict regulation and control has to be done with a view to the public interest.(1735)I do believe there is a strong consensus emerging in Canada that we can get there by learning from the mistakes and successes internationally, and that we can create a new framework that will ultimately protect our kids, clean up our streets, and get us to a healthier country because, at the end of the day, that is what we all want. We want safer communities, healthier Canadians, and protected kids. It is comforting to many of my Pontiac constituents.I will admit quite frankly that many seniors in my riding have expressed concerns about whether this will just open the floodgates. The response is no, not at all. In fact, this bill, complete with the investments our government is making, which I will speak to in a moment, is the single best way to tighten the societal measures that will restrict access. When I tell constituents that this bill would make it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and establish significant penalties for those who engage young Canadians in cannabis-related activities, whether consumption or distribution, etc., they understand that this is not a free-for-all. It is absolutely not about that. It is about protecting our communities in a smarter and better way.[Translation]I would like to take a moment to talk about investments in public education and law enforcement. This is not just a law that our government is presenting; it is a whole investment program that will ensure that these protections and regulations are put in place. For example, our government promised to invest $46 million over five years in public education, awareness, and surveillance. These additional resources would allow the government to undertake a robust public awareness campaign so that Canadians, especially our children, are well informed about the dangers of driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs.The people in our ridings are well aware that, for a long time, young people across Canada have been making the poor decision to smoke, rather than drink, before getting behind the wheel because they think that it is somehow more acceptable or that they will not be caught. We all know that this is not true, but we need an awareness campaign, and our law enforcement officers need to be given the resources they need. We are making sure that happens. We have committed up to $161 million to train front-line officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving, build law enforcement capacity across the country, provide access to drug-screening devices, develop policy, bolster research, and raise public awareness of the dangers of drug-impaired driving. (1740)[English]This is a serious set of legislative measures and investments. What we are really doing is investing in the future of a smarter Canada, which does not stick its head in the sand, does not say there is no health issue, and does not ignore the fact that youth consumption of cannabis products is at unacceptable rates, but does accept that we can do better if we look at the evidence, go into it with our eyes open, and tell ourselves yes, we can do better.Aboriginal peoplesC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationDrug screening deviceGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImpaired drivingInformation disseminationLaw enforcementOrganized crimePolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationReport stageSafetyWork-based trainingYoung people5146398KateYoungLondon WestMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1740)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.However, I would like to remind him that, in their 2015 platform, the Liberals stated that arresting and prosecuting these offences is expensive for our criminal justice system, which was clogged with far too many minor, non-violent offences. We agreed and they were quite right.However, the Liberals refused to listen to the NDP's solution, which was to decriminalize marijuana as soon as they were elected. Consequently, people continue to be arrested and charged. People have criminal records. This is going to cause problems for these people when they apply for jobs, look for housing, work abroad, and travel.What are the Liberals going to do about pardons for people who have a criminal record because the Liberals did not do the right thing?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage514641651464175146418WilliamAmosPontiacWilliamAmosPontiac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, the government is continually saying that this legislation would keep cannabis out of the hands of our children, but that is not true. The provinces disagree. The New Brunswick health minister just came out with some added provisions to try to protect children from homegrown cannabis. I see that Saskatchewan advocates are looking for more things. Subclause 8(c) of the bill would allow children aged 12 to 17 to have up to five grams.Could the member share what they think in Quebec about those provisions?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenDecriminalizationGovernment billsPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage511761051176115117612LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, everyone agrees that it makes no sense for children between the ages of 12 to 17 to be in possession of marijuana.Unfortunately, that is probably what is going to happen, particularly since this bill will allow people to grow marijuana at home. Who is going to start counting the leaves on their pot plants to make sure that three or four of them have not been stolen by children between the ages of 12 to 17? That does not make any sense. This measure is irresponsible and disrespectful toward Canadian youth.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenDecriminalizationGovernment billsPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage51176135117614MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to share a bit of information that will hopefully be of benefit to members and will get Conservative members to rethink some of the spin they are hearing from their Conservative colleagues, or possibly their research team. I do not know exactly where they are getting their facts. On the last question, about the five grams, it would be illegal under this legislation to have five grams in one's possession. Less than that would be under provincial jurisdiction.Let me start by commenting that I was really touched by the comments made earlier today by representatives of all political parties. As someone who has served in the Canadian Forces, I have had the opportunity to participate in many marches in remembrance. I would like to briefly provide a comment of respect for those war veterans I marched with back in the early 1980s. I applaud and recognize their ultimate sacrifice to make Canada what it is today.I understand that the New Democrats and the Green Party will be supporting this legislation. Canadians need not be surprised. Liberals talked about this in the last federal election. It was in our election platform that this was what we would do. At the end of the day, there has been a great deal of support for what the government is moving forward with. I am surprised at the degree to which the Conservative Party seems to want to fight this issue. What surprises me most is the fact that it does not have any problem using misinformation.In Canada today we have the highest consumption rate in terms of young people engaged in using cannabis. That means that there are more young people per capita in Canada who have tried or used cannabis than in countries like the United States, the U.K., and Australia. We already know that our system is not working, and we need to address the issue. It might affect some ridings more than others, but at the end of the day, it is a national issue.There are already too many young people being encouraged to use cannabis. There is a criminal element out there that wants young people to use it. They sell it to young people, because they have a vested financial interest in getting young kids to use cannabis. This legislation, in good part, would deal with that. The Conservatives seem to have no problem with people going into our schools and telling children to buy bags of cannabis. Those students are going to be experimenting with who knows what, because criminal elements are trying to get our kids to smoke marijuana. We do not know what is in the bags being circulated in our schools, or in the cigarettes, or tokes, or whatever they are called. Excuse me for not knowing the word. We have no idea what the drugs are being laced with or what is sold to children in our schools. What we know for a fact is that there are too many young people in Canada who are being enticed to participate in the consumption of cannabis.(1150)We finally have a government that is saying that it is going to strictly regulate, legalize, and restrict access to cannabis. In the area I represent, I believe that is good news. Every year we get gangs or that criminal element making hundreds of millions of dollars. A major amount of that money comes through selling cannabis to young people. I am talking about 11 to 13-year-olds. When people talk about the impact on the brain and on a young person's growth, there is no question that we need to be concerned about this. However, if members are really concerned about this and they want to do something about it, they might want to consider voting in favour of the legislation. If they are really sincere in their comments about about young people, they will vote in favour of this. I am concerned about the young people whom I represent in Winnipeg North. I want to see less money going to the criminal element there. I want to see fewer 11-year-olds consuming cannabis. This legislation is a giant step in the right direction to allow that to happen. The Conservatives seem to believe that if the legislation passes, people who have consumed cannabis will be driving around on streets all over Canada. I have news for them. That happens today. When it came to training our police or our law enforcement agencies, the Conservatives committed $2 million. This government is committing $161 million for training of law enforcement officers and providing the type of equipment that is going to be necessary. Therefore, not only are we doing the right thing by bringing forward the legislation, we are also providing the financial means necessary to assist our law enforcement agencies. I do not share the opinions of Conservative members who seem to think that our law enforcement agencies will not be ready in time. The resources and the sense of commitment we see day in and day out from law enforcement officers will ensure we are in a ready position to deal with this good, sound legislation. A great deal of effort has been put into this legislation. I made reference to the fact that we had an election platform. Canadians have been consulted extensively on this issue. We have had a task force on it. We have standing committees that have dealt with it, either directly or indirectly. A great deal of debate has taken place, not only in Ottawa but in our constituencies. We now have before us legislation that would make a positive difference.I want to bring it down to the real grassroots communities we represent. Today, far too many dollars flow to the criminal elements in our communities. Cannabis is one of those things that contributes hundreds of millions of dollars every year to that. This legislation would help to get rid of that. By doing that, we will see fewer young people using cannabis because we will be taking the profit away from the criminal element, which has a financial interest in getting our young people on cannabis or at least trying it. That is one of the reasons why more young people in Canada use cannabis than in any other country in the world.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisChildrenGovernment assistanceGovernment billsOrganized crimePolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationReport stageWork-based trainingYoung people5117615LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North on being nominated for hardest-working MP. Well done, dear colleague. I have tremendous respect for my colleague, but I would add the caveat that just because a person is hard-working does not mean everything they do is right.I also want to take this opportunity to remind members that November 5 was municipal elections day in Quebec. The 28 municipalities in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier voted in a mix of new officials and re-elected incumbents. The day after the elections, I wasted no time in congratulating the mayors and councillors. However, a warning was in order as well. In eight months' time, these municipal councillors and mayors will have a problem to deal with. These elected officials will be responsible for making sure life goes on in their municipalities after July 1, 2018. They will have decisions to make. They will have to keep an eye on their parks. What will be happening around schools?My colleague said earlier that 12-year-olds could be walking around with drugs in their pockets. We must not forget that children are more impressionable than adults. I am deeply troubled.Municipal elected officials will also have to look at what this means for highway safety codes. Those are under provincial jurisdiction, but municipalities do have local responsibilities. Recently, the Government of Quebec enacted legislation giving municipalities additional responsibilities, including speed limits in residential areas. Municipalities handle that. What a gift for our newly elected officials. I take no pleasure in rising in the House today to speak to a Liberal bill that will destroy our youth, theact respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.I was talking about municipalities. We also have to talk about the other level of government, the provincial government, which will have to deal with all these problems in return for a portion of the federal government's revenues from legalizing this product.Many studies have made it abundantly clear that using marijuana affects people's health, especially the health of our young people. We must not forget that health is under provincial jurisdiction.We also have to talk about road safety. We have no idea how our hard-working police officers are going to enforce that. There has been talk of training and investment, even of sending people to the United States for training. Nobody is ready for this. We should be taking our time. As for personnel management, the Quebec minister of labour does not know what to do about the problem. People will be going to work after using drugs. It is a lot harder to verify people's state after they use drugs than after they drink. This is just one more thing being downloaded onto the provinces.A university president from the Quebec City area asked how they are supposed to deal with this and manage it on campus. A myriad questions remain unanswered, and yet the government is fixated on one thing: July 1, 2018. Why is there such a rush to get this bill into law?I recognize that drug use exists and that we need to do something. However, just because the government cannot control an existing problem does not mean that we should trivialize and legalize it. We should be taking more responsible steps and taking the time to come up with better solutions. I do not think this is the right way to tackle the problem. We need to work on prevention. We need to encourage our youth to play sports and get involved in the arts and in their community. Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has 500 organizations. Their problem right now is that they cannot renew their membership lists or find new volunteers.(1205)Why has the federal government not developed a program to encourage our youth to get involved in their community? When they are involved in sports, dancing, singing, or arts and crafts, whatever the activity, that is all they think about. They do not have time for mischief or smoking marijuana. The government opposite outlined specific purposes in the legislation. They are:a) protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;However, it will be sold everywhere. Furthermore, people will have easy access from home since they will be allowed to grow their own pot plants. I will continue:b) protect young persons and others from inducements to use cannabis;Once again, it will be available everywhere. Here is the the third purpose:c) provide for the licit production of cannabis to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis;In other words, the government is saying that it will kill organized crime, but the Canadian Police Association said that it was naive to believe that organized crime activity could be restrained, reduced, or influenced. That is the word the Canadian Police Association used to describe this government. Then, the bill goes on: (d) deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures;Young people from 12 to 17 will apparently be able to go around with 5 grams of marijuana, which is the equivalent of 10 to 15 joints depending on their size. I will keep reading:(e) reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis;Yes, we agree on decriminalization, but let us make the distinction between decriminalization and legalization. All 338 members of Parliament probably made some mistakes in their youth. It is certainly better to pay a fine, as we do for speeding, than it is to have a criminal record. The bill goes on: (f) provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis; and (g) enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use.The government is saying that marijuana is not good for people's health, but it is going to legalize it. The government is saying that people should not use it, but it is going to put measures in place that will make it more accessible to our young people. I rise in the House today to protect our young people. That is important for any self-respecting society. It is naive to think that this is going to get rid of organized crime.My goal is to protect young people under 25. All studies show that the brain development is complete by age 25. Why put young people between the ages of 18 and 25 at risk? The government is treating our young people like lab rats. We are the first G20 country that wants to legalize this drug. Why? We will become a testing ground and that is unacceptable. We are sacrificing a generation. That shows a lack of respect for our young people and makes it seem the government does not believe in the future of our country. This government is here for the wrong reasons. It is spending money hand over fist and now has backed itself into a corner, so it is looking for a way to make some fast cash. First, that is an irresponsible way for a government to behave, because it has no vision. Second, it is using our young people to fill its coffers. The government has failed to mention what the cost of the consequences will be. We need to take the time to find a more respectful solution.Even the tax is set out in budget 2017. We are wasting our time here today. The Liberals want this measure to take effect on July 1, 2018, and they did not agree to any of the amendments proposed by the NPD. They are looking forward to July 1, when they can raise some money for the friends of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's heir, our famous Prime Minister.It does not take a genius to understand that this government is implementing measures that will take money out of the pockets of Canadians and harm our young people. That is unacceptable. This government needs to listen to reason. I am calling on the government to take more time before implementing this legislation, to be serious, and to show some respect for our young people. I am rising today on behalf of our youth.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsMunicipal governmentOrganized crimePolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionReport stageSales taxesWork-based trainingYoung people5117659KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will return to what my colleague has just said about criminalization. All the studies show that criminalization and the longer minimum sentences implemented by the Conservatives for cannabis-related offences have not worked. They have not reduced drug use in young people, and they have not reduced the involvement of organized crime in the sale of cannabis. On the contrary, according to the statistics on drug-related offences reported by the police in 2014, one year after the Conservatives’ repressive laws were passed, cases of methamphetamine possession rose by 38% and trafficking by 17%, while cases of heroine possession rose by 34% and trafficking by 12%. The minimum sentences did not work, the war on drugs was unsuccessful. Why do the Conservatives not want us to adopt and implement a new strategy, an approach based on public health? Right now, the number one drug, the most commonly used drug in Canada and throughout the world, is cannabis. The people who use cannabis the most are young people between the ages of 12 and 25. We need a new strategy to continue to work with young people and improve prevention. Obviously, there are shortcomings in the bill we are debating, but we can work on these shortcomings and make improvements.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51176775117678JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Joël Godin: (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had really listened to what I said, she would see that I agree that there is a problem and we need to find solutions. Decriminalization is not a magic wand to solve all our drug-related problems, but it is a step in the right direction. Now, let us take the time to determine the best way to proceed. What I said earlier is that we need to protect young people aged 25 and under and set up a prevention program. In fact, I might not have said it because I was short of time, but I included it in my speech. We need to establish a prevention program, a program to encourage young people to become involved in sports, the arts and volunteering, and put in place the means to eliminate the distribution of drugs to young people. C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51176795117680Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate. Bill C-45 is, of course, the bill that would legalize marijuana in Canada.When we talk about legalization, we have to understand what this legislation would do. It would normalize the use of marijuana in everyday life across Canada. Like cigarettes, which were normalized many years ago, and the same with booze, marijuana would now become an accepted part of Canadian life. The message we send to our children would be a terrible one. It is one that says we give up, we surrender, because we are no longer going take action to eliminate the use of marijuana and other drugs in our society. We are simply going to go, as my colleague said, the coward's way: acquiesce and legalize it. I am absolutely confident that Bill C-45, which represents the normalization of the use of marijuana in Canada, would become a massive public policy failure for the Liberal government, just like its tax reforms, where it attacks small businesses, diabetics, those who are getting employee discounts, and the mentally ill. That has become a massive policy failure, and Bill C-45 would also become a massive policy failure for the reasons I will articulate.The bill would effectively legalize the sale, use, and cultivation of marijuana. As I said, it would normalize its use. We have worked so hard as a society to discourage cigarette smoking, and yet here we are opening the door to what is arguably an even more dangerous substance. The irony is that the current government, while it would pass the bill to legalize the use of marijuana, would then engage in a public relations and communications strategy telling young people who would be purchasing marijuana that they should not buy it because it is very dangerous and they should not use it, but it would be legalized and normalized. I mean, the hypocrisy of that is jaw-dropping. I was an elected official in the City of Abbotsford for many years. I was very pleased to serve there as a city councillor. I can tell members that, as a council, one of the biggest challenges we had was the growing of marijuana plants at home. Many of these were illegal grow ops. Eventually, medicinal marijuana was approved for use in Canada, and homes are now growing this under the auspices of providing some kind of medicinal relief. What has happened is that we have communities and neighbourhoods within Abbotsford that are wonderful neighbourhoods, but they have houses in which marijuana is grown. Historically, they would cover the windows with foil, and the stench emanating from those properties was overwhelming. There was a constant stream of neighbourhood members who would come to us council members and complain about it. This bill would authorize the growing of marijuana plants at home. I can assure members that many Canadians, unfortunately, will take that opportunity to grow more than the four plants that would be allowed under the proposed legislation. This would result in continued challenges with our neighbourhoods across Canada.There was a stated objective of the government that it wanted to protect youth, and that the regulation and legalization of marijuana would achieve that end. The Liberals stated that they also wanted to eliminate organized crime, but we know that children under the age of 18 are not supposed to be buying marijuana. Anyone over the age of 18, under the proposed legislation, would be able to legally purchase and consume marijuana, but those under the age of 18 would not. Ironically, those between the ages of 12 and 17 would be allowed to possess small amounts of marijuana. Where would they acquire that marijuana? They cannot buy it legally. Who are they going to go to? Well, organized crime would supply that drug.(1220)There is a bigger problem. All of the medical and and scientific research says that marijuana use among young people has a very negative impact on their developing young brains.Why would the Liberal government want to legalize a drug that we know will be used by our youth in increasing numbers, because it will be that much more available to them? Why would we allow this to happen when it is very clear from the medical literature that the use of marijuana amongst young people invariably leads to significant mental health issues? In fact, I am predicting that if this legislation passes, in 5, 10, 15 years from now, Canada will face a mental health crisis. All of these youth who have had greater access to marijuana will be suffering from significant mental health challenges. What a terrible legacy for us to leave for our children.I want to address the issue of the timing of this legislation. As we know, the Prime Minister has said he is going to ram this thing through and implement the legislation by July 1, 2018. However, we have heard from police chiefs across Canada that it is impossible for them to get ready and implement this legislation with all the challenges this bill represents. We have heard from communities across the country, including from my own city of Abbotsford, which communicated with the federal government, made a submission to the committee that studied this bill, and said, “Please, you cannot do this by July 1”. The provinces and territories are saying to the Prime Minister that July 1 is way too ambitious a date to implement this plan by, that they will not be ready for it. Their police services will not be ready, their educational system will not be ready, and Canadians will not be ready for it.Generally speaking, it is going to result in a fiasco. However, that is what we have to expect from the Liberal government. Whatever file it touches, it it ends up being a huge mess. That includes ethical failures like those of the finance minister and the Prime Minister and his fundraiser having offshore accounts. No one trusts the government anymore. There has been a fundamental breach of trust.Let us look at some of the other challenges. I want to be very clear that we support ticketing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. We are supportive of decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana. We do not want to leave young children with a criminal record.However, this bill goes far beyond decriminalization. It is clear-cut legalization of the use of marijuana and the normalization that will follow. We run a huge risk as we normalize the use of marijuana in Canada, where people will be entitled by law to possess small amounts of marijuana. Many Canadians will be travelling. They will have used marijuana regularly. They will have some of it in their glove compartments. When they get to the U.S. border, suddenly the border agents will be asking, “Hey, what do you have in your car? Do you have any guns or drugs?” People will say, “No, we do not.” The agents will rifle through the car and find marijuana in the glove compartment. Those people will probably be apprehended on the American side of the border. They will have a criminal record on that side of the border. They will have to go through the legal process there. That is one of the many small consequences the bill will generate.Finally, it is very clear that the government has run out of money. That is why it is taxing Canadians to death. It has gone after small businesses, diabetics, employee discounts, the mentally ill, and now it is going after marijuana. The government is going to tax marijuana. More and more, it is because the government is running short of money. Can members imagine that being the reason for passing a bill like this that will have enormous consequences for Canadians?I say to my Liberal friends across the way in closing that they should give their heads a shake and reconsider what they are doing here. This is bad policy that will hurt future generations of Canadians. They should not do it.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsLegalizationMental healthOrganized crimePlantsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageSales taxesYoung people511768751176925117693JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25467MarkWarawaMark-WarawaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WarawaMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to represent my beautiful community of Langley—Aldergrove. I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for his hard work over the many years, representing his community well. He brought up many good and important points. I hope the government is listening. I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for being recognized for having spoken more words in Parliament than anyone else. What a great record. He sure talks.The parliamentary secretary asked where the facts were coming from. If the government does not know where the facts come from, we have a problem. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Canadians are concerned with the government and why they are losing trust in it. The decisions the Liberals make are not logical.The member for Abbotsford addressed the national issue of too many young people using marijuana. It is a problem when 21% of children use it.I took a one-week bike training course with the RCMP. I wanted to be with RCMP members as they travelled into parks. I wanted to see how they dealt with the issue of drugs. It was being confiscated from youths because it was bad for them. The officers also took their names. Yes, it is illegal. Yes, 21% of youth using it. It is a problem. I was very proud of how they handled the situation. I agree with the member for Abbotsford that it should be decriminalized and that it should be a ticketable offence rather than a criminal offence. However, right now it is illegal and we have a problem. The government is talks about the 21% of children and 30% of young adults. Young adults are on my youth advisory board. These are bright young people who, hopefully, will be our leaders in the years to come. I did not ask what percentage of them were using cannabis. I asked them what they thought of the government's goal to have it legalized by July 1, and they all smiled. I asked if they thought the Liberals were on the right track. Almost all their hands went up and they all wanted to have input. Overwhelmingly they criticized the government. Young people from all political persuasions sit on the youth advisory board. I did not want just Conservatives, I wanted a full spectrum representing our community of Langley—Aldergrove. They said that the government should not be moving so fast, that it should be listening to the different police forces across Canada, and that It should be listening to health authorities across Canada, all saying that Canada was not ready for this.The Prime Minister may have smoked some joints or been in the room where joints were being smoked while he was the leader of the opposition, which is inappropriate. However, because we can do something does not mean we should do something. The youth advisory board overwhelmingly said that the government should slow down the process. It is a problem, so it needs to educate youth on the risks associated with it. That is how we dealt with the tobacco problem, and it has been quite successful. Past governments maybe should have done more to address this through education. Maybe there should have been research on what the medical benefits were from marijuana, because it is a problem. The logic of the government is that we have a problem, so let us legalize it and that will solve it. (1240)In criminology, one can determine what somebody is likely to do by past behaviour. It is the same in psychology. It is common sense; it is logic. Therefore, why not look at what has happened in other jurisdictions that have legalizing marijuana? Did it make things better or worse? Actually, it made things way worse. The criminal connection to the distribution of pot has increased in Colorado. These are the facts and the research that has been done. In the years since it was legalized in Colorado, the state has seen an increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths, in poison control calls for aid, and in emergency room visits. The marijuana black market has increased in Colorado, not decreased. Numerous Colorado marijuana regulators have been indicted for corruption.Dr. Harry Bull, superintendent of Cherry Creek Schools, said, “We were promised funds from marijuana taxes that would benefit our communities, particularly schools.” This superintendent is in charge of one of the largest school districts in the United States. He went on to say, “So far, the only thing that the legalization of marijuana has brought to our schools has been marijuana.”I have been with the police bike unit and also in police cars. I have seen how officers professionally protect our communities, how they try to keep our communities safe in practical, realistic ways, and how they confiscate. The government is proposing that if somebody is driving a car with some buddies in it and there is an open bottle of alcohol in that vehicle, if the care is stopped by the police, the police can confiscate that open bottle of alcohol. However, if police officers stop a car that has four people in it and marijuana is found, every one of in the car can legally have 30 grams of marijuana, or 60 joints. That is 240 joints in total.It is illogical to say that this is the way we will fight the problem or this how we will fight organized crime. The parliamentary secretary said that too many criminals wanted young people to use pot but the government did not. Therefore, the Liberal government is going to compete with the criminal element. The Liberals will ensure that the quality of the pot is good and people can have lots of it. The Liberals are saying that anybody aged 18 and older can have 60 joints. If it were a child, the Liberals would confiscate it. Under this legislation, children between the ages of 12 and 18 will be able to have five grams, which is 10 joints. What the government is saying is illogical. We should learn from others who have made mistakes. The government has proposed that we go way beyond what Colorado did. Our roads will be less safe and there will be more deaths, yet the Liberals are rushing the legislation through before there is any technology to determine drug-impaired driving. We just dealt with Bill C-46. How will the government get tough when somebody gets killed by a drunk driver? There will be a fine of at least $1,000 for driving drunk and killing somebody. The second offence will result in at least 10 days in jail, a 30-day sentence for killing the second time. What the government has proposed is bizarre. Our communities will be less safe. This is wrong. I would remind the government that just because a government can do something does not mean that it should.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCannabisColoradoDecriminalizationGovernment billsImpaired drivingLangley–Aldergrove Constituency Youth CouncilLegal ageLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people511772551177265117727EdFastHon.AbbotsfordMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's commitment to our shared province. The government has proposed legislation that it feels is the proper approach to legalization. It is doing two things.First, it is saying it is going to keep marijuana out of the hands of children. Second, it is saying that it is also going to get rid of organized crime. The problem is this. We have a heavily regulated industry like tobacco, but there is a tremendous amount of contraband tobacco, because organized crime moves in. On the flip side, if we try to regulate something like marijuana to stop children from getting a hold of it, we kind of end up in a circle where we cannot achieve either goal because one is almost fundamentally at odds with the other one. The member has mentioned a third option. Could you maybe suggest what the Conservative policy is in addressing marijuana and its use? C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5117744MarkWarawaLangley—AldergroveAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25467MarkWarawaMark-WarawaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WarawaMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Mark Warawa: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a genuinely important question. We need to have a true study on the possible benefits of medical marijuana. There is a lot of opinion on that. We are seriously considering that we should perhaps decriminalize marijuana so it could be confiscated and be a ticketable offence. No one should have a criminal record for possession, unless he or she is part of a criminal element that distributes it to our youth.The government proposes that youth would now be able to have it, which is illogical, because its goal is to keep it out of the hands of children. However, now it is saying small children can walk around with 10 joints in their pockets. When they turn 18, they can have 60 joints in their pockets. No one should have that in their pockets. C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51177465117747AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 will legalize cannabis use within the limits my colleagues have already mentioned. Many decisions fall to the provinces, including the legal age for using cannabis, the development of a point-of-sale system, and education. The government is pushing for a very short deadline. We are talking about passing this bill before July 1, 2018, which is only eight months from now. In politics, eight months goes by fast. However, we are still waiting to see how the federal government intends to make sure that the law is applied from Vancouver to St. John’s, Newfoundland, by way of Quebec. Despite everything, I think it is very clear that we must go ahead with this bill. I support the legalization of marijuana, provided that it is done effectively and that we can prevent the sale of cannabis to children, that a reliable long-term source of revenue is devoted to public health, prevention and research, and that a comprehensive strategy to fight impaired driving is adopted. We know that the prohibition and criminalization of cannabis, which the Conservatives have maintained in place in the past 10 years, have proven to be completely ineffective in reducing cannabis use and related criminal activity in Canada.Earlier I touched on the statistics concerning drug-related offences reported in 2014, when the Conservatives were in power and had already implemented an extremely repressive system with longer minimum sentences, in an attempt to manage drug use. One year after the Conservatives passed their repressive laws, cases of methamphetamine and heroine possession had increased by 38% and 34%, respectively. Methamphetamine and heroine trafficking had increased by 17% and 12%, respectively. Thus, drug use was not reduced, but actually increased, as did trafficking. We need to determine a strategy for making sure that those who use cannabis the most, young people aged 25 and under, are truly taken into consideration, and that we stop hiding our heads in the sand and practising denial. We must realize that the war on drugs has not worked, and that we need to find new solutions. We agree with the solution proposed by the Liberals, namely adopting a public health approach. There are, however, many flaws in their approach, hence the need for discussion. Unfortunately, we are already at the third and final reading stage. We are concerned because we proposed several amendments that were rejected out of hand by Liberals at committee. The government set up a task force, and in their report, the experts on the task force explained that legislation must be enacted to do the following:reduce the burdens on police and the justice system associated with simple possession of cannabis offences; prevent Canadians from entering the criminal justice system and receiving criminal records for simple cannabis possession offences; protect public health and safety by strengthening, where appropriate, laws and enforcement measures that deter and punish more serious cannabis offences...The bill addresses those issues by legalizing the consumption of up to 30 grams of dried cannabis and the possession of up to four plants per household. However, as I said, the bill is scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2018. Around 100,000 people have been given criminal records over the past two years for simple cannabis possession even though the government is planning to legalize it in less than a year. How many more young people is the government willing to put in jail for something that will be legal in about 10 months? Will it at least direct the police and judicial authorities to stop enforcing the existing law until such time as the new law is in force? The Liberals' own working group was given a recommendation to decriminalize marijuana. They do not agree amongst themselves. The Prime Minister recently said that granting pardons would certainly address some of the backlog in the justice system. We know that, since the Jordan decision, a number of investigations have been halted and charges have not been laid in cases involving offences much more serious than simple marijuana possession.(1255) We are going through the same thing with Bill C-45, as they do not want to proceed with decriminalization in the interim. This will only add to the burden on the judicial system and to the monumental costs associated with arresting people for simple possession. Statistics Canada and other organizations have repeatedly demonstrated to us that these arrests and ensuing criminal records disproportionately affect young people, racialized persons and aboriginals. I wonder how many criminal records from young people arrested for smoking a joint end up on the desks of my colleagues from Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. How many applications for pardon do they process each year? As elected members, do we not want the Liberal government to fulfill its promise while making the right choice for Canadians, regardless of their age or the colour of their skin, meaning to go ahead with decriminalization, at the very least, and consider granting pardons? I cannot understand why this would be a problem in light of the fact that it appears in the Liberal Party's platform in 2015. These long overdue amendments will only come into force in 15 months, at the earliest. Delays and lack of resources are causing a crisis in the justice system. We cannot afford to continue to allocate police and court resources to charging and convicting people for simple possession of cannabis, a substance that will be legalized in a few months. The working group will continue working toward meeting its objectives, which now focus on youth, prevention and education. The bill must protect Canada's youth by keeping cannabis out of their reach, and must ensure that Canadians are well informed through public health campaigns so that young people especially are made aware of the risks of cannabis use. Bill C-45 imposes heavy sanctions on whomever traffics, sells or gives cannabis to a minor. How is this a public health matter, I wonder? First off, we need more scientific research not only on the short and long-term effects of cannabis use, but also on the properties of this plant. Some people already use it for medicinal purposes. We have often heard of patients undergoing chemotherapy or veterans using it, for example. Since they claim to want to protect youth, will the Liberals increase funding for research on the chronic and long-term effects of consumption on the health of young people in particular? I am also looking at the 2017 budget, which announced a ridiculous budget of less than $2 million per year over five years. Last week, it was announced that this budget will be increased to $6 million per year over five years, but it still totally ridiculous. On top of education, awareness campaigns and prevention, we need federal funds for frontline community organizations. Along with the schools, they will be ready to engage with young people on the ground when they want information. However, how will $6 million ever be enough to help the millions of community groups in Canada? Will the burden fall on the provinces? It is a fair question. If we do a comparison with American states such as Colorado, we are far from doing all we can. Colorado spends nearly $37 million per year in prevention alone. That is seven times what the Canadian government provides for in this major bill on the legalization of marijuana. I would remind members that will happen in less than eight months. I also know very little about what the government intends to do with the money that will be made from the sale of marijuana. What types of prevention programs will be available? Who will they be targeting? Will there be funding for community groups? We should keep in mind that this is extremely important. The bill also raises a lot of important questions concerning the provinces. Will they need additional time to establish their regulatory system? This is another reason why we would have wanted the process to start earlier or go beyond July 1, 2018. The issues relating to the sale system and the legal framework are also very important to minimize the risks associated with the legalization of marijuana. Another issue we need to clarify has to do with the nature of the cannabis tax structure and revenue. How will they be shared among the provinces and the federal government? The provinces and Canadians are looking to the Department of Finance to make a decision on this issue. In Quebec, Minister Charlebois has already expressed her displeasure about the time granted to the provinces, and Premier Couillard did the same regarding taxation. (1300) I would like to talk about many other things, but I see that my time is up. I want to simply point out that the NDP proposed 38 amendments in committee and that all 38 amendments were rejected. That is rather absurd. C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisColoradoCommunity organizationsCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug educationDrug use and abuseFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsMandatory sentencingPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionRegulationReport stageSales taxesScientific research and scientistsYoung people5117757511775851177595117760511776151177625117763MarkWarawaLangley—AldergroveBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a point of clarification for the member. I thank her for her conditional support for Bill C-45. I want to simply advise her that the government has, in fact, announced $46 million for a public education program that will begin to roll out very shortly. I hope that addresses one of her concerns.I seek clarification from the member. She has stated that she supports decriminalization, but let us be really clear about what decriminalization is. Decriminalization maintains the prohibition and simply replaces the criminal sanction with a civil penalty: a ticketing scheme with a fine. In an environment in which the prohibition remains, one cannot regulate the substance.When the member described her vision of decriminalization, she said that the law would not be enforced, not that it would be enforced in a different way with a different outcome, a civil penalty. I submit to the member opposite that what she was describing was, in fact, legalization without regulation.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug educationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage51177745117775Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: (1300)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have once again shown that they do not listen at all to the NDP's recommendations. First, my colleague announced $45 million. However, that is over a five-year period, which means about $9 million per year, total, and that includes all the drugs in Canada, not just marijuana. As for his argument on decriminalization, we recommend that the government decriminalize marijuana while waiting for its legalization in eight months. We are not asking for either one or the other. Since the legalization is supposed to happen anyway, why would we allow thousands of young people across the country to have a criminal record that will prevent them from having a job, buying a house, and travelling? That would be a crippling disadvantage for a young person. We are talking only about decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana, not about more serious crimes. This is really a matter of nuance. I think that my colleague across the way is very smart and can understand the nuances. We hear about increased investments in prevention. Community groups have been calling for this for years now. There is not enough money. I used to be a teacher, and many young people are falling behind in school because they are under the influence of drugs, marijuana being the most popular among young people. I am not sure if my colleague has visited any schools.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug educationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage51177785117779BillBlairScarborough SouthwestMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, what does my colleague think is the biggest problem related to cannabis at the moment? Is it the pressure on the legal system because of people charged with simple possession and all the repercussions that go along with that, for instance, the delays because of the number of cases before the courts, or is my colleague more concerned about the taxes not being collected? Which of those two problems regarding cannabis is the member more concerned about?C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage5118323MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, while the government often talks about reducing the backlog in our courts, what this legislation may actually do is increase the backlog. For example, this legislation provides that Canadians could possess up to 30 grams of marijuana. However, it contains provisions that if they possessed 31 grams of marijuana, they would be criminals, with serious penalties. We have sentences in Bill C-45 of up to 14 years. Arguably, those are not consistent with other similar offences. On that front, I think the government has really not thought this through, and what Bill C-45 would result in is a further backlog in our courts. The bottom line is that no matter how one looks at this, Bill C-45 is a complete and absolute failure.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stage5118324ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueMarkHollandAjax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is with great disgust and sadness that I rise today to speak again to this bad bill that will have a major impact on the lives of our children, adolescents, and parents. If by some misfortune this bill is passed and the government's goal of legalizing marijuana on July 1, 2018, is achieved, this will have an adverse and terrifying effect on Canadian families.Legalizing marijuana normalizes it and that is not the message we want to send to our young people. From now on, under the Liberal government, it will be legal to smoke pot, a gateway drug for all other drugs. No one knows anyone who just one day decides to start using cocaine or other hard drugs. It always starts with a little joint and ends with hard drugs. This Liberal government is practically giving unholy permission to use drugs for the first time. After that, the procession of family tragedies that this will generate, the procession of lives destroyed, and the procession of incredibly destructive problems that Canadians will face, like the people of Colorado and Washington have for far too many years, will be on the Liberal government.In Canada, the Liberal government's initiative did not meet with the approval of the police, municipalities, or the provinces. Let us first talk about the police. They are telling us in all honesty that in the unfortunate event that this bill goes ahead, there will be a host of problems on our roads, in society, and with the preventative measures that we will need. It is impossible to assemble and appropriately equip every police force from coast to coast to coast in order for them to respond directly to the new challenges that this bad Liberal legislation will give rise to. The head of the RCMP recently said that it would be naive to believe that the new Liberal legislation will help eliminate organized crime. The head of the RCMP said that. (1635)[English]Those people who know the business, those people who have to deal day after day with the reality of the consumption of marijuana and other drugs, will tell them clearly that if they think criminal people will put that aside and kill their criminal activities, they are being naive. This is totally unacceptable. Those who know the business say do not go there.[Translation]It is the same for the provinces. Whether we are talking about British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Quebec, or any other province, not one minister of health, not one minister of justice, not one minister of housing, not one provincial premier cheered for the Liberal government's new approach. On the contrary, our provinces are grappling with the implications for their jurisdictions. The provinces will also be saddled with millions of dollars of spending on health, social services, security, training, and equipment. All of this thanks to the Liberals in Ottawa. The provinces could really have done without this.This is being rushed through. Municipalities are being affected too. They have to adjust their bylaws to accommodate the Liberal government's ridiculous plan to allow every Canadian household to grow four pot plants up to three feet high. Will that be great for Canada or what? As everyone here knows, a house where pot is being grown is not two times or four times or 10 times more likely to catch fire, but 24 times more likely to catch fire. That is a fact. People are going to have to deal with that situation. How are multi-unit building owners supposed to deal with that? How can they check on things? How can they be sure everything is safe? They cannot retroactively prohibit people from doing it because there is already a lease in place.How is this going to work in each of the provinces? Every province has its own jurisdiction. Every province will do things its own way. Every municipality will have to pass bylaws, and that opens up a whole can of worms. What is the government doing about that? The federal government says this is all up to the provinces and it will not interfere. The Liberal government is the one causing these problems. The current Liberal government, which is proposing to normalize marijuana by legalizing it, is creating a whole host of problems and washing its hands of them because they do not fall under its jurisdiction, but that of the police, municipalities, and provinces.Even worse, the government, because of an obsession unbecoming of any elected representative of any stripe, is pushing for the bill's passage and implementation by July 1.[English]I will never understand how the government decided, without laughing at people, that the launch date for legalization would be Canada Day. There are 365 days in a year, and it chose Canada Day to launch its bad policy. It is totally unacceptable, and un-Canadian to do that. I will be proud to sing O Canada, but be assured, I will never sing O cannabis on July 1. We are laughing, but it is not a joke because here, in the House of Commons, we have seen so many great Canada Days. On the other hand, we have also seen so many stupid and obvious demonstrations by those who smoke marijuana in front of Parliament. We will see people there, smoking marijuana. That is a real shame. It will not be a great Canada Day in 2018, thanks to the Liberals. (1640)[Translation]Let us remember the example: unfortunately, two U.S. states, Colorado and Washington, decided to legalize marijuana. What has happened after some years of legalization?In Colorado, three times as many people have been hospitalized for marijuana related problems since it was legalized. The Liberals tell us that the problem will be solved. On the contrary, it will make it worse. There has been a 108% and 68% increase in overdoses in Colorado and the State of Washington respectively. Will that solve the problems? On the contrary, it will generate twice as many problems and give rise to new ones.The number of traffic accidents has doubled in the State of Washington and tripled in Colorado. The Liberals are saying, with a straight face, that, on the contrary, it will resolve problems, because we are currently unable to manage them. They are going to legalize marijuana and solve the problems.It is quite the opposite. There will be twice as many problems in certain situations and we will make things worse. Is it not a fact that, after California, Colorado has the largest illegal production of marijuana?[English]Those people say, with that, we will kill, we will attack, we will be aggressive with the criminals. That is not true. The criminals are laughing today. They are saying: “Oh, that's great, the dirty job of introducing people to marijuana for the first time will be done under the Liberals. That's fantastic. The government will do the dirty job, and after that we'll enjoy it because those kids will then be able to use other harder drugs”. That is a Liberal reality. That is why we will never accept this kind of bill. [Translation]We need to remember that normalizing the legalization of marijuana has an unfortunate effect on children. I will quote Ms. Seychelle Harding, director of communications for the Portage group's addiction rehabilitation centres, who said, “It is clear that just saying it, writing it, talking about it sends a message to young people that it is okay.” That is the reality of the Liberal government. It sends a message saying it is okay when, in fact, nothing good will come of this.Also, beginning July 1, if the bill unfortunately passes, 12-year-old children will be allowed to have five grams of pot in their pockets. I was very surprised to hear that five grams can be 10 to 15 joints. That is the reality.Come June, young boys and girls, 12-year-old sixth graders, will walk around the school yard with 15 joints in their pockets thinking it is okay. They will come home and say everything is okay because the Prime Minister of Canada told them they could. Is this the type of country we want to build for our children? Not at all.The same goes for the four pot plants which the Liberal government will authorize in every household. This represents 600 grams of pot per house, and yet, we are told this is meant to protect children. The opposite is true. Children will have direct access to 600 grams of pot. For these reasons and many others, we must reject this bill.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCanada DayCannabisChildrenColoradoDecriminalizationGovernment billsMunicipal governmentOrganized crimePlantsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceProvincial jurisdictionReport stageWashington StateYoung people51183465118347CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1645)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for describing the situation with enthusiasm and passion. He says that this is not good for young people, but in fact young people 18 and under have access to marijuana.In my riding, we held a consultation in September. Dr. Goyer, director of public health in the Laurentian area said that 32% of people 18 and under in Quebec had used cannabis over the past year. In the Laurentian area, it is 50%. That is not good. That is why we have to put this in the hands of the law and engage in education and prevention.I imagine that the hon. member, whom I have known for many years, has children. Mine are 25, 23, 21, and 18. They all told me that it is easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol and cigarettes because those are legal and cannot be purchased without showing identification. I come from the retail sector, which is subject to very strict laws with very harsh penalties for those who sell products to people 18 and under.We need to legalize cannabis and put very strict measures in place. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people511835951183605118361CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1645)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that this is the second time a Liberal member has asked me a question, even though people on this side had risen. The worst thing we could do would be to let children as young as 12 carry 15 joints. The member and the Liberals may well say that educating young people is important, but where is the educational value in letting 12-year-olds, grade 6 students, walk around the schoolyard with 15 joints in their pockets?I am sorry, but a sign of normalization like this would be the worst thing this government could do.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51183635118364LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, the cannabis act. I have been here since 2004 and it is probably one of the most badly written pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and there is some frustration on this side in that regard because we have heard the Liberals are going to bring in time allocation. For a bill of such importance and such reach within our provinces and territories, the requirement to have different Houses of Parliament coordinated on this is totally irresponsible.I want my colleagues, especially on the Liberal side, to understand that there are certain important points to bear in mind in my speech. First of all, everyone agrees that too many kids are smoking marijuana. In my community of Oshawa, no one wants to see a kid who has a couple of joints get a criminal record or get thrown into jail. Most Canadians would agree with that, and that is why it is really important that Canadians recognize that the Conservatives favour making the possession of small amounts of marijuana a ticketable offence only. This is exactly in line with the position of the chiefs of police. This is a responsible approach, one that Canadians would be very supportive of, but not of the bill that we see in front of us.The Liberals claim that the status quo is not working, but how does the Liberal government define that? According to a Statistics Canada report dated April 2015, based on data collected from the Canadian community health survey on mental health, the total percentage of teens aged 15-17, which is the target group, reporting having used marijuana had dropped from 40% in 2002 to 25% in 2012. That is a 15 percentage point decrease. This means that something in the status quo is working, but why are the Liberals not telling Canadians about that? What are the Liberals saying? They are saying they want to legalize marijuana because it will it out of the hands of our kids and keep the profits out of the hands of organized crime. We agree with that. These are good ideas, but does C-45 accomplish that objective? Anyone who has read the bill would say no. At the health committee we had scientists testify, and the science is clear. Any use of marijuana under the age of 25 can cause permanent psychological damage to our kids, and currently the bill allows kids aged 12 to 17, as young as grade 6, to possess up to five grams of marijuana, equivalent to 10 to 15 joints. That is ridiculous in light of the medical evidence of the harm it can cause our youth. There is no provision to prevent them from selling or distributing cannabis. The amount should be zero.I am asked if a child in grade 6 could share it with younger kids. That is an important question. It is a great concern of parents and teachers. It would allow drug dealers to target kids and use them for profit. Bill C-45 allows up to four plants to be grown in the home. Any home can become a grow op. Four plants under the right conditions can yield up to 600 grams or 1,200 to 1,800 joints. This is a concern for homeowners, landlords, law enforcement. Moreover, there is no mandatory testing for the potency or toxicity of the homegrown plants, and no money for inspection. There is no federal requirement to lock up the marijuana. This is going to expose kids and even pets to the drugs. Grow ops lead to a 24-fold increase in incidents involving fire. Landlords are concerned that they will not be able to forbid grow ops or smoking if they are already renting their properties. Other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana have said that home grows were hugely penetrated by organized crime. We know it from the science and the evidence out there. For this reason, Washington state does not allow home grows, except for medically fragile people who cannot get to a dispensary. It has been able to reduce organized crime to less than 20% of the market.The legal opinion is that allowing four plants per dwelling will end up being challenged in court as well. The government has not thought through the bill. There will not only be danger in the homes of Canadians, but on the roads too. Drug-impaired driving is not addressed in Bill C-45. It is encompassed in Bill C-46, but a study recently issued by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction put the cost of impaired driving from cannabis at one billion dollars. The AAA found there has been a large increase in the number of fatal accidents in Washington state involving the use of marijuana after the state legalized the drug. In fact, impaired driving has increased in the American states that have legalized it, and there is no current instrument that can accurately measure one's level of impairment on the roadside. The science is not there yet. (1650)Canada is unable to train our own officers in Canada and needs to send our officers to expensive, lengthy training in the United States, and this training currently has wait lists.The legalization of marijuana will definitely impact our ability to trade internationally. Have the Liberals noticed that we are negotiating NAFTA? Do the Liberals think that having a drug policy way out of sync with our American neighbours will improve trade or thicken the border? For Oshawa and my community, this is a huge problem, as it is for other communities as well.Let us look at the treaties. Passing Bill C-45 would violate three UN treaties to which Canada is a signatory. In order to legalize marijuana by July 1 and not be in violation of the UN treaties, Canada would have had to withdraw by July 1 of this year, and the Liberal government did not do that. How can Canada hold other countries to account on their treaty obligations when Canada does not even honour its own? This leads me to this question. Why the rush? There are only 241 days to go until this arbitrary date that the Liberals selected. Provinces, municipalities, police forces, and our indigenous communities have stated they are not ready to implement this legislation. The government knows this; members have heard it in committee.So many questions have been left unanswered. Will Canadians who use marijuana be able to cross the border into the United States where marijuana is still illegal? No department has been able to answer this question, and Canadians deserve an answer before the legislation is implemented.How will enforcement officers test for drug impairment on the roadside? Can these tests be constitutionally challenged? Is the science valid? Canadians deserve an answer.What education programs are in place now to inform youth about the dangers and consequences of marijuana? If they are not in place now, when will this education process begin? The health minister said today $43 million, but there is no timeline. What will happen to the current medical marijuana system and how will recreational sales impact medical marijuana pricing and distribution?Canadians deserve answers to these questions before the legislation is passed.The Liberals talk about the black market. One of the stated goals is to eliminate the black market by creating a legal framework for marijuana, but this is a flawed way of thinking. A variety of factors are being left up to the provinces, such as pricing, distribution, which products are included, and packaging. We need to listen to the real experts on the ground. Assistant Commissioner Joanne Crampton, of federal policing criminal operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said: As Kathy mentioned, organized crime is a high priority for federal policing, in particular, for the RCMP. We target the highest echelon within the organized crime world. We're very cognizant...and realize that the chances of organized crime being eliminated in the cannabis market would be.... It's probably naive to think that could happen. Naive, that is what the experts say about the Liberal approach.Our Conservative position is the same as the Canadian chiefs of police position, to issue tickets for the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. This approach is more sensible regarding marijuana possession. Instead of rushing to legalize marijuana, Conservatives are working with law enforcement to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Canadians would be spared a criminal record for simple possession of small amounts.To summarize, the Liberals promised that they wanted to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids. They also promised that they wanted to keep profit out of the hands of organized crime. My speech ultimately has proven that the Liberal approach is wrong. This bill would not accomplish what they are promising Canadians. This is like a big bill of sale. The bill would actually place children further in harm's way by permitting possession for kids as young as 12. That is grade 6. Home grow ops will expose children living in a dwelling to dangerous living space and increase the production of marijuana and diversion to organized crime. This approach will increase the rate of impaired driving. The bill leaves so many questions unanswered, which has blindsided law enforcement and other levels of government.The question is why the Liberals are force-feeding us this deeply flawed bill. The only answer I can come up with is that the government has no problem being deceitful to Canadians in order to keep the Prime Minister's irrresponsible election promise, muddying the water about the implications of full legalization under the bill.Instead of blindly trying to keep campaign promises at the expense of Canadians' health and safety, perhaps the Liberals should refocus their attention on protecting kids and protecting the public, protecting our trade agreements, and not putting international relationships in jeopardy, particularly the one we have with the United States. They have had no problem breaking other promises, whether it is the balanced budget, electoral reform, or openness and transparency. It is time the Liberals put the brakes on this legislation until the science supports the ability to ensure the health and safety of Canadians, particularly our kids.Agreements and contractsBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanada-United States relationsCannabisChildrenCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImpaired drivingInformation disseminationInternational relationsMental healthOrganized crimePlantsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageWashington StateWork-based training51183665118368511836951183875118389GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentMarkHollandAjax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45. Before I start my comments on Bill C-45, let me take a minute to reflect on the upcoming weekend and the remembrance services that many of us in this room will be attending this coming weekend, and to thank our veterans for the freedoms that we enjoy. Last weekend, I had the privilege of attending a number of remembrance services in New Dundee, New Hamburg, Linwood, and Elmira. This coming weekend, I will be in New Hamburg, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Elmira again. Let us just to think of the sacrifice that our veterans have made, and thank our legions for the great work that they do in not only supporting our veterans but also in helping us never to forget. I want to highlight that before I get into my remarks on Bill C-45.There are a number of really important issues that are dealt with in this chamber on a daily basis. Over the last number of weeks, we have discussed a number of them, from rising debt to taxation, supposedly fair taxation, the economy, the deficit that is growing every day, and the amazing excessive interest we will be paying on that over the next four years of $33 billion per year. All of these things are important. However, in relation to the topic before us today, really they are of minor significance. This topic we are discussing today will have a life-changing impact not only on our youth and our citizens but on the very nation of Canada. I think it is important that we think clearly and soberly about the changes we are making, especially as it relates to three areas.I first want to refer to our youth. That has been referred to many times today, the health, safety, and well-being of our children and our grandchildren, the safety of all Canadians on the roads, and the social risks that are involved in our communities with complaints and issues that will arise between neighbours. However, let me first refer to our youth.In question period today, my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, and I just happened to catch it, made this great statement that the decisions we make reveal the values we hold. How much do we, as members of Parliament, in this room value the youth of Canada? That is a question that we need to ask. I believe youth are a sacred trust that every one of us in this room has an obligation to guard seriously. We cannot take this obligation lightly. The Liberals claim repeatedly that the purpose of this legislation is to protect our young people and to increase public safety. How can we keep this drug out of the hands of our youth when we are actually allowing four plants per household? How can we say we are keeping it out of the hands of our youth when we are allowing 12-year-olds to have up to five grams in their possession? We often hear of people being polled about whether they favour the legalization of marijuana, and the polls are all over the place, but it is somewhere around 50:50 or 60:40. However, I am convinced that if we were to give the details of what this bill entails with respect to the availability of four plants per household and up to five grams for 12-year-olds, we would get a much different answer.The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Psychiatric Association have both stated that Canadians who consume marijuana recreationally under the age of 25 have a higher risk of developing mental illness, such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. We can all probably tell some anecdotal stories of family members or neighbours who have been derailed by the early use of marijuana.The Canadian Psychiatric Association says:Regular cannabis use in youth and young adults can affect aspects of cognition...attention, memory, processing speed, visuospatial functioning and overall intelligence. Worse performance is related to earlier adolescent onset of use.I do not know how much earlier an onset one could get than offering this availability to a 12-year-old. Therefore, parents and grandparents are very concerned about the direction in which this bill is going.Dr. Diane Kelsall in the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote, “Most of us know a young person whose life was derailed because of marijuana use. Bill C-45 is unlikely to prevent such tragedies from occurring—and, conversely, may make them more frequent.”There are far too many young people who have already been derailed. These are not just opinions, these are medical and psychiatric experts, and it is important that we listen to them.(1735)I want to use the bulk of my time today to listen to one of the youth of Canada, who is concerned that this legislation and the actions we approve here in this House would, or could, in fact derail young people. She does not want to be one of those derailed, and she does not want her friends to be derailed. This young person is my granddaughter who wrote this two years ago, in November 2015, when she was 15 years old. She wrote:Marijuana, the dangerous substance that damages our lungs, brain, educational value and social activity is the substance the government of Canada is trying to legalize. Claims say that legalization will erode the black market but in reality, legalizing marijuana will give people easier access to the drug. Recently I heard the testimony of a man who at age 14 was heading to Toronto for 420 with one hundred dollars worth of Marijuana. The fact that ten years ago a 14 year old boy who had no job and no car was able to get his hands on one hundred dollars worth of weed blows my mind. Can you imagine how easy it would be for someone to get marijuana now, especially if it were to become legal? Easier access to Marijuana will have many negative effects for Canada such as major health damage, ruining our educational system, our workplace and our society. The future of Canada rests in the hands of our generation, there is no way marijuana will be a positive tool in that regard.... With long term and short term effects the list of things that marijuana does to damage your health is endless. Short term effects include impaired memory, impaired body movement, changes in mood, hallucinations, paranoia, difficulty thinking and problem solving. Along with temporary damage Marijuana proves to once again be a dangerous substance having a long lasting effect on your brain and mental health. A study showed that people who started heavily smoking marijuana in their teens lost an average of eight IQ points between ages of 13 and 38. Even after quitting as an adult the lost mental abilities did not fully return. There are many different ways to consume Marijuana but no matter which way, it is harmful. Marijuana smoke contains the same tar and chemicals that are found in tobacco smoke which will lead to the inflammation of bronchitis. The drug harms cells lining and respiratory tract leading to precancerous changes that are associated with lung, head and neck cancer. Marijuana also stimulates your heart rate and blood pressure which can increase the risk of heart attack among individuals. I have named only a few of the health risks that occur when marijuana is consumed however, I hope that this is enough to strongly discourage you from believing the legalization of medical marijuana will infact be a positive thing in any way shape or form.She went on:The damage of marijuana does not end with your health, the drugs negative effect leads into your educational life as well. A review of 48 different relevant studies all found that marijuana use is associated with reduced chances of graduating. A recent analysis of data from studies in Australia and New Zealand found that youth who have used marijuana regularly were significantly less likely to finish highschool and obtain a degree than their non-using peers. Marijuana is encouraging lazy work habits and a 'don't care' attitude, leading students down the path of becoming a high school dropout. The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that while under the influence of marijuana the still developing brain will have difficulty retaining memories, when related back to school this can seriously affect your learning skills as a student. “Falling behind in school is par for the course when marijuana use is a factor. It's not an issue solely based on loss of memory; they also report that psychological skills are reduced among students as well, decreasing their ability to sustain their self-confidence and remain focused on achieving academic and other goals”—NIDA. Even though marijuana is an illegal drug it has not stopped teens and students from buying and using the drug, what is to happen now if marijuana becomes legal? By legalizing this drug we are practically encouraging students to go out and get high, ruining their high school career and affecting whatever may lay beyond that.... Believe me when I say that marijuana not only negatively affects your health, your education but your social and work life as well. Studies show specific links between the use of marijuana and the workplace such as increased risk of injuries and accidents. One study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and 75 percent greater absence compared with those who tested negative for marijuana. After all of the papers you wrote, tests you studied for and emotional trials you went through over the minimum of 16 years of schooling, is it really worth it to throw that all away for the temporary high of marijuana?....Before make the decision to legalize this dangerous substance lets first think of all of the health risks caused by this drug, the negative effect that it would have on our educational system and how different and harmful the workplace and our economy would be with marijuana easily accessible and legal. I have so much more to share.(1740)Let me finish with some comments by Dr. Diane Kelsall, director of the Canadian Medical Association, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. She says, “If Parliament truly cares about the public health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth, this bill will not pass.”I hope my colleagues will listen.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsMental healthPlantsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageVeteransWorkplace health and safetyYoung people5118473ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga is sincerely concerned and I want to address some of those concerns so I might perhaps ease his mind.My colleague has said, as did many of his colleagues earlier, that this legislation authorizes 12-year-olds to possess cannabis. That in fact is misleading, and it is really important for every member of the House to understand exactly how this law will be applied.One of the harms that we are attempting to reduce in this legislation is the criminalization of kids. We do not believe the best way to protect our kids is to put them in jail, so under this legislation possession of over five grams will remain a criminal offence, but for amounts less than that, young persons aged 12 to the age of majority will be subject to an absolute prohibition on the possession, purchase, and consumption of this substance under provincial regulation. We have worked with all of the provinces, and those who have already announced their regulatory regimes have made it very clear that they will enforce a prohibition. A young person between the ages of 12 and 18 or 19, depending on the provincial decision on what the age would be, would be subject to an absolute prohibition enforceable by a provincial offences ticket. The police could seize the drug. The police can charge the youth, not under the criminal law, but under a provincial statute. That is precisely how we deal with alcohol in each of our provinces and territories. This actually reduces a significant harm. I hope this information might assist the member by addressing the concerns he has raised.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5118491511849251184935118494HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member said anything above five grams would be a criminal offence. The bill does not indicate that anything above five grams for those 18-years-old and beyond would not be a criminal offence. My concern remains. When we give a message to youth aged 12 to 18 there will be no prohibition for being in possession of up to five grams of marijuana, and in addition give homeowners the ability to grow up to four plants within each household, we have a recipe for easy access for youth, and not one that would keep this drug out of their hands.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisDecriminalizationGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people51184955118496BillBlairScarborough SouthwestColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in the House in regard to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts. I am trying to think of an appropriate word to use that the people across the aisle would possibly accept and understand. The bill is harmful to young people. It is harmful to our society. It is poorly thought out. It is extremely rushed, and as a result, it is very dangerous legislation for us to be putting forward in Canada.The Liberals claim that it will protect the health of young persons. That is one of their virtuous goals in putting this forward. Medical professionals have talked about mental health issues, including addiction, and the impact on the developing brain. Data shows that 30% to 40% of young people under the age of 25 who use cannabis will develop psychotic disorders, depression, or anxiety disorders. This is information from professionals, as my colleague was trying to present to the House to enable the Liberal Party to read and possibly discern that there are dangers in what they are suggesting they legalize in Canada.The Liberals also talk about restricting access by young people. I have never heard a more confusing argument: trying to restrict the use of a dangerous substance by legalizing it and actually making it more available to young people. We know that the bill would allow young people between the ages of 12 and 18 to possess five grams at any one time. This would not say to young people that this is not something they should do. It would say it is okay for them to have this. Maybe it is because they do not want them to have a criminal record. It is irrational to say we do not want them to have a criminal record, so they can take and hold this much. It is not right, because it would encourage them to consider this.In grade seven, I was part of a debate team. Our class was given this topic: grade seven students are juvenile and immature. Of course, we wanted to debate against that, because we were in grade seven, and we were not juvenile and not immature. My teacher told us to debate the other side, and somehow he convinced us to do that. We won that debate, because grade seven students are juvenile and immature. They are not grown up yet. They are formulating what their values are, and here we are with a government that is saying to them to go ahead and have five grams in their possession at any one time. It does not take long to realize that it would be a risk to them on many levels, besides their trying to process it with their own moral values. They could be coerced to carry it for others, possibly parents, or possibly older teens in the family who want more available. They could carry it for their siblings or their parents or a friend.These young people also could be very much drawn into the black market to be handlers. I think especially of youth at risk. We like to think that this is not going to impact them in any way, but it will, because they are already at risk. They are vulnerable, and they are an easy target for people who are immoral and dishonest and will teach them behaviours that are not right and will draw them into a life of crime. There is also the opportunity to simply sell it personally and make money on something the government is saying they can have in their possession. Finally, there is the potential for them to say that they can have this, so why not just try it.(1755)All these reasons totally negate this irrational argument that somehow, by legalizing this and making it available to children aged 12 to 18, it would restrict access. I have never heard a more disjointed, inaccurate, and inconceivable argument put forward. The government also said that it wants to protect young people from the inducement to use. Well, I have already said that just by putting the bill forward in this way, it is actually encouraging young people to consider using.Another member on the other side of the House came back with the argument, on the question of youth having it in their possession, that it is the parents' responsibility. It is just like any other thing in the house they might have. The parents are responsible. On one level, I totally agree that parents are and should be responsible, above all other influences, for determining what direction their children should be guided. Parental rights, responsibilities, and privileges in raising children, which are our most precious and valuable resource as a nation, need to be protected. They actually need to be encouraged by government. Government should be supporting Canadian families through legislation. However, here it is working in opposition and challenging parents by telling teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18 that it is okay, and legal, to have five grams of marijuana on their person. I have worked a lot with teenagers, and I actually survived raising three amazing young adults myself. I have to tell members that at that point in life, the right thing for them to be doing is challenging things around them and trying to determine where their values are in relation to their parents and in what direction they are going to go. When I tell my children that something is not right, and it is something they are thinking about, but their government turns around and tells them that it is okay and that it is legal, that is not supporting parents. The government is pushing this responsibility on them, just like it is pushing the responsibility on provinces and municipalities. The Liberals created the bill because they made an election promise, and they are having trouble finding one they can keep, so this is the one they will pull it off on. This is entirely wrong. If youth should not use it, then they should not carry it.The government also uses the argument that it is going to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis. In other words, it will somehow shut down the black market with the legal use of marijuana. We know how well that is working with contraband cigarettes. I know from conversations with people I have helped in 10-step programs that there are rehab centres where black market drug dealers go to get healed. While there, they develop relationships with people they then meet on the outside, and they help them to become part of the process. This is not going to shut down the black market. It is money driven, it is greed driven, and it has nothing to do with caring for our society. The government is playing into its hands.Canadians are very concerned all over this country. They are concerned about the workplace, law enforcement people, and our children, and they do not know what to do. They are throwing up their hands and asking how the government can do this. Well, I have a few words I want to say to Canadians. I am going to post it, actually. I will tell them that they have been amazing on so many fronts in dealing with issues this government has brought forward over the last two years, and they have made a difference. Opposition parties have a role to play, but we are here to represent Canadians, and as a result of their work and their telling this government what they will and will not accept, electoral reform is not on the table. They did that with their advocacy. Punitive and unfair tax increases on the middle class, small and medium businesses, and farmers are not going to take place the way they would have if the Liberals had just been allowed to go ahead with their policies. Canadians made the difference. They shut down the removal of section 176 and are protecting the right to freedom of religion in this country. They caused the Surgeon General to relegate the dangerous anti-malaria drug mefloquine to a drug of last resort, after decades of causing harm to our servicemen and women. (1800)Canadians can do this. They can make a difference. I know that they see this law as irrational, dangerous, and rushed, everything that is not good. Therefore, I encourage them to do what they have done. I know they are exhausted. They should keep going. Black marketC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug trafficking and drug seizureGovernment billsMental healthParentsParticipatory democracyPossession of a controlled substanceReport stageYoung people5118515511851651185185118519511852051185215118522BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTobacco ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. There are two parts to the bill. One speaks to the plain packaging issue and the rest to vaping.I am going to take my usual approach and say what I like about the bill and what I do not like, and then discuss things I think we should consider as we move the bill forward.I am very proud of the Conservative Party's record on reducing tobacco smoking. When the Conservative government implemented measures in this area, the number of young people in Canada smoking tobacco was cut in half. That is admirable. Smoking rates overall under our government fell to an all-time low of 13%. I think everyone in the House would admit that we know that smoking is harmful. We want to reduce the number of people smoking and the harmful effects associated with it. However, that is not the only consideration in the bill. We also need to make sure that we reduce the crime involved in all of the things the bill addresses. We need to be concerned as well about any of the economic impacts we might see as the bill is implemented. With respect to the vaping industry, it is possible that people are not very familiar with vaping. I had a number of people in the industry come to me and demonstrate all the neat devices one can use to take either glycol, water, or some additives and heat them to a vapour that one can inhale. A number of things are being vaped. In some cases, people use vaping to get off smoking. They start with a concentrated nicotine liquid and over time reduce the concentration of that nicotine liquid. The act of vaping sort of satisfies their smoking need, and over time they actually can quit smoking. In addition to that, there are different flavours that have been allowed. People are vaping flavours for different reasons, some to get off smoking, and some to address other situations. Folks who are diabetic or morbidly obese apparently prefer to vape something that has a sweet flavour to it, because then they are not really receiving any calories but are addressing one of their compulsive needs. This is the information that has been shared with me by the vaping industry. On the other hand, the vaping industry today is totally unregulated. That is a problem, because in Canada we regulate pretty much everything else: food, drugs, etc. We are also concerned about vaping products getting into the hands of children, so we would like to see the industry regulated. That is a part of the bill I do like. We need to regulate this industry. The recommendation to only make making vaping products available to those over 18 is a very good idea. We also need to make sure that as we deal with this, we take into consideration all of the different types of devices. This is an area where the technology is changing. One of the points raised earlier was that e-cigarettes need to be in this category. However, even within the tobacco industry, there is growing science to reduce harm. Therefore, one of the products that is not currently addressed by this legislation, but needs to be addressed somewhere, is nicotine sticks, the actual tobacco sticks that are heated. They are not being combusted. It is not a smoking phenomenon; it is a heating phenomenon. The research that has been done by that industry shows there is a 75% harm reduction from these products. Somewhere, these products need to be addressed, but they are not really addressed today by this legislation. I have heard some conversation suggesting that they would remain under the tobacco part of the legislation, but that would not give them a fair playing field, because they would be competing with the vaping products. The vaping products that are out there need to be regulated. We need to be concerned about how these things will be promoted and sold. Today, unregulated vaping shops have arisen. The regular convenience stores are not able to get into that market, so the input from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association is that whatever rules are put in place, they would like to be able to partake and participate in that market. That is a reasonable concern. (1030)One of the studies done in the U.K. on vaping shows a 95% reduction in harm from vaping over smoking regular tobacco. This is definitely moving in the direction of reduced harm. I am concerned that if we are too restrictive about advertising those benefits, it might be a mistake. We want people to stop smoking. That is one of the main drivers of all the things we are talking about today, so that is something that needs to be considered as well.I will move on to the plain packaging side of the story. The history of that is an implementation that was done in Australia. The outcomes were twofold. One, there was a slight reduction in the number of people smoking tobacco. I believe there were 100,000 fewer people smoking tobacco over a three-year period. However, there was an increase in contraband. Australia does not produce its own tobacco. It imports everything. Within that, contraband grew from 10% to 26%. That is concerning, especially when we look at how that compares to Canada.We have quite a contraband problem in the tobacco industry in Canada. In fact, in Ontario, it is estimated that 40% to 60% of cigarettes sold are contraband. I know in my own riding, there are smoke shops literally everywhere where people can buy illegal contraband tobacco. It is simply not being enforced by the police today. Many of the first nations in my riding are the ones putting forward this product. I understand the sensitivity of that. If we are going to go to plain packaging, there are consumer health considerations, because there have been numerous complaints about the content of some of this contraband tobacco. We have heard stories about dirt, sweepings, and animal manure. From a quality control point of view, as was pointed out earlier, if a cigarette has absolutely no markings on it, we have no idea if it was made by a well-regulated industry or if it was made in someone's barn. That is a concern for me. We have a lot of regulation in every other area of food and drugs, and this should be no different.The other thing that is sort of hypocritical on the part of the government has to do with a discussion I participated in on the health committee with respect to marijuana and whether plain packaging would be appropriate for it. To start, organized crime is already participating in this market. There is lovely packaging, with all kinds of colours, and people are becoming brand loyal, especially in the edibles market. The idea was that if plain packaging was introduced, it would not be competitive with what is already in place from organized crime. The discussion was that they would not move to plain packaging.I do not know how one could make that argument on that side and not on the tobacco side, with a 40% contraband market in Ontario, and I believe, about 30% across the country. That bears a bit of discussion, because what we are really talking about is competing harms. There is the harm reduction we are going to get from going to plain packaging for smoking versus the harm increase from not having quality control for that product, plus the harm from the organized crime interactions. We have to take a bit of a holistic view when we look at that.A number of organizations are weighing in on this legislation. We looked to the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation for their input on this. (1035)The Canadian Cancer Society said, “We applaud the federal government's commitment to implement plain and standardized packaging for tobacco and are writing to encourage speedy adoption of the regulations. Plain packaging for tobacco products would prevent tobacco companies from using packs as mini billboards promoting tobacco. “Despite the fact that smoking rates have declined by more than half, tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, killing 37,000 Canadians every year. We're deeply concerned by Canada's unacceptable high rates of smoking, especially among youth. “Health Canada's tobacco strategy expires in March 18. I urge you to strengthen this strategy through better funding to allow for stronger initiatives and greater impact through modernization of the outdated federal Tobacco Act, that is almost 20 years old, and through the speedy adoption of plain-packaging regulations.” We see that these organizations see some merit in plain packaging, but obviously, they share similar concerns about controlling quality. It may be that we want to have some kind of government-approved mark on cigarettes that would at least allow the consumer to differentiate between something that is contraband and something that is not. That said, we know that those in organized crime are quite clever, and if we put a mark on something, they could easily copy it. We see that we even have counterfeit money, so that may not fix that concern.Some of the other things I want to talk about have to do with the recommendations specific to packaging. There was discussion about having an optional alphanumeric code used for product identification. I think it should actually not be optional. It would mean there would be a number system on each cigarette, with letters referring either to Canada or to the province or territory where it is sold, such as AB for Alberta, or CA overall, or CA-ON for Canada-Ontario. Having a set of numbers would be another prevention tactic that could be used to try to keep contraband out of the market. It is worth considering.Bill S-5 also would not allow the tobacco industry to introduce the harm-reducing products it is coming forward with under the vaping legislation. They would be required to be under the tobacco legislation, which is more onerous, from a product introduction point of view. That includes getting products approved, getting products added to the list, and the amount of scientific evidence businesses have to bring about health and other impacts, including environmental. I would say that there needs to be a fairer playing field between them.Let us talk a bit about marijuana, because the government is intending to legalize marijuana in July 2018. It seems to me that it is a totally hypocritical approach. We are trying to modernize regulations about smoking, and the Liberals, even though they want to reduce smoking, have added marijuana smoking to the list of things they want to do. I am certain that the Liberals would want to bring amendments to this bill that would include marijuana so that it is clear, because people are vaping marijuana, and they are smoking marijuana. Both are harmful. The Canadian Medical Association has come out with studies that show the harm to young people as their brains are developing. They see a 30% increase in schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, depression, anxiety, and addiction in young people who consume marijuana once a week. If we are talking about reducing overall harm, it would be a concern to me to bring marijuana into this whole thing. That speaks again to having measures in place to make sure that young people do not get hold of these products.At convenience stores today, cigarettes are kept behind the counter. People cannot see them. I am not sure that on top of that we actually need plain packaging. People cannot see the packaging, so I do not think those who are smoking are really buying cigarettes on brand loyalty. Considerations that might be important are actually more about regulating size. Companies have started to come out with slender packs of cigarettes, with cigarettes that are skinnier and that come in little ladylike packages. Even if they make the package plain, allowing that different size gives the illusion that somehow smoking will make people skinny. I do not know that this is always true, although we do see quite often that when people stop smoking, they gain weight, so there might be something to it.(1040)I think that is certainly an enticement, and for women who want to carry cigarettes around in their purse, it is quite convenient. It is an incentive to smoke. We want to look at all those things and say that perhaps that is not the right idea.We also need to give consideration to the existing industry. In Canada, we have a number of tobacco producers, and they have seen job losses over the years. They recognize that eventually we want to eliminate all smoking. However, they have an export business, and there is a demand out there. Therefore, we need to be sensitive to the impact on jobs. One of the questions their representatives asked me when they came to visit had to do with their ability to produce a colourful package to export. It is not clear in this legislation whether that would be allowed, because we would only allow the production of plain packaging. There would have to be some sort of exemption to allow them to continue to supply cigarettes for export. Otherwise, it would hurt their businesses, and obviously there would be job reductions. That is an economic concern. There are also members who have tobacco growers in their ridings who will be concerned about the impact of any changes that come out of this bill. We need to give consideration to that as well.There is a lot to consider and discuss in this bill. There are some good things in the bill, such as the fact that the vaping industry would be regulated, and we would be able to put in some protections to make sure that children were not accessing vaping products. We would be able to make sure that retailers that cannot participate in the industry could start to participate, which could be a good outcome.However, we see that on the plain packaging side, there are a lot of inconsistencies. There is inconsistency in the approach we would use for marijuana versus tobacco. There are concerns about quality control and how we would make sure to protect consumers from contraband versus the well-regulated and quality-controlled production of cigarettes. There is the whole area of the new technology and trying to create a fair playing field for that.I am impressed to see the tobacco companies coming forward with multiple generations of new products that are not smoked tobacco that are used to get people to ultimately reduce their nicotine intake and get off this drug. However, right now the constraints on them, because they are regulated as smoked tobacco products, are not helping them move in the right direction, which is the direction we want to see people go. We want people to stop smoking. We know that smoking is one of the leading causes of death in Canada. We want to make sure that we do everything we can to help the industry as we transition to products that transition Canadians from smoking. At the same time, we need to make sure that we do not incentivize young Canadians with the marijuana legislation that is being introduced, which includes the message that kids aged 12 to 17 can possess up to five grams. That is the wrong message. There are a lot of children and young people who do not understand that marijuana is harmful to them. We need to get that public education message out there. We need to make sure that we control all these products so that when they start to be used with marijuana, there are not unintended consequences. I do not think there is a lot of research, for example, on the concentration of marijuana one can vape safely. I think that is an area of concern, especially when we see some of the contaminated supplies of marijuana that exist and that probably will continue to exist.For all of those reasons, I think there is enough good in this bill that it is worth talking about. However, as members can see, there are a lot of areas of concern that would have to be sorted out at committee. As one of the members of the health committee, I look forward to helping sort through them to see whether we can address these issues and come out with a bill that, at the end of the day, will do more good for Canadians than harm.Aboriginal peoplesAdvertisingChildrenConsumers and consumer protectionConvenience storesCrime and criminalityCriminal gangs and gangstersDecriminalizationElectronic cigarettesEnvironmental protectionExportsGovernment billsLabour forceLegal ageLegalizationMarijuanaMarketingMonopoliesPackaging and labellingPassive smokingPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthRegulationS-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsScientific dataSecond readingSenate billsSmokingStatisticsTobacco industryTobacco productsTobacco traffickingWeight lossYoung people5103485BillBlairScarborough SouthwestCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersTobacco ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was astounded when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health waxed philosophically about how smoking was absolutely harmful. I asked him how the government could introduce legislation concerning marijuana if it was harmful and it was trying to reduce harm. There seemed to be absolutely no answer.From a public education point of view, it is clear from jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana, the targeted education is to young people, to very young people, and to parents and influences of young people. Those three demographics are targets. We need to educate young people before they get into the 12 to 17 years when they can possess up to five grams. I am really hammering that five grams because it is the wrong message to be sending. Zero grams is the right amount.We need to have all of those things brought forward. Parents need to be educated as well. I do not think they are aware of what is in this legislation or what is in the marijuana legislation, but there are definitely unintended consequences in both.ChildrenGovernment billsInformation disseminationLegalizationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substanceS-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSecond readingSenate billsTobacco productsYoung people5103516K. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—GreyJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPortuguese Heritage MonthInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, as the NDP critic for multiculturalism, I am pleased to rise in this House to support Motion No. 126, Portuguese heritage month.I have always been proud of the NDP's support of multiculturalism in Canada. My colleagues and I always welcome the opportunity to celebrate the unique heritage of Canada and the contributions made by so many different ethnic and religious groups. Portuguese Canadians have a rich cultural history and heritage, with many traditions brought over continuing to flourish in the various Little Portugals in Canadian cities today. With nearly half a million Canadians having Portuguese heritage, the tie created between Canada and Portugal is significant.This motion provides Canadians with the opportunity to understand, appreciate, and join in the celebration of the traditions and heritage of the Portuguese community. I believe this also gives us an opportunity to look at what Portugal is doing today that Canada can learn from.During the 1990s, Portugal was experiencing a national crisis regarding heroin addiction. At its height, one in 100 Portuguese citizens was using heroin, overdose deaths were robbing families of their loved ones far too soon, and dirty needles were contributing to the highest level of HIV infection in Europe. A little over 15 years ago, with the realization that the current approach simply was not working, Portugal made a decision that things needed to change. Portugal embraced the harm reduction approach, understanding that addiction issues were better suited to being addressed by the health care system and the social welfare system, rather than the criminal justice system. Portugal took what seemed like a radical step to many peer nations: it decriminalized minor possession of all drugs and dramatically shifted resources away from the criminal justice system towards health and social services. Now if people are caught possessing what is deemed an amount equivalent to individual possession, they are sent to report to a warning commission on drug addiction. Here they are assessed by social workers and other health care professionals and are referred to treatment centres, if appropriate. Instead of criminal charges tying up the courts, and criminal records with lifelong impacts, individuals are referred to services that will actually help them and are given fines equal to parking tickets.Those against these ideas suggested that it would be the end of Portugal, that people from all over the world would flock there simply to use and abuse drugs, and that this would simply make things worse. Nearly two decades later, that fearmongering has been shown to be just that. Drug-caused deaths in Portugal have fallen well below the European Union's average. New HIV infections due to IV drug use have dropped from over 1,000 cases in 2001 to fewer than 100 in 2013. Overall drug use has actually gone down. As I have said in the House before, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Portuguese model has saved lives, reduced infection rates, and alleviated the burden on the criminal justice system that drug use and addiction causes in countries like our own. It is clear that as Canada grapples with the current opioid crisis, there is much we can learn from Portugal. The success of harm reduction in east Vancouver, most notably with the establishment of lnsite, is indisputable. However, that is not enough. We need more sites. We need more funding for treatment options, including expanded heroine maintenance programs and services. We need to make more use of the health care system and less use of the justice system. We need to support the front-line workers and first responders. We need to call it what it is: a national health emergency.In his first visit to the west coast after becoming leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh stated: Thousands of people are dying in our country as a result of this crisis and it needs to be named a national crisis first.He also noted that the Portuguese model of harm reduction resulted in a dramatic decrease in overdose deaths and a reduction in addictions. He said:That should be the focus if we really want to address the opioid crisis, and really want to reduce the significant and terrible deaths.Canada can and should learn from the Portuguese model. Aside from the opioid crisis, Portugal is also concerned about climate change. Portugal's geographic location on the Iberian Peninsula has brought the impact of climate change to the forefront. It is believed that this region will be hit hard by climate change impacts. This past summer, Portugal, like Canada, experienced devastating wildfires. It is believed that the impact of climate change has lengthened Portugal's wildfire season from two months a year to up to five months of the year.(1845) The European Environment Agency reported this year that Portugal has lost 6.8 billion euros as a result of climate change from 1980 to 2013 alone. Portugal has committed to the Paris agreement and made ambitious goals to combat climate change. The climate change performance index, which is an index by Germanwatch and the Climate Action Network Europe, ranked Portugal 11th in the world for 2017 compared to Canada at 55. It was noted that Portugal was one of the only two countries that leapt from “moderate performance” into “good performance”, whereas for Canada they wrote:Without significant movements in either direction, Canada remains in the bottom group of most CCPI categories. The only sector where the country ranks in the middle field is the emissions development but even there it lost some ground...In June, the Portuguese prime minister reported that Portugal had already achieved over 87% of its 2020 goal. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister cannot say the same. Despite the government's sunny ways, it has only committed to reach the former Conservative government's climate targets for 2030, targets which were hardly considered world-leading then or now. Unless a dramatic change of course occurs, Canada will not meet its targets for 2020 or 2030. Finally, coming out of the global financial crisis, many countries, Canada included, adopted an austerity mantra. Social services were cut, and in some cases deeply. Austerity measures have always clearly had the biggest impact on the vulnerable segments of our population, and this true in Canada or anywhere abroad. In much of Europe, where the crisis hit harder than here, even deeper cuts and austerity demands impacted the lives of countless people already struggling to get by. The Portugal government, elected in 2015, determined that it would not take that approach. Much like the reaction to Portugal's harm reduction measures, many said this would prove to be a disaster. Portugal's government has moved to increase minimum wages, reverse regressive tax measures, reinvest in the public service through wages and pensions, increased social security for lower-income families, and introduced a luxury charge on homes worth over 600,000 euros. After one year with these changes in effect, GDP was up, corporate investment was up, deficit spending halved to the lowest point in 40 years, and the economy grew for 13 straight quarters and counting. Portugal is investing in its people to grow its economy, and it appears to be working. Canada can and needs to do more to invest in our people to grow our economy. Too often we put vulnerable groups against vulnerable groups. Instead of tackling tax havens and loopholes in our tax system used by only the wealthiest people to avoid paying their fair share, the government floated tax measures that would have impacted small business owners, and even measures that would impact minimum wage retail workers. Portuguese Canadians should be proud not just of their Portuguese heritage and history but also of the present. While celebrating Portugal day in June, Canadians with or without Portuguese heritage should not just learn more about the history but learn more about today. It is through this exchange of dialogue that Canada can continue to push to be as great as we possibly can. This is one of the great aspects of Canada's multiculturalism policy and it is one of the reasons I am proud to support this motion. Brush, prairie and forest firesBudget cutsCanada-Portugal DayClimate change and global warmingCultural heritageDecriminalizationDrug use and abuseEconomic policyGreenhouse gasesHeroinM-126Opiates and opioidsPortuguese CanadiansPortuguese Heritage MonthPossession of a controlled substance5094753KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMarijuanaInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I present petitions on behalf of many people in Nanaimo, B.C. The petitioners argue that the prohibition of cannabis has criminalized millions of Canadians, and that cannabis has the potential to provide medicine, food, and fibre. The petitioners ask that Parliament remove marijuana possession from the Criminal Code, end police raids against dispensaries, for those with criminal records for personal possession grant full pardon and amnesty, and release prisoners now serving time. I urge the government to so act.DecriminalizationMarijuanaPetition 421-01621Petition 421-01622Petition 421-01623Possession of a controlled substance49737194973720ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45, on the legalization of marijuana, addresses findings by various stakeholders over many years. For example, these include the 2002 Nolin report, which calls for the end of criminalization for simple possession, as well as dozens of reports by community groups and provincial and national organizations explaining that the war on cannabis is not working. I personally support the principles of the bill, such as limiting cannabis possession for an adult or to combat illegal trade. While we may agree with the public safety and security aspects of the bill, I wonder about the public health aspects. This is just one of the major holes in the bill. In my speech, I will focus on three of them, namely, the government’s decision to leave young people with criminal records; the burden placed on the provinces with respect to managing distribution and the handling of impaired driving charges by the courts, and on youth organizations that currently bear the prevention burden; and the lack of a vision with respect to youth prevention and education.The Liberals have been making the legalization of cannabis a central theme since March 15, 2015. The leader of the Liberal Party announced at a Vancouver radio station that he wanted to legalize marijuana as soon as possible. He said that we needed to look at the situation south of the border and that having a criminal record has serious consequences for young people. He was right. Indeed, the current legislation has many negative impacts. Over 54,000 people were arrested for simple possession. A great many of them have criminal records. The people most affected by this are of course young people, especially young people from different cultural backgrounds and first nations. This kind of discrimination was no more tolerable in 2015 than it is today.Now, the leader of the Liberal Party, who has since become the Prime Minister, has changed his tune and is pursuing his policy of leaving thousands of young Canadians with criminal records. I remind the House that once someone is stuck with a criminal record, it is very hard, if not impossible, to get a passport and travel abroad, or even to the U.S., to find a job, to find decent housing, or to volunteer anywhere. When someone has a criminal record, they are stuck with that black mark for the rest of their lives.The NDP is not proposing to put the brakes on legalization, but rather to learn from the mistakes of the United States, for example, and to adopt what has worked elsewhere, unless the member for Eglinton—Lawrence believes that 17 U.S. states, Australia, Belgium, and Portugal are wrong about decriminalization.Some organizations, such as Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, are asking for the immediate decriminalization of cannabis. This would free up our courts and allow us to better address the consequences of the Jordan decision. Above all, it would give certainty to police officers who must enforce the law. To prevent discrimination and life-long consequences for youth and to help our judicial system, I am asking the government to decriminalize marijuana immediately and to give an amnesty to those with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That is also one of the recommendations of the minister's task force on cannabis legalization. There is a serious lack of information about public health in the bill and in the document provided by the Department of Justice. According to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, or INSPQ, the legalization of cannabis and its sale cannot be done for purely commercial purposes. I completely agree. Even if we approve the provisions of Bill  C-45 that prohibit false advertising, sponsorship promotion, and the like, there are still too many details missing on other issues. Under clause 139, the matter of plain packaging and displaying information such as the level of THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, will be covered by the regulations, which will be developed after the bill is passed.However, the government has not given any indication as to what it intends to do. Take, for example, dried products. The Netherlands have imposed a 15% limit on the concentration of THC. Why are the Liberals not setting any limits on the concentration of THC for every product covered by the bill? No limits have been set at all. (1835) Public health organizations such as the INSPQ tell us that concentration levels in several cannabis-related products have increased dramatically in recent years. Why, then, did the government not improve the bill? The task force also told it that the bill lacked teeth in this respect. A major part of public health is prevention. However, this aspect is missing from the bill. The word prevention literally appears nowhere in Bill C-45, and yet, prevention is mentioned in all the papers I have read and all the conversations with organizations I have consulted. My staff and I spoke with many organizations in Salaberry—Suroît as well as provincial and national organizations. They all talked about the need to know more about the bill, since the information is not getting out, as well as the need for prevention and education funding. PACT de Rue, an organization involved in street work, is asking for funding to be made available to community groups as well as schools to educate young people who may be between 11 and 17 when they start smoking cannabis for the first time. The Association québécoise des centres d'intervention en dépendance, which includes Liberté de choisir, an organization in my riding, is calling on the government to reinvest that revenue in prevention and education.National organizations, such as the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, are sending the same message. Even the working group that the government created made the following recommendation: Implement as soon as possible a...public education campaign...with an emphasis on youth, parents and vulnerable populations.It also made this recommendation: In the period leading up to legalization, and thereafter on an ongoing basis, governments invest effort and resources in developing, implementing and evaluating broad, holistic prevention strategies....Quebec's minister, Lucie Charlebois, was disappointed in the federal government's announcement: We need more money to do prevention, to make sure parents have the information they need. How are we supposed to educate people? How are we supposed to prepare parents for this and do awareness programs in schools?I just want to point out that the government goes on and on about how it wants to set up prevention programs for young people, about how it wants to protect them and stop organized crime in its tracks. That is all well and good, but it is not actually ponying anything up for effective, long-term measures to protect young people.The Minister of Health announced a whopping $9.6 million over five years, less than $2 million per year, or less than 6¢ per Canadian per year for prevention. How is prevention work possible with so little funding? Do we need to dip into federal transfers, even though they do not even meet needs now? That is not a good idea.Let us look south of the border, as the Liberal Party leader invited us to do in 2015. Colorado is spending over $45 million per year on prevention and education. That is 30 times more than what is being proposed.Officials interviewed by the task force advised it to launch prevention campaigns before the official legalization date, supposedly one year from now, if the Liberals are to be believed. For now, the federal government’s message to the provinces is “I am legalizing it, but you figure out how to deal with the public health issues.” I find it is irresponsible of the federal government to recklessly say it is making decisions based on science. Everyone we consulted and the experts in the field are saying that investments in prevention are sorely needed to educate young people about the risks of cannabis use. However, there is no political will, no vision, or no leadership to carry out a proper prevention campaign. Even worse, there is not one word about research either. Several reports find that there needs to be more scientific research into the effects of cannabis. The government itself wants to change the regulations but is not contributing the resources to come up with scientific data. However, Canadian society has already accepted the bill and the social change that legalizing cannabis represents. The University of New Brunswick created a research chair. Will the federal government help them? We do not know. Deciding to legalize without a prevention, education, or research plan is a major flaw as well as the height of arrogance. The government says, “It is not a problem. We will keep our promise, and the provinces will foot the bill. Tough luck”.(1840)In closing, Bill C-45 introduced by the government deals with the public safety aspect, but not the public health aspect. It legalizes cannabis, the most common drug used by young Quebeckers and young Canadians, but it ignores those who will be arrested over the next year for having a single joint.We need prevention, not a government that plays sorcerer's apprentice with marijuana legislation. We need research on THC concentrations. We also need revenues to be invested in prevention in the provinces to ensure the future of these programs.Since I am a former teacher, on a report card, I would give the government a mark of “C-, 45, and I would write “could do better, not reaching its potential”. Aboriginal peoplesC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCommunity organizationsCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug educationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGovernment revenuesInformation disseminationPackaging and labellingPossession of a controlled substanceScientific research and scientistsSecond readingTetrahydrocannabinolYoung people492505649250574925060BruceStantonSimcoe NorthStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88835JanePhilpottHon.Jane-PhilpottMarkham—StouffvilleIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PhilpottJane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionHon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.): (1845)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to contribute to this debate on Bill C-45, legislation that proposes to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis. Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for our government, and the focus of the bill.Despite decades of criminal prohibition, Canadians, including 21% of our youth, and 30% of young adults, continue to use cannabis. In fact, Canadians use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world. As is well known, large quantities of cannabis are grown and sold illegally, profiting criminals and organized crime. This is done with no regard for public health or safety.[Translation]Too many young Canadians can access cannabis too easily. Young people often find it easier to buy cannabis than cigarettes. This situation cannot go on. Young people run the risk of being exposed to criminals whose only motivation is to maximize their profits.[English]Simply put, the current approach to cannabis is not working. That is why our government is proposing a public health approach for cannabis legalization and regulation. Our aim is to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use.Scientific evidence shows that the risks of cannabis are higher for youth than adults, and these risks increase the younger people are when they start using it and the more often they use it. Our objective is to keep cannabis out of the hands of kids, both through the legislation and through early and sustained public education and awareness.[Translation]Bill C-45 currently before the House is the cornerstone of the government's approach.[English]The bill is about protecting our youth and reducing their access to cannabis. It would impose serious criminal penalties for those who provide cannabis to young people or enlist them in committing a cannabis-related offence.Beyond that, the bill is about creating a legal and regulated market for cannabis, taking profits out of the hands of criminals, and protecting public health through strict product requirements for safety and quality. Bill C-45 is informed by the recommendations of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which was led last year by the Honourable Anne McLellan. The task force heard from experts in many fields, including health, public safety, justice, and law enforcement, and received more than 30,000 responses from Canadians.Today, I would like to focus on four key components of our government's approach: protecting youth; education and awareness; product safety and quality controls; and the roles and responsibilities, and implementation.Let us begin with protecting youth. To reiterate what is already well known, too many young Canadians have easy access to cannabis. During its extensive consultations across the country, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation heard the same thing: how easy it is for young people to obtain cannabis. Therefore, Bill C-45 is not just about taking action on illegal cannabis markets, which my colleagues will expand on in further detail. It is also about protecting the health of Canadians, and most importantly, the health of young people and children.(1850)[Translation] Young people are at the heart of the government's strategy to regulate cannabis and restrict access to it for three reasons.First, there are risks associated with the use of cannabis. Even though some people use it for medical purposes, it can still be harmful to a person's health. Second, young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on the development of the brain and brain function because their brains are still developing. Third, the younger one is at onset of use, and the more one uses, the greater the health threat.[English]The combination of these factors is why we seek to restrict youth access to cannabis, to penalize those who sell or give to youth, and to restrict its advertising and promotion.Specifically, as drafted, the cannabis act would prohibit anyone from selling or providing cannabis to any person under the age of 18, but provinces and territories would have the flexibility to set a higher minimum age should they wish to do so. In addition, the act would create two new criminal offences, with maximum penalties of 14 years in jail for giving or selling cannabis to youth or for using a youth to commit a cannabis-related offence.The act would also prohibit certain marketing practices. Cannabis businesses would not be allowed to produce or sell products that appeal to youth, such as gummy bears. In addition, they would not be allowed to use any packaging or labelling that is attractive to youth, including depictions of persons, celebrities, characters, or animals. Also, cannabis could not be sold through self-service displays or vending machines.The bill proposes a number of restrictions on promotion to protect youth from being persuaded to consume cannabis through marketing or advertising. Promotion would be permitted only when it provides factual information and is communicated in a way that cannot be seen by youth. In addition, false, misleading, or deceptive advertising would be prohibited, as would sponsorship, testimonials, or endorsements, or other forms of promotion or branding that could entice young people to use cannabis.[Translation]We are confident that these measures will prevent children and youth from obtaining cannabis. At the same time, adults must have access to clear and objective information in order to make informed decisions about their consumption.[English]Therefore, the legislation would permit information-type promotion. This means it would allow factual, accurate information about cannabis products, such as the ingredients and the THC levels. Information that allows consumers to tell the difference between brands would also be permitted. Again, in all cases, these types of promotions would be allowed only where they could not be seen by youth. Penalties for violating these prohibitions would include a fine of up to $5 million, three years in jail, or both. When it comes to enforcement, the bill seeks to avoid criminalizing youth and subjecting them to the lifelong consequences of a criminal record. To this end, I should note three points. First, individuals under the age of 18 would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis, up to five grams. Second, violations of the proposed legislation by youth would be subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and addressed in the youth justice system, and third, provinces and territories would have the flexibility to prohibit the possession of any amount of cannabis by youth, thereby permitting police to seize any cannabis a youth has in their possession.[Translation] I will move on to education and public awareness. We know that Canadians need information about cannabis. We have to talk about it with our children, make informed and responsible decisions, and ensure that our roads are safe. That was the very clear message that our government heard thanks to the working group's consultations. We have a plan to address the situation.(1855)[English]We are also hearing from the experience of jurisdictions in the United States, whose officials told us that it is important to communicate early and to communicate often about the risks of cannabis consumption. One of the challenges we face when it comes to protecting youth is that they are less likely than adults to see cannabis use as a significant risk to health.[Translation]To that end, our government is investing in robust measures to make sure all Canadians, especially young people, are aware of the risks associated with cannabis use.[English]In budget 2017, our government committed $9.6 million to a public education and awareness campaign to inform Canadians, particularly young people, of the risks of cannabis use, as well as to fund surveillance activities. This campaign has begun and will continue over the next years. In collaboration with the provinces and territories, the campaign will raise public awareness about the risks associated with cannabis use and monitor the impacts of providing strictly controlled access. It will also monitor patterns and perceptions of cannabis use among Canadians, especially, youth. To do this, we have launched the Canadian cannabis survey to gather information on the rates and patterns of cannabis use, as well as perceptions about cannabis. This annual survey includes detailed questions on how often and how much Canadians use cannabis, how they acquire it, and whether they consume it with other substances or before driving.[Translation]In addition to monitoring and measuring the impact of legislative measures, the survey will enable us to orient and better target our public education activities and to reduce the risks associated with cannabis use. I will now talk about product safety and quality requirements. Bill C-45 would permit adults 18 years or older to legally possess up to 30 grams of legal dried cannabis in public, or its equivalent in other forms.[English]Adults would also be able to legally access cannabis through various mechanisms. Primarily, they could purchase it from a provincially licensed retailer or could grow it themselves at home. Sharing of cannabis would be limited to no more than 30 grams of dried cannabis or its equivalent, and personal cultivation would be limited to no more than four plants per residence, each with a maximum height of 100 cm. To deter criminal activity and protect the health and safety of Canadians, our government is committed to ensuring that there is a safe and legal controlled supply of cannabis available for sale when the act comes into force. Under the proposed legislation and regulations, our government would establish industry-wide rules on the types of products that would be allowed for sale, standardized serving sizes, and potency. We would also have rules on the use of certain ingredients and good production practices, as well as the tracking of cannabis from seed to sale to prevent diversion to the illicit market.Canada already has experience with product safety and quality requirements for cannabis. Our current system, which provides access to cannabis for medical purposes, is recognized as one of the best in the world. It includes a number of safety and security features, such as frequent inspections of production facilities and clear regulations around pesticide use. [Translation] We will be using the authorized production system in place as the plan of action to control cannabis production under the proposed cannabis legislation.While on this topic, I would like to say a few words about the Canadian medical marijuana system. This system will continue to exist when bill C-45 goes into effect, subject to parliamentary approval. [English]This was recommended by the task force to ensure access to cannabis for individuals who have the authorization of their health care practitioners. The task force also recommended that the government monitor and evaluate patients' reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes during the implementation of the new law and that it evaluate that framework within five years. We intend to do that.Health Canada has introduced changes to its program overseeing the medical cannabis industry to accelerate the licensing of producers to enable the industry to meet the increased demand for cannabis.The existing rules surrounding product safety, good product practices, and restrictions on which pesticides can be used will remain in place. Health Canada will continue to inspect producers and enforce the regime. This will ensure that production is safe and quality controlled.(1900)[Translation]Finally, I would like to talk a little about the roles and responsibilities with respect to Bill C-45 and its implementation.As I already mentioned, the proposed cannabis law would establish a rigorous national framework to limit the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.[English]All levels of government in Canada would be able to establish requirements with respect to cannabis, consistent with their jurisdictional authorities and experience. Again, this follows the advice of the task force.Under the proposed cannabis act, the federal government would be responsible for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive and consistent national framework to regulate production, set standards for heath and safety, and establish criminal prohibitions. The provinces and territories would license and oversee the distribution and sale of cannabis. Together with municipalities, they could tailor certain rules in their own jurisdictions and enforce them through a range of tools. These rules could include setting additional regulatory requirements to address issues of local concern, such as prohibiting the consumption of cannabis in public or setting zoning requirements for where cannabis businesses could be located.Active involvement of provincial and territorial governments by, for example, setting strong retail rules to prevent cannabis from being sold to young people, will be critical to ensure that young people do not have access to cannabis.[Translation]Earlier, I mentioned that our government's budget 2017 included a $9.6 million investment over five years for a comprehensive public awareness and information campaign as well as monitoring activities.As health is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, the provinces and territories can complement federal public health programs.This could include managing health and public safety issues, as well as providing public awareness activities and counselling in schools.Our government is committed to continuing to work with the provinces and territories to address this complex issue.[English]When it comes to the implementation of Bill C-45, I should note that cannabis for non-medical purposes will remain illegal as the bill moves through the legislative process. Currently, it is illegal to buy, sell, produce, import, or export cannabis unless it is authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and its regulations, such as the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.Subject to approval by Parliament, the government intends to bring the proposed cannabis act into force no later than July 2018. Under the proposed act, possession, production, distribution, and sale outside the legal system would remain illegal and be subject to criminal penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. These could range from ticketing up to a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.[Translation]In the weeks and months to come, our government will be working with those who share with us the responsibility for the legalization and regulation of cannabis. In particular, we will be working with provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, and our partners in indigenous communities. [English]To conclude, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-45 uses a public health approach to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. Our focus will remain on protecting youth, on educating the public and raising awareness, on ensuring product safety and quality requirements, and on establishing clear roles and responsibilities. Our government is confident that the proposed cannabis act will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.Based on these points, I call on my colleagues to support Bill C-45 at second reading so that it can be considered by the Standing Committee on Health.AdvertisingC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal liabilityDrug educationDrug use and abuseFederal jurisdictionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment expendituresInformation collectionInformation disseminationLegal ageMarijuana grow operationPackaging and labellingParliamentPenaltiesPlantsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsProvincial jurisdictionPublic consultationPublic healthRetail tradeSafetySecond readingSurveysTetrahydrocannabinolYoung people492512549251334925153Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1905)[English]Mr. Speaker, on one hand, the Liberals have acknowledged many times the harms that come from the continued criminalization of cannabis, particularly as it affects small possession charges. These affect our youth and racialized Canadians, and the Liberals have admitted that it clogs up our justice system. On the other hand, the Liberals say that we just need to wait another year, because it is still illegal and that will continue to happen. However, I want to leave that aside for a moment. What I want to ask the Minister of Health is specifically on the issue of pardons. Pardons cost $631. That is a lot of money for people on the margins of society to clear their names and move their lives forward, which is something I think everyone in the House wants to encourage. I want to know from the Minister of Health if her government is going to consider amnesty for people who were previously convicted for possession of small amounts of marijuana, yes or no. I think the House, and Canadians, deserve an answer on that.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading4925169JanePhilpottHon.Markham—StouffvilleJanePhilpottHon.Markham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (2050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. She laid out some very clear reasoning as to why we do need to change from the status quo.I think it was a couple of months ago that the Prime Minister admitted in an interview that when his late younger brother got caught with marijuana, his father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was able to use his connections in the legal community to get his brother off the charges. I think the Prime Minister went on to say that there are two kinds of justice systems, one for the wealthy and well connected and one for everyone else.Many people are saddled with criminal records for possession of minor amounts of marijuana, and the cost of a pardon is $631, which is a huge cost for the marginalized in our society. We have not heard a commitment from the government on the issue of pardons, and I would like to know the member's personal opinion. Does she think that amnesty should be granted to those who were previously convicted for small possession charges, given that the government is moving ahead with legalization? I would like to know if she would support pardons in those cases and if she would pressure her own government to move ahead with this issue.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal record suspensionGovernment billsPossession of a controlled substanceSecond reading49254134925414HedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89090SheriBensonSheri-BensonSaskatoon WestNew Democratic Party CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BensonSheri_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): (2155)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-45, which would bring in a wide-ranging set of changes to our lives.First let me say that the NDP has a proud 45-year history of championing marijuana decriminalization. We have been asking the Liberals to immediately decriminalize simple possession of marijuana as an interim measure, as many young and racialized Canadians continue to receive charges and criminal records that will affect them for the rest of their lives, not to mention the thousands of Canadians who have criminal records for simple possession of a substance that will soon cease to be illegal. The changes to the law that Bill C-45 would bring are long overdue, but while we wait for the bill to become law, why will the government not bring in an interim measure of decriminalization, or at the very least, why will it not invoke prosecutorial and police discretion to cease enforcing an unjust law?In their election platform, the Liberals claimed that arresting for and prosecuting these offences is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offences. Given the current situation of an overloaded justice system where cases are being thrown out and charges stayed because of long delays in courts, it just does not make any sense to keep charging Canadians for simple possession of marijuana. I am particularly concerned about the continued criminalization of cannabis because Saskatchewan is the place people are most likely to get busted for simple possession of marijuana and Saskatoon tops the list of major Canadian cities. According to 2014 data from Statistics Canada, 77% of the time Saskatoon police stop someone suspected of having pot, they lay a charge. That compares with 48% in Regina, and the Canadian average is 39%. Meanwhile, if we look at the per capita rates of charges, Saskatoon ranks fourth behind Kelowna, Gatineau, and Sherbrooke. Overall, in 2014, police reported more than 104,000 drug offences, of which two-thirds, 66%, were related to cannabis and mainly possession of cannabis.The Liberals have yet to explain their reasoning for refusing to decriminalize marijuana and their intransigence is adding to the confusion. Indeed, even law enforcement agencies and experts agree that inconsistencies abound: Neil Boyd, the director of the school of criminology at Simon Fraser University, has concerns about who is facing criminal consequences for pot possession. “I don't think that we can really be confident that the law is being applied equally,” Boyd said. “We know that young people with fewer resources and less access to private space are going to be much more likely to be processed for this offense than people who are older and have access to private space.” Boyd said some people may see outdoor use of marijuana as a nuisance. “It could be a civil fine for public use of cannabis, that would be entirely legitimate. But to treat a person who's using cannabis as a criminal. It's like using a sledgehammer for a flea.” Two years ago, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police called for the option to write a ticket for simple possession, noting that right now their only choice is to lay charges or turn a blind eye. In fact, even the Prime Minister has admitted that the rich and well connected have an easier time avoiding a criminal record while citing the example of his late brother, Michel. Their father, Pierre Trudeau, reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer, and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away. People from minority communities, marginalized communities, without economic resources, are not going to have that kind of option to go through to clear their name in the justice system.Not all of us have the connections of course that the Trudeaus have, and tens of thousands of Canadians will end up having criminal records for life because, despite the Prime Minister's remarks to the contrary during the election campaign, the Minister of Public Safety has stated that the government has no interest in granting a blanket pardon for people with criminal records for possessing small amounts of cannabis.(2200)There is also no indication that the Liberals are interested in making pardons easier to obtain, or if they will address the high $631 fee for an application. Not being able to access a pardon remains a serious obstacle for people who are trying to escape their criminal past and move on with their lives. Why will the Liberals not commit to pardoning those who have previous convictions for simple possession of marijuana?Aside from the confusion surrounding the pardons and the continued criminalization of simple possession, many questions remain unanswered. There are questions regarding the proposed cannabis tracking system. What does it mean for the privacy of Canadians? How will the data be managed? How much will it cost to implement? For the moment, Health Canada cannot say anything other than that it intends to offset such costs through licensing and other fees. Clearly, we need more details and an extended discussion around these important questions.We also need answers on crossing the border for those who admit to smoking marijuana. For instance, the Prime Minister himself could be sanctioned at the border and banned for life if he did not have a diplomatic passport. We already have a host of problems at the border with Canadians being stopped, interrogated, and turned away without good cause. How is the government proposing to deal with any or all of these irritants for Canadians at the border?One of the negative health consequences of the criminalization of cannabis has been a widely acknowledged lack of scientific research into the health impacts of cannabis use, especially chronic long-term use, particularly among young people. One especially grave concern is the fact that there is at present very little research available on the impact of cannabis on the development of the young brain. We in the NDP will continue to press the government to begin establishing research plans and funding into these important areas.I have also heard from many seniors in my constituency who would like to be better informed and supported as they try to navigate the confusing medical marijuana maze. In fact, an estimated 90% of prescription holders are accessing cannabis illegally rather than through licensed producers. Many Canadians with ailments and chronic pain issues may prefer medical marijuana over opiates as a treatment option. However, the task force highlighted the need for access to accurate information on the risks and negative effects of cannabis. With a lack of enough peer-reviewed, credible research on the impact of cannabis use, there is a tendency for cannabis activists to overstate the capacity of cannabis to heal or cure certain chronic conditions. All Canadians will benefit from robust, well-researched, and prominent public information and education programs, but the government has not been clear about how it will be funding public education and research and how that will be rolled out. Will the Liberals commit to using revenues from cannabis legalization for public awareness, prevention, and treatment?Bill C-45 also leaves many key issues to the provinces that will need time to set up their own regulatory systems. This is yet another reason that this process should have been started earlier. The task force report calls upon all levels of government to quickly build capacities to create compliable cannabis policies and regulations. It will be a complicated policy task. Western Canadian economic opportunities to seize the economic potential of a new thriving cannabis sector are unprecedented. The determining factor between profit and loss, both for businesses and governments, is how effectively the regulatory framework is created, implemented, and monitored.What remains unclear is what the tax structure and revenue structure will look like for cannabis and how this will be shared between the federal government and the provinces. The provinces and Canadians will have to wait to hear from the Minister of Finance on that matter.Because the existing cannabis market is so substantial, it is critical to shift the dialogue toward tangible collaborative discussions on co-creating a taxable provincial cannabis distribution model. First nations, municipalities, provinces, and the federal government all have the opportunity to realize sustainable taxation revenues, provided inclusive and enforceable regulations are co-created with the cannabis industry as part of a collaborative public policy.It is my hope that the government does not sweep these questions under the carpet and instead tackles them, because Canadians deserve to have clear and honest answers from their government.Adverse effects and reactionsArrestsBacklogsBordersC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCanada-United States relationsCannabisCriminal justice systemCriminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersDiscretionary powersDrug educationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment revenuesMedical researchPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsRegulationSales taxesSecond readingYoung people49255774925578492557949255824925583492558449255854925586492558749255884925589RobertKitchenSouris—Moose MountainJohnOliverOakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89090SheriBensonSheri-BensonSaskatoon WestNew Democratic Party CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BensonSheri_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCannabis ActInterventionMs. Sheri Benson: (2205)[English] Mr. Speaker, I was not implying in my remarks that decriminalization was the answer or the be-all and end-all. What I was saying is that in the next 15 months, while the government proceeds with legalizing it, there will be young Canadians who will be caught by police with very small amounts of marijuana. They will be charged and they will get a criminal record. For many in my riding, that will be a criminal record for life, because they will never be able to afford the amount of money it costs to get a pardon.What I am saying is that in the interim, does it make sense that the government continues to give young Canadians criminal records or even puts them behind bars, when in the next 15 months it will be legalizing something that even a day earlier might have been criminal? I do not think that is fair, and I think the government should address that. It could easily move forward and ensure that those criminal records do not happen for young people.C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsCannabisCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment billsLegalizationPossession of a controlled substanceSecond readingYoung people4925604JohnOliverOakvilleHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMarijuanaInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from many people in Nanaimo, as well as Ladysmith, Parksville, and Whistler, urging the government to recognize that cannabis prohibition was initiated with no scientific basis and seemed to be initiated as an effort to harass, punish, and deport racial minorities. The petitioners indicate that the prohibition against cannabis has caused great social harm, led to long-standing criminal records for young people, and has the potential to benefit agriculture, medicine, fuel, and building materials, as well as support health.The petitioners urge Parliament to take eight separate actions, specifically and meaningfully right now, to end the criminalization of individuals for the personal possession of marijuana. DecriminalizationMarijuanaPetition 421-01411Possession of a controlled substance492215149221524922153BlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 961-- Mr. Bob Saroya: With regard to the choice of July 1, 2018, as the target date for the legalization of marijuana in Canada: (a) why was that specific date chosen; and (b) does the government have any plans in place to ensure that the Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill on July 1, 2018, are not impacted as a result of the legalization of marijuana and, if so, what are the details of any such plan?(Return tabled)Question No. 962--Mr. Matthew Dubé: With regard to the high-risk immigration-related detention by Canada Border Services Agency in provincial jails: (a) how many high-risk immigration-related detainees are currently detained in each province; (b) of the total number of detainees in (a), (i) what is the gender ratio, (ii) how many are under 21 years old, (iii) how many are over 65 years old; (c) how many high-risk immigration-related detentions have been prolonged, since October 2015, in the past (i) six months, (ii) one year, (iii) one year and six months; (d) what has the government done with respect to outsourcing of housing for high-risk immigration detainees to provincial jails, since 2000, and related to (i) annual cost, (ii) cost by provinces; and (e) what is the percentage premium, on top of the per-capita costs associated with housing those detainees, paid to each province?(Return tabled)Question No. 963-- Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to the FEDNOR, for each fiscal year from 2009-10 to 2017-18: (a) what is the organization’s total approved budget; (b) with respect to the budget in (a), how much was actually spent; (c) with respect to the budget in (a), how much lapsed funding was eligible to be carried over to future years; (d) how much was allocated to the Northern Ontario Development Program; (e) how much was actually spent on the Northern Ontario Development Program; (f) how much was allocated to the Community Futures Program; (g) how much was actually spent on the Community Futures Program; and (h) what were the Full Time Equivalent staffing levels of the organization?(Return tabled)Question No. 964-- Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) following Justice Perrell’s ruling in January 2014 requiring the government to disclose additional documentation that includes police investigations, transcripts of criminal proceedings, and transcripts of civil proceedings (i) what is the number and full list of Narratives that were modified, (ii) what is the number and full list of person of interest reports that were modified, (iii) what is the number of IAP claims, broken down by school, that had been adjudicated under the previous unmodified narratives and person of interest reports, (iv) what is the number of cases, broken down by school, that were re-adjudicated since the narratives and person of interest reports were modified, (v) what steps were taken by federal officials, for each IRS where the narrative and POI reports changed, to determine if individual IAP claims had been denied that might otherwise be supported on this new evidence, (vi) what is the number of survivors or his/her claimant counsel who were contacted or notified of the modifications to the narratives or person of interest reports; (b) regarding civil actions related to Indian Residential Schools predating the IRSSA (i) what is the number of civil cases the government is aware of, (ii) what is the number of civil cases the government was involved in, (iii) what is the number of civil cases the government has court transcripts or documentation of, (iv) what is the number of civil cases that were settled, (v) what is the number of civil cases the government has placed any kind of privilege over the documents (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) related to the case, (vi) what is the number of civil cases the government has not provided the documentation (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) to the IAP or to the NTCR (vii) what is the full list of reasons the government has failed to provide this documentation, (viii) were there any terms under which any plaintiff in those civil actions were not allowed to provide his/her civil pleading and/or the transcript of his/her examination for discovery to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (ix) if the settlement agreement was signed before the IRSSA, what steps have been taken by federal officials to permit each plaintiff to file his/her civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery with the NCTR, (x) if no steps have been taken, what steps are currently being taken, (xi) if steps are not being taken, is direction from the court being sought by the Attorney General, (xii) which federal officials have possession of the transcripts of examinations for discovery, (xiii) what is going to be done with those transcripts when the IRSSA is completed if directions have not been sought from the Court, (xiv) will the Government fund the plaintiff lawyers to communicate with each plaintiff or his/her Estate on this question of the transcripts being filed with the NCTR, (xv) are the Churches in any way constraining the Attorney General of Canada from ensuring that the stories of IRS survivors who were plaintiffs in civil actions, are allowed to be filed with the NCTR; (c) regarding conversation, consultations, or discussions between defendants in the IRSSA such as the government and any church (i) have any conversations, consultations, or discussions occurred over any individual cases in the IAP, (ii) if they occur how common are they, (iii) if they occur what are the matters that are discussed, (iv) if they occur, does this happen when allegations are raised about any current or previous members of either defendant during the IAP hearings; (d) regarding documentation of the IAP (i) what is the number of IAP decisions that have been redacted, (ii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been created, (iii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been redacted to remove the names of alleged perpetrators; and (e) regarding the IRSSA database (i) what is the number of school narratives in this database, (ii) what is the number of school narratives in this database that have been redacted to remove personal information?(Return tabled)Question No. 965-- Mr. Alistair MacGregor: With regard to crime statistics of possession of marijuana since October 20, 2015: (a) how many adults over the age of 25 were (i) arrested, (ii) charged, (iii) convicted for possession of marijuana, and (b) how many youth under the age of 25 were (i) arrested, (ii) charged, (iii) convicted for possession of marijuana?(Return tabled)Question No. 972-- Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to counterfeit goods discovered by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entity, since December, 2015: (a) what is the value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; and (b) what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) country of origin, (iv) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered?(Return tabled)Question No. 977-- Mr. David Anderson: With regard to materials prepared for ministers since December 6, 2016: for every briefing document, memorendum or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department's internal tracking number, (iv) recipient? (Return tabled)Question No. 978--Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Inuit Health Branch: (a) with respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T134017008, what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) with respect to Budget 2017, (i) how much of the 50 million dollars announced for the ASETS program is new funding, how much of it is reallocations, and where are the reallocations coming from, (ii) how much of the money to reduce employment barriers for First Nations youth is from unspent funding in this program area, (iii) how much of the money·allocated to Indigenous tourism is new money or just a reallocation from the broader spending on attracting international tourists, (iv) what percentage of the back-log of post-secondary students will be addressed by the additional funding in PSSP · and how many students will still remain on the backlog, (v) what are the details of the 4 billion dollar investment for infrastructure, broken down by year for the last ten years, and by program type, (vi) what is the number of homes that will be built with the 300 million dollars for Northern housing housing broken down by year, as well as by new homes, lots, and renovations, (vii) what are the details of the funding for each individual area, broken down by year, by chronic and infectious diseases, by maternal and child health, by primary care, by mental wellness, by home and palliative care, by non-insured health benefits, and by drug strategy; (c) if the department cannot provide the information requested in (b)(v), (i) is it because there is currently no identified plan for these investments and where they will flow, (ii) then how was this investment figure calculated; and (d) with respect to the FNIB program, what is the rriost current rate of denials for each level of appeals, broken down by type?(Return tabled)Question No. 979-- Mr. Dave MacKenzie: With regard to the ongoing renovations at 24 Sussex Drive: (a) what is the current status of the renovations; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what are the expected costs between 2016 and the completion date; and (d) what are the details of any contracts issued since January 1, 2016, related to the renovations including the (i) vendor name, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 981--Mr. Kennedy Stewart: With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs Program in 2016 and 2017: (a) how many jobs were approved in each riding in Canada for each of the aforementioned years, and (b) how much money was awarded to each riding in Canada to support the jobs in (a), for each of the aforementioned years?(Return tabled)Question No. 983--Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: With regard to amounts paid by the government to the Aga Khan in relation to the trip taken to the Bahamas by the Prime Minister in December 2016 and January 2017: (a) what was the total amount paid out to the Aga Khan in (i) per diems, (ii) other payments; (b) how many employees per diems were paid to the Aga Khan; (c) did the Aga Khan submit invoices to the government in relation to the trip; and (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) date of invoice, (ii) amount of invoice, (iii) amount paid by the government, (iv) date of payment, (v) description of goods or service provided?(Return tabled)Question No. 984-- Mr. Dean Allison: With regard to the Prime Ministerial delegation to Vimy, France, in April 2017: (a) who were the members of the delegation; and (b) how were the delegation members chosen?(Return tabled)8555-421-961 Target date for the legalization of marijuana8555-421-962 High-risk immigration-related detention8555-421-963 FedNor8555-421-964 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement8555-421-965 Crime statistics for the possession of marijuana8555-421-972 Counterfeit goods8555-421-977 Materials prepared for Ministers8555-421-978 First Nations and Inuit Health Branch8555-421-979 Renovations at 24 Sussex Drive8555-421-981 Canada Summer Jobs Program8555-421-983 Prime Minister's trip to the Bahamas in December 20168555-421-984 Prime Ministerial delegation to VimyAboriginal peoplesAboriginal residential schoolsAga Khan IVAlbas, DanAllison, DeanAnderson, DavidAngus, CharlieBahamasBriefing materialsCabinet ministersCanada Border Services AgencyCanada DayCanada Summer JobsCommunity Futures ProgramConservative CaucusConstituenciesCounterfeitingCrime rateDubé, MatthewFederal Economic Development Agency for Northern OntarioFirst Nations and Inuit Health BranchFranceGovernment assistanceGovernment compensationGovernment expendituresHousing repairs and renovationIllegal migrantsImprisonment and prisonersIndependent Assessment ProcessIndian Residential Schools Settlement AgreementInterparliamentary delegationsLegalizationMacGregor, AlistairMacKenzie, DaveMaintenance, repair and renovation servicesMarijuanaNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthern OntarioNorthern Ontario Development ProgramOrders for return to written questionsPossession of a controlled substancePrime MinisterPrime Minister's residencesQ-961Q-962Q-963Q-964Q-965Q-972Q-977Q-978Q-979Q-981Q-983Q-984Regional developmentRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSaroya, BobStewart, KennedyStudent summer employmentTranscriptsTravelVan Kesteren, DaveVimy49180564918057KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59293RonMcKinnonRon-McKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKinnonRon_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessThe Good Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)(1730)[English] moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-224, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance in overdose drugs) be now read a second time and concurred in.He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to speak to Bill C-224, the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act.[Translation]Last month, I had the pleasure of sitting in the Senate gallery during report stage and third reading stage. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs amended the bill in committee in order to correct the errors and omissions in the original version of my bill. The amendments to Bill C-224 are in line with my objectives and my intent in drafting the bill, and they clarify certain points.They provide greater certainty for people who call 911 in the event of an overdose.[English]I have to thank the Senate for not only accepting my bill but, frankly, for making it better. They tightened up the language to ensure that a person who is being given assistance would not be charged, nor would anyone accompanying them be charged. That is the intent. As long as they are giving assistance they cannot be charged or convicted for possession.Another Senate clarification makes it clear that both those who remain at the scene of the drug overdose and those who accompany the victim to seek medical assistance are also protected. Again, the Senate reinforced the language to ensure that the person suffering from an overdose is equally protected from prosecution. If someone is suffering an overdose, or a friend comes to help, they may already be under some other court order for possession charges. The bill as amended by the Senate makes it clear this would not be held against them. This was sober second thought in action. Senators have demonstrated once again that their collective scope and depth of knowledge really does make better law. I am grateful to Senator Larry Campbell for sponsoring the bill and to senators Murray Sinclair and Vern White for their amendments, which reflect their expertise in judicial proceedings and law enforcement. In Senator Campbell's speech at third reading in the other place, he talked about the lives that have been lost in our home province. At the time he introduced the bill, he stated that 600 British Columbians lost their lives to drug overdoses, and by the end of 2016, 914 had died that year alone. We share the same hope that when this bill becomes law, this number will start to decline. The scourge of overdose deaths is increasing across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, and the number of overdose deaths is rising. The bill will not fix the entire opioid problem. It only addresses one small piece of the puzzle. We all know that. (1735)[Translation]All members of the House and senators also know that to fight opioids in Canada, we, the legislators, must act quickly. That is why in its report the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs asked that the two chambers study Bill C-224 as quickly as possible.Accordingly, here we are debating Bill C-224 today, because it was moved up in the order of precedence just one month after the Senate report. [English]I urge all my colleagues here in the House to come together today. Let us pass Bill C-224. We can send an important message to all Canadians that together we can start saving lives through a very simple action, by telling Canadians it is okay to call for help. C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Consideration of Senate amendmentsDeaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersJudicial privileges and immunitiesNumbers of deathsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSenate and senatorsSentencing485588848558894855890AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingStevenMacKinnonGatineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessThe Good Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in strong support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, as amended by the Senate and introduced by the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I want to first commend the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, whom I have the privilege of serving on the justice committee with, for his leadership and stewardship in raising this important issue and moving this important legislation forward. Without more, Bill C-224 is a good bill, a needed bill, and a bill that would save lives. It could not be more timely. It could not be more timely, because Canada faces an opioid overdose crisis. It is a crisis that has claimed the lives of thousands of Canadians. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours, colleagues are gone, taken. It is a crisis that has torn apart families and devastated communities. It is a crisis that is not slowing down.The opioid crisis is particularly acute in my home province of Alberta. In 2016, Alberta emergency responders responded to some 2,267 fentanyl-related events and 343 Albertans died from a fentanyl overdose. That is up from 257 in 2015 and way up from the two dozen who died in 2012. Even more concerning is that we are seeing more and more potent opioids, such as powdered fentanyl, being pushed out onto our streets. Powdered fentanyl is 80 times more potent than morphine. The percentage of deaths in which fentanyl has been detected has increased from 5% in 2012, to 30% in 2015, to a staggering 62% in 2016.The vast majority of drug overdoses occur in the presence of at least one other person and yet, far too often, individuals who witness a drug overdose do not do the right thing. They do not pick up the phone. They do not call 911 to get help. One may ask why someone would not call for help. The simple answer is that far too often they are afraid. They are afraid of being charged with a criminal offence. They are afraid of being caught up in the criminal justice system, so they do not call. They do not act, and the consequences of inaction can be fatal.The Standing Committee on Health, which I know my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Confederation, serves on, studied Bill C-224. As well, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard powerful testimony from Christine Padaric, the mother of the late Austin Padaric. Austin was a promising high school student. One night he went to a party and made a choice that a lot of high school students make: he took drugs. He reacted and Austin's friends did not call for help. They did not call 911. They thought they could handle it on their own. Perhaps they, in part, were worried about the police arriving, maybe charges being laid, and maybe being caught up in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, they were not able to handle it and as a result, Austin died at the age of 17.(1740)Sadly, Austin is not alone. There are many Austins out there, and there will be many more Austins if action is not taken. That is precisely what Bill C-224 seeks to do. It is to prevent future Austins by providing immunity from prosecution for individuals who witness a drug overdose, do the right thing, call for help, and as a result of doing the right thing, are found to be in possession of illicit drugs.It is important to note that Bill C-224 applies, in terms of immunity from prosecution, to only simple possession. It would not apply to other offences, such as impaired driving or drug trafficking. Moreover, it would only apply to offences listed in schedules I to III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: in other words, street drugs. What Bill C-224 would not do is provide immunity to drug pushers, drug dealers, and drug traffickers who are pushing dangerous and illegal drugs onto the streets that are killing thousands of Canadians each and every year.Bill C-224 is legislation that makes sense. It went to the Senate and was amended in the Senate. I have to say that the Senate did a good job of improving Bill C-224, as the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam pointed out. There were amendments from the other place that would extend immunity from prosecution to breaches of release orders arising from simple possession. Those amendments make sense. They are consistent with the spirit and objective of Bill C-224. In that regard, I would submit that it does not make sense that a good Samaritan should be immune from prosecution on the basis of simple possession but then be charged for breaching a release order arising from the very same simple possession. That would be self-defeating.While the good Samaritan drug overdose act is new to Canada, it is not a new concept. Indeed, some 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, have similar legislation on their books, and the legislation that has been passed in the U.S. is having the intended effect. More and more people are calling 911, and as a result, more and more lives are being saved.I urge the speedy passage of Bill C-224 as amended. This legislation is needed. It is needed now. It is needed to save lives.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Consideration of Senate amendmentsDeaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersFentanylJudicial privileges and immunitiesNumbers of deathsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSentencing485590548559064855907RonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessThe Good Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. As the member for Gatineau pointed out earlier, I too was in the House for the first hour of debate on this bill. I heard his very moving testimony.People sometimes forget that the issues our constituents bring to us and our political parties' positions are not the only things that motivate us in our work. Sometimes, we are motivated by very personal stories. That is why it is so gratifying to see a member do so much to improve legislation about such an urgent public health issue. This is something we can all support, and the NDP is very pleased to do so.I know there is no place for jokes in a conversation about such an important issue, but we also want to thank the Senate for its work. That is not something the NDP says a lot. I think these amendments are reasonable and improve the bill. We can continue to support the bill with these amendments, and we hope this matter will be acted upon quickly. This is something we have been waiting for for a long time. We just heard from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford from British Columbia, who has been working hard on this file, as well as the member from Alberta. People often think that this is an issue that concerns western Canada, and it is, as proven by the thousands of deaths that have occurred since the beginning of this public health crisis, that is, the opioid crisis. However, this crisis is making its way east. We recently began seeing cases in Ontario and Quebec. That is why it is important that we all work together to pass the necessary legislation to save lives.We are talking about Bill C-224, the good Samaritan bill. As my Conservative colleague just clearly illustrated, people might wonder why anyone would not seek help when someone they are with, often a friend, has overdosed, whether in the context of a party or any other situation.Obviously, the legal consequences may dissuade people from seeking help. Unfortunately, all too often, young people are the ones who suffer the consequences of substance abuse and the associated legal ramifications. It is therefore essential that we put in place a legislative framework to ensure that people are not afraid to ask for help. That is the least we can do.The Senate proposed some very important amendments to clarify and improve this bill. The Senate changed some of the wording so that the bill provides clear explanations of the measures to protect against possession charges, which is the intent of the bill. We want to make sure that it is clear that anyone who is with the victim of an overdose, often a friend, and who calls 911 to get help for the victim will not suffer the legal consequences that would normally apply.As part of its amendments, the Senate also proposed that overdose victims and those at the scene when help arrives be protected from being charged with an offence concerning a violation of pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence, or parole.These are offences that do not pose a direct threat to the public, as my Conservative colleague pointed out earlier. For example, this type of exemption would not apply in a case of impaired driving. The types of violations targeted are those likely to be committed by a person who is at the scene of an overdose or who could, him or herself, be a victim requesting help. That is very important.(1750)I want to come back to the question I raised earlier, because it often comes up during discussions on substance abuse or the use of certain illegal substances.Unfortunately, there is a stigma attached. Consider the example of the debate surrounding the opioid crisis and safe injection sites. Whether we like it or not, there is a link between that and the bill currently before us. The question remains, and political courage is needed. That is why we are happy to see that the House supports this bill and the efforts made by our colleague, the bill's sponsor.There is a misguided idea out there that we support illegal activities and encourage people's addictions. On the contrary, we want to tackle a public health problem. We want people who have health problems and who cannot find the support they need to get help. That is what we hope this bill achieves. This is very important if we want to be able to address the crisis we are facing at this time. Indeed, as I have said, this often has an impact on young people. Even in the context of the debate on the legalization of marijuana, there is often talk of the importance of prevention, education and all of those issues. It is all very well and good to talk about the money that would be invested and to engage in prevention or educate people on the subject, but if there is no legislative framework to assure us that people will be able to get help, whether it be through the good Samaritan bill or safe injection sites, all of that is futile. It is very important to ensure that all the efforts made by the government or by Parliament via the various proposed bills are closely linked. I will provide a few figures on the opioid crisis in British Columbia. I think it is important to share these statistics in order to illustrate the extent to which this is a public health issue. I am saying this as the NDP public safety critic. This is no longer a public safety issue, but rather an issue related to people’s health. In my view, it is the reason why we have to start studying evidence-based policies. On this subject, I recognize the efforts that are contained in this sort of bill. I must acknowledge that, although we see this in the news, we do not necessarily see it in my riding, in our own backyard. For the people listening to us, I think it is important to demonstrate the extent to which this is a health-related crisis. There was a record number of deaths in British Columbia in December. The number reported was 142. That was up from the previous monthly peak in November 2016, which was 128. That is enormous. In December, as the holidays were approaching, 142 families lost a loved one because we did not act fast enough. I believe that no one in the House, whatever their political allegiance, wants to continue in this direction and have this reality on our collective conscience. This is an unacceptable number of deaths.In Vancouver, every week between 9 and 15 fatal overdoses are reported. It is scary and completely unacceptable. If we can support bills like this one and efforts like this, which will give us a legal framework to provide people with the help they are looking for, then we can transition into the government making further efforts. We would be prepared to support the right kind of progressive, fact-based efforts because that would help address this urgent health crisis and eradicate this scourge. I think that this is our collective responsibility.Again, I want to thank my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I want to reiterate how inspiring it is to see such incredible efforts being made for such a personal story. I also want to thank the Senate for its work to improve the bill. We hope that this is just the first step. We have to move forward and put an end to this public health crisis once and for all.British ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Consideration of Senate amendmentsDeaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersJudicial privileges and immunitiesNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSenate and senatorsSentencing4855916485591748559184855919MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88532JoëlLightboundJoël-LightboundLouis-HébertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LightboundJoël_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessThe Good Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to support private member's bill, Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, including the amendments made in the Senate. These amendments bring further clarity to the bill and they expand the circumstances where immunity would be provided to increase the likelihood that bystanders would seek emergency help during an overdose, expanding the opportunities for the bill to safe lives.Simply put, the bill would help to address the systemic barriers that would prevent many Canadians from seeking help from first responders during an overdose. Their fear is that they may be charged and convicted of drug possession once first responders arrive.I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the member of Parliament for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, for bringing this important bill forward and for proposing a simple legislative change that would help save lives. His work on the bill is an honour to him, the House, and to the people he represents.As everyone in the House knows, we are in a crisis situation. Opioid related overdose deaths in Canada have increased at an alarming rate and we must continue to act to save lives. In British Columbia alone, there were over 900 overdose deaths in 2016, and so far the rate of death from drug overdoses in 2017 sadly shows no sign of decreasing. There were 102 overdose deaths in B.C. in February of this year. This is an average of 3.6 deaths a day for that month. These are not just abstract numbers. Each one represents a Canadian who has lost his or her life in a way that is preventable. Most overdoses occur in the presence of others and, like many other emergencies, a person's chances of surviving an overdose depends on how quickly he or she receives medical attention. Calls to 911 during an overdose are typically either not made or may be delayed to such an extent that the victim can suffer irreparable brain damage or other harms.A 2014 report from Ontario found that only half of those surveyed said they would call 911 in the event of an overdose and wait at the scene for emergency personnel to arrive. This is consistent with international research where studies have found 911 call rates for overdose events to be as low as 15%.At a recent forum discussion on the future of drug policy, the Minister of Health pointed out that as one part of responding to the opioid crisis, we needed to call out stigma and reduce the discrimination associated with drug use. The high rates of drug overdose deaths we are seeing in the country and the low rate at which Canadians are willing to contact emergency services when they witness an overdose are unacceptable and clearly point to an issue that is being made worse by stigma and fear, the impacts of which must be addressed before we lose more lives.(1800)[Translation]The Government of Canada is supporting the response to this crisis through the new Canadian drugs and substances strategy, a comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate, and evidenced-based approach. The strategy is built on four pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and law enforcement—and will also serve to improve the evidence base.The good Samaritan drug overdose act is in keeping with our government's approach to drug policy. The elimination of drug possession charges for people seeking help for an overdose is a harm reduction measure that strikes a balance between public health and public safety. What is more, the implementation of this bill will provide the opportunity for law enforcement officers to strengthen their relationship of trust with drug users, a relationship that could put drug users in a safer environment and give them better access to treatment when they are ready to seek it.As originally written, Bill C-224 guaranteed anyone experiencing or witnessing an overdose immunity from minor drug possession charges if that person contacted emergency services or law enforcement for help. [English]The Senate has made several amendments to the bill. Most of these amendments are meant to bring further clarity to the legal text so it can be more easily interpreted by law enforcement and the courts. I will not spend too much time on these amendments except to say that the government supports them and that they certainly strengthen the Bill. For example, the proposed amendments make it clear that the law will protect those who call and leave the scene as well as those who arrive at the scene after the call has been made. In addition, the amendments clarify that witnesses to an overdose, as well as the person who has overdosed, will be provided with immunity under this proposed law.The more substantive amendment proposed by the Senate would expand the immunity provided by Bill C-224 to include protection from charges for offences concerning a violation of a pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence, or parole relating to simple possession. I understand that this broadened scope of the immunity provided under this good Samaritan bill may cause some of the members of this House to reconsider their support for this bill. However, we are in a crisis situation where preventable deaths are occurring daily. I urge all members of this House to maintain their support for this important piece of legislation. The Government of Canada would not be the first to provide such immunity. In fact, 15 states in the U.S. have a good Samaritan drug overdose law that provides immunity from charges of possession as well as protections from probation or parole violations.There is a simple reason why the Senate has proposed these amendments and why these 15 U.S. states have covered such violations under their good Samaritan laws. It is because fear of being charged for the possession of a controlled substance is only one reason why people are afraid to seek help during an overdose. The Ontario report I mentioned earlier also looked at reasons why people were afraid to call for help during an overdose. The two most common barriers to calling 911 during an overdose event were fear of arrest, and being on parole. Of those respondents on probation or parole, only 37% indicated they would call emergency services and wait for help to arrive if they witnessed an overdose.(1805)[Translation]Extending the immunity guaranteed by Bill C-224 would increase the number of situations that could be a matter of life or death. However, this would not prevent law enforcement officers to focus on public safety and security efforts concerning the most serious offences, especially if officers were to discover the production or trafficking of controlled substances when they were called to the scene of a crime.As many people have pointed out, fighting the current opioid crisis will not be an easy task. Passing the good Samaritan bill will not fix the whole problem, but it can be part of the solution and it is a big step in the right direction. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this important bill.I would again like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his dedication and hard work. I am very proud to serve with him.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Consideration of Senate amendmentsDeaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersJudicial privileges and immunitiesNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSenate and senatorsSentencing4855939485594048559414855942485594348559444855945485594648559474855948MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyRonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCannabisInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-115. Over 1,500 Canadians are calling on the government to allow for the personal production of cannabis as part of the upcoming cannabis legalization legislation. I would note that this would be an important aspect if we allow Canadians to grow five or six plants, undermining the black market, one of the key priorities of the legalization framework. I would note, as the petitioners note, that the personal production of beer, wine, and other fermented alcohol is a legal activity for adults in Canada. Adults who choose to consume cannabis should be granted similar production rights as those who choose alcohol. We should treat Canadians like the responsible adults they are.DecriminalizationDrug paraphernaliaMarijuanaPetition 421-00998Possession of a controlled substance46791954679196FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59293RonMcKinnonRon-McKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKinnonRon_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Ron McKinnon(1330)[English]Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House for their support of the good Samaritan drug overdose act. Members from all regions of Canada became co-seconders of Bill C-224, although the rules of the House did not allow for more than 20. It is a resounding call for the need for the legislation to be passed, and quickly. Members recognize that the bill would save lives. [Translation]In my speech at second reading, I spoke about two young men, Austin and Kelly. Austin, Kelly and countless others might still be with us today if the good Samaritan bill on drug overdose had been a law when they made that one, fatal mistake. However, we will never really know.[English]When I was researching the bill, even before I introduced Bill C-224, it was evident that this law is sorely needed. What I did not expect was the groundswell of support that came out shortly after the bill's first reading. Groups and individuals from every part of Canada called and emailed, telling me how much the legislation is needed. I thank them for that. Their support motivated me even more to make sure that the bill became law.The House is steeped in democratic traditions. Our legislation process gives members the ability to scrutinize legislation. We are elected by and for our constituents to represent their values, beliefs, and desires. During second reading, I heard impassioned speeches from both sides of the House, some of which were very personal, making it clear that the good Samaritan drug overdose act had broad support. Outside this chamber, it is the committees that continue Canada's democratic traditions. Committees give each piece of legislation more scrutiny, and the Standing Committee on Health did just that. The committee did its job well. They heard from many witnesses, from paramedics, front-line workers, Austin's mom, academics, and from drug users themselves.For me, the most compelling testimony came from the drug-using community. That community does not feel safe and does fear law enforcement in an overdose situation. The committee heard that the bill would not go far enough, that exemptions from prosecution should be broadened beyond simple possession. I agree with that. Studies show that fear of prosecution for possession is just one of the key reasons that people do not call 911 in the event of a drug overdose, but there are also other reasons, such as outstanding warrants and breach of probation. The bill is only one piece in the harm reduction tool kit. It is a tool kit that needs to be broadened and expanded over time.I believe it would have been good to have broadened the scope of the bill to include outstanding warrants and breach of probation. However, that would have made the bill way too complex and controversial, lessening the chances of its passage.If passed in its current form, the good Samaritan drug overdose act would still save lives. (1335)[Translation] I laud the Standing Committee on Health for their work on this bill and for referring the good Samaritan drug overdose act back to this House without amendment. The committee recognized the urgency of opioid deaths and how Bill C-224 is desperately needed in Canada. [English]The committee should also be commended for taking heed of the testimony they heard during the study of Bill C-224. The powerful testimony of witnesses led to a motion being introduced during the deliberations on the good Samaritan drug overdose act, a motion to study the opioid crisis in Canada. Now, the committee is doing just that, and I have been honoured to have participated in some of the committee's meetings on that study. We cannot delay taking action on the opioid crisis in Canada.During the course of the deliberations on the bill, countless lives have been lost. I see it in the news every day. We do not know how many lives would have been saved if the Good Samaritan drug overdose act had been law.Our government has been continuing to put more tools in that harm-reduction toolkit since the bill was introduced. That includes removing naloxone from the list of prescription drugs. The government is also listing the six essential ingredients that make fentanyl deadly as controlled substances. In the coming weeks the Minister of Health will be arranging an opioid abuse summit, which will prioritize how we can start to get out of this mess.[Translation]I thank members of this House for their support of the good Samaritan drug overdose act.I want to thank the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons legal department and the private members' business office for their incredible support on Bill C-224. There are several moving pieces to drafting and supporting legislation and without them this bill would not have happened. Ultimately this bill needs to become law. I ask all members of the House to come together and support the good Samaritan drug overdose act to help save lives.Arrest warrantsC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Committee studies and activitiesDeaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergenciesEmergency response and emergency respondersEvidenceExemption provisionsFentanylGovernment policyHouse of Commons staffJudicial privileges and immunitiesLegal proceedingsLibrary of Parliament staffMedical techniques and proceduresNaloxoneNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsPreventive medicinePrivate Members' BillsProbationPublic consultationPublic healthScope of a billStanding Committee on HealthThird reading and adoption45814574581458CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDavid de BurghGrahamLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. I thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for presenting this important piece of legislation. He has certainly worked very hard.When I first read through the bill, I have to admit that I was a bit concerned. We are currently facing one of the worst drug epidemics that our nation has ever seen, and that is with regard to the opioid crisis. The combination of diverted pharmaceuticals, veterinary tranquillizers, and illicit drugs has created a very deadly mix of street drugs.This past week in my riding of Lethbridge, 777 fentanyl pills were seized by the police in two separate drug raids. This is impacting every single nook and cranny within my community.Having said that, many Canadians would agree that we need to tackle the root factors that are causing this epidemic. I agree with that. This is why we definitely need tougher laws to get drug dealers off the streets, and certainly not weaker ones. This legislation is part of a multipronged approach that should be taken in all communities across this country. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I had the opportunity to examine the bill closely, and I heard from many expert witnesses from all corners of the country. Regardless of the geographical region or the sector from which they came, all of them agreed that Bill C-224 would save lives.How exactly would this legislation do that? At the present time, when someone overdoses, there are barriers to that individual getting help quickly. For instance, young people often experiment with drugs with friends and family. In the event of an overdose, those who are with the person are often scared to call for help because they are afraid of the legal repercussions. As a result, they either do nothing, or they call 911 and then quickly flee the scene so they will not be prosecuted. As a result of this fear, young lives are lost.When I was first made aware of this piece of legislation, I was concerned that it might allow dealers to go free or prevent police from being able to take action to shut down crack houses or illicit drug operations. After listening to the legal experts, it became clear that the bill would not provide another legal loophole for drug dealers to escape conviction. The exemptions provided in the bill only apply to those who are in simple possession.Criminal Code offences, such as possession for the purpose of trafficking, would still apply to individuals at the scene of an overdose. Why is this important? It is important because it means that this legislation finds a balance between removing barriers to individuals having the courage to call 911, as well as preserving the power of law enforcement to convict criminals responsible for pushing these drugs on our streets. We see more than ever the organized crime rates in Canada, so it is important for me to discuss this. Again, the specific exemption within this legislation would apply to simple possession only. In this context, only those using the illicit drug, and not those who are trafficking the drug, would be exempt.One of the heartbreaking stories we heard during my time on committee studying this legislation was from a mother who lost her 17-year-old son to an overdose. He was hanging out with his friends. There were about six people around him at the time, and they refused to call for medical assistance because they were afraid of the negative repercussions they might face. As a result, this young man's life was lost that day.When it comes to opioid overdoses, there are simple and effective treatments such as naloxone, which can halt the effects of the opioid long enough to get a patient to hospital to receive the attention he or she needs. With the strength of illicit opioids, minutes matter in this endeavour. A few minutes can help spare a life. If bystanders were to wait for those few minutes to determine if an overdose was mild or life-threatening, that indecision could result in that person losing his or her life.This is particularly true of young recreational drug users who have more to lose because of police involvement in an overdose. Young people who are experimenting with illegal drugs are more likely to try to keep their involvement with them a secret. As expert witnesses at committee repeatedly stressed, it is easier to deal with a drug addiction at the start of the addiction rather than caring for it later on.(1345)Bill C-224 has the ability to facilitate early intervention and access to treatment, which I believe would serve our younger generation very well. For addicts who are housing insecure or altogether homeless, the bill would simply put in place what would already be common practice in many jurisdictions, and that is this. When front-line workers are called to an overdose situation, what often happens is the EMS will respond right away in order to care for that individual. Police officers will often hold back rather than going into the scene. The reason for this is because they will enter if there is a threat to medical staff or to the staff on site, let us say at a shelter. However, for r the most part they will hold back. The reason for that is because then it creates safety for concerned individuals to call EMS responders to the scene to react to the overdose.Right now Canada is facing a significant crisis when it comes to deaths caused by opioid overdoses. In B.C., for example, the situation is so serious that public health within B.C. has declared a state of emergency. The truth is that we have been aware of this problem for a little more than a year now across our country, but there has been very little discernible action from the federal government on this file. At health committee, it was the NDP as well as the Conservatives at the table who put forward the motion to study the opioid crisis in Canada and to deliver recommendations to the health minister for consideration.No steps have been taken to limit the import and the operation of pill press machines in Canada that enable criminal organizations to pump out hundreds of thousands of oxycodone knock-offs on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. The Liberal government reversed the Conservative regulations to move Canada toward a tamper-resistant prescription opioid, which is a very unfortunate decision. By reversing this direction, the Liberals allowed the easy conversion of legal pharmaceuticals to be used in a variety of street drugs, thus adding to the problem that we see today. It took until last month for Health Canada to finally make naloxone a non-prescription drug and therefore accessible across Canada. Even after doing that, the provinces still need a few more months to loosen up their own restrictions to have this antidote make a real difference within streets.The health minister finally decided that she would hold an opioid summit in mid-November. Although I am very thankful that this decision has been made, I am also disappointed with the amount of time it has taken just to achieve this. We do not need to wait for a summit this fall in order to start taking action on this file. We already know that border controls need to be ramped up. We know that Health Canada needs to make regulatory changes to limit prescription opioids that could easily be tampered with. We also know that stricter prescribing as well as tracking practices need to be implemented. We know that the over-prescribing of opioids on reserves needs to be addressed. We also need to provide treatment care for those who wish to get off of these addictions.There is a saying on a reserve near my riding, which is “The drug dealers wear white coats”. This is made in reference to the availability of legal prescription opioids from doctors. The devastating effect this has for persons susceptible to drug abuse is tremendous. Dozens of people are dying each and every month. Dreams are being shattered. Potential is going unfulfilled and hope is disintegrating altogether.I would contend that waiting to act on this national crisis is not an option. If we value human life, we must act now. I would contend that this requires a national strategy with regard to the opioid crisis we face in our country today. Bill C-224 is just one step, one very small step, in the massive puzzle that is needed to be put together in order to tackle this problem.Aboriginal reservesAmbulance servicesBordersBritish ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Caregivers and health care professionalsCommittee studies and activitiesCounterfeitingCrime preventionCriminal CodeDeaths and funeralsDrug addiction treatmentDrug educationDrug trafficking and drug seizureDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergenciesEmergency response and emergency respondersEvidenceExemption provisionsGovernment policyHomelessness and homelessImportsInspections and inspectorsJudicial privileges and immunitiesLaw enforcementLegal loopholesLegal proceedingsLegislationMachinery and equipmentMedical techniques and proceduresNaloxoneNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsOver the counter drugsOxycodonePolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsPreventive medicinePrivate Members' BillsPublic healthRegulationResponse timesStanding Committee on HealthThird reading and adoptionYoung people458148545814864581487458148845814894581490RonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak to the motion. Let me first thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this motion to the floor and raising the issue in the House of Commons.At some point in time, all members in the House have been touched by this incredible issue of addiction, substance misuse in our own communities. Perhaps we have come to know people who have lost their lives. The thing about substance misuse and drug addiction is that it is entirely preventable. In fact, on the question of overdose, there is overwhelming evidence to illustrate the fact that we need to look at substance misuse as a medical health issue and not a criminal justice issue. That is how we can save lives. To the point of this motion, this is exactly what the member is trying to do, to take away the criminal element so we can save lives.Imagine for one minute what life would be like if one of our children, a son or daughter, who might be young, is experimenting, takes drugs, and at that moment in time a life is lost. Imagine what that would be like. I cannot imagine. I am a mother of two young kids, aged 13 and 8. I dread the teenage years to come, the idea of kids experimenting, some horrible, unimaginable thing happening, and lives being lost.I see this in my own community in Vancouver East. So many people's lives have been lost. There is a saying that dead people do not detox and that is why we need harm reduction. That is why we need to move forward in addressing this from a medical health perspective.The member's bill is one piece in the harm reduction spectrum on which we need to move forward. We need to tell people that they do not need to worry about a criminal charges being laid against them. In this instance, it would be limited to only simple possession but, nonetheless, it is equally important to send that message.Additional work needs to be done. There is no question about it. My colleague, the health critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, attempted to move in that direction at committee. He moved an amendment to call for expanding the scope of the bill to allow for additional measures. For example, people in my community say that it is not so much that they worry about a charge of simple possession, they worry about outstanding warrants. They worry about violating their parole, for example, and that there would be implications for them. Young people gather at these things called raves. They party and bad things happen. There is no definition of “at the scene”, the scope of that, and whether it would apply to a group of people in that context.If we want to move in this direction, more work needs to be done and we need to keep pushing to ensure that the issue around substance misuse is looked at from a health perspective. Addiction is a health issue. I know the former Conservative government thought it was a criminal justice issue alone.I was relieved to hear the conviction of the member who spoke before me to save lives. Let us look at this issue from that perspective. I would assume that if we believe in that and on the evidence that has been presented, we would all agree that the time has come for the government to also repeal C-2, because that prevents saving lives.The medical health officer in my community in Vancouver, British Columbia, has said on the public record that Bill C-2 impedes progress in moving forward with respect to harm reduction in terms of bringing supervised injection facilities into communities. The litany of onerous requirements prevent medical health officers to move forward on bringing supervised injection facilities into communities.As it stands right now, there is only one application before the government, and that is from Montreal. My community has tried to move forward with others and has been unable to get it on the table because of the onerous requirements. (1355)The medical health officer from Vancouver, Patricia Daly, has said on the public record that Vancouver is struggling to try to move forward on this because of the onerous requirements on Bill C-2. We need to get rid of this bill. Let us get real about saving lives. This measure is an important one. I absolutely support it, but we cannot stop there. There is so much more that we can do. The fact is that we do have a crisis, a national crisis, on our hands with the opioid overdose situation.The desperation in my own community is such that there are pop-up tents. In fact, there is one pop-up tent that has emerged in our community. Volunteers have come forward to provide for some measure of safety for drug users. They say that they would not want to continue this operation because it is not a sanctioned site. There are no health practitioners at the site, but they are doing this. Why? Because they have seen their loved ones die. They actually provide naloxone to the tune of up to 24 cases where they have utilized that to save lives on the ground. Each day when the site is up and running, up to 100 people inject at that site.This should not be how we continue. It should not be the case. We need to bring forward science-based and proven strategies to address this. A safe site, Insite, is one of those measures. We need to ensure there is progress here, and take away measures that hamper progress in that regard. Bill C-2 is one of them.I once again thank the member for bringing this forward. I support the bill. I applaud his efforts. More work needs to be done, and I look forward to working with all members of the House and moving forward with this goal in mind: we need to bring in measures to save lives.Application processArrest warrantsC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Conditional releaseCriminal justice systemDeaths and funeralsDrug addiction treatmentDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergenciesEmergency response and emergency respondersExemption provisionsInterpretive provisionJudicial privileges and immunitiesLegal proceedingsMedical officers of healthMedical techniques and proceduresNaloxoneOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substancePreventive medicinePrivate Members' BillsProbationPublic healthRespect for Communities ActSafe injection sitesScientific dataScope of a billThird reading and adoptionVancouverYoung people45815054581506RachaelHarderLethbridgeKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMs. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House today at third reading and support Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. First and foremost, I want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this extremely important piece of legislation to the House. This is a piece of legislation that, if passed, would help to break down systematic barriers that deter people from calling 911 in the event of an overdose.Evidence indicates that individuals are too often afraid to call for medical help in the event of an overdose. This is due to a number of concerns, one of which is fear of arrest or criminal charges. Bill C-224 would help to address this issue by providing those who experience or witness an overdose, call 911, and stay at the scene with immunity from minor drug possession charges. In other words, Bill C-224 is a harm reduction measure. Our government is committed to protecting the health and safety of all Canadians. We recognize that problematic substance use can have devastating impacts on individuals, their families, and their communities. This is why our government is taking a balanced, comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate, and evidence-based approach to addressing the serious issue of problematic substance use. It is an approach that aims to protect both public health and public safety.The term “harm reduction” often elicits strong reactions from people. I believe this is at least partly because it is misunderstood. I would like to take a moment to explain what it means to our government. In general, harm reduction refers to policies, programs, or initiatives that aim to reduce the negative health and social impacts associated with problematic substance use on individuals and communities, without requiring abstention as an immediate goal. Our government has demonstrated strong support for evidence-based harm reduction measures that have been proven to help prevent the harm associated with problematic substance use, including overdose death.However, I want to make it clear that this does not mean that harm reduction and abstention are mutually exclusive. In fact, while abstention is not the primary goal of harm reduction initiatives, harm reduction can act as a first step to meeting longer-term goals such as reduced problematic use of drugs and full recovery. In other words, harm reduction measures can help pave a path to recovery by meeting people where they are in their lives right now.Another common myth is that a focus on harm reduction is inconsistent with the objectives of drug control. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is our government's view that harm reduction is part of a comprehensive policy continuum and can complement and reinforce prevention, treatment, and enforcement initiatives. It is part of a holistic approach to addressing drug-related crime and problematic substance use. Bill C-224 reflects these values. It melds public health and public safety interests and would provide an opportunity for law enforcement to build trusting relationships with individuals who use drugs, relationships that would help to reduce fears of calling 911 to save the life of someone experiencing an overdose. I do not want to sell Bill C-224 as a solution that would prevent all overdose deaths. It will not. We do no favours to Canadians suffering from addiction when we debate a drug policy in black and white terms. Problematic substance use is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive response. Just like any other drug policy, Bill C-224 must work in conjunction with other initiatives to address the full scope of issues associated with problematic substance use.That is why our government recently announced a new opioid action plan. The plan focuses on five key areas: better informing Canadians about the risks of opioids, supporting better prescribing practices, reducing easy access to unnecessary opioids, supporting better treatment options for patients, and improving the national evidence base upon which policy decisions are made. Two of the action items under the plan were an expedited review of naloxone nasal spray, a more user-friendly version of the overdose-reverse drug, as well as an interim order to buy bulk stocks of the drug from the United States during the review process. I am pleased to say that Health Canada has completed its review and has authorized naloxone nasal spray for non-prescription use. (1405)With federal market authorization, the manufacturer is now able to take the necessary steps to bring this drug to the Canadian market. This is a key step in helping to reduce overdose deaths, as the two crucial actions that can be taken to help save a life during an overdose are calling 911 and administering naloxone. Also, next month the Minister of Health will be hosting a summit on opioids to bring together experts, patient groups, governments, and regulators to discuss the current crisis and identify actions for moving forward. In conclusion, Bill C-224 supports and complements our government's approach to drug policy and will help save lives. That is why we are supporting this extremely important piece of legislation.As a registered nurse, I am extremely concerned about the opioid crisis occurring across Canada. We know that addressing this issue will require a comprehensive and evidence-based public health approach. Bill C-224 would be a welcome addition to our government's efforts, and I hope colleagues from all across the House will continue to support it. As many members have already stated, every life matters, and we have a duty to do what we can to help prevent these tragic accidental deaths from taking place.This is an issue that requires a whole-of-government approach, and we are dedicated to working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as experts across the country, to address this devastating crisis. As a country, we know we are facing an opioid crisis, and together, we will find a way to address this tragic situation.Action plansC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Crime preventionCriminal chargesData banks and databasesDeaths and funeralsDepartment of HealthDrug addiction treatmentDrug administration and dosageDrug educationDrug supplyDrug use and abuseDrug-related crimeDuty to provide assistanceEmergenciesEmergency response and emergency respondersExemption provisionsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment policyInformation disseminationJudicial privileges and immunitiesLaw enforcementMedical techniques and proceduresNaloxoneOpiates and opioidsOver the counter drugsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsPreventive medicinePrivate Members' BillsPublic healthSafetyScientific dataThird reading and adoptionWhole-of-government approach45815164581517JennyKwanVancouver EastKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1405)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. I thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for introducing this important piece of legislation.In my riding of Edmonton West, similar to many parts of the country, we have seen a growing crisis with fentanyl and opioid use. According to the CBC, there have been 338 deaths from fentanyl overdoses in Alberta alone this year. If we think about that, it is equivalent to every member sitting in the House of Commons being wiped out since January. The numbers continue to rise, with no indication of its slowing down. It has become so bad that even the Alberta Health Services' web page cannot keep track of the number of fentanyl deaths. In Edmonton alone, there have been 102 overdose deaths since January. Even more deadly is the opioid W18, which is now showing up in Edmonton. Ironically, it was created at the U of A, but it is now hitting the streets. Recently, we have had a drug bust with enough W18 to wipe out half of the population if it were taken individually. Drugs like fentanyl and W18 are taking their toll on our cities and communities. Perhaps the most heartbreaking aspect of this crisis is that many untimely deaths could be prevented. Dr. Charmaine Enns, chair of the Health Officers Council of British Columbia, has said, “Every year, psychoactive substances...are linked to greater than 47,000 deaths and many thousands more injuries and disabilities.... Sadly much of this carnage is preventable.”I hope no Canadian is prevented from taking action when necessary because they fear the consequences of doing so. It is my hope that if anyone is ever in a situation in which they need to act to save someone's life, they can act without fear of repercussions, to spare a family the agony of losing a loved one, and to be able to act in the best interest of someone who needs help and in the best interests of their community. In a previous career, I experienced this first-hand. I was a young hotel manager, and as I was living closest to the hotel, I would often get the first call when there was an emergency. I received a phone call from a frantic night auditor at four in the morning. I went the hotel and found four people suffering from overdoses. One had died. When the police arrived, once the people were revived, they said they had seen their friend writhing and dying but did not contact anyone for fear of being arrested. This is something that is still happening today. Therefore, I support this bill by our member.As elected officials and lawmakers, we are obligated to take action in areas in which there is a clear and present need. In the case of unreported overdoses, it is my belief that the good Samaritan drug overdose act would fill this legislative gap. Combatting drug-related crime requires a collaborative approach between municipal, provincial, and federal partners. Together, we must ensure that our levels of governments send a strong message to drug traffickers, while not penalizing users who are at their most vulnerable and in an overdosed state. While this bill will not change the rates of drug-related crime, something that our party has consistently taken a tough, clear stance on, it may help encourage people to take action and call emergency professionals in life-and-death situations, potentially saving the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians from coast to coast. As the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam mentioned in committee, and as I think has been noted more than once throughout the debate on this bill, there is often a barrier to accessing help in the time needed to prevent a potentially fatal situation due to fear of the consequences or legal ramifications for the person making the call. While these findings are indicative of a separate, albeit related, issue facing Canadians, namely access to banned substances, it is important that our efforts to remain tough on crime and drugs do not come at a human cost. We as lawmakers truly believe that life is worth protecting, and we need to ensure that the Canadians who need help get it. According to the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, “Fear of arrest weighs heavily on this life or death decision. People legitimately fear the police showing up, being criminally charged for drug possession, and for mothers, having their children taken away.” By removing the possibility of criminal charges against those who call emergency professionals, we are encouraging people to take life-saving action. This is especially true now, with deadly fentanyl and W18 on the streets, where every moment's delay in receiving the miracle drug naloxone can literally lead to death. On the issue of W18, this drug is reported to be 100 to 1,000 times more deadly than fentanyl. Oddly enough, it is just now being regulated as a controlled drug under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, and until recently could be manufactured freely. Like others in the House, I would encourage the government to work faster on this and other W series drugs.(1410)I would also urge the government to take steps similar to the Government of Alberta to restrict access to the pill presses used to make illegal drugs. By limiting the purchase of pill presses, table machines, and pharmaceutical mixers to only pharmacists and licensed professionals, we would take the necessary steps as Canadians to protect our communities.Now as to the bill, it is not, as some critics have said, condoning drug use. This would ensure that drug users and addicts, in some regard the victims of drug trafficking, are provided with support and assurance that their lives still have value, and that a person acting in the injured person's best interest would not be penalized for saving a life.I am pleased to support the bill and hope my colleagues in the House will support the bill as well.AlbertaArrestsC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Controlled Drugs and Substances ActCrime preventionDeaths and funeralsDrug trafficking and drug seizureDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEdmontonEmergenciesEmergency response and emergency respondersEmergency servicesExemption provisionsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFentanylGovernment policyJudicial privileges and immunitiesMachinery and equipmentMedical techniques and proceduresNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsPharmacies and pharmacistsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsPublic healthRegulationRegulatory vacuumResponse timesSellingSentencingStatisticsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons458153545815384581539KamalKheraBrampton WestRonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsDecriminalization of MarijuanaInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition is extensive.The petitioners have done a tremendous amount of work in setting out a range of actions for the legalization and normalization of cannabis, including, for those convicted of cannabis offences, on a case-by-case basis, giving pardons and repealing section 462.2 of the Criminal Code.I submit this petition. I can only cover some of the surface of its many recommendations.DecriminalizationMarijuanaPetition 421-00798Possession of a controlled substance456189245618934561894ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsSoniaSidhuBrampton South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1520)[Translation]Motion negativedI declare the motion defeated.Decisions of the HouseDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4423338GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP)(1200)[English] moved: MotionThat the House: (a) recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadian criminal records for simple possession of marijuana after the government has stated that it should not be a crime; (b) recognize that this situation is unacceptable to Canadians, municipalities and law enforcement agencies; (c) recognize that a growing number of voices, including that of a former Liberal prime minister, are calling for decriminalization to address this gap; and (d) call upon the government to immediately decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana for personal use.He said: Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today on this important opposition day motion, dealing with the interim measure, the preparatory step to the legalization promised by the current government in its election campaign, namely, addressing the decriminalization of the possession of small quantities of marijuana.I will be sharing my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît. Madam Speaker. We are faced with an injustice. We are faced with a situation that is difficult to explain to the parents of young adults when I am called by a mother in tears who says her child has just been convicted of the possession of small quantities of marijuana. That young adult will not be able to get a job because he or she adult will have a record and will be at the bottom of the pile when it comes to job applicants. He or she will no doubt be unable to travel to the United States and will face heavy consequences, including perhaps finding a place to rent when it is disclosed on his or her application. Meanwhile, the government is saying that within a short period of time it will bring in measures, amendments presumably to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, that would put together a regime to regulate and permit adults to consume marijuana. We already have medical marijuana available, thanks to the courts of the land, and legislation and regulations in response to that. However, we are talking about young people in particular, and all Canadians, who wish to consume a substance that will be legal. Therefore, what is the problem? The problem is it may take two years for the government to implement the regime it promised in the October election. When the Minister of Health spoke in New York at the United Nations she said, “... it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem.” Of course she is right. However, the Liberals will continue to arrest their way out of the problem, likely until 2018. If she promised there would be legislation introduced in the spring of 2017, given the requirements of debate and committee work in both the House and the other place, it would not be implemented with the signature of the Governor General until perhaps 2018. In that circumstance, should it take two years, something perhaps approaching 100,000 Canadians would find themselves with a record for possession of small quantities of marijuana. Statistics Canada reports that something approaching 60,000 Canadians a year will be convicted for that offence, because it currently is an offence. The government would say that the law is the law . Of course, it is right on that. However, what it does not tell us is that it has the ability under the law to address this injustice. That ability can be found in any number of ways.I am not here to suggest the best way, but I will speak to one way. If the government wishes to address this as a preparatory step on the road to regulation and permitting the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, it has the ability, under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, for the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, to issue a directive to the director of public prosecutions to the effect that it is no longer in the public interest for small quantities of marijuana to be the subject of prosecutions. We are fortunate because that is quite readily done. Marijuana is not regulated under the Criminal Code, which would engage all the attorneys general and crown counsels across the land, at every provincial level. It is dealt with under the Department of Justice, through the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Therefore, it would federal employees, crown counsel, who would be given that directive. In that way we could ensure that what I fear is a patchwork across the country would be dealt with as well. When I say a patchwork, the situation at present is chaotic at best. I live in Victoria. The police have better things to do than prosecute people for simple possession of marijuana in most circumstances. (1205)However, in the city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, prosecution occurs much more readily. In the city of Kelowna, it occurs much more readily. We have a completely different regime in Canada, depending on where one is, to address the possession of marijuana. As a Canadian, I find that offensive. We live in one country. Why is the law is so radically different in the real world depending on where one happens to be? That seems wrong.That injustice can be dealt with quite readily should the government wish to do so. I have suggested one technique by which it could be achieved, but there no doubt are other techniques open to the government. The government can no longer simply hide behind the veil of it being against the law, the law is the law until it is changed. It has an interim way in which to change that law. Preparatory steps along the way would deal with the injustices.In addition, hundreds of thousands of Canadians have criminal records for the possession of marijuana, often going back 20 years. That is wrong. The government could, as a consequential amendment, deal with that, and I hope it does. In the meantime, the lives of people are being affected by an injustice that could be addressed by the government should it wish to do so.It is important to recognize that we are not advocating that marijuana be made available to young people any more than the government is. We want and respect the government's efforts to achieve a robust regulatory regime that keeps marijuana out of the hands of young people, children, and so forth. However, we also want a regime where the injustices that are occurring now are addressed before we have to wait perhaps a year and a half or two years to address it. That is the reason for my motion today.I think Canadians expect clarity from their government. The New Democrats believe it is irresponsible to allow valuable resources of police and courts to be wasted while a new criminal record is created for something that will be perfectly legal.I asked the Minister of Justice to talk about this issue when she appeared before the justice committee. It was reported by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that the government planned to spend $3 million to $4 million each year prosecuting simple possession of marijuana. That money could be spent doing things that Canadians want to have addressed in an urgent way. Two or three per cent of its whole budget, which includes terrorism, prosecution of drugs, and the Criminal Code, is being used for this purpose according to the director of public prosecutions. That is his evidence.Let me read to the House something that Justice Selkirk of the Ontario Court of Justice said in the case Regina v. Racine. He refused to accept a guilty plea for possession of marijuana. I would like to read what the hon. justice said in court that day: I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana....You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous. I asked the minister, given those costs, would the government consider doing anything different, and the answer was vague to nonexistent.From a financial point of view, from the heavy hardship we are imposing particularly on our younger population, and the member for Salaberry—Suroît will speak to that in greater detail, there is every reason to address this gap. The excuses given by the government for not doing so simply do not hold water. Changes could be made in the interim.I want to end by saying something I said at the outset. The New Democratic Party agrees, like former Prime Minister Chrétien, that the time has come for decriminalization. There is every ability to fix this problem. It is a question of political will and sound public policy. To hide behind the status quo and do nothing, which is the government's particular option, until it finally has a law enacted is not right and it creates a continuing injustice in our country, which is felt in different parts of the country in different ways. It is time to fix that problem now.Criminal prosecutionsCriminal recordsDecriminalizationGovernment expendituresLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSplitting speaking timeYoung people44204324420433442043444204354420436442043744204384420439442044044204414420442442044344204444420445442044644204474420448442044944204504420451442045244204534420454442045544204564420457CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to our justice critic's speech. I would like to lean on his expertise and ask a question to broaden the scope of our discussion.Before embarking on a political career, which can end who knows when, I spent 25 years as a high school teacher. As we all know, teenagers experience so many different things, some of them only once. It is awful to be saddled with a criminal record at 14 or 15 for succumbing to peer pressure and trying an illegal substance. That can haunt a person for a long time.In my colleague's view, is it true that it is getting harder and harder to obtain a pardon in Canada, never mind the costs associated with obtaining one?Criminal record suspensionDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442045844204594420460MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his experience and expertise that he brings to bear on this important debate.It is heartbreaking to receive letters from parents saying their child was dragged into a group setting, experimented with this substance, which, oh by the way will be a legal in a couple of years' time, and his or her life is destroyed, at least in the short term, until a pardon may or may not be granted. As the hon. member pointed out, getting a pardon is increasingly difficult. Reforms made by the former government have made that even more expensive and difficult than in the past.Why, in that circumstance, will the government not understand that it is simply hiding behind the words “the law is the law until we change it”, when it has techniques that it could bring to bear to fix it now? It is truly beyond my understanding.Criminal record suspensionDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442046144204624420463RobertAubinTrois-RivièresBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for Victoria made reference to a particular court case, and I believe it was heard by Justice Selkirk. He quoted some remarks by Justice Selkirk. There were other relevant remarks, and I want to ask him about that. Justice Selkirk, in response to his remarks, was advised by the crown attorney that the federal crown's position was that the possession of marijuana was still illegal to possess and therefore still the law, to which the court said okay and it reset a trial date. Subsequently, in sentencing the accused in that matter, the judge issued an order that the accused was not to possess or consume any unlawful drugs or substances except with a valid prescription.I am curious if the member opposite was aware of all of the facts of that particular case or only the small portion that he quoted.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442046444204654420466MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, the remark I read was indeed a quote from the court transcript, brought to our attention by the director of public prosecutions.What happened subsequently in that case was indeed other charges and sentencing for other matters. Nevertheless, the remarks that were made are very much reflective of what I hear from judges across this land. As justice critic for the opposition, I frequently hear from judges, mostly at the provincial court level, who are dealing with these issues in my province, and they are as frustrated as other Canadians with the status quo.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44204674420468BillBlairScarborough SouthwestJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, my question relates to presumptions.The hon. member has already spoken about the fact that there is a lot of confusion in the land for the pending legalization of marijuana that the Liberal government has talked about, although we are all aware that it is not legal at this point.With regard to the presumption of allowing it to be decriminalized, would this not create just as much confusion in the absence of legislation for police and law enforcement going forward?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRegulatory vacuum442046944204704420471MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a point about confusion, and that is a very fair point.The question is on how one drafts the actual directive. That could be done by quantity, saying how many grams would be affected, and the circumstances could be laid out. All of that could be done as a matter of public policy by careful drafting.The point about confusion is absolutely right. We live in a very confused state of the law, where something is essentially illegal in one province and wide open in another. It is time to fix that confusion once and for all.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRegulatory vacuum442047244204734420474JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1215)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for his very enlightening and rational speech.We have been waiting a long time for the Liberals to move forward with decriminalization because we want to know how the government plans to do a better job of regulating cannabis. It is important to me to stand in the House today to talk about this motion on marijuana decriminalization, which is in response to the Minister of Justice's announcement about legalizing it in the spring of 2017.During the election campaign, the Liberals made this one of the major planks in their platform. They went on and on about it, but ever since being elected, they have been all over the map. They make announcements, backpedal, then make more announcements with precious few details. We sort of have a deadline. What is the Liberal government's actual, specific plan for legalizing marijuana? We are still in the dark and floundering around. They have announced that the drug will be legalized in about a year, but they have not said anything about how they are going to make that happen. Why is that? We know that it could take up to two years before the legalization process is implemented and really applied. We need a consistent approach. The legal process surrounding cannabis must be logical and applied consistently in every province. Right now, the process is not the same from province to province. The law is not being applied in a fair and equitable way. People are not being treated fairly right now.Here are some statistics. A Canadian community health survey took a closer look at the use of marijuana in Canada. In 2012, approximately 12% or three million Canadians had used marijuana in the past year and 43% of Canadians had tried marijuana. However, there is a slight decline in the use of the drug.The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said on several occasions that the current laws governing this drug are inadequate, and I completely agree with them. In that case, why not decriminalize it immediately? We all know that the current system is not working, and, what is worse, it is a drain on the justice system and police resources, as my colleague from Victoria pointed out. Approximately $4 million is spent every year on arrests and legal action. That $4 million could be spent on education, awareness, and prevention, rather than on cracking down on the drug, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières said. I am also trained as a teacher and I taught young people. My riding is near the United States border, where the trafficking of a number of drugs, including marijuana, occurs. Young people are able to access this drug very easily and they use it without really knowing the consequences. I will talk more about that a little bit later, but many young adults were arrested and still have criminal records. A criminal record has very serious consequences. Right now, people with criminal records have to wait 10 years before they can apply for a pardon. They have to wait 10 years.An 18-year-old who is arrested for simple possession of marijuana often has to wait 10 years before he or she can get a job. No one wants to hire these youth, because they have a criminal record. It is very hard for them to find housing, and it is impossible for them to cross the border into the U.S., even though many states, including Vermont, New York, and Maine, have already decriminalized marijuana. It is even legal in some states.Why has Canada not yet brought in any measures to do the same? Why are our young people still being prosecuted? Why should our young people have to face roadblocks for 10 years and maybe the rest of their lives? A criminal record can have a lifelong impact. This is a very serious matter, and it is especially absurd given that we know that the Liberals plan to legalize cannabis. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it cannot be decriminalized.(1220)A third of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 reported using marijuana in 2011, and more than half have tried it at least once. Two-thirds, 67%, of offences committed by young adults are linked to marijuana possession. That amounts to thousands of cases every year. Every year in Canada, nearly 57,000 arrests are related to simple possession of marijuana.If we have to wait two years for the Liberal government to finalize the legislation, nearly 120,000 people will be arrested for this. It makes no sense to waste so many resources to arrest people for an offence related to something that is about to become legal. What will happen to those who are left with a criminal record? Will it disappear? What will the Liberals do about those cases?A criminal record also prevents people from getting involved in charities. Some people who would like to help out in their communities are unable to do so. Community groups often ask people who want to volunteer for their organization to demonstrate that they do not have a criminal record, because the organizations need to protect themselves, and rightly so. Many communities organizations work with young people or people with mental health issues. This means that young people who have been arrested for simple possession of cannabis cannot get involved in their community because they have a criminal record. People with a criminal record must disclose this fact for 10 years to their bank if they want to apply for a loan or to an insurer if they want to purchase home or car insurance. Even if they manage to find work, they may not even be able to purchase car insurance. They will therefore not be able to drive to work. This ultimately jeopardizes their careers and job searches. They will not be able to cross the border to visit friends or family members, either.By refusing to move forward with decriminalizing marijuana, the government is making it even harder for young people to enter the job market and start their lives.My office contacted organizations in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, and these organizations are unanimous in their stance on implementing legalization directly and too quickly. We need an interim process, which would be decriminalization. This is a crucial step to help young people be healthy and to focus on prevention.According to Claude Théorêt, the CEO of PACTE de rue and a member of the Association des travailleurs et travailleuses de rue du Québec, we need to be proactive about awareness and education, to help young people, especially those under 18, understand the legal implications of the legalization of marijuana. He says that people who work with youth mainly worry that they are not aware, which could promote illegal behaviour. Young marijuana users believe that the potential legalization of marijuana, which the Liberals announced during the election campaign, effectively gives them permission to use in public.He is not the only one who says so. The two other people I will quote said it was problematic that the government announced the legalization of marijuana without announcing other measures. Young people now think that they have the right to consume marijuana because the Prime Minister said it would be legal. This is not true, but they do not realize it. If these young people are not made aware of the restrictions that could come with the legalization of marijuana, they could engage in illegal social behaviour, which could result in needless criminal records for these young offenders. This is what Claude Théorêt believes.Alexandra Laliberté, the director of Le Tournant, an alternative resource that works with people with mental health challenges, says that most people who contact her service have their first psychotic episodes when they use drugs and that they are not equipped to use the drugs safely. She also says that young adults frequently abuse drugs and end up in panic mode. According to her, front-line services are having a hard time meeting current demand. Front-line intervention groups need to be part of the government's consultations on legalizing marijuana. They say that they are not being consulted by the government on this type of public policy that will be put on the table.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaMental healthOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people442047544204764420477442047844204794420480442048144204824420483442048444204854420486442048744204884420489442049044204914420492442049344204944420495MurrayRankinVictoriaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the member opposite for her fine speech. All the facts that she quoted in her speech, with respect to the levels of charges and the numbers of charges being laid, I believe originated from 2012 and therefore are quite dated. I wonder if she has any more up-to-date information. I can advise the House that, at least anecdotally, from speaking to law enforcement officials across the country, I understand the number of possession charges has been reduced very substantially from coast to coast. Certainly in the cities whose officials I have spoken to, those numbers are a small fraction of what they were in 2012.I wonder if the member opposite has any more up-to-date information.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442049844204994420500CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have the numbers from Statistics Canada for 2014. These numbers indicate that in 2014, there were 57,314 marijuana possession offences. That is not so long ago. I am not sure what numbers the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest has, but he could quote them to show how much that number has gone down.In any case, this does not change the fact that the government specifically said that it was going to legalize marijuana. If it wants to legalize it, then it should do so. Even the Prime Minister said that the use or possession of marijuana should not lead to a criminal record. The Prime Minister admitted that he used marijuana and did not get a criminal record. He was lucky.Currently young people, two-thirds of young people between 18 and 24, are the most affected. They are the ones who end up with a criminal record, which has very serious consequences for their work, housing, and the rest of their lives because their record will follow them for the rest of their lives.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442050144205024420503BillBlairScarborough SouthwestJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, we have now heard two hon. members from the NDP speak about this issue. The reality is that it is still illegal in this land to possess marijuana, yet in both of the speeches, we have heard references to young people. Marijuana is illegal for everybody in this land.Just to get away from any confusion that might exist in the absence of legislation, because we have no legislation at this point, although the Liberals are proposing it, what is the definition of “young people” in the context of what we have heard this morning in the speeches?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people44205044420505Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: (1230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we are talking about young adults, people who are 18 and older. What the government is currently saying is that it is illegal for everyone at present. However, the people most affected, those who are arrested most often, and who have the most criminal records are young people between the ages of 18 and 24. We are talking about these young people because they will be affected for the rest of their lives.It makes no sense because the Liberals want to decriminalize marijuana. If they want to do it within two years, it means that they want to get rid of criminal records. In the meantime, out on the street, people continue to be arrested. Police officers think this situation is hazy and confusing. They no longer know whether to charge people, or if they should continue to prosecute young people and anyone arrested for possession of marijuana.I would like to remind the Conservatives that they voted for decriminalization at their last convention. They should listen to their delegates.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people442050644205074420508JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. We are not hearing a very firm deadline from the Liberal benches. During the election campaign, they said it would happen rather quickly. Then they said it would take a few months, perhaps it would be in the spring, and some are saying that it might not even happen during this parliament.If marijuana is to be legalized, there must be an agreement with the provinces on the distribution network. Therefore, is decriminalization not the only way to move forward? DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44205094420510Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: (1230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, at present it is a federal law. People are arrested for possession of cannabis and prosecuted under federal law, if they are prosecuted. However, enforcement is not consistent from province to province. Therefore, we have a problem.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4420511RobertAubinTrois-RivièresJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria for the decriminalization of the offence of possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.The government has been very clear with its platform commitment and in its statement to Canadians and through this Parliament of its intention to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. Our government's objectives in doing so are to protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth. We also want to keep profits out of the hands of criminals, particularly organized crime. Through this process we want to ensure that Canadians are well informed through sustained and appropriate public health campaigns, for youth in particular, to ensure the risks are understood. Let me be clear. The law with respect to marijuana is not in limbo. It is still in effect. Marijuana is currently a scheduled drug under schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The law is in force and it should be obeyed. The police have been enforcing this legislation and have the legal authority to do so until the law is changed. As we are all well aware, marijuana is not always a benign substance. While many believe this substance to be harmless, its use presents a significant risk to certain segments of the Canadian population, notably children. Therefore, our first public interest priority is the protection of children.Canada currently has the highest rates of marijuana usage of any developed country in the world, especially among youth. There is a significant body of scientific evidence that marijuana poses a significant health risk to the developing brain. Accordingly, we need to do a better job of protecting our youth. We also have to consider other public health and safety risks, such as the need to prevent drug-impaired driving and the need to promote safe and responsible production and distribution of marijuana.In Canada, organized crime profits in the billions of dollars from the illegal trafficking of drugs generally and from marijuana in particular. Therefore, another very important public policy objective for our government, through the legalization and regulation of marijuana, is to take those profits away from organized crime, away from street gangs, and away from those who would victimize, and through violence, threaten so many of our communities. The violence and victimization that takes place in communities as a direct result of the illegal activity around marijuana takes a terrible toll. We believe that a strictly controlled regulatory regime that is based on a public health model will better protect our communities and especially our children. We believe that a public health approach will assure all Canadians that marijuana can be made available legally and safely to responsible adults. Our government will develop a regulatory scheme that will ensure that the production, distribution, retail sale, and consumption of marijuana will be controlled by regulation so as to ensure that we can achieve both our public safety aims and our public health aims. The motion proposes that the government immediately decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. While the motion does not define what is meant by “decriminalize”, one thing is certain: if decriminalization were to occur, it would mean that marijuana would remain an illegal substance and that it would continue to be grown and distributed by organized crime networks. Canadians, both adults and youth, would continue to purchase a product of unknown potency and quality, while fuelling the profits of organized crime.Simply removing the criminal penalties for the possession of marijuana would do nothing to make it harder for young people to access it. In fact, decriminalization may actually make it easier to acquire. Decriminalization would also not ensure that the quality of the marijuana would be safe for consumption. Black market marijuana is often contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, and mould. Decriminalization would not improve this situation. Moreover, it would not address illegal trafficking, nor prevent criminal organizations from deriving enormous profits.(1235)Decriminalizing possession of marijuana without ensuring the appropriate controls are in place for its safe production, distribution, and access would be giving a green light to dealers and criminal organizations to continue to sell unregulated and unsafe marijuana to Canadians, especially children and youth. The government believes that there is a better approach to control the production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana than is currently the case under existing law. Improving on the present situation is a complex task. It will take a great deal of work. There are important questions that need to be answered. With these as our objectives, the government has undertaken to establish a task force on marijuana legalization and regulation. The task force will engage with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous governments and national organizations, youth, and experts in public health, substance abuse, policing and law enforcement, justice, and economics. Crucially, it will also provide opportunities for individual Canadians to provide input and share their views. The aim of this consultation is to develop a comprehensive and properly functioning regime for controlling the safe production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis products across Canada. This task force will be set up very shortly and will have an ambitious timeline so that it can inform the government on its progress and complete its review in a timely and responsible way. As members are no doubt aware, my colleague, the Minister of Health, announced this past April at the United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem, that the government would propose a new legislative framework for the legalization and strict regulation of marijuana in the spring of 2017. As members can see, it will take time to develop legislation and regulations to protect all Canadians. Rushing into an interim period of decriminalization, which would inject more unsafe and criminally grown and distributed drugs onto our streets and into our schools, is not in the best interests of Canadians, especially our youth. A properly designed and regulated system for the legal and safe production, sale, and possession of marijuana is the best answer to the concerns we all have about the current law. We are confident that when the government bill is brought forward, members will appreciate why it is important to take the time needed to engage with experts and all Canadians in order to develop this important but complex legislative framework.I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak to the motion. While I understand the good intentions of the proposed motion, I cannot support it. Decriminalization as the hon. member proposes would only deal with the demand side of marijuana and would not address its supply. It would leave the drug and its profits under the control of organized crime and do nothing to prevent young people from accessing it. The harms it would cause outweigh any possible benefits.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSafetySplitting speaking timeYoung people44205124420513442051444205154420516442051744205184420519442052044205214420522442052344205244420525442052644205274420528Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Earlier this afternoon, the minister's parliamentary secretary suggested that the Statistics Canada data that we cited about the number of simple possession charges in the country were somehow no longer reflecting current reality. Can the minister advise the House on how many thousands of Canadians have been given criminal records since the Liberals were elected in October 2015?Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44205294420530JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact number to answer the question. However, I am happy to endeavour to find that answer and bring it back to my hon. colleague.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4420531MurrayRankinVictoriaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her speech. Basically, I was back in my riding and one of these illegal dispensaries had popped up in Oshawa. I had a former teacher come up and talk to me about some of the edibles being diverted to kids. The reason the Liberals brought this forward was that they said it was going to keep the profits out of organized crime and keep it safe for our kids. Unfortunately, because the Liberals have not thought this through and they put no money in budget 2016 for proper inspection and enforcement, the exact opposite is true. We are getting more of these kid-friendly products in kids' hands. As for the money in these dispensaries, I wonder where the minister actually thinks the marijuana is coming from.I want to ask the minister this. If they are currently illegal, why are the Liberals not cracking down on the illegal dispensaries, and why was there no money put into the budget for this program that they are bringing forward?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people442053244205334420534JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a question that addresses many different issues that we want to move forward.As I mentioned in my remarks, we are moving forward and we will announce very shortly a task force that will look into and engage many experts in the area of health, in the area of law enforcement and justice, among other issues, to actually have conversations about products that are available. Our objective, as I have stated, is to keep harmful products out of the hands of children. As the member quite rightly states, shops that are operating right now outside of the marijuana for medical purposes regulation are operating illegally, and we respect the role of local law enforcement agencies to do their job.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people442053544205364420537ColinCarrieOshawaCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a 17-year-old daughter, like many people in Whitby, which is a bedroom community with a lot of families.I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice what impact decriminalization would have on our young people in school. Alternatively, what is the impact of taking the cautious steps that she has outlined and waiting until it is legalized?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people44205384420539JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, as I have stated, the ultimate objectives of our government in terms of the legalization of marijuana are to keep it out of the hands of children and keep the profits out of the hands of organized crime.We want to proceed on this highly complex matter in terms of legalization in a cautious and orderly manner so we can ensure that we restrict access and we strictly regulate marijuana. We want to be mindful and have regard to the opinions of experts and to the contributions of Canadians when we engage in a task force, so we ensure that their voices are heard and we ensure that we achieve our ultimate objectives after we engage in a task force and after we put forward legislation that will achieve those objectives.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people44205404420541CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this morning in response to the motion from the hon. member for Victoria. I will begin my remarks by talking about some of the evidence that we have available to us about cannabis control and draw some conclusions from that.Certainly, an examination of the evidence tells us that cannabis use carries significant health risks, especially for people who frequently use it or begin to use it at a very early age. The evidence also indicates that a public health approach focused on high-risk users and practices, similar to the approach favoured with alcohol and tobacco in Canada, allows for more control over the risk factors associated with cannabis-related harm. From this evidence, we can draw the conclusion that legalization, combined with strict health-focused regulation, would provide an opportunity to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use.I do not want to repeat what the Minister of Justice has spoken about, the government's plans, because I think she has covered that more than adequately. However, I do want to take this opportunity to try to differentiate between our government's approach and what is proposed in the motion.For example, on the issue of decriminalization, models of cannabis decriminalization vary greatly, but they generally involve removing possession of small amounts of cannabis from the sphere of criminal law. Prohibition remains the rule, but sanctions for possession and use of cannabis instead become civil violations, punishable by a small fine.Unfortunately, this model fails to address several of the harms associated with the prohibition of cannabis use. Under decriminalization, cannabis remains unregulated and this means that users know little or nothing about the potency or the quality of what they are purchasing. Far too often, the source of production in this country has been organized crime, which is reckless in the extreme of the safety and health impacts it can have for Canadians. As long as cannabis use is illegal, it is difficult for health care or educational professionals to effectively address and prevent problematic use. The law enforcement focus on prohibition drives cannabis users away from prevention, risk reduction, and treatment services. Decriminalization may even encourage commercialization of cannabis production and distribution, creating a world of opportunity for organized crime without giving government any additional regulatory tools. These activities would remain under the control of criminal elements, and for the most part, users would still obtain cannabis in the illicit market where they are exposed to other drugs and criminal activity.In addition, under the decriminalization model where the police are given the opportunity to issue tickets instead of proceeding with criminal charges, what we have seen in many other jurisdictions where such a practice has been followed is that there is a net widening and a far greater likelihood of people getting caught up in the enforcement net. In addition, fines have proven to be a regressive penalty in the sense that they place a disproportionate burden on low-income individuals.In 2012, the hon. member for Outremont, the leader of the member's opposite party, was asked specifically if he would decriminalize marijuana. I will share with members his response. He said, “...No. I think that would be a mistake because the information that we have right now is that the marijuana that’s on the market is extremely potent and can actually cause mental illness.” He went on to suggest that we should get the best medical experts, the best legal experts, and the best law enforcement experts around the table to see what is realistic. This sounds remarkably like our plan to bring forward a task force to speak to the experts in science, health, justice, and law enforcement to get the best evidence and information from experts across the country to inform the government's development of a regulatory framework for the regulation and control of marijuana.The member for Outremont said that to decide in advance that it should simply be open would be “a serious mistake”, and I agree with him.Legalization removes the social harms and cost of prohibition. Removing criminal and civil penalties for possession of cannabis would eliminate the more than $1 billion Canada spends annually to enforce and prosecute marijuana possession laws. In a jurisdiction where Canada's production and distribution are legal and properly regulated, criminal involvement in these activities should shrink significantly and potentially disappear. It is important to recognize that legalization alone does not reduce the health risks and the harms of cannabis. However, it presents governments with an opportunity to regulate cannabis to mitigate those risks, something that cannot effectively be done under prohibition or decriminalization.(1250)We have also looked at the experience in other jurisdictions. A number of states in the United States have gone through the process of the legalization of recreation and medical markets, and they have shared some lessons with us that I would like to share with the House.First, the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse did an analysis of lessons learned in Colorado and Washington state and its first recommendation in its report was as follows: “Take the time required to develop an effective framework for implementation and to prepare for a successful launch”. The interim measure that is proposed in this motion does none of those things. The report urges us to do the following: Develop the capacity to administer the regulatory framework, recognizing that a significant investment in staff and administration is required to process licenses, conduct comprehensive inspections and address violations;... Invest proactively in a public health approach that builds capacity in prevention, education and treatment before implementation to minimize negative health and social impacts associated with cannabis use;...Invest in research to establish the evidence base...; andConduct rigorous, ongoing data collection...That is the Government of Canada's plan. Our plan is to develop a strict regulatory framework based on a public health approach that would mitigate the health and social harms of marijuana use. We are committed to taking the time to do this right. We are committed to bring forward evidence-based policy, based on the best evidence available to us in the fields of science, health, justice, and law enforcement. We are committed to consult across this country to bring that evidence before the House and ensure that the work we do in bringing forth a regulatory framework achieves our public policy aims. Our public policy aims are clear. We intend to make Canada a safer place for our kids by protecting them from the harms that marijuana can have on the developing adolescent brain; to protect our communities from the damage, violence, and victimization brought about by organized crime through its involvement in the illegal drug trade, in particular the illegal marijuana trade; and to protect the health of Canadians by ensuring a strict regulatory framework for the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis that works for the health and safety of all Canadians.DecriminalizationGovernment expendituresMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthSafety4420542442054344205444420545442054644205474420548442054944205504420551442055244205534420554442055544205564420557442055844205594420560442056144205624420563JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member, as the representative of the Minister of Justice, what I think is a very simple question. As we know, federal prosecutors enforce marijuana possession laws from coast to coast. Apparently, in Kelowna, there are 251 charges per 100,000 people for marijuana possession, whereas in St. John's, Newfoundland, there are 11 per 100,000.My question for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is this. Does this discrepancy seem just?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442056444205654420566BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, we recognize that there is a disparity in the enforcement of these laws. Quite frankly, in the absence of other supportive evidence, it is difficult to determine whether that is a result of a different approach either by the police in the laying of charges or by the prosecutors in exercising their discretion—and I know that there are different approaches in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in both British Columbia and Newfoundland—or whether that disparity reflects a different pattern of use in those two jurisdictions. In the absence of evidence, it is difficult to quantify, but we recognize that there is disparity in the enforcement of these regulations. It is one of the reasons we are committed to the legalization of marijuana, not merely to reduce that particular social harm but to also show health harms. This is an opportunity, as I have said, to bring in a strict and effective comprehensive regulatory framework that would enable us to address all of the harms associated with cannabis use.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44205674420568MurrayRankinVictoriaDianne L.WattsSouth Surrey—White Rock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89333Dianne L.WattsDianneL--WattsSouth Surrey—White RockConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WattsDianneLynn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Dianne L. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member, as well as the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. We have heard them all state that legalization is going to take it out of the hands of organized crime and keep our children safe. As we know, drug dealers are not interested in keeping any drugs out of the hands of our kids and continue to diversify.My question would be this. The premise is that legalizing marijuana would keep kids safe, take drugs out of the hands of organized crime, and everything is going to be great. Extrapolating that, is there is an intention to also legalize street fentanyl, OxyContin, W-18, W series drugs, ecstasy and cocaine, which are on the rise and have been on the rise for quite some time?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety44205694420570BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, our commitment has been very clear and precise. Our intention is to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana in Canada, and we have not made any other comments.This government is pursuing a public health approach with respect to all of our policies because of our commitment to keeping our communities safe and our citizens healthy. However, our commitment has been very clear. We are going to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44205714420572Dianne L.WattsSouth Surrey—White RockNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that ran on a platform to legalize and regulate marijuana. As any expert will tell us, prohibition causes more problems than it proposes to solve. The answer is a regulatory framework based on evidence.We are not moving toward legalization now. Rather, we are moving toward legalization a year from now. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. We will be facing prohibition over this next year. Therefore, is decriminalization not a fair option, as a matter of scarce judicial resources and to not negatively affect the lives of young people for no reason at all when we are legalizing it within one year?DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44205734420574BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. There are significant social and health harms associated with cannabis use. Currently, control of cannabis is exercised through an existing legislative framework that has been in place for over a century in this country. Through the best advice of experts from across the fields of science, health, justice, and law enforcement, we are proposing to bring forward a proper, effective, and comprehensive regulatory framework to replace the existing system of control. In the interim, it would be reckless in the extreme, and perhaps create much greater risk for our communities, to remove all control of cannabis. It would create opportunities for organized crime and put our children at risk.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety44205754420576NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.I want to start by thanking the NDP for bringing this motion forward today. It is indeed an important issue that the Liberals are refusing to deal with. The Liberals continue to state that their plan to legalize marijuana is to “keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals”, but the exact opposite is true.I have numerous concerns and questions about the lack of marijuana policy by the Liberals. I know that many Canadians across the country do as well. The Liberals are providing no direction, and they continue to avoid answering important questions when it comes to their inconsistent drug policies. For example, who is monitoring these illegal marijuana dispensaries that are popping up across the country by the hundreds? How do we know where these illegal dispensaries are getting their marijuana from? Who is ensuring that these illegal marijuana dispensaries are not producing laced marijuana? How can we be sure that these dispensaries are not selling or diverting marijuana to children and that they are not targeting children by promoting kid-friendly edibles? How much marijuana will an individual be able to possess without consequences? If legalized or immediately decriminalized, will dispensaries be allowed to sell edibles, which are known to be harder to monitor for THC levels? Will they be allowed to advertise these kid-friendly edibles?I could go on and on, which is why I believe that decriminalizing marijuana immediately is not the solution. As of right now, the distribution of marijuana is illegal unless a licence by Health Canada has been issued and the producer complies with the marijuana for medical purposes regulations.Recently at the Standing Committee on Health, we learned from Health Canada officials that the Liberals have allocated no money, zero dollars, for the inspection of these illegal marijuana dispensaries. In my riding of Oshawa, an illegal marijuana dispensary has recently popped up. The issue is that it is illegal. Law enforcement agencies are unclear as to whether or not they should allow these dispensaries to continue to operate because the Liberals have announced an apparent plan to eventually legalize marijuana.The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have been contradicting most of their campaign promises since forming government. They have said they were going to legalize marijuana, but they also said they would run modest $10-billion deficits. They said they would run an open and competitive process to replace the CF-18s. They said that they would lower the small business tax rate. They also promised $3 billion of an investment into palliative care, and that was nowhere to be found in the Liberals' budget.Clearly, Liberal campaign promises are cheap. We do not even know if marijuana is going to become legal, so why would decriminalizing it immediately be the solution? At this time, the only responsible solution is to enforce the law.On our side, our top priority needs to be the safety of all Canadians, especially our youth. The Liberals are doing a lot of talking, saying that marijuana is illegal until the Criminal Code is changed, yet they are doing absolutely nothing about the abundance of illegal marijuana dispensaries that are producing marijuana with zero oversight. This raises more questions that Canadians deserve to have answers to.How are municipalities and law enforcement agencies across this country supposed to operate without any guidance from the Liberal government? Are the profits from these illegal marijuana dispensaries going to organized crime? We do not know because the Liberals do not seem to really care. They have failed to provide a responsible thought-out plan, and that is what is unacceptable about this current situation. As elected officials, it is our job to represent our constituents as well as making sure that all Canadians are safe. Immediately decriminalizing marijuana does not solve the issue of illegal marijuana dispensaries. It does not ensure that Canadians will be responsible while using marijuana.It is easy for former politicians to advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana when they have no responsibility to represent the good of their constituents. As an elected member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to ensure that my constituents are safe. Now that one of these illegal dispensaries is in my riding of Oshawa, I am concerned that it is operating illegally and that there are no inspections on what is being sold and to whom. I worry that marijuana products such as brownies and cookies might end up in the hands of Canadian kids.(1300)I know that my constituents will have questions, and because of the lack of information from the Liberals, I will not have very many answers for them. This is why the immediate action that the Liberals must take is enforcing the law.In my opinion, immediately decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana for personal use does not take into consideration the implications this may have, one, for traffic and workplace safety; two, the health of Canadians, especially our adolescents and our youth; three, international treaty obligations; and, four, Canada's marijuana for medical purpose regime.We realize that this issue is on the minds of Canadians. Recently at the Conservative Party convention, the following resolution was passed: In order to expand the means which law enforcement authorities have at their disposal to combat drugs and their negative impacts, particularly among young people, and to reduce the volume of judicial proceedings, we recommend that peace officers be enabled to issue tickets for simple possession of small quantities of marijuana. While there is so much in the NDP motion that the Conservatives could support, the motion calls to immediately decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. As members can see, there are far too many unanswered questions by the Liberals, and for that reason I will not be able to support the motion. Just because the Liberals made an irresponsible campaign promise without considering the consequences does not justify the House approving an irresponsible solution.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafetySplitting speaking timeYoung people44205774420578442057944205804420581442058244205834420584442058544205864420587442058844205894420590442059144205924420593BillBlairScarborough SouthwestPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, it seems pretty clear in the debate we are having today that Liberals and Conservatives favour continuing to arrest Canadians for simple possession of pot.Last year, Canadians were asked whether simple pot possession for individual use should be decriminalized. What is interesting is that 68% of Canadians said that they agree with the NDP motion and they believe in decriminalization. What I think is even more impressive for the member is that 70% of folks in Ontario also believe that simple possession of marijuana should be decriminalized, and 51% of folks who voted Conservative actually agree with the NDP motion and want to decriminalize marijuana.Given that 68% of Canadians and 51% of Conservatives agree with us, why is the member voting the other way?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442059444205954420596ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, this really is a big difference between the Conservatives and the NDP. In the motion, the NDP is asking to decriminalize immediately. As I said at the beginning, our focus, always, is the health and safety of Canadians. Even when the Liberals brought it forward, they said to keep the proceeds out of the hands of criminals and to keep our kids safe.What Canadians expect us to do, even if they are supportive of an action, is to make sure that we have all the things in place to ensure that Canadians will maintain their safety. I mentioned so many things that are wrong with the current situation. I am in full agreement with the NDP that the Liberals have made a disaster out of this. I was very saddened to hear that they did not put any money aside for inspecting these illegal dispensaries. Most important, nobody wants kids to be able to eat these gummy bears, cookies, and brownies, or bring them to their schools. These are things that we have to address before moving forward with anything.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafety442059744205984420599PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear my friend speaking about the recent Conservative convention and this issue of giving tickets to individuals who are picked up for small possession.My question for the member is this. Does he know that that answer is in fact decriminalization?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44206004420601ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1305)[English] Madam Speaker, again, there was a motion passed at the convention, and the reality is that no matter what motion is passed anywhere, what Canadians expect is a government to be responsible. I am disappointed that the Liberal members are not moving forward in trying to get their ministers to pay attention to what is actually happening on the ground. In Vancouver, for example, there are more of these illegal marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks. What is the Liberal government doing? It is totally ignoring it, and it is downloading the enforcement on to local municipalities.With respect to any movement forward on this file, what Canadians expect is that a government takes responsibility and has a responsible approach, not the irresponsible approach that has been advocated for today and also by the Liberal Party, which is doing absolutely nothing to address the questions coming from our municipalities and ordinary Canadians.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail trade442060244206034420604NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, it is important to underline that the motion passed at the Conservative convention was not a decriminalization motion. It was one that I was pleased to speak in favour of, in fact. The motion did not remove criminal penalties, but did give police a ticketing option. It expanded the range of available options.We are dealing with this debate in a particular context, the context in which unfortunately many young Canadians just do not understand the risks associated with marijuana. The Prime Minister admitted to smoking marijuana while being an elected member of Parliament with nary an apology.Could the member comment specifically on what information we can get to young people to help them understand the real risks associated with marijuana use?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people442060544206064420607ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1305)[English]The science is clear, Madam Speaker. For our youth, especially those under the age of 25, there are serious mental health considerations, a more likelihood of schizophrenia. This is what really concerns me right now with these illegal dispensaries. They are putting out kid-friendly products such as cookies, brownies, gummy bears, jujubes, and this is proliferating around communities that have never had this issue before. It is exploding. I would like to see the Liberals take some responsibility for this. They should not wait a year. They should start putting things in place right now so this stops immediately because it is affecting our kids.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafetyYoung people44206084420609GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by the NDP. In many ways, having listened to speakers from the government side, particularly the member for Scarborough Southwest, it has me thinking it is Wednesday on the Hill, not Monday. His speech seemed more like yoga on the Hill, where he twisted and contorted himself into different positions, trying to claim that the Liberal track record was on the side of evidence, yet not getting there. It was an interesting speech, and I will address what that hon. member said.The one thing my friend from Victoria and the NDP bring forward, which makes sense with this motion, is the contradiction facing the government. The motion begins with trying to recognize the contradiction. It is my position, and I think that of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, that we do not fill a bad policy vacuum with more bad policy. The end state of the opposition day motion is to immediately decriminalize marijuana. I do not think any responsible advocate would say that would be the approach to a wild west situation. However, I understand the frustration of the New Democrats, because there is a degree of wild west out there right now. My friend from Oshawa talked about the new dispensary that opened in his community. We have seen this in Vancouver and Toronto, and a lot of parts of the country because of the vacuum created by an irresponsible, ill thought-out promise by the Prime Minister when he was third party leader. There were a number of reasons for his bold policy statement, but one of them was to cover up his own use of marijuana while he was a member of Parliament. However, we do not create public policy based on our own situation or in response to what we feel would be the political debate. We actually do consult the experts. We listen. My friend from Winnipeg speaks more in the House than anyone, but seems to listen very little. I hope he would change that too.The Liberals talk about evidence in science. The evidence is before us on the scientific front. Marijuana significantly harms the developing brain. Therefore, the motion today that would quickly decriminalize a drug is irresponsible. So is the approach of the vacuum created by the government as it lumbers toward fully legalizing and in some ways legitimizing marijuana. The evidence is crystal clear. I did not hear the member for Scarborough Southwest say much about that when he talked about evidence. I did hear the member, the former chief of police from Toronto, quote at length the member of Parliament for Outremont. He seemed to revel in that quote, so I will quote the member for Scarborough Southwest. Years ago in the Scarborough Mirror, a paper that serves the riding he represents, he said while chief of police: We do not support the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana...that sends an appalling and inappropriate message and is not going to do anything to reduce the harm in our communities... That is an interesting quote. We did not hear those words from him today. As a politician now, he is the one charged with filling this vacuum about which all communities are concerned. He seems to have changed his position and given no reason for it. He did refer to evidence of scientists and law enforcement. Let us look at the evidence from law enforcement. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which that member used to belong to, has looked at the public policy ramification of legalization and decriminalization. It came up with a policy that most recently the Conservative convention in Vancouver endorsed. In fact, my friend from Beaches—East York should do a little more research. It is not decriminalization. It is ensuring that there is not a direct route for small amounts straight to the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, the criminal route. It is called “discretion for law enforcement in ticketing”.The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed resolution 3 in Winnipeg in 2013. The member for Scarborough Southwest, the now parliamentary secretary charged with leaving this vacuum on marijuana, was part of the conference. With respect to marijuana, it said that because of “a negative impact on public safety and the health of young persons” and because it impaired cognitive function, there needed to be a hybrid solution that allowed law enforcement and society to keep control through criminalization of this drug, but to give discretion to law enforcement.(1315)I think none of us wants to see the scenario of a young person whose career or travel opportunities are cut short by personal use. We have evolved as a society. In fact, since 2013, when the member was a member of the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association, as a member of Parliament, I was taking that position, which at the time was contrary to my own party's position. Why was that? It was because my old colleague, and our friend David Wilks, a lifelong RCMP officer, brought forward the proposal, in conjunction with the chiefs of police, and made a public policy rationale and argument for it. He worked diligently, and I salute David. He lost in the last election and that is too bad. His policy work as an independent MP has been more profound and substantive than the entire government. The member for Scarborough Southwest says that the government is taking an evidence-based approach, but then he disregards the evidence from the group to which he belonged, the chiefs of police, and from the medical profession, and allows this lawlessness to exist. That is where I agree with my friends in the NDP, recognizing the contradiction when the Prime Minister said that this product would be legal if people voted for him. Now we are waiting. There is indecision, and mental and physical yoga in trying to justify its delays and positions. When the Liberals made that promise, they knew Canada would be in violation of international treaties. They knew science supported the fact that chronic use of marijuana could lead to cognitive impairment on the developing brain. They knew the risks to public safety. They knew there would be a wild west approach to these street front retail locations that hoped to be the stores when the member for Scarborough Southwest finally unveiled his plan. This is like the gold rush. They are all staking their claim.When I was veterans affairs minister, groups suggested to veterans that medical marijuana would cure their PTSD. That bothered me to no end because the science did not support that. In fact, the chair of research for the Canadian Psychiatric Association was the first witness at public safety committee. He said that there was no clinical support for PTSD assistance through medical marijuana. In fact, reports suggest the contrary. Groups also trying to get storefronts are in some cases trying to sign up more and more people, not always concerned whether that is the right treatment option for them.What I would like to see from the government, particularly from that member, is a more succinct discussion on the harms of the substance. I took a position contrary to my party. I said that we could not have the criminal ramifications for young people for personal use that did not cause any harm. However, no man is an island, as the old expression goes. We cannot permit a drug to be decriminalized with one vote in the House without an approach to ensure there are controls and criminal sanction when warranted.What I like about the NDP's opposition motion is that it is at least bringing up the issue. The Liberals ran very hard on it. We all remember the drives they did on university and college campuses. Now we have this indecision being filled by operators, and there is no suggestion the federal government is going to take a leadership role to stop that. We saw Mayor Tory in Toronto crack down, and we applaud him for that. However, the government, which ran on this, is avoiding responsibility to have a serious discussion on it, much like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did in 2013, to not only talk about the harms, but also how we can reduce the criminal sanction and the impact for someone who has not caused harm to others.I hope the debate today starts off a process of the government becoming responsible for the vacuum it has created and the uncertainty and criminal activity that surrounds it. I hope it comes up with a solution before the House rises. DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafety4420610442061144206124420613442061444206154420616442061744206184420619442062044206214420622442062344206244420625442062644206274420628ColinCarrieOshawaSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I was certainly intrigued that at the Conservative convention just a few weeks ago a resolution was passed to allow for the ticketing of those who possessed small personal amounts of marijuana. Therefore, there is movement happening here.In that light, I am interested in the member's comments with respect to my and the New Democrats' hope of what might be the benefits of freeing up the police and taxpayer financial resources, which right now are consumed with ticketing individuals, and young adults in particular, for personal possession of marijuana, to focus on the true aspects of drug crime.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance44206294420630ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for delving into what I talked about. I appreciate the fact that she was listening intently.My rhetorical passion got the better of me and I did not get into the full details of what the chiefs of police said and the position I support, which is that the simple possession of 30 grams of cannabis or one gram of cannabis resin would be exempt from the criminalized route at the discretion of law enforcement officials. They are the experts who we should be listening to on the public safety ramifications. Therefore, officers could look at the situation and issue a ticket. If someone kept repeating the violation or was near a school or there were other factors combining it with other illegal activity, which is often the case, officers would have the discretion to lay the charge and keep that criminal sanction intact. It is a responsible approach that was advanced for many years by our colleague David Wilks, and is supported by the chiefs of police and by many Canadians.I would suggest to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, whom I respect a great deal, to push this solution on the Prime Minister rather than his radical and not well-thought-out legalization plan.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance442063144206324420633SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithMarcoMendicinoEglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Marco Mendicino (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague this morning for his impassioned speech. I actually think there is some common ground in his remarks this morning. On both sides of the aisle, we agree there are some harms that are associated with marijuana that we need to protect against.I think we would also agree that the status quo is not working. As the hon. Minister of Health said recently before the United Nations, we cannot arrest ourselves out of this situation. As someone who has worked in law enforcement, I think that she speaks with great credibility when she makes that statement.The member also said that he does not believe that there should be criminal sanctions on a go-forward basis. However, when one listens closely to his remarks this morning one has trouble finding how there is any clarity with respect to a solution to ensure that youth will not continue to be charged and that we will not reduce the harm principle, because there is nothing in his remarks that I heard this morning that addresses the supply side of the issue. Most importantly, there was nothing in his remarks that provided a clear solution when it comes to choking off the resources and the proceeds of crime, which will continue to be fed to organized crime.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442063444206354420636ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, my friend from Eglinton—Lawrence did not quite hear my speech, because I did talk about harm reduction. I actually used a quote from his colleague, the member for Scarborough Southwest, who said that decriminalizing small amounts writ large would not be a way to reduce harm in the community, and he is now charged with coming up with a solution. Therefore, I did mention it.Since 2013, I have been advocating for a change to the status quo. I have been quite clear here that I am not suggesting legalizing, opening up, or that there is no harm to this product, which is the impression the legalization vacuum of the Prime Minister has created, as well as the lawlessness on the street fronts and in the shops. Rather, what we should have is a sound policy discussion, working with the chiefs of police, and an approach that gives them the tools they need to sanction criminal behaviour. As I said, no one wants to see a young person, a professional, or a Liberal MP criminalized for simple possession. I have been saying that even when I was at odds with some of the folks in my own party. However, I was doing so alongside people like David Wilks and others by talking about this in a balanced way in terms of how we can reduce criminal sanction where it is not needed and control and provide that criminal sanction where it is, and talk about the risks to health and public safety. We have heard none of that in a responsible way from the government.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442063744206384420639MarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for the great riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam.It is a great honour to be rising to speak to the motion that was brought forward by my friend from Victoria because it is a motion the House really needs to debate. Furthermore, it shines some much-needed sunlight on the absolute confusion and contradictions of the current Liberal government when it comes to marijuana policy. It is a discussion the House needs to have, and more important, it is a discussion that Canadians need to hear.We are debating a motion that would recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadians criminal records for simple possession of marijuana, after the government has clearly and explicitly stated that it should not be a crime. That is a glaring contradiction and is completely unfair.We have heard in the House before, and I am sure many Canadians have heard, that the definition of insanity is to do things over and over again expecting that, even when it brings about the same result, it will bring a different result. That is simply what we are doing in this case with our marijuana laws and it is time we take a closer look at them.Cannabis prohibition in Canada has a history that goes back to the 1920s when it was first added to the narcotics drug act as an amendment after a very late night session in April 1923. Its prohibition, going to the United States as well, has also been linked with some of the racial policies as it was seen as an effective tool of controlling Mexican immigrant labour. There is a very clouded history with marijuana prohibition and not all of it was based on completely clear science.Legalizing marijuana was the big campaign item of the Liberal plan. However, since the Liberals have taken office, not very much has been done. It has already been a big change from the Liberal position. In 2009, the Liberals voted with the Conservatives to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for cannabis-related offences, not a sign of a very progressive party back then. We even have former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. We see even within the Liberal Party itself there are a few different splits, and the official policy of the government is off base with a lot of those members.It is the height of hypocrisy that we have a Liberal government that openly and loudly campaigned on the promise to legalize and regulate marijuana and is now refusing to do anything for Canadians who are found guilty of that possession. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice continues to repeat that the law is the law is the law, and that he hopes that all Canadians will respect the law. He has made mention of the fact that he is of the opinion that decriminalization would not do anything to protect our children or to remove the profits from criminal activity.While I respect the parliamentary secretary's many years as a police officer, his statements are somewhat misleading to the House and to the Canadian public. Let me make this perfectly clear for everyone listening right now. Under our current marijuana laws, the black market is worth $6 billion in British Columbia alone. Criminal sanctions up to this date have completely failed to make a dent in this trade. As for children, let me also inform members of this fact. Under our current prohibition laws, one can go to pretty much any major city in Canada to the nearest street corner, and marijuana will be easier to obtain than either alcohol or tobacco, two products that are strictly regulated by the provincial governments. I applaud the fact that the Liberals will be moving ahead with legalization and regulation sometime in the future. However, what we are talking about is the here and now and the continued unfairness of our current regime. Provincial governments regulate alcohol, tobacco, and gambling, and they make millions of dollars off all three. It can be argued quite clearly and with lots of evidence that all three do much more harm to our society than does marijuana, yet look at the laws we have; they are completely unbalanced.I of course agree that we must do everything to reduce harm to our children. I am a father of young children and I expect it is a conversation I will have to have with them at some point in the future. However, using the argument that decriminalization would do nothing toward preventing children from using the drug or that it would do nothing against criminal profits is a logical fallacy of the highest degree, especially when the current regime is quite clearly failing in both of these regards right now.(1330)The time has come to talk about what decriminalization will do. Under our current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, under subsection 4(4) and subsection 4(5), marijuana possession of 30 grams or less can result in up to a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and yes, it comes to the discretion of the police officer. However, our problem on the NDP side of the House is that the law is applied haphazardly depending on which jurisdiction in Canada a person is in. I do not feel that it is right to base a person's future on the simple discretion of a police officer. We need to have current laws that apply equally in every part of this country.This can have profound consequences on a person's life, and not many of our young people are aware of those consequences. As we continue with the prohibition of marijuana, they might not get criminal sanctions. They might not even get a charge, but they will always have it on their record that a police officer stopped them for that, and it can haunt them for years to come. In 2014, there were 161 marijuana possession charges per 100,000 Canadians, and that is a total of about 57,314 Canadians in 2014 alone. Possession of cannabis is responsible for 54% of all police-reported drug crime.The Minister of Health has been quoted a few times saying that it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem. Yet by not supporting decriminalization efforts, that is precisely what the Liberal government is doing. We are continuing to arrest our way out of this problem, which I want to make perfectly clear. Canadians should not have to wait for another year and a half for the current Liberal government to get its act together on a promise it made to Canadians. It is completely morally unjustifiable.When we have a Prime Minister who, on the campaign trail, made an explicit promise to Canadians that the marijuana laws were going to be reformed and that legalization was going to be brought in, and then that party forms government, we can understand the confusion. I have constituents who thought that marijuana was suddenly okay to possess the day after the Liberals got elected. I have had police officers tell me that they do not know whether to apply the law equally or not, because they simply do not know what the government's intentions are. My friend, the member of Parliament for Victoria, has already quoted a few justices who said that they do not want to be the last judge to hand out a marijuana sentence because of the intent of the government. It is complete chaos and confusion, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, an area I am so fortunate to represent as a member of Parliament.The promise that the Liberals made has evaporated into nothing, because that is what we have now. We have nothing. We have no action. We have the status quo. Canadians did not vote for the status quo. They did not vote to continue with indefensible punishments of possession of marijuana while we wait for the government to get its act together and introduce laws sometime next year.Canadians will continue to be arrested. They will continue to receive criminal records. They will continue to be listed in police databases and continue to suffer from those records long into the future. It is another year or more under our Liberal government of needless arrests and wasteful trials, tying up our police resources and the courts. The Department of Justice has confirmed that this will cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year, a complete waste of taxpayer resources. These are not the actions of a progressive government on marijuana laws. If anyone needed further evidence that the word “progressive” was used as a convenient bumper sticker by the Liberal Party for electoral purposes, they need look no further than the blatant and completely unfair stance of the current government on marijuana. Shame on them for continuing this failed policy. Shame on them for not standing up for what is right. Shame on them for breaking a clear promise.I am proud to be a part of a party that has stood strong on the decriminalization of marijuana since the 1970s. Liberal members can continue to quote the member for Outremont on what he said in an interview in 2012, but the history is clear. The NDP has been on the right side of this issue for decades now. We will continue to lead the right charge and we will continue to stand up for what is right.The Prime Minister's father once famously said, “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”. The time has now come for the state to get out of people's personal choices with respect to marijuana possession and use, especially if there is no harm or violence being committed.(1335)I call on the government to immediately move to decriminalize marijuana, take the right action, and be on the right side of history.DecriminalizationGovernment expendituresLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSplitting speaking timeYoung people44206404420641442064244206434420644442064544206464420647442064844206494420650442065144206524420653442065444206554420656442065744206584420659442066044206614420662ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a few points.The member commented on the issue of decriminalization and suggested that our policy was motivated by anything other than the evidence.I just wanted to inquire if the member was familiar with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, located in Toronto. I quoted liberally from its report of October 2014 earlier today. It has offered a number of significant evidence-based conclusions about cannabis and measures aimed at reducing harm.In that report it was quite specific that decriminalization was a half-measure and that it failed to address the harms associated with the prohibition against cannabis use. It strongly recommended our government's proposed approach of legalization accompanied by a strict public health regulatory framework.Has the member had the opportunity to read that evidence, which is quite compelling and would help clarify for him some of the concerns he has expressed today?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety44206634420664442066544206664420667AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I have not read that particular report, but this issue has gone on much longer than that report.In 1969, a royal commission began an inquiry into the use of cannabis. Its recommendations included the need to repeal the prohibition against simple possession of marijuana and cultivation for personal use.If we are going to talk about harm reduction, let me say this to the member. The reason for this statement was that the commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no scientific basis, and the “costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple possession are not justified by the potential for harm” that comes from criminal sanctions. That was continued again in a Senate report in 2002.If we are talking about harm reduction, let us stop sending people to jail.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4420668442066944206704420671BillBlairScarborough SouthwestJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, it is good to see that the hon. members from that party are quickly coming to the realization that it is the Liberals who are failing on many campaign promises and are in fact much worse in that regard than the Conservative Party. I want to talk about this particular motion and the fact that under the current regime, there is a lot of confusion in this land, confusion among people, which the hon. member spoke to, and confusion among police agencies on enforcement, given the fact that the Liberals have announced that they are suspending legislation.Would the motion the NDP is proposing today not create more confusion, not just for police agencies but for others as well?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442067244206734420674AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I would argue the exact opposite. Right now, police are caught between a government's intentions and what the law actually is.I attended the recent police convention, the reception in Ottawa. I had the chance to speak to many police officers from both the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. They understand that the law is the law. However, when that is contrasted with a sitting government's intent to change the law, it leads to nothing but confusion.We are simply trying to make the law clear. It is a stop-gap measure while we get to the government's intentions. Let us stop harming people with criminal records. The police have much bigger things to do. They could go after drug traffickers. People who possess marijuana are not a threat to society. This is outdated science and outdated moral values. It is time to move on.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442067544206764420677JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1335)[Translation]Madam Speaker, Marie-Josée Dumas, executive director of Liberté de choisir, an addiction prevention organization in my riding, said that the Prime Minister's promise has already had a negative effect on the ground because young Canadians now think that the possession and use of marijuana is already allowed. If legalization is not necessarily preceded by decriminalization, many users will be caught in the trap and will end up with a criminal record. They will not be able to work, and it will be hard for them to find housing and insurance, among other things, for 10 years following a conviction.What are my colleague's thoughts on that?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44206784420679AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my friend more.This is about looking to the future, about stopping criminal records for young people. That is who it affects. It is completely unjustifiable and immoral that we are saddling these young people with these records far into the future and are putting the onus on them to clear their records.It is time to move on. Our police have better things to do.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442068044206814420682Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtFinDonnellyPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63592FinDonnellyFin-DonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DonnellyFin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech and his reasonable suggestions and evidence points. I will add to this important motion.I rise today to support the motion by my good friend and colleague, the member for Victoria. Action from the government to decriminalize marijuana possession is long overdue. Certainly Liberals must understand the hypocrisy of their current position. Arresting, detaining, and otherwise abridging the civil rights of Canadians for a practice they plan to make legal is unacceptable.If we asked Canadians what they thought was the most prominent promise made by the Liberals in the last election, ending the marijuana prohibition would be at the top of their list. The Liberals made lofty promises to swiftly legalize cannabis so that it could be controlled, like alcohol. Now they claim that it is more complicated than they thought, so they will not be introducing legislation until the spring of next year.The only concrete action they have taken is to appoint the member for Scarborough Southwest to look into the matter. The sensible thing to do would be to stop charging people today until we can get the reformed regime in place.The reality is that about 60,000 Canadians will be arrested for simple possession of marijuana, and 22,000 will end up with criminal records this year alone. This lack of action will cripple many young people, who will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because the Prime Minister did not respect his promise to legalize marijuana as soon as the Liberals took office. A criminal record can be a serious impediment to employment and travel opportunities that disproportionately affects youth in our communities. Maintaining the status quo is a massive waste of the time, effort, and energy of our entire criminal justice system. Currently the federal government spends about $4 million a year trying simple possession cases, and that does not include the cost of enforcement and court resources. Police and our courts should not have to misspend resources because the government refuses to make this simple regulatory change. While we continue to wait for legislation to legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana, the government should remove cannabis from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The current legal limbo for cannabis is creating unnecessary confusion in our legal system and is creating disorder for municipal governments across the country that are dealing with the rapid expansion of marijuana storefronts in our communities.This year, B.C.'s chief health officer declared a public health emergency due to opioid overdose deaths. This state of emergency is thanks to the rise of serious drugs like fentanyl. In B.C., 308 residents died from illicit drug overdoses in the first four months of 2016. That is up 75% from the 176 deaths in the same period last year. I am by no means advocating a police-only approach to drug use. However, being able to task more police to go after major drug traffickers should be our top priority. Let us get on with decriminalizing cannabis so that we can free up more resources to tackle the real problems facing Lower Mainland communities. I will add that as a former city councillor in the city of Coquitlam, I know that we worked closely with the RCMP to provide the tools and resources needed to go after the real crimes and offences happening in our community. I know that is not only in Coquitlam. It happens in Port Moody, where we have had gang violence in the past, and I know that other communities right across the country are dealing with serious crime. This needs to be the focus of our police.(1345)Canadians know that the status quo is unacceptable. More and more prominent Canadians and organizations are speaking out and are calling on the government to take action on decriminalization now.An April report from the C.D. Howe Institute argues that pardoning Canadians convicted of simple possession, throwing out any outstanding charges, and not charging any more people with marijuana possession would free up substantial financial resources, which could mitigate some of the costs of legalization.Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has recently said, “What is completely unacceptable, in my judgment, is a young man smoking marijuana will have a criminal record for the rest of his life, [and] he can't cross the border”. The new Liberal government should heed his advice. Even the Conservative Party of Canada has modernized its approach to marijuana laws, calling on the government to remove possession from the Criminal Code. Considering the Conservatives' past inflammatory rhetoric and draconian criminal justice record, this shift is truly monumental. Marijuana possession is running out of opponents, and the Liberal government is running out of excuses. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, hundreds of people have contacted my office calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. Many are confused as to what the current law is, given the government's position on legalization. For many, the ambiguity leads to a false sense of security. These otherwise law-abiding citizens could find themselves convicted of a crime, which could be readily prevented. Others have contacted my office to express frustration about how the lack of sensible regulation has created problems for their strata boards and for the proper function of local businesses.Marijuana legalization must be carefully considered and must take best practices from other jurisdictions that have already successfully implemented regulatory regimes. We can look south of the border for some of those best practices. At the same time, we cannot continue with the status quo of punishing people for a practice the government plans to make legal in the very near future. Decriminalization makes sense, would save money, and would save Canadians from further injustice. I hope the government will end its hypocrisy and support the motion before more people become victim to government inaction.I would like to mention that a recent poll done by EKOS is indicative of where Canadians now stand. Seventy-three per cent of British Columbians agree with the decriminalization of marijuana. Seventy-five per cent in Atlantic Canada agree. In Manitoba, 69% of those surveyed agree. In Ontario, 70% agree. We can see the trend. Over two-thirds to three-quarters of those surveyed feel that this move makes sense, that it is a move in the right direction, and that it needs to happen. Very few are opposed to such a move.We implore the government to consider this move. That is why we put forward this opposition day motion. We hope the government will consider it. We hope enough members on that side will consider this as a strong move in the right direction. We are not saying that this is the only thing the government needs to do. We are saying that this is the right thing for it to do. The government needs to take action on this now as it moves forward on this important topic.Criminal recordsDeaths and funeralsDecriminalizationDrug trafficking and drug seizureGovernment expendituresLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic opinion pollsYoung people44206834420684442068544206864420687442068844206894420690442069144206924420693442069444206954420696442069744206984420699442070044207014420702AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, there are just a couple of things I want to clarify for the member.First, the government's promise in its throne speech was to legalize, regulate, and restrict the use of marijuana. The member only spoke to the first third of that, which is legalization. He neglected, unfortunately, to talk about the importance of regulation and restriction for cannabis control.The member opposite made reference to the importance of learning lessons from other jurisdictions. In November 2015, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse submitted a report on cannabis regulation entitled “Lessons Learned in Colorado and Washington State”, which said that it is essential to “[t]ake the time required to develop an effective framework for implementation and to prepare for a successful launch;... [d]evelop the capacity to administer the regulatory framework;... [and] invest proactively in a public health approach that builds capacity in prevention, education and treatment”.I am just wondering if the member opposite has had the opportunity to read that important report. I know he values the lessons learned from other jurisdictions. Those lessons are available to him if he cares to read them.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4420703442070444207054420706FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamFinDonnellyPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63592FinDonnellyFin-DonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DonnellyFin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Fin Donnelly: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, as parliamentary secretary, the member has done and is doing his homework on this, and I appreciate that. Obviously, I have not read all of the reports that he is citing. However, as to the thrust of what he is talking about, there is no restriction now. This is the issue. That is why what New Democrats are proposing makes sense. The government has taken no action in terms of this important topic. It has been over half a year, there has been no action, and we will not see any action until the spring of next year. Decriminalization is needed now. Canadians are calling for it. Let us make that happen.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44207074420708BillBlairScarborough SouthwestColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, I again want to thank the NDP for bringing this up, because it really highlights what a disaster this legalization program is that the Liberals want to bring in.I want to ask the member a very important question. Anything that is done has to be done responsibly, and I want to ask him about the tools that are in the tool box today. We see dispensaries popping up all over the place with edibles. The Liberals put absolutely no money in for inspections, so we do not even know if the marijuana used to bake these edibles is laced with anything, like angel dust. Where are the profits going? They are going to organized crime.Most importantly, he mentioned the Colorado experiment. There are no tools in the tool box for police to check for impaired driving. In Colorado there was an increase in death and disability due to impaired driving and an increase in the hospitalization of kids due to edibles. The NDP motion today is calling for immediate decriminalization.Could the member please say what he is aware of and what tools are in the tool box today? I am not aware of any tools in the tool box that would alleviate the issues that I have just brought forward in my question.DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafety4420709442071044207114420712FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamFinDonnellyPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63592FinDonnellyFin-DonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DonnellyFin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Fin Donnelly: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, the member's question is important. I know the police and RCMP across the country have effective tools. What New Democrats are saying is that there needs to be action on decriminalization right now so that we can move forward on simple possession of marijuana. That would allow the police to put the emphasis where it is needed: tackling organized crime and the hard or illicit drugs that the member referenced. That is where we need the resources. We need to look at best practices, whether from the United States or across this country. We need to be putting those best practices in place, but we need to provide the resources and tools necessary now and not wait for another year and create the kind of chaos and confusion that exists currently. That is the problem. That is why the step of decriminalization is so very much needed and important.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44207134420714ColinCarrieOshawaMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1355)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria for his motion.We are very happy to have this opportunity to reiterate our government's promise to Canadians about the legalization and strict regulation of marijuana and the government's responsible, methodical approach to keeping that promise. As members know, that promise was part of an election platform that received broad support from Canadians all across the country in the last election. That promise was and remains to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana to ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. We will punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework. The Prime Minister has clearly stated on numerous occasions that our government will meet that commitment. That commitment was included in the mandate letters issued to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, recognizing the need to do more than simply change a few words in the law. We need to move forward in a way that allows us to address a good number of priorities. We need to focus on things like public safety, prevention, treatment, and public awareness campaigns. We need to ensure that questions related to law enforcement, public safety, and criminal justice are fully addressed.A simple quick fix to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use, as the member for Victoria is proposing, would be an imprudent course of action, with all due respect to the hon. member. Canadians support legalization, but they want reassurance that the important issues are fully addressed, and safety is just one of those issues.[English]Canadians want to know the police have the right tools and training to address drug-impaired driving. They want to know that appropriate measures are in place to keep marijuana out of the hands of their children and that criminals will not profit from legalization. Immediate decriminalization would address none of these issues. That is why our government is taking a responsible, ordered approach to fulfilling this commitment.However, that does not mean we are not moving forward. Our goal continues to be to introduce the appropriate legislation in the spring of next year. As we work toward that goal, we are also mindful that this must be a collaborative effort. We cannot advance without engaging our provincial and territorial partners. We are striking a task force to consult with provincial and territorial governments; with experts in public health, substance abuse, law enforcement, criminal justice, and economics; with indigenous and youth groups; and with other stakeholders and Canadians.This process is in motion. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Health wrote to their provincial and territorial counterparts in March, inviting them to provide recommendations on the names of experts to be considered as members of the task force that will be launched in the very near future.In addition, a secretariat has been established at Health Canada to support the work of the task force. This secretariat, which is already in place, will also play an important role in relation to the federal-provincial-territorial working group on marijuana legalization and regulation.The working group met for the first time last month and will continue to meet regularly going forward to ensure an ongoing dialogue about the approach and strategies for better coordination, including common communication materials.As members might imagine, our provincial and territorial partners need clarity on the nature of their role under a new regime, such as whether marijuana will be federally or provincially regulated and distributed.Our partners are asking us to take the time necessary to ensure they are able to implement any legislative or operational changes that may be required on their part to support a new regime.[Translation]Madam Speaker, after my speech, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Brampton West.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetySplitting speaking time44207154420716442071744207184420719442072044207214420722442072344207244420725442072644207274420728FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, the question has come up this morning. We have asked repeatedly, given the size and scope—DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421015GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, members must be aware, that in addition to law enforcement representation on the task force, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the member for Scarborough Southwest, who is a former chief of the Toronto Police Service, will work with the task force to engage Canadians on marijuana-related issues. Further, as part of the consultative process, Public Safety Canada will be hosting a law enforcement round table on marijuana legalization later this month. This event will focus on key issues related to marijuana legalization and regulation, including priority issues such as organized crime, marijuana sales and distribution, and drug-impaired driving.[Translation]It is important for everyone to remember that the law is the law. Canadians should expect the police to continue to enforce the law. This includes laws related to storefronts that sell marijuana.Under the current law, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, only persons licensed by Health Canada can produce, provide, or sell marijuana directly to patients with a prescription from a health practitioner to access marijuana.Over the past few months, we have heard stories from the provinces and police forces that are dealing with the issue of illegal marijuana dispensaries. I can assure the House that police forces across the country, including the RCMP, have taken and will continue to take measures to enforce the law against these illegal marijuana dispensaries.In closing, we are making progress. We recognize the motivation behind this motion. However, we intend to keep a pace that follows a consistent time frame, which allows for consultation and the full review of the complex social, legal, and public safety consequences related to legislating, regulating, and limiting access to marijuana.Moving to decriminalization immediately would not achieve any of these objectives and would betray our commitment to Canadians. They supported this commitment and they expect their government to see it through.Canadians do not expect the government to act hastily on this very important issue. I invite all hon. members to join me in defeating this motion.DecriminalizationHerbal medicineLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail trade44210184421019442102044210214421022442102344210244421025GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that gave me more time to reflect.I appreciate the hon. member's comments. However, what we have been asking for repeatedly since this morning is the number of Canadians who have been arrested since this new government came to power.Members will recall that, in 2014, the last year for which we have these statistics, 57,000 Canadians were arrested for simple possession of marijuana under the former Conservative government. The Liberals are saying that the situation is not as bad as it was under the Conservatives. However, to date, they have not provided any statistics showing that there has been a change since November 1, 2015.Therefore, I will ask the question once more and I hope to get an answer this time. How many Canadians have been arrested under the new Liberal government for simple possession of marijuana since last November?ArrestsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421028442102944210304421031GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.His question is much more significant and a little troubling, as his aim is to try to determine how many Canadians did not obey the law. To my knowledge, there have been no changes to the legislation. Therefore, the law remains in effect, and we intend to enforce it until the law is changed.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44210324421033PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the negative health effects of marijuana. We have heard members of the NDP quote studies and information from the 1970s, seemingly not appreciating the way THC content in marijuana has gone up significantly over the intervening years. I wonder if the member could comment on the health effects, emerging concerns, and links between schizophrenia and marijuana use, especially in the young, even with relatively occasional use. Would he agree with me that we need a strong response that recognizes the risks and does not treat this as though it is something simple, small, or not a big deal and acknowledges that it is a very serious issue and a serious health risk when people use marijuana?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetySchizophrenia44210344421035MichelPicardMontarvilleMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.Unfortunately, I am not a doctor. Therefore, I cannot comment on the medical characteristics of the product.However, it is exactly those types of concerns that we will examine when we create the task force led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Experts will be able to provide good advice, good comments, and proper analyses concerning the methods and measures to be implemented in the future.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety442103644210374421038GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, we have seen a Conservative government that has wanted the status quo, with no changes or anything of that nature. It just wanted to leave it as it is. In a very progressive fashion, we came out with what I believe is a responsible approach. We want to make sure that there is consultation and a framework that includes regulations, with the objective of taking money out of the hands of criminals and looking at youth education, and so forth. Now we have the opposition motion, which seems to be premature with respect to passing a law and creating a huge vacuum. I wonder if the member might want to provide his comments on that thought.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44210394421040MichelPicardMontarvilleMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard: (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.He highlighted the crucial point of the bill, which is the notion of responsibility. Unfortunately, the comments we heard in the House this morning were only about the interests of users.We care about the safety of users, but we also consider the entire chain, from production to use. If we did not consider the entire chain, it would not be possible to develop a decent, serious bill.As a responsible government, it is our duty to consider the entire chain, to ensure that the product is not accessible to minors. The proceeds of crime, the proceeds from the transaction, will not end up in the hands of organized crime. It is a matter of the safety and security of all Canadians.That is a responsible government.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety44210414421042442104344210444421045KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, let me begin by emphasizing what our government has committed to do.We have committed to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. We will do this because it is what we promised Canadians. It is what Canadian elected us to do, and it is the responsible way forward. Our approach will ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of our children, and the profits of this illicit trade out of the hands of criminals.Decriminalization, on the other hand, would provide a legal stream of income to criminal organizations. That approach would do nothing to protect our kids and to mitigate the risk of unrestricted and unregulated access to marijuana. To decriminalize immediately, as the member for Victoria suggests, ignores the fact that marijuana is not a benign substance. It is important to do this right, and not recklessly rush changes through at the expense of public health and safety. Marijuana is associated with a number of serious harms. The scientific evidence indicates that marijuana use is linked to increased risks to physical and mental health. This is particularly true with use that starts in early adolescence which is regular and that continues over time. Marijuana use impairs mental functioning in the areas of attention, memory, reaction time, and decision-making. Among vulnerable populations, it can accelerate the onset of psychosis or schizophrenia. Regular marijuana use, especially use that begins early in life, can lead to an increased risk of addiction. I think we can all agree that this is a very complex policy issue, with important public health and safety considerations. A thoughtfully planned, strictly regulated, and carefully implemented regime is critical to mitigate the risks of harm to Canadians. We know this from the experience and lessons learned from other jurisdictions that have moved forward on legalization. Our government is committed to evidence-based policy. One key message we have heard loud and clear from Canadians and from experts is that it is important to take the time to get it right. In relation to that broad message, I would refer to a 2015 report from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, which examined marijuana regulation in Colorado and Washington State. This report articulates a number of important aspects for policy-makers to consider, based on the evidence in these two jurisdictions. One key lesson that I have already alluded to relates to the need to take the time to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective regulatory system. Another key lesson is to prevent use by our young people, by restricting access and fostering a climate that promotes public awareness of the risks and harms of the use of marijuana.Our government has repeatedly articulated our commitment to ensuring that Canada's approach is robust. It will include strictly controlled sales and distribution, where the appropriate taxes are applied and where access is restricted. Another key lesson learned from the experience of other jurisdictions relates to the effects and risks associated with various forms of marijuana products. The evidence and experts tell us that it is important to give serious thought to the control of product formats and dosing or concentration levels. For example, an article in The Globe and Mail this past Friday, June 10, reported that some retailers in Colorado indicated that as much as 60% of their revenue comes from marijuana-infused products. Edibles and extracts, which pose particular health and safety risks, were reported to account for up to 30% of the legal U.S. market.Unregulated access to these types of products, which would happen if the government were to move forward with immediate decriminalization, would increase risks of harm to Canadians and to our children. As our neighbours to the south have found, cannabis ingested in edible form can take hours to take effect. This means that it carries real risks of over-consumption. Following legalization, Colorado experienced a rise in the number of accidental or unintentional, non-fatal overdoses as a result of unrestricted product formats. In response to this public health issue, the state government decided to amend their regulatory framework to more strictly control potency and dosing to mitigate the negative health impacts of these cannabis products. The adage that "the dose makes the poison" is really the basis upon which we develop public health standards for an array of products, and cannabis should be no different. Setting dose or concentration standards is important to consider not only for edible products, but also for the actual plants as well. Numerous studies across the world have found that the strength of marijuana has increased steadily and significantly over the past few decades.(1525) As policy-makers, it is critical that we act responsibly and take a comprehensive approach, one that we feel will not happen with simply decriminalization. We should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. We should engage stakeholders and experts, and we should develop and implement a strict regulatory framework for restricted access.That is an approach that will mitigate public health and safety risks, including the risk of accidental overdose and increased trips to the emergency room. We should not and will not rush through decriminalization and support criminal profiteering, and we should not and will not blindly push forward to legalize marijuana.Our government has developed a thoughtful and robust plan of action. Our plan is comprehensive and collaborative. Reflecting the priority that our government has placed on this issue, the Prime Minister has outlined marijuana legalization and legislation as a key deliverable in the mandate letters of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Health. To inform the design of a new system, our government has also committed to creating a federal-provincial-territorial task force. This task force will consult with Canadians and experts in public health, substance abuse, law enforcement, criminal justice, industry, and those groups with expertise on production, sales, and distribution, to examine and to report to ministers on all of the issues related to legalization and regulation. The task force's report will help inform our government's approach. We remain committed to working with the provinces and territories throughout this process, with a view to introducing proposed legislation in Parliament in spring 2017, as recently announced by the Minister of Health.Let me assure the House that our government will deliver on its commitment. We believe that marijuana legalization, with restricted access and robust regulatory controls, is the best approach to keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and keeping illicit profits away from criminals. Our approach provides for thoughtful action on an important issue that requires a balance of important public safety, justice, and health considerations. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of this House on this important issue.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaMental healthOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationSafety442104644210474421048442104944210504421051442105244210534421054442105544210564421057442105844210594421060442106144210624421063442106444210654421066MichelPicardMontarvilleChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. If the government continues to criminalize the possession of marijuana, some young people who might be looking for information on how marijuana affects their health will not do so because they know that what they are doing is illegal. If we were to at least decriminalize it, they would perhaps not be afraid to ask questions and seek information on how marijuana will affect their health. Decriminalizing marijuana could make it easier to talk more openly and could help warn more young people about how marijuana affects their health.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthYoung people4421067KamalKheraBrampton WestKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Kamal Khera: (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, unlike our government's plan to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana, decriminalization would provide a legal stream of income to criminal organizations.That approach would do nothing to protect our kids and mitigate the risk of unrestricted and unregulated access to marijuana. To decriminalize immediately ignores the fact that marijuana is a harmful substance, which it is, so we are committed to legalizing, strictly regulating, and restricting access to marijuana.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceSafety44210684421069ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/69488RobertSopuckRobert-SopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SopuckRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague, it is obvious that the Liberals' view toward evidence-based policy is a complete farce, and here is why.This is one of the few public policy areas where we have a perfect public policy experiment. We have legalized cigarettes. We have all the restrictions in place. We have the packaging, the warning, and cigarettes are put behind cupboards so nobody can see them. They are highly taxed. They are supposed to be kept out of the hands of kids. Has that stopped the criminal production of illegal cigarettes? Absolutely not. In fact, the criminal production and sale of cigarettes has skyrocketed in the face of these restrictions on legal cigarettes.The exact same thing will happen in the case of marijuana. Once marijuana is legalized, we bring the price up, and we have these so-called restrictions, marijuana is fairly easy to cultivate, so there will be a major stream of illegal marijuana entering the stream of legal marijuana. Criminal profits will increase dramatically, and marijuana will be made even more available to our kids.There is no restriction in place that the Liberals have talked about, and they have given us no specifics. This simply will not work. Can the member comment on that?DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceTobacco trafficking4421070442107144210724421073KamalKheraBrampton WestKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Kamal Khera: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, our current system of marijuana prohibition just does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana or keep the profits out of the hands of criminals. We know young people have easier access to cannabis now in Canada than in just about any other country in the world. In 2013, a UNICEF study found that in 29 different countries, Canada was number one in underage access to marijuana.The proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crimes and create a greater threat to public safety. There are currently billions upon billions of dollars flowing into the pockets of organized crime, street gangs and gun runners because of the illicit marijuana trade. Legalizing and strictly regulating access to marijuana would help stop funding these criminal activities.Our government is moving forward with creating a new system to legalize, strictly regulating and restricting access to marijuana. This is the responsible way to do it, and this is exactly what we will do.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceYoung people442107444210754421076RobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. In my view, the farce is not to trust the professionals and scientists who have the experience to be giving good advice.How does my colleague think that Health Canada will be able to collaborate on this task force?DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442107744210784421079KamalKheraBrampton WestKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Kamal Khera: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the priority our government has placed on this issue, the Prime Minister outlined marijuana legalization as a key deliverable in the mandate letters of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Health. Our government has developed a thoughtful and robust plan of action, one that is comprehensive and collaborative. To inform the design of a new system, our government has also committed to creating a federal-provincial-territorial task force. This task force will consult with Canadians and with experts in the public health, substance abuse, law enforcement and criminal justice industries, as well as all other groups with expertise on production, sales and distribution. We remain committed to working with the provinces and territories throughout this process with the view of introducing proposed legislation in Parliament in spring 2017.DecriminalizationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442108044210814421082MichelPicardMontarvilleChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I think the main thing is understanding why it is important to decriminalize marijuana possession now. Over 50,000 people are still charged with simple possession of marijuana every year and end up with criminal records even though the government clearly signalled its intent to legalize marijuana. That is what we have to put an end to. It is utter nonsense. The Prime Minister himself admitted to using marijuana. At some point that evening, he must have been in simple possession of marijuana. He even admitted to using it while he was an MP. Still, the government keeps telling more than 50,000 Canadians a year that they will have a criminal record and never mind the fact that the Prime Minister himself admitted to doing the same thing they did. We have to consider the fact that a number of public figures have admitted to doing this at some point in their lives. Luckily for them, they were not caught, but other people get caught every year and suffer the consequences. This is out of whack. Whether or not someone suffers legal consequences is entirely a matter of luck.We must also remember that this is a frequent occurrence. Many people are exposing themselves to possible legal consequences. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, according to 2008 statistics, one in eight people or 12% of the population aged 15 and over used cannabis that year. Among those users, one in three had used it less than once a month, and one in four, or barely 3% in the region, had used it between one and three times a month. A majority of users, about six out of 10, used it more than once a week during that 12-month period.In concrete terms, to paint a clear picture, this means that any time I travel around my riding, considering the number of people I meet along the way, I definitely, although unknowingly, cross paths with someone who is in illegal possession of a controlled substance, because of the government's inaction and failure to change the law. That is a large number of people. It is important that we take action to prevent these people from facing the legal ramifications of having a criminal record.I also think it is important to stop bogging down the justice system with cases that I think have a lot more to do with health than crime. Marijuana for personal use is much more of a health issue than a crime issue. We have often heard the government say that decriminalizing possession would keep the money in the hands of criminals. We have heard that argument a lot. I think that argument more or less makes sense when we consider that, as with any business, legal or not, there is the matter of supply and demand and the issue of price. The reason criminal groups grow and sell marijuana is that there is money to be made. Unfortunately, that is the main motivation. As soon as there is less to gain, they will leave the market. The reason they do well is that, since they are assuming risks, they can sell the substance at prices that do not at all reflect the cost of production.(1540)If we decriminalize marijuana, then presumably the people who possess it for personal use will be able to grow the few plants they need for their own consumption. The spouse of a man who uses marijuana for medical purposes was interviewed in a 2014 news article on medical marijuana. Even though she knows it is illegal, she grows marijuana because her spouse is suffering. She estimates it costs her 5¢ a gram. According to the Sûreté du Québec, the black market price is about $10 a gram.If marijuana is decriminalized and the price stays that high, most people will choose to grow their own marijuana. Eventually, the black market will lose its appeal because most people will choose to grow their own depending on the price.Furthermore, anyone who chooses to grow their own marijuana can control what fertilizer they use, for example. Perhaps THC levels will decrease because people will not be trying to grow the strongest product possible. They will simply want to grow something that meets their needs. For example, because the product is for their own use, people might apply less chemical fertilizer, which unfortunately can be found in plants sold on the black market.It does not make any sense to say that, by decriminalizing marijuana, we will continue to send money to the criminal world. I believe that most of the people who use marijuana regularly will choose to grow it themselves because they will no longer have to worry about getting a criminal record. Of course, they will have to make sure that their children and others cannot access it. They will no longer have any dealings with organized crime. If there is a significant drop in demand because people are choosing to grow their own marijuana, there will be no more use for the black market. Criminals will slowly move away from smuggling marijuana or at least selling it.Growing a marijuana plant is nothing like distilling alcohol. In the case of alcohol, a lot of controls are needed because the health risks associated with a bad batch of liquor are very high. The plants that people grow at home will likely have a lower THC concentration. Those plants will therefore be less harmful to health than the marijuana that is currently being sold on the black market. I think that it is completely false to say that decriminalizing marijuana will ensure that money continues to be sent to criminals. Decriminalization would allow people to grown marijuana themselves. That argument does not hold up if people are growing it for their own use. Another important thing is that, if marijuana is decriminalized, then people can get the health care they need. Right now, the problem is that people are afraid to say that they use marijuana because they know it is illegal. Adults and people who are a little older, who are over the age of 50, use marijuana for different reasons. Because of the impact it could have on people's work or personal lives if others knew that they used marijuana occasionally, they do not talk about their use of marijuana and do not seek out information on the effects it could have on their health.(1545)If marijuana were decriminalized, young people could seek out information on how marijuana affects their health, without fear of potential consequences if anyone were to find out that they use the drug. Decriminalization would also allow for a more open discussion on the difference between recreational use and problematic use.It is no secret that marijuana has significant effects on the health of users. It can have some serious consequences, especially on the psychological health and motivation of young people. However, if young people cannot talk about this openly, they cannot get this information, and it is difficult to intervene. People will still avoid disclosing their marijuana use, and we will not have an accurate picture of the situation.People regularly lie in surveys on marijuana use because they are afraid of what might happen if this information were obtained by a third party. As a result, they do not seek medical assistance. Occasional marijuana use may be acceptable, but when someone uses marijuana every day, that goes beyond recreational use and becomes a health problem. It is important to be able to say that. What matters to me now is changing the lens through which we see marijuana. This is not a criminal matter; it is a health matter. We should be able to have an intelligent conversation about this. Compare marijuana to alcohol. If people have one or two drinks a week, that is not a problem, but if people feel the need to drink every day or drink incredible amounts of alcohol, that is a problem, and those people need to get help.We need to be able to talk about responsible use and determine what constitutes a health risk, and decriminalization is key to having that conversation. If not, some people will not talk because they will fear the consequences. As people get older, the consequences for their lives, their work, and their family become more far-reaching, so they are less likely to come forward or to seek out the information or the help they need, depending on their situation.Decriminalization will enable us to get the answers we do not have right now, such as the long-term health consequences of marijuana use. It will also enable us to figure out how much is too much for driving. How long should a person wait after using marijuana before getting behind the wheel? How much would make it dangerous?If people cannot even talk about their usage without fearing legal consequences, they will not be able to seek out that information. However, this information is essential if we want to pursue legalization. For one thing, we need to set limits for operating a vehicle so that people can be informed. If we do not have accurate information, we will keep going around in circles.There is another argument to the effect that decriminalization will not do anything to prevent young people from accessing marijuana. That is not true at all. Right now, if someone is smoking marijuana in a park, for example, a police officer has no choice but to take all of the legal measures: arrest and charge the person, keep evidence, etc. These legal procedures take a long time. There are therefore no immediate consequences associated with using marijuana in an inappropriate place.If marijuana were decriminalized, municipal bylaws could be put in place to prohibit its use in municipal parks, for example, and violators could be fined. Police sweeps could be used to change behaviour. Since an immediate sanction would be imposed, people would think twice about using marijuana again in an inappropriate place where there are young people.(1550)By decriminalizing marijuana possession, the government can give the provinces and municipalities the latitude to regulate the context in which use is acceptable. It could also make the actions to prevent use more effective.Right now, legal action must be taken each time. If we consider the fact that 12% of the population is using marijuana or has used it in recent years, it is clear that it is not realistic to take all of those people to court. Between 3.6 million and four million Canadians per year would be going through the court system. That does not make any sense. We cannot do that.If marijuana were decriminalized, people could be fined for using marijuana in inappropriate locations. It would also allow community workers and parent committees, for example, to target areas where they think such use would be inappropriate, such as schoolyards, parks, or other places where young people go. It would allow the municipalities to ensure that marijuana is only being used in places where there are no young people. That could have a positive impact by reducing access to cannabis, since right now, it is impossible to put in place bylaws on something that is supposed to be illegal.The problem is that if simple possession continues to be illegal, we cannot put certain regulations or policies in place, because the product is supposed to be illegal.For instance, if someone is caught in possession of a substance at school, the police must be called and legal proceedings for a young offender must be initiated. However, if a young person is caught in possession of cannabis at school and it has been decriminalized, he or she could be asked, under the school's regulations, to destroy the substance and a lot more effort can be put into social intervention. We could try to understand why that young person is using drugs. There is also a public health approach. If there are underlying health concerns involved, such as mental health, we can intervene accordingly. By continuing to criminalize it, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand and depriving the authorities of the tools needed to properly intervene.It is very important to keep in mind that we absolutely must not trivialize marijuana use. I recognize that this substance has adverse health effects. Regular use creates motivation problems in young people, as well as mental health problems. It affects blood pressure and it changes electroencephalograms. It is important to decriminalize possession immediately in order to address the health risks and the ineffectiveness of prohibition.This would allow people to talk more openly about their marijuana use and to seek health information. Decriminalizing possession immediately would help us to intervene and to stop criminals from trafficking in this drug. As soon as cannabis possession is decriminalized, people who use it more regularly will find that it is much easier to produce what they consume themselves. This will enable them to gain control over their product and pay less than what criminals are currently charging, since that cost is associated with a risk that would no longer exist with decriminalization.This is the logical way to proceed. The fact that it would still be illegal to sell cannabis will keep things under control and will very much help the people who consume it regularly anyway. They will benefit because they will have more control over the product they consume and will also be much more open about looking for information on their health.Criminal prosecutionsCriminal recordsDecriminalizationHorticultureImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePenaltiesPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthSafetyYoung people4421083442108444210854421086442108744210884421089442109044210914421092442109344210944421095442109644210974421098442109944211004421101442110244211034421104442110544211064421107442110844211094421110442111144211124421113KamalKheraBrampton WestMichelPicardMontarville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71529MichelPicardMichel-PicardMontarvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PicardMichel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Michel Picard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what is deeply disturbing about decriminalization is this insistence on focusing on the end user and believing that a solution could help one person grow enough marijuana for personal use, which, I repeat, is illegal for the time being. This also does not take into account what is happening in the market, and that is what people are ignoring. People with ties to organized crime are offering this type of product to children in elementary schoolyards. What really bothers me is that people do not realize just how much marijuana is grown on farmland and that farmers' lives are at risk because they are victims of extortion. People also do not realize the phenomenal amount of money invested in hydroponic greenhouses, which generate profits for organized crime.What would the member say to those who voted for her to prove that decriminalization is safe?DecriminalizationHorticultureMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442111444211154421116ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore: (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave a good explanation in my speech.Once those who consume marijuana on a regular basis are able to produce what they need, and I believe that this will happen with many people who use marijuana regularly, the criminal market will collapse because it is all about supply and demand.If people start growing marijuana themselves and the criminal market collapses, I believe that people with ties to organized crime will stop visiting schoolyards because the market will collapse. Naturally, they will focus on other substances, which are not quite as popular with young people.DecriminalizationHorticultureMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442111744211184421119MichelPicardMontarvilleEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member's speech certainly was interesting. I know that we will have a lot of things to talk about when, finally, the legislation comes.We are talking about plant physiology and how farmers or how producers are going to have to change things so that they can regulate to find out exactly how much presence of effective chemical there is going to be. Backyard pot growers and people raiding their gardens, all of these other sorts of things are taking place. However, if we look at the Colorado experience, right now, one of the key things they are looking at is acute marijuana intoxication in children. The key component there is that people are normalizing the use of it and then putting the chemicals into brownies and gummy bears and so on, so that a child does not know what it is that they are getting. By doing this normalization, I see that we are creating so many other issues.Could the member speak somewhat about how they are going to regulate and protect those families and those children who are going to be subject to these things when all of this is free and normalized?DecriminalizationHorticultureMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety4421120442112144211224421123ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore: (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, decriminalizing marijuana right now would give us some flexibility as we work on legalizing it.For example, based on Colorado's experience, we can anticipate the negative effects, for example, with respect to products that can be marketed to look like candy for children. If we decriminalize and do not legalize this product, we can take time to pass a law that takes a common-sense approach to legalization. This product is found on a small scale and not a large scale, for example, in the case of consumers who grow it themselves, Furthermore, if some products, such as candies made with marijuana, need to be restricted, in much the same way as we banned vanilla-flavoured cigarettes because they were enticing to children, we can have some flexibility.The priority right now is to ensure that people do not suffer legal consequences for using marijuana and can talk about health issues. Decriminalization would help achieve both of those objectives.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people4421124442112544211264421127EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if we do not decriminalize simple possession of marijuana immediately, there will be many more arrests and court proceedings in the next year. We are talking about $4 million a year in costs for the Department of Justice alone.Can my colleague suggest other uses for this money? For example, it could be put towards combatting substance abuse.Criminal prosecutionsDecriminalizationGovernment expendituresMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211284421129ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore: (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, yes, that money could be redirected from the justice system to the health system right now for programs related to marijuana use, such as addiction prevention programs. Some people are addicted and need programs to help them quit using.The money could also be spent on programs to prevent drug use among young people and campaigns that provide accurate information about the potential health consequences of marijuana use and explain why it is important to be aware of this so people can make responsible health choices. All of that money could be redirected toward health rather than crime and justice. I think it would be win-win all around if we invested that money in health.DecriminalizationGovernment expendituresMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic health44211304421131MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. My questions come from a report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and some of the insight and guidance that it has provided through its scientific research and recommendations for a public health policy framework for the legalization and effective and efficient regulation of cannabis.I would seek the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue's response to this. That report says very clearly that decriminalization is a half measure that does nothing to control the potency or quality of marijuana consumed by Canadians because it remains prohibited under decriminalization. In the member's remarks, I was somewhat confused as to whether she was talking about immediate legalization or decriminalization. Of course, decriminalization and prohibition remains the rule, but law enforcement on prohibition does drive cannabis users away from prevention, risk reduction, and treatment services.Perhaps most important, I want her response to CAMH, which is, by the way, the leading mental health and addiction research facility in Canada. It said, “Decriminalization...encourage[s] commercialization of cannabis production and distribution – without giving government additional regulatory tools”. This is an opportunity of enormous profit for organized crime. I have seen first-hand the ravages of organized crime and the violence and victimization that it perpetuates on our neighbourhoods. Is this what the member intended?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substancePublic health4421132442113344211344421135ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore: (1605)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that decriminalization is not the end of the story when it comes to marijuana.This is absolutely just one step. We will continue to move forward, but what I know for sure right now is that decriminalization is less harmful than the prohibition we have now, which drives people into hiding, subjects them to legal consequences, and prevents us from having an intelligent conversation about the direct consequences. I am absolutely sure that decriminalization will work much better than prohibition, which has been the preferred approach for too long. Decriminalization is certainly not an end in and of itself. We need to do a lot more hard work on this issue.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211364421137BillBlairScarborough SouthwestToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for his comments because it is exactly where I want to go with mine. I followed quite closely the hon. colleague's presentation. I find it farcical that decriminalization will lead to better study in the impairment of drivers. Is my hon. colleague aware of the technology that exists for impaired driving for our police agencies, as well as the training and the time frame for implementing that new technology in order to know whether somebody is impaired and the level of impairment through marijuana?DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211384421139ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Christine Moore: (1605)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, with respect to research and information, if something I am doing is illegal, I am certainly not going to talk about it. If people can at least talk about what they are doing, we will be able to get far more crucial information. If an activity is illegal, it is very difficult to get information that will give us a better idea of the limits we need to set. That is what I meant to say. If marijuana is decriminalized, people will at least be able to report how much they are consuming, and that will give an idea of the repercussions this has on their concentration or their skills.DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421140ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the eloquent and brilliant member for Eglinton—Lawrence.I am pleased to stand in the House today to address the topic put forward by the member for Victoria. It is clear that there is no reason to hastily rush into decriminalization, as members opposite suggest. Over the last decade or so, courts have told us that people with a legitimate medical need have a constitutional right to access marijuana for medical purposes. As the result of various court decisions, there is a robust regulatory system in place that provides legal access to marijuana for medical purposes to Canadians who need it.To be frank, those who want it for recreational purposes can wait until such time as we have a new system that legalizes, strictly regulates, and restricts access to marijuana. [Translation]At this time, we have a fully functional system that allows a little over 53,000 Canadians to access medical marijuana.(1610)[English]The current system has established strict controls over the production and sale of marijuana for medical purposes. These controls protect public health and safety and enable Canadians to access marijuana for medical purposes when authorized by their health care practitioner.Let me make it very clear. Our government does not license organizations such as compassion clubs or dispensaries to possess, produce, or distribute marijuana for medical purposes. These activities by these organizations are, and remain, illegal. Instead, through the marihuana for medical purposes regulations, Health Canada has put in place controls to enable the production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, while reducing the risk of marijuana being diverted to an illicit market or use.[Translation] Health Canada grants licenses to producers so that they can produce and distribute dried marijuana, fresh marijuana, and cannabis oil to people who have received authorization from a health care practitioner. Those Health Canada-approved licensed producers must meet the strictest standards in order to produce and distribute medical marijuana. [English]The system was created to help ensure a professional, secure, and ethical industry that would provide reasonable access for Canadians to marijuana for medical purposes. Licensed producers must demonstrate compliance, including quality control standards, record keeping of all activities and inventories of marijuana, and physical security measures to protect against potential diversion. In addition to those stringent requirements, the system also requires that certain key employees, along with directors and officers in the case of a corporation, have a security clearance. The regulations provide for rigorous oversight to reduce public health, safety, and security risks by setting out an in-depth licence application review process and a strong compliance and enforcement regime. Licensed producers must meet good production practices, including the requirement for analytical testing for contaminants, sanitation requirements for production, and packaging and storage, among other requirements. Licensed producers also have to test marijuana for microbial and chemical contaminants, and must meet legislated quality control requirements.[Translation]This means that the marijuana sold is subject to strict quality control and robust oversight in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians. [English]For its part, Health Canada plays a compliance and enforcement role to ensure that licensed producers produce marijuana to the high standards set out in the regulations. To this end, the department conducts frequent inspections of all licensed producer facilities. [Translation]To date, Health Canada has issued 31 licences to producers located across Canada who conduct their operations according to the quality control measures and appropriate health and safety standards that I have already talked about today.[English]We know these producers are selling a wide variety of quality-controlled marijuana in a manner that reduces risk to public health and safety. Moreover, licensed producers are offering marijuana at a range of prices, with some producers offering compassionate pricing.To be able to access marijuana for medical purposes, Canadians must have the support of a health care practitioner; that is a physician in all provinces and territories or a nurse practitioner in those provinces and territories where it is permitted. These health care practitioners complete a medical document that includes the daily amount of marijuana required. With that medical document, individuals can register with one of the licensed producers identified on the Health Canada website. To date, nearly 53,000 Canadians have registered to purchase marijuana for medical purposes. From licensed producers, Canadians can obtain dried or fresh marijuana as well as cannabis oil. [Translation]What is more, people who are entitled to obtain marijuana for medical purposes and who purchase it from licensed producers can produce and possess marijuana products such as ointments for personal use.(1615)[English]As part of the regulatory requirements, licensed producers must ensure the safe distribution of marijuana. This means that licensed producers are only permitted to provide marijuana to registered clients and this marijuana must be securely shipped directly to the client or an individual responsible for the client or to the client's health care practitioner.Let me also add that licensed producers may not operate a storefront. Licensed producers must package marijuana in a child resistant manner that allows the client to determine whether it has been opened prior to receipt and helps to prevent children from opening it.[Translation]Licensed producers must apply a label on the container indicating the name of the client, that of the licensed producer, the contact information of the supplier, and information about the marijuana being shipped.[English]The licensed producer is also required to include similar information on a separate document with each shipment of marijuana. These documents are useful should a client be required to demonstrate proof of authorized possession to law enforcement.[Translation]All these requirements create a framework that allows people in Canada to access marijuana prescribed by a health practitioner.[English]The system is working. I mentioned that there are 53,000 registered clients who are already legally accessing marijuana for medical purposes from 31 licensed producers. These licensed producers have the capacity to absorb new clients. This means that Canadians who require marijuana for medical purposes do not need to go to a dispensary. They can already get it from a legal source if they require it for medical purposes.[Translation]The government is working hard to make changes to the current regulations based on the Federal Court's guidelines.[English]While I will not speculate about the specifics of the proposed regulations, they will be crafted to address the issues identified by the court and ensure that authorized individuals have reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes.[Translation]In the meantime, I want to remind the House that licensed producers will continue to carry out their operations as usual and that Canadians needing marijuana for medical purposes can continue to access it through licensed producers.[English]It is simply unnecessary to decriminalize marijuana. There is a robust system in place for those who need it for medical purposes. For those who wish to access marijuana for recreational purposes, we would urge them to respect the current laws while we take the time to put in place a responsible regulated system for marijuana for non-medical purposes. That system will keep marijuana out of the hands of youth and keep criminals from profiting from marijuana's illegal trade. Therefore, I cannot support today's motion.DecriminalizationHerbal medicineLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRegulationSafetySplitting speaking time4421141442114244211434421144442114544211464421147442114844211494421150442115144211524421153442115444211554421156442115744211584421159442116044211614421162442116344211644421165442116644211674421168ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Charlottetown. He spoke a lot about medical marijuana. The purpose of the motion before us today is to address the interim measures or preparatory steps the government could take for those who wish to use marijuana recreationally, not medically. I wonder if my colleague would agree with me on this. If the latest Statistics Canada information says 57,000 people a year are charged and perhaps in two years' time, before the law is put into place, some 50,000 Canadians will acquire a criminal record for this activity, which will be perfectly legal as soon as the government enacts the legislation it has promised, a great deal of hardship will occur to that many Canadians in the interim.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211694421170SeanCaseyCharlottetownSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Sean Casey: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, allow me to take that logic to another situation.The drinking age in the province of Quebec is 18. Do we say to all of the 17-year-olds in Quebec that they are going to be legal next year so we will cut them some slack this year? It makes no sense, nor does this.The idea of decriminalizing, in the absence of any other system of control, will do nothing but enrich organized crime. It is certainly not where we want to go, and not where we need to go in this country.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442117144211724421173MurrayRankinVictoriaGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the NDP insofar as there is any ambiguity here. The Liberals said they would change the law, but the Liberals have broken many of their other promises, so we have no reason to assume that they will follow through in this case. For now, marijuana use remains illegal.I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is aware of any jurisdiction in the world where legalization has led to reduced use. If he cannot name that jurisdiction, I wonder why he thinks Canada's experience of legislation would be any different.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211744421175SeanCaseyCharlottetownSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Sean Casey: (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the war on drugs has been an abject failure. What we know is that cannabis use among young Canadians is the highest in the developed world.We know that the prohibition system has been an utter failure. We believe that the right answer is evidence-based, and it is strict regulation and control. That is what we are moving toward, based on the evidence that we will be amassing through the task force. That will be a better answer for Canadians.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44211764421177GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide a comment on this thought.If this resolution were to pass and the NDP got what they wanted here, my greatest fear is that the gangs and distributors of marijuana will have a field day. They can then go to our young people and say they can go ahead and smoke because it is perfectly legal. If anything, the biggest benefactor of this motion would be organized crime. The best way to deal with organized crime is through criminal law and through working with the provinces that have the necessary regulations and the framework in place, so that the biggest benefactor is not the gangs, but rather it will be good, sound, social policy.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442117844211794421180SeanCaseyCharlottetownSeanCaseyCharlottetown//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Sean Casey: (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can answer that question other than to say that I find myself in violent agreement with the member for Winnipeg North.Clearly, the objective of the government policy with respect to marijuana legalization is exactly that, to keep it out of the hands of young people and to keep the profits out of the hands of criminals. That is the process on which we are embarking through this task force, through the consultation with the provinces and territories that have a shared jurisdiction in many of the areas. It will be a public health approach, and one that will achieve our policy objectives where the old approach, prohibition, has been an abject failure.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442118144211824421183KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Marco Mendicino (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion brought by the hon. member for Victoria. He would know that I hold him in high regard even though he is not here, though regrettably I am speaking against his motion.I also want to thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his gracious introduction. I will try to live up to his high expectations.Let me start by reminding the House that our government has committed to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.[Translation]The Government of Canada intends to keep marijuana away from children and prevent criminals from profiting from its illegal trade.[English]We will take these steps with our eyes wide open. We will take a responsible approach. We do not want to rush or introduce precipitous changes which are unnecessary and could needlessly complicate the transition to a properly designed and regulated system of restricted access to marijuana. As the Minister of Health said in her recent speech to the United Nations, our approach to drug policy, including the legalization of marijuana, must have a solid scientific foundation.I would like to use my time today to talk about some of what the science says about marijuana and health. There are both health risks and potential therapeutic benefits from marijuana. While new evidence of risks and benefits continue to emerge, we currently have more evidence about the harms, particularly the harms to youth. There is evidence of very real and negative health effects of marijuana consumption, particularly for young people.(1625)[Translation]The health risks associated with regular use of marijuana during adolescence and early adulthood, when the brain is still developing, include long-term harmful effects.[English]Regular marijuana use over time can lead to an increased risk of addiction, and therefore potentially longer lasting harms to mental functioning, such as deficits in attention, memory, learning, and even IQ. This is particularly true for use that begins in early adolescence.[Translation]There is evidence that regular marijuana use in early adolescence can have a negative impact on academic success and increase the risk of dropping out of school.[English]Early and regular marijuana use has also been associated with an increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, especially in those who have a personal or family history of such mental illnesses. These effects can cause profound problems for the individuals and their families. All of this is of particular concern given the high rates of use of marijuana among young Canadians.[Translation]On average, young people try marijuana for the first time at age 14.[English]Almost one in five students in grades seven to 12 had reported use of marijuana during the years 2012-13. Moreover, Health Canada's most recent Canadian tobacco, alcohol, and drug survey found that 11% of Canadians aged 15 or older reported having used marijuana at least once in 2013. When examined more closely, the data reveals that 25% of young people aged 15 to 24 years reported use in the previous year.[Translation]Young Canadians have an alarmingly high rate of marijuana use compared to youth in other countries.[English]A 2013 study by UNICEF found that Canadian youth aged 11 to 15 are the highest users of marijuana compared to their peers in other developed countries, and 28% of 15-year-olds in Canada reported using marijuana at least once in the previous year.[Translation]Despite the increased risks for adolescents who use marijuana, the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, conducted in 2015, indicated that the perceived risk of harm associated with marijuana use is lower than it was in the past.[English]In a talk at a recent conference, the Prime Minister cited the risks of marijuana use to the developing brain when he said that, “we need to make sure that it's harder for underage Canadians to access marijuana. And that will happen under a controlled and regulated regime.”[Translation]One of the main reasons why we want to move toward legalization is that it would allow us to properly regulate the use of marijuana and restrict access to it.[English]Canadians expect us to be responsible as we follow through on our commitment. We need to take the time necessary to get the approach right. We are concerned that half measures such as the decriminalization that the hon. member for Victoria proposes will only send the wrong message to our young people and amount to a disservice to the public. On balance, decriminalization would amount to a disservice to the public for a number of reasons: First, it does nothing to address the supply side of the issue, leaving serious questions regarding the quality of the substance which we aim to regulate. Second, it does nothing to reduce the law enforcement and judicial resources that would be necessary to still prosecute certain contraventions under a new decriminalization regime. Third, and perhaps equally importantly, it would do nothing to stop the flow of proceeds into the pockets and accounts of organized crime.As members can see, this is a complex issue, and many perspectives need to be considered in order to create a safe, secure, and tightly regulated system for the legal production and distribution of marijuana. That is why our government will soon launch a task force that will give us expert advice on how the legalization process should take place. The task force will include perspectives from many different sectors, including health, justice, law enforcement, and public safety. We want to take the time to hear from experts across a variety of fields who have an interest in this important issue. We must learn from the experience of other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana, and we must consider the implications of legalization for the provinces and territories.The science on marijuana risks and benefits is evolving. Some clinical studies suggest that some strains have potential therapeutic benefits for some medical conditions, such as certain types of severe chronic pain. There is emerging evidence that some strains may perhaps be useful in treating epilepsy in children and adults. What is clear is that as the scientific evidence continues to advance, Canadians will need a system which strictly regulates the sale and access to marijuana, and ensures that Canadians have the information they need to make informed and responsible choices about their health. We believe that legalization, regulation, and restricted access to marijuana is the best approach to protecting our children from both accessing marijuana and from criminal records that may negatively affect their lives. To that end, we will introduce legislation in the spring of 2017 to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and illicit profits out of the hands of criminals. We are convinced that this is the best way to protect our children and young people while enhancing public safety.I am thankful for the opportunity to inform the House on this important government commitment. For those reasons, I am against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, and I would encourage members to make the same decision.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substancePublic healthYoung people442118644211874421188442118944211904421191442119244211934421194442119544211964421197442119844211994421200442120144212024421203442120444212054421206442120744212084421209BruceStantonSimcoe NorthGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I might gently remind the member that it is against the Standing Orders to mention the presence or absence of members in the gallery.Moving on from that, the member said that we should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. I very much agree with that. Use has gone up significantly in every case where we have seen the legalization of marijuana. I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a jurisdiction where that did not happen and he was unable to.I agree that there are certainly problems with the current system. That is why our party is advocating for an alternative, which is to allow police a ticketing option while maintaining that the possession of marijuana is a criminal offence. That allows police officers that middle option in the many cases where it might not be practical or proportionate to prosecute and that I think is part of the problem. From my perspective, allowing a ticketing option while maintaining criminality would give us the best of both worlds. If the member thinks differently, perhaps he could point to a single jurisdiction in the world where we did see a reduction in the use associated with legalization. I do not think that he can name one.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance4421210442121144212124421213MarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceMarcoMendicinoEglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Marco Mendicino: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. colleague across the aisle is well put. The short answer is that this middle option, which he describes as his party recently endorsing at a convention, is strikingly similar to the decriminalization regime which has been put forward by the NDP member. It is for those reasons that I do not believe that the middle option, as described by the hon. colleague, would either address the supply side of the issue or would address the scarce resources of law enforcement and the courts, which are currently under tremendous strain and pressure. There is no answer with respect to that. Most importantly, it does nothing to address our aim, our intent, to deprive organized crime of the illicit profits, the proceeds of crime, which they would continue to derive in any kind of regime where we did not address the actual quality of the substance that we aim to strictly regulate.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance44212144421215GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanFinDonnellyPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63592FinDonnellyFin-DonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DonnellyFin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the matter. He brought up the issue of police resources and said that the motion would not impact those resources. I beg to differ. If the police were able to move a lot of the attention away from some of the smaller crimes and were able to put the resources into the organized issue, the high drug offences, that is where they could actually make a difference.I want to ask my colleague if he agrees that if they were able to put the resources into those high drug trafficking offences that involve organized crime, it would make a difference.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance44212164421217MarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceMarcoMendicinoEglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Marco Mendicino: (1635)[English] Mr. Speaker, having spent the better part of 12 years as a former federal prosecutor in downtown Toronto, having worked on organized crime, having prosecuted both street-level drug trafficking and higher-level drug trafficking, I can say to him, with some credibility, that I hope the regime we are proposing right now is precisely aimed at exercising good judgment and sound strategy in how to manage this important file, the marijuana file.Contraventions will still require police to exercise judgment, to expend resources, to lay tickets, and to prosecute those tickets in a court, which is yet to be defined by the hon. member or his colleague who is advancing the motion.That is the flaw in creating a criminalization regime.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePenaltiesPossession of a controlled substance442121844212194421220FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamRubySahotaBrampton North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88698RubySahotaRuby-SahotaBrampton NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SahotaRuby_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what his opinion is on the motion presented by the NDP. We have been hearing a lot of talk about a very idealistic approach, that somehow putting this legislation in place piecemeal, I would say, and decriminalizing right now would lead to people growing marijuana in their gardens and making marijuana that is safer and less strong than the marijuana that is available now. There are all these idealistic opinions. However, they completely fail to recognize the profits that would still be gained by illegal criminal organizations. I would like to get the member's opinion on that. DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance4421221MarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceMarcoMendicinoEglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88738MarcoMendicinoMarco-MendicinoEglinton—LawrenceLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendicinoMarco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Marco Mendicino: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is important not to be ideological in our approach to how it is we propose to strictly regulate marijuana on a go-forward basis.As the Minister of Health said in her recent speech at the United Nations, we cannot arrest ourselves out of the situation. The status quo is not working. We need to take an evidence-based, scientific approach.The Minister of Justice has said the same thing.This is a consistent theme that runs through all of our government's policies, be it on this file, be it on health, or be it on the economy. This government does not favour ideology over principled, evidence-based decision-making. It is the reverse, and I am proud to be part of this new approach.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421222442122344212244421225RubySahotaBrampton NorthSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.Despite the Prime Minister's clear campaign promises to move quickly to fix our marijuana laws and stop the senseless arrests for simple possession, the government has spent the last six or seven months doing nothing. The Liberals announced a timeline for future action, in New York, but that action is at least a year away. I am hearing from a broad range of constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith who are confused by the government's messages on marijuana, so here is a nine-part list of who is affected by leaving marijuana regulations uncertain. First, there are judges. Justice Selkirk, from the Ontario Court of Justice, said, in December: I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana. He continued:You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous.My second category is taxpayers, because the government spends $3 million to $4 million annually in prosecuting simple possession cases. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow police and court resources to be wasted this way, creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize. Police have better things to do.The third category is legal commercial producers. There are 60 licensed commercial businesses across Canada. One of them, Tilray, is in my riding. These businesses have done everything the government has asked them to do. They have jumped through incredible hoops. They have security, investment, and inspections. It is a very tightly regulated industry. They have invested in good faith, but they are not sure what will be the conditions for further investment. They are in an insecure business environment.The fourth category is legal personal-production licence holders. Again, the Conservatives made a whole lot of changes, and there were a lot of prosecutions over the last 10 years. They are in an uncertain place. These people are growing medical marijuana legally, but they do not know how solid the ground is on which they stand. It is a problem.There is another broad group affected in my community: those with illegal dispensaries in their region. These are not licensed under the current law, so the fifth category is local governments that are left scrambling to address the jurisdictional hole left by the lack of federal leadership on the illegal dispensary issue.The sixth category is customers who are reliant on this dispensary supply. They may well have been prescribed this medically. They believe that it is a legitimate source they can rely on. They are discombobulated by ad hoc police raids and the interruption of what might be a prescribed supply for them. It creates anxiety.The seventh category affected is that of neighbouring businesses affected by these illegal dispensaries. These people are alarmed by changes in their neighbourhoods, outdoor smoking, and a different clientele mix. The Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce representatives are complaining to me about this and about the lack of federal leadership. There is a lot of work to do on this file.The eighth category for me is regions that are missing out on the benefits from legal commercial medical marijuana growers. Tilray, in my riding, is one success story. The company added 140 employees in 13 months. Operating impacts are estimated to grow from $13 million to $88 million in our region if the government can get ahead and plan what this industry is actually going to look like. We are waiting for leadership.Finally, the ninth category, which is the focus of today's debate, is the thousands of mostly young adults who will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because the Prime Minister did not respect his promise to legalize marijuana as soon as he took office. Having a criminal record for marijuana possession has big consequences. It can impede one's travel and future work opportunities. This is again the focus of today's debate. It is unfair to impose criminal records on citizens when we are told that this will be a legal drug in less than two years. It is unfair and it costs everyone.One of the costs is 18 months, under a Liberal government, of needless arrests and wasteful trials that are tying up our police and our courts. The justice department has confirmed that it will cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year.(1640)In 2014, there were almost 60,000 marijuana possession charges, and Statistics Canada says that is 3% of all arrests in our country. In 2013, possession of cannabis accounted for 54% of all police-reported drug crime. If police stopped prosecuting young adults, then resources could be focused on dealers and organized crime.In my city, Nanaimo, there is a fentanyl crisis that is tying up firefighters, police, health responders, and hospitals. It is causing deaths. This is a serious problem, and we are not getting the action we need on it. There were 17 fentanyl-related deaths in 2014 in the Island Health region, 22 in 2015, and nine in just the first three months of this year. The medical health officer for my region, on Vancouver Island, Dr. Paul Hasselback, says that Nanaimo's fentanyl overdose rate is higher than the provincial average. It is something we really should be focusing on instead of criminalizing simple possession of marijuana.This follows a trail of Liberal failures. In 1969, a royal commission said that the cost to young individuals was not justified and said to get rid of prohibition for personal use. The Liberals ignored the recommendation. New Democrats introduced a bill, and it was not supported by the House.In 2002, a Senate report said that the true damage to society caused by marijuana was felt through the side effects of criminal penalties. Again, there was no action. In 2009, the Liberals voted to support Bill C-15, a Conservative initiative to impose mandatory minimums for cannabis-related offences. The Liberal and Conservative governments have consecutively failed to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people, and giving them criminal records has not helped.New Democrats want the government to make a difference on the ground right now, to make a difference in people's lives. As the Liberal health minister said quite rightly, it is impossible to arrest our way out of the situation. Therefore, the government should support the NDP motion. It should immediately decriminalize simple possession while it drafts laws to legalize marijuana.Yes, it can learn from Washington and Colorado. Yes, it can tackle edibles, labelling, and dosage control. It can do all of those things, but while it does that long, extended work, it should make a difference right now in the lives of Canadians. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow the valuable resources of police and courts to be wasted creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize.New Democrats will continue to push for the government to take common sense steps, such as decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana, while it develops a comprehensive plan and a timeline to legalize it.Criminal prosecutionsCriminal recordsDeaths and funeralsDecriminalizationGovernment expendituresHerbal medicineMarijuanaOpiates and opioidsOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceRetail tradeSafetySplitting speaking time442122644212274421228442122944212304421231442123244212334421234442123544212364421237442123844212394421240442124144212424421243442124444212454421246442124744212484421249MarcoMendicinoEglinton—LawrenceRandeepSaraiSurrey Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89339RandeepSaraiRandeep-SaraiSurrey CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SaraiRandeep_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also come from the land of B.C. bud and therefore would like to get it legalized, regulated, and licensed. However, I want to ask how we can do something with the right hand without knowing what is happening with the left. If we decriminalize it, does the member opposite not feel that we will be allowing organized crime, gangsters, and those who are selling fentanyl-laced marijuana to sell it into the hands of children and youth? If we decriminalize it, it will still allow our children, youth, and the young population to interact with organized crime, putting their lives at risk. The member very well knows that in her riding, as she stated earlier, deaths are very high. How can we legalize use without regulating the product and the means by which people get it in the first place?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafetyYoung people442125044212514421252SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to clarify.I would say two things. The first is that criminalizing simple possession of marijuana, small amounts for personal possession, has not prevented the kinds of effects we are seeing in our country. It is not natural or logical to link those pieces.The second thing I would say to reassure the member, and I would hope for his support on this motion, is that all New Democrats are talking about is removing the terrible problem of young adults in Canada having criminal records for personal possession. It is simply to get them out of the criminal justice system. It would not do anything for illegal growers, illegal gangs, or fentanyl manufacturers. Those would continue to be criminal actions, and that is what police resources should be focused on: dealers, organized crime, and drugs that are truly killing and harming people. Individuals who had very small amounts of marijuana and were intercepted by police would no longer face having criminal records. They could well be ticketed, as the Conservatives have proposed, but they would not face having criminal records for the rest of their lives.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421253442125444212554421256RandeepSaraiSurrey CentreGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about two issues which, as far as I know, have not been brought thus far in the debate. I want to ask her what she thinks the effect of this motion would be on marijuana use in driving and how that would affect road safety and what concerns she might have around that.The second issue I want to raise is that some law enforcement people have told me that having marijuana be illegal makes it easier for them to access drug dealers, because if they stop someone who is smoking a joint and they have a small amount of marijuana in their possession, it allows them to conduct a search and they may well find substantial amounts of other drugs.I want to hear the hon. member's comments on those two issues: how maintaining the criminal element around marijuana may well improve public safety, at least in those specific ways.DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSafety442125744212584421259SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, voting yes to today's NDP motion would allow police resources to be concentrated on true crime in our country and actually getting at the root of drugs and violence that actually affect people on the ground. They would have more resources to do roadside checks around who is driving dangerously for any reason, whether that is workplace fatigue, alcohol, or anything. There really is no downside. Again, because the government has indicated that it is already going in this direction, its task force will recommend that this be a drug that is allowed to be used and distributed. We are simply talking about getting out of the lives of individual young Canadians who will unfairly bear the brunt of a drug charge for which possession, consumption, and distribution will be legal in just a matter of years.DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442126044212614421262GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanFinDonnellyPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63592FinDonnellyFin-DonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DonnellyFin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's great comments on this.The Liberal members have been raising the issue of resources. I want to ask my colleague, what is the cost of inaction? We have already been waiting seven months or more. It is not expected that there will be any action before another year and it may take up to two years, maybe longer, before a regime is actually implemented.What is the cost to young people, municipalities, municipal police forces? What is the cost to them in terms of delay of action or inaction on this issue?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442126344212644421265SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, like so many areas where we have had a failure of federal government leadership, whether it is oil spill response, abandoned vessels, in this case marijuana dispensary regulations, I have seen my former colleagues from local governments scrambling to fill those holes. It means every community has to figure out its own ad hoc rules. It would be so much better if we saw federal leadership in this area.The financial cost, the direct cost, is $4 million a year simply in prosecuting small personal possession charges. That is embarrassing, really, for us in this country in this day and age. That money could be spent so much better elsewhere.The cost of criminal records for individuals we have discussed, and they can really hamper people's time.I would argue finally for the government, it has the need to act on the very strong mandate that was given to it by Canadians, and I think voting in favour of this motion would be a show of faith in the Liberals' commitment to follow through on a campaign promise.Criminal prosecutionsDecriminalizationGovernment expendituresMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421266442126744212684421269FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1650)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, since debate on this topic began today, the discussion has been all over the map, which is probably normal with such a delicate topic.Despite the fact that we are talking about marijuana, which is commonly known as a soft drug, some people are worried about abuse. I would like to come back to the key aspect of the motion so that we know what we are talking about. I would particularly like to draw members' attention to point (a), which is the heart of the NDP's proposal. It reads: That the House: (a) recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadian criminal records for simple possession of marijuana after the government has stated that it should not be a crime;We are talking about simple possession of marijuana. That is the situation we have been put in since the most recent election campaign. During that campaign, I often told the people who asked my opinion on the dreams, promises, and commitments of the Liberal party to be careful because everyone knows that the Liberals tend to signal left during the election campaign and then turn right when they take office. As a result, we are now in a situation where Canadians' dreams have been shattered. There are many examples of that.For example, we could talk about all those people who were thrilled at the prospect of a tax cut that would give them more money and help them make ends meet. Once the Liberals came to power, very few people actually benefited from a tax cut, and those who received the largest tax cuts were already among the wealthiest Canadians.Seniors in my riding were especially attracted by the idea of investments in home care. There was nothing in the budget about that. On the environment, people were saying that they could finally see light at the end of the tunnel. The Liberal government made the same commitments as the previous government in Paris. We can clearly see that on all counts, there is a gap, actually it is an abyss, between the vision presented during the campaign and what the government is currently doing.In the case of marijuana, I would say that there is an even greater gap, if that is possible. The Liberals told everyone that they would quickly legalize marijuana. However, that is not the case. What people continue to believe, especially adolescents, whom I really understand, is that they are invincible. In fact, I have spent most of my life in touch with adolescence, first as an adolescent myself and then as a teacher of adolescents for 25 years. When we think about our adolescence, which for most people in the House was not as long ago as mine, we can remember often having the feeling of being invincible. When we are adolescents, the things we do are not risky, and we believe everything will be fine. If we try smoking a joint, we are not going to be arrested, because that only happens to other people. The reality is quite different, and thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who want to try smoking a joint or consuming an edible, such as a muffin or what have you, run the risk of ending up with a criminal record. They could end up with a criminal record, even though the Liberals made a promise and said that no one in our society should end up with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. Therein lies the contradiction and the confusion surrounding this issue we are trying to resolve with the very simple approach of decriminalizing marijuana. The majority agrees on this measure, and we are not talking about 50% plus 1 of Canadians. We are talking about 68% of Canadians who agree with decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana. I would remind members that we are talking about simple possession.I must admit that the issues are diametrically opposed, but I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' inconsistent approach.(1655)In recent weeks, we have talked a lot about Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying. We heard that even though the Supreme Court issued a clear unanimous ruling, society was not ready and we needed to move forward slowly. As a result, the Liberals proposed the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death, which has been challenged in both the House and the Senate.Small steps are necessary in the case of medical assistance in dying, but in the case of simple possession of marijuana, small steps are apparently not needed. In that case, the government wants to go full bore. Legalization needs to happen immediately, which is completely impossible. We need to forget about that. All we have been promised is that a bill will be introduced in 2017. Some Liberal members are saying that it could be introduced later, and, rarely, someone says that it could be introduced earlier. We hear nothing about consistency.We need a bill to deal with the drug issue once and for all, but the first step is to implement a simple, easy-to-understand measure for everyone. Say a teenager is influenced by a group of friends or just wants to try this once. We need to make sure our measure eliminates the possibility of ruining that teenager's life with a record that will make finding a job or travelling much more difficult. We know that teenagers are tempted to try new things. There is a disconnect there.I would like to talk about my own transition from childhood to adolescence. In my day, things might have seemed simpler because becoming a man or daring to do the forbidden meant trying to smoke. Cigarettes could be had for a penny, back when we still had pennies.Obviously, that has changed. Each generation is better educated than the last, and we now have very clear evidence about the dangers of cigarettes. Cigarette consumption has decreased markedly, but the battle is not yet won. Some young people still choose to smoke, and they need to be shown the negative health effects of that choice.Right now, the legal system spends $4 million on cases that may result in records for teenagers. If we used that money to educate young people about this, we could make tremendous progress. Contrary to what my dearly departed mother believed, one toke does not a hard-drug addict make. It is a long way from the former to the latter, and we can easily interrupt that progression with health education.Since time is running out, I will close by painting a picture of the situation using some statistics. We invest $4 million in our justice system every year, and 80% of the offences that have to be processed involve simple possession of cannabis. If members want to talk about organized crime and everything else, so be it. However, 80% of offences are related to simple possession of marijuana. That amounts to 66,000 arrests a year and 22,000 people who risk getting a criminal record.As I said earlier, 68% of Canadians are calling on us to take this first step, go ahead with decriminalization, and work on education so that experimentation remains just that, experimentation.(1700)What is even clearer is that all of the parties are slowly coming around to the NDP's approach, which we first proposed a number of years ago.I see I am out of time. I will end there, as I will have an opportunity to continue through questions.C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)Criminal prosecutionsCriminal recordsDecriminalizationDrug educationGovernment expendituresLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceYoung people4421270442127144212724421273442127444212754421276442127744212784421279442128044212814421282442128344212844421285442128644212874421288SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithDavid de BurghGrahamLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88504David de BurghGrahamDaviddeBurgh-GrahamLaurentides—LabelleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GrahamDavid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as I travelled around my riding and met with students, both before and after the election, they all asked questions about marijuana. Everyone wanted to know where I stand. I have always been clear. I am in favour of legalizing marijuana. Not a single student thanked me for changing the rules because they thought it was great that they could now smoke. That is not the case. That is not what the vast majority of them think. They really understand what is going on.Who does my colleague think will control the market if we go ahead with decriminalization without any other changes? Who will control the marijuana market in Canada? DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44212894421290RobertAubinTrois-RivièresRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin: (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.My 25 years as a teacher compel me to make education the foundation of everything I do. Who currently controls the drug market? Is it organized crime? We will be quick to agree on that.Since this morning, what I want out of decriminalization is for us to be able to work on the buyer. If there is no longer a buyer, then there is no longer a market. With that we can take a giant step. If by educating the person we ensure there are no more clients, and a student does not get a criminal record for making a mistake once in his life, then we will have taken a big step.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442129144212924421293David de BurghGrahamLaurentides—LabelleToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I find it humorous that we are coming to the defence of those who choose to do something illegal. They choose to do something that they know is illegal and the NDP is standing up for them. I am sorry, but I have a hard time with that.I want to ask a question again on driving impairment. The NDP motion calls for the immediate decriminalization of marijuana. Does my hon. colleague know what the level of impairment is? Is it one joint, half a joint, or a quarter of a joint? How do we judge? This is important. As we move forward with the decriminalization of this drug, our police agencies are on the side of the road trying to enforce laws and judge individuals' impairment. Is my hon. colleague aware of any of the studies of the effects of marijuana and what the level of impairment is?DecriminalizationImpaired drivingMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442129444212954421296RobertAubinTrois-RivièresRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin: (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will respond with something entirely legal that adequately expresses, in my opinion, the state of mind of teenagers who live in the moment and at the whim of their surging hormones.Teenagers are legally allowed to have sex. Oddly, I often saw cases involving students where the young girl was dumbfounded that she was pregnant because they had sex only once. That is not the issue. Bringing this back to drugs, the issue is on simple possession. I am not saying that we must make it legal for the schoolyard big shot to sell drugs. I am saying that we should not give a criminal record to a student who is experimenting or is caught with simple possession. Again, 80% of our marijuana cases are for simple possession. That is what we are trying to address with our motion.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44212974421298ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I know a man of a certain age who has a criminal record because he was found guilty of simple possession, which is what we are debating today. Consequently, he cannot travel to the United States. Some of his family members live in a distant country. When you have to travel long distances, most flights leaving Canada pass through the United States. Therefore, he cannot visit his family who lives far away because he cannot travel through the United States.We spoke about this problem, and we spoke about how difficult it can be to get a job for someone with a criminal record for something that will no longer be illegal in one year's time.I would like to know if my colleague has come across such cases in his own riding.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442129944213004421301RobertAubinTrois-RivièresRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin: (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.The short answer is yes. Even worse, it is more difficult and expensive to obtain a pardon because of the previous Conservative government's policies. Someone with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana who would like to be pardoned will find that it has become more expensive to be pardoned for a so-called minor offence. In any event, the Liberals are telling us that this offence will no longer exist in 2017 because they are going to fully legalize marijuana.Criminal record suspensionCriminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44213024421303MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.[English]The member is definitely the best dressed member in this chamber.Given that this is the first time I have risen today, I want to express my condolences to the victims, their families, and their friends for the horrible murder, terrorist act, hate crime, which occurred in Orlando. We were all very touched by what happened and very disconcerted. It is hard for many of us today to concentrate on the motion when we think of the crimes that ISIS is perpetuating, and now we are talking about marijuana.Let me be blunt. I was not one of the cool kids in high school. I never tried marijuana. To be honest, I am glad that I did not. It is not my style to smoke, drink, or to use drugs, but I also understand that it is not my right to impose my own views and my own values on all Canadians. I respect and accept the fact that our party has proposed making marijuana use legal. As part of that, we also said that we were going to regulate and restrict. While I appreciate the motion put forward by my hon. friend and colleague from Victoria, and I highly value his intellect and love working with him, I disagree with the perspective that we are going to simply decriminalize without looking at the other two very important facts: regulation and restriction.The motion makes no distinction between 14-year-olds and 40-year-olds. It does not say that decriminalization is going to occur only for adults. It is saying decriminalization is going to occur for everyone. One of the things that is incredibly important to me is keeping marijuana out of the hands of children. Marijuana use is not without its effects.As we all know, it can make people slightly loopy for a certain period of time, but there are also ties to breathing disorders, mental health issues, and particularly for young people whose brains are still developing, marijuana is a dangerous substance. It is not something we want to be widely distributed to our children. However, if we are going to decriminalize without dealing with how marijuana is distributed, without dealing with how we are going to keep it out of the hands of kids, we are going to enter into problems that are not anticipated by the motion.I do understand, with a competent adult who is looking at a government that says we are going to make this legal, that we would have a certain sympathy for the fact that they are going to be prosecuted and get a criminal record. However, at the same time in my view, the law is the law is the law. Whether we agree with the law or do not agree with the law, whether we believe that a law is going to be rescinded or not, it does not mean we do not have a duty to respect the law as it is. As such, my sympathy for the people we have been talking about today is slightly muted, because they should be, just like the rest of us, respecting the law. That is what we are supposed to do until such time as the law is changed.The NDP has raised Bill C-14 and I also want to raise Bill C-14 because one of the things this government was criticized for was the quick process that led to Bill C-14. However, in the case of Bill C-14, there was a very good reason. There was a Supreme Court deadline of June 6. In the case of marijuana, there is no deadline. The key studies and the commentaries that we have had from the states in the United States that have legalized marijuana use, in particular Colorado, among others, has been that we should take the correct time frame to put in place the right measures to go along with legalization. We should not be rushing this.Not only do we need to have the regulatory rules in place, but we need to have the infrastructure in place. We need to have those people who are ready to legally distribute marijuana. We need to have the police forces and judiciary prepared for the way we are going to treat this. We need to have the educational resources available for how we are going to go into the schools and explain to our young people why they should not be using marijuana and try to disincentivize them from doing so.One of the things that is also troubling to me around the idea of accepting the motion is the question of regulation of the product itself.(1710)We have heard from many Canadians, including the hon. member for Outremont in 2012, who talked about the fact that there was marijuana in our country that was very hard marijuana and was dangerous to health. If we are going to legalize marijuana, or even decriminalize it, we need to have standards in place to talk about how it is grown and how to prevent contaminants from getting into it to ensure the marijuana used is safe to consume, to the extent possible.We need to talk about packaging, distribution, and how we get this out of the hands of organized crime. My fear is that, if the motion is adopted as is, who will everyone buy from? The producers of medical marijuana are not authorized to sell it to those without a prescription. There is nothing in the motion to talk about how the distribution channels would work. As such, my concern is that those people who are currently illegally distributing marijuana across Canada, basically organized crime, are going to have freer licence to go into our schools and talk to our young people about how it is not criminal to possess small amounts and encourage them to buy from them. Once that happens, what other drugs are these people in organized crime selling? How will this stop someone who starts with marijuana from moving toward harder drugs that are also sold by the same distributor, if we are going to call the Mafia that?This is of enormous concern for me because right now in Canada we have the highest rate of minors using marijuana of 29 countries. Therefore, whatever we do in terms of the legalization process, an important part has to be how we are going to keep it out of the hands of our young people. I have heard the argument, and respect it, that police forces going after adult possessors of small amounts of marijuana takes police away from more important things they could be doing. I completely agree with this. I do not agree that decriminalization would have the same effect, because it still means these people should be ticketed. It still means prosecutions and the officers would be going to court. The answer is not decriminalization. It is legalization, but legalization with strict enforcement mechanisms, proper surveillance, and supervision.I am very happy that we have an expert in our government in the area of marijuana use. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is going to be leading us in this effort with his incredible former experience as the police chief of Toronto. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, let me underline that when I talked about his experience, I was not talking about him as a consumer but rather as a Canadian expert in the field who will help us on the path to legalization, but restriction and regulation along with it. He is going to be working with a team of experts in many different fields.In conclusion, I respect and understand the hon. member for Victoria's point. Hopefully, in a little while adults who have small amounts in their possession will find it to be legal and will not be prosecuted. However, I do not believe we should be rushing forward on a path until we know exactly what the rules are, how to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids, and how we are going to regulate the product. C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substanceSafetySplitting speaking timeYoung people44213044421305442130644213074421308442130944213104421311442131244213134421314442131544213164421317442131844213194421320442132144213224421323RobertAubinTrois-RivièresMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if the government decriminalizes marijuana now, people will still be arrested, but there will be far fewer needless arrests and wasteful trials.Why not use most of that $4 million per year to combat organized crime and addiction?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44213244421325AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her good question.Personally, I agree that police officers should spend their time on the things that are most important. I agree that decriminalization may help to distribute certain resources more effectively. However, I think that an attempt to save a few million dollars pales in comparison to the fact that we would be creating a system with no rules and no safeguards for keeping marijuana out of the hands of young people. This has not been well planned. I think that we need a good plan. We have the opportunity to draft the best bill possible. That seems to be the best way to go, in my opinion.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442132644213274421328MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I almost felt I had to come to the defence of our hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest, but he corrected himself. I know our colleague from Scarborough Southwest is a long-time police chief with a distinguished career. I appreciate his influence in the House. I know he has a great ability and an incredible amount of experience in policing, maybe not in marijuana use but in policing marijuana use.Is the hon. member for Mount Royal aware that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has come out against the legalization of marijuana?DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44213294421330AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the good humour of my hon. colleague.For my entire history as a mayor and a city councillor, which lasted for 20 years, I dealt frequently with the police on issues related to marijuana. I was constantly faced with the situation where the police agreed that the current mechanisms that we used to stop people from possessing small amounts of marijuana and the de-focus on what really should be their primary attention on important crimes was a problem. They asked parliamentarians to act.Recognizing that we should decriminalize this, along with strong regulations and prevention, is the right step forward.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442133144213324421333ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am struck by one thing. The motion before us today has an incredibly strong rationale, which is that people should not have criminal records for the possession of a substance that the government in power has run a campaign on, saying that it will legalize it.The Green Party wants to legalize it. We understand that the prohibition on cannabis serves one major beneficiary and purpose, and that is organized crime.I did not get a chance to put this question to the Minister of Justice earlier, although I tried to get a question in. Would it not make sense for the Liberal government to commit early that the criminal records of people who carry a criminal record for simple possession, not for participating in organized crime, of cannabis, whenever that crime occurred, would have their records expunged once a legal framework is in place for legalization of cannabis?Criminal record suspensionDecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442133444213354421336AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are two things. I repeat what I said during my speech, I believe that when something is illegal, regardless of a government's intention to make it legal, it is illegal. We all see what is happening in the Senate with medically assisted dying. Who knows, despite the House of Commons willingness to make something legal, how the Senate is now going to react.I do not want to prematurely state that something is going to change. People should act in accordance with the law during the period that the law is in force.I certainly understand what the hon. member said. I would certainly be willing to further discuss that point with her, if and when marijuana use does become legal for adults.Criminal record suspensionDecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421337442133844213394421340ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsNicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-Michel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88627NicolaDi IorioNicola-DiIorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DiIorioNicola_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Nicola Di Iorio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, being the only member of the House who has had the honour of voting for the member for Mount Royal during the last election, I wish to thank him for the pleasure of sharing his time with me.I rise to respond to the motion from the member for Victoria, which calls for the immediate decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana for personal use.[Translation]I will explain how our government cannot support this way of doing things because it will ultimately increase the revenue of criminal organizations.[English]Until such time as we legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana, which was our platform commitment, we need police officers to continue to enforce the law related to marijuana. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, marijuana possession, production, and trafficking are illegal in Canada. Simple possession of up to 30 grams is an offence, with a possible fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail. More than half of all drug offences reported by police are for marijuana possession. In 2014, they amounted to 60,000 offences reported and just over 22,000 charges laid. Most, if not all, of that marijuana is supplied at the moment by organized crime. As the House is aware, the government was elected on a platform that included the legalization and strict regulation of marijuana. The Minister of Justice and her colleagues in health and public safety are pursuing an orderly and responsible approach to fulfilling this commitment.[Translation]We will legalize marijuana, regulate it, and restrict access. We will prevent children from accessing it. Furthermore, we will prevent organized crime from profiting from this lucrative business.We will also provide for harsher punishments for those who supply marijuana to minors, who operate a vehicle while under the influence, or who sell marijuana outside the regulatory framework.We hope to achieve this by the end of next year, after carefully consulting the provinces and territories, law-enforcement representatives, and other stakeholder groups.(1725)[English]To that end, we are striking a task force on marijuana legalization and regulation to consult with Canadians broadly as well as a wide range of stakeholders. These stakeholders will include provincial and territorial governments, experts in public health, substance abuse, law enforcement, criminal justice, and economics, as well as indigenous and youth groups.The member for Victoria would like us to decriminalize without a proper legal framework in place. It is important to keep in mind that there are unintended consequences to doing so. Of all of the unintended consequences of decriminalization, perhaps the most dangerous is the opportunity it would provide to organized crime groups to profit from illegal drugs.If we were to adopt the member's motion for the months remaining until legalization received royal assent, marijuana would continue to be illegal, but users could acquire it illegally without fear of criminal justice sanctions. This gives criminals an opportunity to ramp up their operations. Therefore, the unintended consequences of the member's motion would be to aid the criminal organizations that are currently involved in importing, growing, and selling marijuana in Canada. Make no mistake about it. They have no qualms about selling it to our youth.Overwhelmingly, organized crime groups that operate in Canada are involved in illegal drugs and have established networks to grow, procure, and sell marijuana, and launder the profits. About 80% of crime groups identified in Canada are involved in the illicit drug market, particularly at street-level traffickers.The sale of marijuana is currently a big business. The profits give organized crime even more power. These criminals can use the profits to move into such activities as illegal migration, trafficking of human beings, money laundering, economic crimes, cross-border smuggling of counterfeit goods, and even environmental crimes such as the dumping of toxic waste.[Translation]I know that the member for Victoria does not intend to promote such criminal activities, but that is what his motion could do. By legalizing and regulating marijuana, the government is also seeking to restrict the role of organized crime in selling and distributing marijuana. [English]If we decriminalize before fully exploring all of the elements of legalization, we are giving organized crime an opportunity to further entrench its involvement in the illegal marijuana market. It will be even harder to get these criminal enterprises out of the marijuana trade once we legalize.There are many other aspects of marijuana legalization that will need to be considered, and the task force will do that. It will look at such issues as the impact on criminal records for simple possession, for example, and I know the impact on ordinary Canadians is a major impetus for the motion before us.[Translation]We must consider how the new regime will impact organized crime. If we were to decriminalize marijuana without implementing a legal and regulatory framework at the same time, we would be fully and completely surrendering to organized crime groups, which must be combatted, punished, and deprived of their sources of income. It would be irresponsible for us to decriminalize marijuana before legalizing it. Until it is legalized, the existing laws must be upheld and enforced.I therefore invite and urge all members to vote against this motion.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance4421341442134244213434421344442134544213464421347442134844213494421350442135144213524421353442135444213554421356442135744213584421359442136044213614421362AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I understood from his firm tone that protecting our children comes first. My question is a simple one.Right now, a teenager who wants to try marijuana has no choice but to turn to organized crime or the illicit market. Once marijuana is legalized, supposing that happens, and once a retail network makes it available to those 18 years of age and over, how will that solve things for a teenager who still cannot buy a joint at the Société des alcools du Québec, for example? That teenager will still have to turn to the illicit market, and that market will surely offer more attractive products to protect its market share.What we want is for that teenager not to end up with a lifelong record for a youthful mistake.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442136344213644421365NicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelNicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-Michel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88627NicolaDi IorioNicola-DiIorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DiIorioNicola_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Nicola Di Iorio: (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We need to look at the much bigger picture. This is not just about decriminalizing marijuana and then saying that now it is going to be legalized. This is about setting up a whole framework around the legalization, regulation, and use of marijuana, as well as all kinds of support measures that cover everything from prevention to education and incentives to counter use.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44213664421367RobertAubinTrois-RivièresPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the same question I have asked repeatedly today. The Liberals claim that they are going to incarcerate fewer people for simple possession of marijuana, and that they are different from the Conservatives.In 2014, 57,000 people were arrested for it. The Liberals came to power towards the end of 2015. They are claiming that they have been a little more lenient and that fewer people have been arrested than under the Conservatives. However, they will not give us a number.Can the member provide any figures whatsoever to justify this position that the Liberals are not quite as bad as the Conservatives when it comes to arresting Canadians for simple possession of marijuana for personal use?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442136844213694421370NicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelNicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-Michel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88627NicolaDi IorioNicola-DiIorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DiIorioNicola_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Nicola Di Iorio: (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I want to emphasize that this is not something that can be quantified. This kind of situation has occurred many times in the history of this country.Parliament has already tried to prohibit certain behaviours. What is needed now is reflection and consultation. Conversely, there have been other times in history when we have considered allowing behaviour that was previously prohibited. The motion brought forward by the NDP, my colleague's party, is remarkable because it would require us to develop a very strange solution that would involve leaving certain laws in place and allowing people to break them. What my colleague failed to mention is that this motion will only make criminal organizations even richer. I would really have liked him to recognize that. His party does not have any solutions to propose in that regard.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substance442137144213724421373PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1730)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Courtenay—Alberni, who will deliver the second part of my speech.[English]It is pretty clear as to what is happening here. I saw, as we all did during the last campaign, Liberals going across the country committing to move toward the legalization of marijuana. That was a commitment that they made, and there were a lot of Canadians in good faith who said they supported that idea so they would vote for the Liberal Party. I will come back to decriminalization in a moment.Today, we are seeing in case after case, Liberal Party members standing up with speaking notes that are prohibition speaking notes. Their speaking notes are exactly the same as the speaking notes we saw under the previous Conservative government, except at the end of their notes, the Liberals said that eventually, maybe, they will actually move to legalize simple possession of marijuana. They will change all those good things they just said about prohibition.Let us understand the logic here. As we have seen over the last eight months, the Liberals have broken well over 100 of their promises so far. They made a commitment solemnly before all Canadians that they would move to legalization. They said it would be within a few months. Around April 20, we heard that the Liberals were going to make a big announcement. The big announcement was that they were not announcing anything, but maybe in a year or two years.If we understood the member for Scarborough Southwest in his previous comments, not today but at another time, he said it will not be done during the first mandate of the Liberal government. It will not even be done before the next election. We now have this doublespeak from the Liberals, committing to something during the election campaign that is being betrayed on the floor of the House of Commons today, and will be tomorrow. If the Liberals vote against this motion to decriminalize, that would be a betrayal of the commitments that the Liberals made during the election campaign. For Canadians who are following this debate, I would suggest that over the course of the summer they question their Liberal MPs who campaigned on one thing and are doing something quite different today. They are putting forward a prohibition speech and speaking notes, when what they should be doing is being concerned about the thousands of Canadians, overwhelmingly younger people in their twenties, who are going to have a criminal record for the rest of their lives because of the actions of the Liberals that are being taken over the course of this week. I will come back in a moment to those governments that have put in place decriminalization. However, instead of saying that Parliament is moving to decriminalize and that they should have put in place an education program and will finally move to do that with the money they are freeing up from charging people for simple possession of pot, we have a prohibition speech. Instead of saying there is a framework that they could add to it, and looking at various other successful countries that have decriminalized possession of pot, we have Liberals today with a prohibition speech and prohibition speaking notes saying they are not going to move in any way to address the concerns of the tens of thousands of Canadians who will acquire a criminal record over the course of the next year because of Liberal actions. Many of these Canadians, in good faith, will have voted Liberal because they assumed the Liberals were actually going to keep their promise about moving to legalize marijuana. It is not about anything other than a Liberal government saying it would act differently, and now acting exactly the same way as the Conservative government acted when it was in power. What that meant in 2014, as members know, is that more than 57,000 Canadians were arrested for simple possession of pot. What that meant in 2014 was that millions of dollars were spent on enforcing marijuana laws that the Liberals said during the election campaign they had no intention of reinforcing. In fact, I need to bring up the commitment that was made by the Prime Minister and by the Liberal candidates across the country. It was that they would legalize marijuana by removing marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code. (1735)The motion that the NDP is bringing forward today is a motion that strikes historically to what the NDP has always fought for. For almost 50 years, we have been saying it makes no sense to have this war on drugs, to arrest people, to incarcerate people for simple possession of marijuana for personal use. We have been saying it for nearly 50 years. The Liberals said that in the last election, and today and tomorrow when the vote is held, it is obvious that they will betray Canadians who voted for them on that basis, on the basis they would actually keep their commitment.There is no doubt where Canadians stand. There is absolutely no doubt. Canadians stand with the NDP caucus on this. They stand with other parties like the Green Party, which has also spoken out against this ridiculous concept that we should continue to give people criminal records that they will have to carry for the rest of their lives, which will make it more difficult for them to travel, to acquire jobs. What we actually need to do is put in place a simple and smart decriminalization policy, so that if the Liberals do intend in their second term eventually to keep their promise, we will not see tens of thousands of more Canadians, aged twenty-something Canadians, acquiring a criminal record that ruins their lives.Canadians were asked the year before last whether they agree that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should not be a crime. This is what they said. There were 68% of Canadians right across the country who said that they agree with that statement, that decriminalization, as proposed today by the NDP, is what they believe in. Only 20% believe in what the Liberals and Conservatives believe in, which is continued incarceration, arrest, attacks against those who have small amounts of marijuana for personal use. The prohibition gambit, the war on drugs, started by the Conservatives and continued by the Liberals, most Canadians disagree with. In my province of British Columbia, 73% of Canadians agree with the NDP decriminalization motion. In Alberta, it is 64%; in Ontario, 70%; in Quebec 64%; in Atlantic Canada, highest of all, 75%. Atlantic Canadian Liberal MPs who are giving these prohibition speeches today are out of touch with three-quarters of residents of Atlantic Canada.As I mentioned earlier, even among Conservative supporters, a majority believe in decriminalization. Among Liberal Party supporters, it is 74%; three-quarters of Liberal Party supporters believe in the NDP's motion that we are bringing forward today for decriminalization.It is very simple. If the Liberals really believe in education around it, instead of spending millions of dollars every year in prosecuting and arresting people for simple possession of marijuana, they would be taking that money and investing it in education programs. If they really believed in putting in place a legal framework, they would look to countries like Portugal that have decriminalized. In the case of Portugal, a recent article by the Journal of the American Bar Foundation Law and Social Inquiry said the following: “judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success”.When we look at that example, look at the Netherlands, look at countries worldwide that have decriminalized, those examples are there for the government to take. As the member for Victoria said earlier today, we are agnostic on how the government wants to go about decriminalization, but we believe strongly that aged twenty-something Canadians, or Canadian adults of any age, who have simple possession of marijuana for personal use, should not be arrested and should not be facing a criminal record for the rest of their lives.It is a very simple proposition. We saw it at the Conservative convention where even Conservative delegates voted for decriminalization. We saw in the commitments that were made by the Liberal Party in the last election that it is time to stop arresting people and putting them behind bars for simple possession of marijuana for personal use. Our party has stood up for that for 50 years. We bring forward this motion because we believe, as I have proven earlier, that all Canadians believe it is time to stop arresting people for this. If Liberal and Conservative MPs are true to their party's principles and true to what they said during the election campaign, they will be voting for our motion tomorrow when it is brought before the House of Commons.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceSplitting speaking time442137444213754421376442137744213784421379442138044213814421382442138344213844421385442138644213874421388442138944213904421391NicolaDi IorioSaint-Léonard—Saint-MichelBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I want to qualify.First, the Prime Minister made it very clear in the campaign and most particularly in the throne speech of our intention in this mandate to bring forward legislation to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We have not been ambiguous in any way and to suggest otherwise is simply not factually correct.As I listened to the remarks of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I wondered why he was so afraid of saying, “legalize, regulate, and restrict”. He focused very clearly on one aspect of our government's policy, in which we said we would legalize marijuana, but we have also been equally clear about the importance. This is not based on ideology or the latest popular poll, which members across the aisle seem to rely on so much. It relies on science, the best advice that we have received from, for example, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which is the pre-eminent mental health and addiction facility in all of Canada, on research we have done, and examples we have looked at in other jurisdictions, such as Washington and Colorado.Overwhelmingly, the science says that in order to address all of the social and health harms associated with cannabis use, the proper approach is legalization, coupled with an effective, comprehensive, and responsible system of regulation on production, distribution, and consumption. I have listened carefully to all NDP members who have spoken today, and they are all loath to acknowledge all of the government's policy. They speak only of legalization and they neglect to include that.I would ask the member opposite if perhaps he could address the issue of the importance of effective regulation to protect our kids and communities, to take billions of dollars of profit away from organized crime, and to protect the health of Canadians.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance44213924421393442139444213954421396PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to the member and to reiterate the incredible confusion that the Liberal government has caused in its first eight months of its mandate, first saying that it would move rapidly, then saying it would not, then saying that around 4/20 it had a big announcement to make, which turned out to be no announcement at all, basically just another delay of another year.There have been Liberal members, of which the member for Scarborough Southwest is one, who have said they would find it difficult to tackle in their first mandate. When we take all of those comments together, we see the confusion that is taking place with law enforcement across the country. The member for Victoria spoke very eloquently about that earlier today, that there is a similar level of arrests and prosecution of Canadians for simple possession of marijuana in some parts of the country and law enforcement officials are moving off in other parts of the country. There is total confusion, total chaos.There is a very effective motion from the NDP today. I have to ask Liberal members why they are backing off the commitment they made to legalize marijuana by removing marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code. The NDP has simply put forward what a lot of Liberals were talking about during the election campaign as a first step in terms of legalization. The Liberal government, in its first eight months, has offered absolutely nothing in terms of a regulatory framework that they have been talking about. What they have done is caused a lot of confusion by talking about different dates, a different process, a different way of proceeding. It makes me very skeptical that the Liberals are even going to keep their promise on this. I think it will be part of the over 100 promises that they have broken. Why they intend to keep arresting people and putting them in jail for simple possession of pot is something that Liberals are going to have to defend this summer.DecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421397442139844213994421400BillBlairScarborough SouthwestAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the NDP motion, which reads:That the House recognize (a) the contradiction of continuing to give Canadian criminal records for simple possession of marijuana after the government has stated that it should not be a crime; (b) recognize that this situation is unacceptable to Canadians, municipalities and law enforcement agencies; (c) recognize that a growing number of voices, including that of a former Liberal prime minister, are calling for decriminalization to address this gap; and (d) call upon the government to immediately decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana for personal use.This discussion has been going on for a long time. We can look back to the Le Dain commission in 1969. In 1971, the NDP introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession after the Liberals ignored the recommendations of the Le Dain commission report. In 1993, NDP MP Jim Fulton introduced a bill to legalize marijuana in Canada, and the Liberal government voted it down as well. There have been plenty of opportunities for the Liberals to address this issue. In 2009, the NDP voted against the Conservative bill that proposed mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana, and the Liberal Party voted in support of that. The NDP used every tactic possible to stop or delay the Conservative omnibus bill that included mandatory sentences for marijuana, and the Liberals were nowhere to be found.In my community, on the west coast, in Courtenay—Alberni, there has been a lot of confusion. The Prime Minister was elected, in part, on a promise to legalize marijuana. “We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana”, reads the platform of the Liberal Party of Canada, though no details were given about the speed at which this legislation might occur. What has happened in Port Alberni is that seven medical marijuana dispensaries have opened since the election. There were none before. The RCMP in Port Alberni has decided not to take action or prosecute those selling marijuana at their dispensaries. However, in Oceanside, which is a 35-minute drive away, the same force, the RCMP, has decided to enforce the law. It is the same in Courtenay, which is only one hour north of Port Alberni. These are all RCMP detachments. They each have a different commander. It is extremely confusing and is becoming a huge problem for local governments as they try to figure out how this works and where they come in with respect to legislation.In Port Alberni it fell on the local mayor and council. I will read from the Alberni Valley News: But while the federal government works on delivering its platform promise, municipalities are left to grapple with dispensaries popping up in their storefronts. And given this is a federal issue, there doesn't seem much that municipalities can do. Currently, selling marijuana—whether medical or recreational—is illegal under Canadian law, said Port Alberni RCMP Inspector Mac Richards. Despite this the City of Port Alberni voted to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries at its Jan. 25 meeting. It wasn't a unanimous decision. Throughout the three months that city council debated the issue, it was split...[Mayor Ruttan said that ] it was “unfair” for the federal government to have downloaded it onto municipalities—but that he was committed to upholding council's decision. “But it doesn't matter—this is what council has voted for and I believe that council's position is fairly clear. It is this council's best attempt to control the uncontrollable. This view was shared by other council members. Councillor Sharie Minions said,It shouldn't be on the municipal agenda but it is a problem in our community. If we wait it will probably just get worse and worse and worse by the time the federal government does something about it This is a quote about what it happening in my community. The local government has been downloaded a problem. People in the community do not understand whether marijuana is legal. It is being enforced in two-thirds of the riding of Courtenay—Alberni, and in one-third of the riding it is not being enforced.I received an email from John, from Courtenay, who said, “There's been lots of raids and arrests at marijuana dispensaries of late. Given that this Liberal government will be legalizing in the near future, I have to wonder why this is happening. If you have any ideas on this matter, I would love to hear them. If there is a way you could remind the government, that would be great.”(1750)I am doing that for John right now, making sure the government has been reminded.There is another email. This is from Cory Pahl. He is a registered physiotherapist in Qualicum Beach. He says, “While not being a recreational user myself, I'm a member of the millennial generation, so I grew up around it and I have a contemporary view of marijuana professionally and its application in health and also in today's culture.” He also says that his suggestions come from a concern for his generation and the damage criminalizing some of their recreational activity has done. He has a lot of concerns about the fairness side of things.I think we realize that the government was elected on a mandate to reform Canada's marijuana laws. Right now, the confusion is enormous. It has been left on the backs of local governments, local police forces, local RCMP detachments, to try to figure it out. We have concerns from business owners who are supplying patients who need access to marijuana. We do not know where supply is coming from for a lot of dispensaries, so there is confusion there.We want to make sure that we use our resources when it comes to the criminal justice system for things that matter. We want to make sure that we use our resources to protect the vulnerable and make sure we give people the resources to be able to avoid choices that might harm them.I feel it is actually very wasteful that we are spending time prosecuting people where it might affect their potential employment or their ability to travel in the future, when we know that the government has made a commitment that in a year down the road or so it is going to be legal. Why would we not make that decision now? Why would the government and the justice minister not make a directive to the courts to stop enforcing the marijuana laws today, to stop prosecuting people in courts, to stop chasing young adults and people who maybe could make better choices if we took a harm reduction approach? We know the government was elected on a willingness to change. We want to get it right. We know that harm reduction approaches have been taken in countries around the world, such as Portugal. The NDP has laid out a very thoughtful, very respectful plan on how to move forward with reforming Canada's marijuana laws. Right now, my big concern is that the government made a promise, but it had no plan. It feels like it was made on the back of a paper napkin. There has been no action. It is very unclear and it is creating a very messy situation. Really, we need a decision.When speaking about people in British Columbia, iPolitics just did a survey. It stated that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should not be a crime, and 73% of British Columbians agreed with that and 16% of British Columbians did not agree with that.No wonder why people, after what they have seen, when they look at our history and the failure of the approach of previous governments in taking this issue on, when they see the mess that is being created today, do not have to look far. They can walk down the main street of Port Alberni or down the main street of many communities and they can see the lack of leadership on this issue is clear. It is creating a grey area. It is not doing what the government set out to; that is, protect young people and the vulnerable.I call upon the government to support our motion, to support decriminalizing marijuana, and to support using our resources for what we need them to do; that is, take a more positive, progressive approach and follow through with its promise.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPort AlberniPossession of a controlled substanceRetail trade4421403442140444214054421406442140744214084421409442141044214114421412442141344214144421415442141644214174421418442141944214204421421442142244214234421424442142544214264421427AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a point of clarification. The member opposite gave some indication that this confusion he alleges exists is on the backs of the RCMP. Notwithstanding that, quite frankly, on this side of the House, I do not think we could possibly be any clearer that the law remains in effect, so it should be obeyed, it should be upheld, and it should be enforced. At the public safety committee, about a month and a half ago, the RCMP commissioner appeared before that committee, and at that time, he made it very clear when he stated that the confusion around the enforcement of marijuana laws should not be overstated.In light of those remarks and that clarification coming from him, I wonder if the member opposite would like to clarify his remarks.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442142844214294421430GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, again, there is so much confusion. A perfect example is the RCMP commissioner himself is saying that RCMP officers are going to enforce the law. However, two detachments of the four in my riding are enforcing it and two are not. Therefore, it is very confusing on the ground about where they are going. I find it disgraceful that people are continuing to be charged when we know in a year it is going to be legal, according to the government promises. Why would the government be charging people today for something we know is going to be legal in a year? It does not make sense to anyone in my community. I think we would be hard pressed to sell that on the streets of Port Alberni, Oceanside, Courtenay, or to anyone in Courtenay—Alberni.DecriminalizationLaw enforcementMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442143144214324421433BillBlairScarborough SouthwestGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear members of the NDP as well as of the government talk a lot about other jurisdictions. Yet, when I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a single jurisdiction where decriminalization or legalization led to a decrease in use, he was not able to name that jurisdiction. I wonder if the NDP, given that they are advocating this course, can do better. All the evidence I have read suggest that, for better or worse, there is an increase in use when we make the law more permissive, and that is only logical. As well, with respect to the Conservative position, some members have said that we support decriminalization, which we certainly do not. We instead passed a motion, and I supported it, to have a ticketing option, to continue to have marijuana be a criminal offence, but to allow police to use a ticketing option. I would consider that a middle way that would allow for effective enforcement in a range of different kinds of situations. I would like to know, in addition to this question about jurisdiction, if the member has thoughts on that as an option for addressing the situation we face, but also continuing to have that strong sense that marijuana really is associated with significant health problems.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance442143444214354421436GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Gord Johns: (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for putting forward some ideas on how we can move forward, and talk a little about the past. When we look at the past, and we talk about the previous Conservative government, it did not work. Clearly, we did not see that approach reduce marijuana use. I will cite an example from around the world. Portugal has brought in decriminalization. It brought in a more progressive approach and marijuana was reduced. Portugal invested its resources in harm reduction strategies and education, ensuring that especially young people had the support they needed.When it comes to ticketing and how we move forward, again, I really appreciate the member bringing forward ideas. However, the NDP has been very clear: decriminalize first so people are not being criminally charged. We can then establish that independent commission with a broad mandate to include health and public health, to consult with Canadians on all aspects of the non-medicinal use of marijuana, and to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.Therefore, there are a lot of options to be looked at as we move forward, but start first with decriminalization so people are not getting a criminal record that might prohibit them from getting a job or their ability to travel. With respect to the current laws, it is not an approach that has worked in Canada or around the world. However, we have models from around the world where decriminalization has worked.Criminal recordsDecriminalizationLegalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPortugalPossession of a controlled substance44214374421438442143944214404421441GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP for moving this motion today.Certainly, the motion deserves to be clearly debated because this is an important issue. Canadians have questions, especially since the Liberal Party wants to legalize marijuana. Decriminalizing marijuana is extremely important because it would help clarify certain things for a portion of the population that does not necessarily make the distinction between the two. However, the distinction is very important in this case. I want to acknowledge the NDP's contribution to this file.That is not where I have a problem with this. I take issue with the Liberal Party's position, how it is trivializing drug use, especially by the more vulnerable and young people, by wanting to legalize drugs. This is a real problem because we often hear the Liberal Party tell us that it consults people and respects other jurisdictions. It is nice of the government to try to please a segment of the population by saying that it wants to legalize drugs, but again it has to consult the provinces, the municipalities, and the police forces. What we have seen since the beginning of the discussion on this issue is that very few people have been consulted. On the contrary, they are finding out and are not all very pleased with what they are reading.At the same time, the provincial governments are putting a lot of emphasis on promoting healthy living. They want to limit the places where people can smoke cigarettes, for example. We all know that there are regulations in place for that. While the provinces were busy working on promoting healthy living to protect the health of Canadians, the Liberal government was announcing in its throne speech that it wanted to legalize a drug, marijuana.I find it very hard to get on board with a movement that goes against my personal values, like this one. I understand that some people have smoked a joint, that they have used marijuana. I do not think that we need to send those people to prison. I am not interested in judging people who have used this drug, but I think that going from there to promoting its use takes things to a new level and that is worrisome.With regard to the Liberals, I get the impression that this debate is completely improvised. As I said earlier, they are talking about a plan, but we are all eager to see what that plan is. One thing is for certain: for a party that made the legalization of marijuana a pillar of its election campaign, the Liberals' plan for that legislation is not inspiring a lot of confidence in Canadians.Ever since they announced that their bill to legalize marijuana would be tabled in the House in the spring, red flags have been going up everywhere. Police officers do not know how to deal with possession of marijuana charges. The municipalities do not know how to regulate the opening of stores that want to sell marijuana, and parents across the country are worried because they do not know how to protect their children.Those who want to make money selling marijuana are prepared to do anything to sell their product. After Toronto police arrested 43 illegal distributors and closed their dispensaries in May, a good number of them reopened their doors nearby. Toronto's CityNews quoted one manager of a few stores, Erin Goodwin, as saying, “We’re determined to stand up [to the police] and not bend down to these intimidation tactics”.These sellers are literally defying our police forces, which are turning to Ottawa for information about the plan. There is currently no plan. The sellers boast about selling their products in different forms such as candies, jujubes, and cookies even though these are all products that children can consume. In Vancouver, there are more storefronts that sell marijuana illegally than there are Starbucks where you can buy a coffee. That is indicative of how serious this problem is.In terms of health, to the best of my knowledge, no doctor is prepared to state that the Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana is a good plan. Once again, the Liberals need to table something so that they can address this.(1805)As part of the debate on legalizing cannabis in Canada, the Research Center of the Sainte-Justine University Hospital, a hospital that treats childhood diseases and is affiliated with the Université de Montréal, recently organized a day of scientific presentations on the theme, “Cannabis and youth health: What have we learned from science?”. Since we are accused of being against scientists, we will share a few statistics and quotes. Findings on the health of young people and their vulnerability are rather negative. If the government legalizes marijuana, medical prescriptions will become useless, since people can procure it themselves. They could even grow it at home, in their own gardens, next to their cucumbers, carrots, and lettuce. There will no longer be a way to control access to this drug.As the Canadian Paediatric Society pointed out, the evidence shows that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to have mental health problems, including diseases such as psychosis and schizophrenia.Now, I want to share some quotes from a few experts, since I am not making this up. I am far from being a doctor or an expert in the field, but I know that there are ways to take care of your health other than using marijuana.Here is a quote from the Canadian Press, from our very own government officials in a Government of Canada document:...marijuana goodies such as candies and cookies pose “significant risks” to children who might accidentally swallow them... Here is what Paul Frewen, a professor and psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, had to say:These drugs, both marijuana and other forms of recreational drugs, are being used...for their effects on the nervous system....They have various dissociative qualities...such as the suppression of memory and distress in the immediate short term.According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, the evidence clearly shows that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to have mental health problems, particularly illnesses such as psychosis and schizophrenia.Here is a quotation from the CBC, our public broadcaster:...the health-community consensus is that regular recreational usage carries risks, including long-term cognitive ones for those under 25.This next quote is from the report by Cochrane, a network of tens of thousands of researchers known for its rigorous methods that receives no sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies. Youth are especially vulnerable to the health effects of marijuana use because adolescence is a critical time for brain development. Having THC in the brain at such a critical time can therefore interfere with brain development and harm brain function. It can also increase the risk of triggering a psychotic episode or a mental illness such as schizophrenia.With respect to safety, while the Liberals talk about legalizing marijuana, police forces raise a number of issues around impaired driving.The Liberals say that legalizing marijuana will keep it out of the hands of children, but recent events in Toronto prove that to be utterly false. How will the government control the production of marijuana in people's homes when a Federal Court ruling authorizes individuals to grow it for their own consumption for medical purposes? If it is legal for people to grow their own for medical use, then anyone will be able to grow it once it is legalized. It will be easily available, and police forces will no longer be able to protect our children.Whereas the Liberals would have us believe that legalizing marijuana will contain the growth of organized crime, examples prove instead that its legalization has no effect on organized crime. How will the Liberals manage the flow of drugs at the border when they are legal in Canada, but illegal in the United States?Here is another quote: Canadian police forces are worried about drug-impaired driving...Police are concerned about trivializing consumption [and] an increase in drivers under the influence of drugs.A survey showed that almost half of Canadians who drive under the influence of cannabis believe that they do not pose a threat on the road.Finally, for those who look to other countries and the only country to have legalized marijuana, Uruguay, I would like to cite Washington's chief of police. He believes that since Washington State legalized marijuana, more than one third of impaired drivers are under the influence of drugs, and they test more than 13,000 cases every year. I will now quote Stéphane Quéré, a criminologist and expert in criminal networks: The decriminalization of cannabis use has not eliminated organized crime [in Uruguay, despite what some may say]. It has merely adapted and managed to gain a foothold in coffee shops, while retaining control over cannabis production.(1810)I think that this is a serious problem. There is no plan and no direction. We do not have any information on how we could assure safety. Before we talk about decriminalization, we need to know much more about the Liberal bill before us.DecriminalizationImpaired drivingLegalizationMarijuanaMental healthOpposition motionsOrganized crimePossession of a controlled substancePublic consultationPublic healthRetail tradeSafetyTorontoVancouverYoung people4421442442144344214444421445442144644214474421448442144944214504421451442145244214534421454442145544214564421457442145844214594421460442146144214624421463442146444214654421466442146744214684421469442147044214714421472442147344214744421475GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniRamezAyoubThérèse-De Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88419RamezAyoubRamez-AyoubThérèse-De BlainvilleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AyoubRamez_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Ramez Ayoub (Thérèse-De Blainville, Lib.): (1810)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on marijuana.I wish I could have understood him. It is always dangerous when a Conservative analyzes scientific studies, since, once again, all we get are scientific answers being cobbled together.I would like to hear what my hon. colleague would think if he were to go back to the days of alcohol prohibition. Do we need to return to a time when alcohol was prohibited here? Should tobacco also not be legalized?I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421476442147744214784421479AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1810)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful question.I will tell him what I made sure to say in my speech. Had he been listening, he would know that I in no way consider myself a scientist or a doctor with respect to this issue. All I have done is quote experts in the field. Instead of asking me questions about alcohol and cigarettes, can my colleague quote one single expert who is well-versed in this subject and can say that using marijuana is good for one's health? There is no evidence that it is.Today, what I would like to see from the leader here in the House, our Prime Minister, who boxes and seems to like sports, is more emphasis on healthy lifestyles. He should be more like Pierre Lavoie, who encourages young people to join a wonderful movement. What I do not want is a Liberal government Prime Minister who trivializes drugs by promoting the use of marijuana.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substance4421480442148144214824421483RamezAyoubThérèse-De BlainvilleAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession]InterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: (1815)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we ask that the vote be deferred to Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at the end of oral questions.Division on motion deferredMr. Speaker, I also believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.Adjournment ProceedingsDecriminalizationDeferred divisionsMarijuanaOpposition motionsPossession of a controlled substanceProceeding to next item early4421495AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsJusticeInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up a conversation we were having, maybe a couple of months ago now. I am hearing from a broad range of constituents who are confused by the government's messages on marijuana regulation, and so are the judges. Justice Selkirk of the Ontario Court of Justice found a man guilty on several charges but refused to accept his guilty plea on marijuana possession. The judge said: Okay and I don't know what to do about the possession of marijuana. I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I’m not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana.... You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous. I want to go through an eight-part list of people I am hearing from in my riding who are affected by leaving marijuana regulations in limbo.First are the thousands of mostly young people who are going to have criminal records for the rest of their lives for something they thought was not going to be illegal anymore after the election. If the Prime Minister had respected his promise they might not have been so caught.Second are taxpayers, because the government is spending $3 million to $4 million annually prosecuting simple possession cases. Many New Democrats believe it is irresponsible to allow police and court resources to be wasted and to create new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize. Third are the commercial producers, and I have a big one in my riding. These are people who are operating under the marijuana for medical purposes regulations, or MMPR. They must follow the most stringent regulations, which they have willingly accepted, around audits by Health Canada inspectors and RCMP, security personnel clearances, audits, record keeping of all activities and inventories, physical security measures, and substantial capital investments made in good faith. However, now without information on the government's plan about what is going to come next, they are operating in a bit of an uncertain business environment. Whether they expand or more deeply invest is unclear. Fourth are personal production licence holders. These are individuals who are allowed to grow marijuana for medical use under the medical marijuana access regulations, or MMAR. They are left in the same state of limbo. While the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana for medical purposes when authorized by a doctor, the federal government has not really given us a clear indication if it is going to allow these two parallel streams, the commercial industrial type and then this much more small-scale type. Again, the licence holders are not sure whether they should make more investments, or what their status is.There is another group affected by illegal dispensaries, not licensed under the local law. Local governments are scrambling to address the jurisdictional hole left by the lack of federal leadership. There are also a couple more that fall into this category.We are hoping that the government can inform the House and the many Canadians affected by leaving marijuana regulations in limbo what the timeline is on which the government will proceed. With whom is the government working? Who will be appointed to its expert panel to untangle this uncertainty in our country?Adjournment ProceedingsDecriminalizationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substance4415102441510344151044415105441510644151074415108441510944151104415111Jean-ClaudePoissantLa PrairieBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsJusticeInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1835)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her question and the opportunity to provide some clarity on a number of issues she has raised.First, I want to be very clear on something that is terribly important. It is irresponsible to suggest that the law changed as a result of a campaign promise prior to an election and a statement of the government's intent to bring forward legislation.The law, with respect to marijuana, is not in limbo. It is in effect. It is currently a scheduled drug under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have tried to make it very clear in the House on numerous occasions that the law remains in effect. The law should be obeyed, it should be upheld, and it should be enforced. I hope that is clear. I would urge all Canadians to obey all the laws of this land to avoid any legal jeopardy.I also want to be very clear on the government's intention with respect to marijuana. We have been very explicit in our statement to the Canadian people and through this Parliament of our intention to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We are working diligently, and I will provide some additional information about some of the processes we will undertake in order to do that.I also want to be equally clear that marijuana is not a benign substance. It represents a significant risk to certain segments of our population, most notably children. Therefore, our first public interest priority is the protection of our kids.Canada currently has the highest rates of marijuana usage of any developed country in the world. Therefore, our efforts are to restrict access that children have to marijuana that puts them at risk. There is a significant body of scientific evidence that marijuana poses a significant health risk to the developing brain. Therefore, we need to do a better job of protecting our kids.From life experience in dealing with organized crime, organized crime profits in the billions from the illegal trafficking of drugs generally in the country, but in particular of marijuana. Therefore, another very important public purpose aim of our government, through the legalization and regulation of marijuana, is to take that profit centre away from organized crime, away from street gangs, and away from those who would victimize and, through violence, terrorize so many of our communities. We believe we can do a much better job of controlling the production, distribution, and the consumption of marijuana that is currently available to us under the existing law, but this is a complex task. This is going to take a great deal of work. There are important questions to be answered.To that aim, our government has undertaken to form a task force. It will consult with expertise from the science, health, and justice communities, from law enforcement, and speaking to officials in both our provincial and territorial government, to work out a system which we believe will be comprehensive and responsible to control the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis products across this country.The government has been very explicit, and the ministries of justice, health, and public safety have been working very collaboratively together in the development of a framework for regulation. That framework will be informed by the work of our task force. I anticipate in the not too distant future, and, frankly, an announcement is for my minister and not for her parliamentary secretary to make, that my minister will be informing the House and the Canadian people about the membership. I will also tell members that the membership of that task force will be made up of well-recognized experts from the fields of science, health, justice, and law enforcement. Through that broad consultation, which is so important, and the collaborative work among three ministries, we are confident we will be able to bring forward a system of regulation that will do the job of protecting our children, of making our communities safe, and protecting all Canadians from the threat of organized crime, the violence and victimization it perpetuates in our communities, and at the same time ensure all Canadians of our commitment to their health.This is not going to be an easy task. We are committed to doing it, but we are committed to doing it right. We are working as expeditiously as possible, and we are moving forward as quickly as we are able, but we are committed to ensuring that all of these important areas of public policy are addressed.Adjournment ProceedingsDecriminalizationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substance4415112441511344151144415115441511644151174415118441511944151204415121441512244151234415124SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsJusticeInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's answer and I certainly did not mean to say that because of an election promise, the rules have changed. However, I imagine the member will agree with me that there is a significant expectation and a great deal of confusion. Not everybody knows how slowly things move.We have more people who are wondering and scrambling. We have customers who believe they are reliant on an illegal dispensary supply. They are scrambling when there are police raids, which do happen, and they feel that their prescribed medical supply is interrupted. On the other hand, there are neighbouring businesses, and I am hearing this from the chamber of commerce in my region, asking, “Who let that guy move in next door,” where there is a completely different group of customers smoking outdoors. It is a mess, honestly.There is a fantastic employer, Tilray, in my region. It has 140 employees, with an operating impact expected to grow from $13 million to $88 million in my region. If it knows what the next step is going to be, it can move forward with confidence. Therefore, I would really appreciate hearing from the member opposite what the timeline is. When can we expect to get clarity? The difficulty we are in is that the government has told the country where we are going, but it has not said how fast we are going to get there or how we are going to get there. I would appreciate more detail.Adjournment ProceedingsDecriminalizationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substance4415125441512644151274415128BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsJusticeInterventionMr. Bill Blair: (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring some clarity on this issue. I would simply remind the member opposite that on April 20 of this year, at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, the Minister of Health announced the government's intention to bring forward new regulations for the control and restriction of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis products in Canada in the spring of 2017. Therefore, it is our intention and commitment to fulfill the Minister of Health's promise to bring those regulations to the House. We are hopeful and even confident in the commitment of all members of the House to thoroughly examine this issue, because it is an important piece of public legislation. We want to give the House that opportunity.The task force, as I have said, will be set up very shortly. It has an enormously important bit of work to do. We have established some timelines so that it can report in a timely way to inform the creation of those regulations to be brought before the House in the spring of 2017.Adjournment ProceedingsDecriminalizationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substance4415129441513044151314415132SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, I am proud to once again rise in strong support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing up this vital piece of legislation. Now is the time to help our fellow Canadians in need. Drawing on my 20 years of experience as an emergency physician, I can say with confidence that, if passed, Bill C-224 would save lives. During my clinical experience, I have witnessed and treated many overdose victims in the poverty-stricken downtown core of Winnipeg. Emergency room doctors, nurses, and first responders are better able to help people when they know what the victims have ingested into their systems. Finding out what someone has ingested is vital when determining what one can do to help them. The findings on physical examination are often too variable to yield any useful information and laboratory tests can take too long to be of benefit. I often have to ask these patients or those who accompany them what substances they have taken. Typically, they are reluctant to provide this information. However, once I explain that there is no risk of prosecution due to patient and physician confidentiality, they give me honest answers and I am able to provide better care. Doctor and patient confidentiality should be extended to the individuals who accompany the victims and fear of the law should not prevent someone from potentially saving a life. As physicians, nurses, first responders, and as a society, we all have a duty to care for the most vulnerable in our communities. I believe this bill would help our vulnerable population be less afraid to ask for the help they need for their friends and themselves.Some may argue that people who routinely ingest harmful drugs are responsible for their outcome and what happens to them is their choice. I disagree. It is almost unanimously accepted by the medical profession that addiction is an illness. Furthermore, it is not widely understood by the public that addiction is highly correlated with underlying mental illness. Someone with an undiagnosed or poorly controlled mental illness may take harmful substances in an attempt to self-medicate. This bill is vital to helping these vulnerable individuals. Critics of this bill might claim that by preventing legal sanctions against drug users, this bill facilitates and encourages drug use, as is claimed with other forms of harm reduction. On this point, the evidence is also clear. Harm reduction saves lives, improves outcomes, increases access to rehabilitation, and does not increase either the use of drugs or incidence of crime. This is the conclusion of the Canadian Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. While we have made steps in other areas of harm reduction, Canada lags behind other jurisdictions on this issue. In the United States, over 30 states and the District of Columbia have some form of good Samaritan overdose immunity law. In 2014, the House Standing Committee on Health recommended considering good Samaritan overdose legislation in the future. This recommendation has yet to be implemented. What are we waiting for? When looking at this bill, we should consider the evidence. A Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council study found that fewer than half of respondents would call 911 in an overdose situation, citing potential charges as a major barrier. A study of Washington state, which passed good Samaritan overdose legislation in 2010, found that almost 90% of respondents aware of the law would make the call. When considering this legislation, it is important to recognize these people are our sons, daughters, friends, and family members. Young people at a house party may be too scared to call for help for their overdosing friend if they fear charges. Too often we have seen this story in the news, how fear caused delay, and there should not be a need for hesitation or a second thought when calling to save a life. If this bill is passed, scared young people at a house party will be more likely to call 911 if their friend is in trouble. A bystander will be more likely to put compassion and conscience before fear and self-interest. I expect this legislation will receive very wide support in the House, with very little opposition. In fact, if any members are considering opposing this bill, I urge them to please talk to a recovering addict, an emergency room doctor, or a victim's family. Members should ask these persons with direct experience if they think this bill could save lives, and then they should vote their conscience.(1335)Evidence-based legislation should appeal to our hearts as much as it appeals to our logic. We need a law that responds to the rising fatalities associated with opioid use. With these rising fatalities, it is now more important to act. The future victims of an overdose cannot wait any longer. The sooner this legislation is implemented, the more vulnerable Canadians could be saved because someone made the right decision to make the call to save a life.We are dealing with an ongoing and escalating tragedy. Let us wait no longer. The time is right to pass Bill C-224. As the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam has said, there is no time for saving lives like the present. Let us pass Bill C-224. Let us save lives.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Caregivers and health care professionalsDeaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersEmergency servicesInformation disseminationLegal proceedingsMedical researchMental healthNumbers of deathsPossession of a controlled substancePreventive medicinePrivacy and data protectionPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSentencingSurveysVulnerable persons43994594399460439946143994654399466CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for putting forward Bill C-224, an important piece of legislation. Not all of us are so fortunate as to get such an early spot for our private member's bills and to have a bill that is going to potentially make a lifesaving difference. It is truly a privilege.I would like to provide a bit of perspective around what the issue is that my colleague is trying to address. In British Columbia, the province both the member and I are from, between 2010 and 2015 there was a 50% increase in deaths due to drug overdose. In 2016 we have seen a really worrisome spike. There have been 201 deaths in three months in British Columbia. The situation is so serious that public health has declared a state of emergency. This is not only a big issue in British Columbia but it is a big issue across Canada.We think this perhaps happens only in some of our larger centres, such as the Downtown Eastside. That is not accurate. In Kamloops alone there have been 13 fatalities in three months from drug overdoses, and six of those happened in one day. Four individuals managed to get treatment and are fine.These are not just numbers and facts. These are people. These are our friends. These are our children. In Kamloops, three families have spoken out directly on this issue. They want to raise awareness, especially about fentanyl and the tragic consequences of its use. Ryan Pinneo's family has spoken out publicly. Their son was an athlete with a very supportive family. He struggled with addiction and succumbed to a tragic overdose.There was another young man from Kamloops named Lance Ritchie whose parents have also spoken out. The reason they are speaking out is to raise awareness in terms of the incredible danger that is out there. Lance Ritchie loved the outdoors. He loved to fish. His family has beautiful pictures of him. They have shown the people of Kamloops the pictures and have told them that, yes, he did something wrong and foolish but he was a wonderful man. Twenty-four-year-old Ben Coan is another whose family is grieving, and it is so tragic to hear the mothers and fathers talk about their children.Someone that I knew from a very young age, and it was a fairly high-profile tragedy in North Vancouver, involved Hardy and Amelia, a couple of young parents. They made a foolish decision, no question about it. They were good people who made a bad mistake.What would this legislation mean? The research the proponent of the bill shared was that sometimes there is a barrier to getting help quickly and that barrier is because the people who are with their friends or their classmates or their mothers and fathers are worried that there will be some consequences in terms of the substances. The research is clear that at times there has been a barrier because of possession. We also just heard from a doctor across the aisle who, in his own experience, found that there was a barrier for people in terms of self-interest or many reasons in terms of getting help quickly.In the case of opioids, what does getting help quickly mean? I am a nurse by background. I can remember in the hospital there was a case, and this was a legitimate use of a narcotic for pain control. We had given a woman some pain medication post-surgery and just a couple of minutes later I happened to go into the room and she had stopped breathing as the result of an allergic reaction to the pain medication.(1340)It was absolutely shocking to see someone who had stopped breathing and who was on the brink of death. The hospitals have something called Narcan or naloxone. We injected the naloxone, or Narcan as it was called, into her and she started breathing again. She opened her eyes and wondered what had happened. For someone who has never seen this, Narcan can reverse the effects an allergy to medications. This is a multi-issue and this is one piece of the puzzle that our colleague has introduced in getting help for people quickly. Removing barriers for them to seek help is a really important piece of the puzzle.British Columbia has a take-home naloxone program to make it readily available. Health Canada worked rapidly, going through a process to make naloxone available, not a prescription. It is cheaper for patients who have a bee allergy. We will often see their kits and learn how to do an injection to reverse the effects of the allergy to the bee. This particular injection can be easily learned and is truly life-saving.The other important feature is that lay people can learn how to deliver naloxone. It is absolutely life-saving and there are very minimal adverse effects.I noted that some people have said that we perhaps should be criticizing this because we are endorsing drug use. That is not actually what is happening. It has been very clear that what is happening is life-saving, whether it is someone who is suffering from an addiction who has taken an overdose, or whether it is a young person who has been at a party and who has made perhaps a foolish decision.If we put this bill into the context of what is a dramatically escalating situation in British Columbia and across Canada and provide some basic life-saving tools, then we have a good bill. I too hope all members in the House will support the bill. Again, even if it saves one life, it is a bill well done.British ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Deaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersInformation disseminationLegal proceedingsNaloxoneNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsOver the counter drugsPossession of a controlled substancePreventive medicinePrivacy and data protectionPrivate Members' BillsSecond reading4399479DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31796ErinWeirErin-WeirRegina—LewvanCo-operative Commonwealth Federation CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WeirErin_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Erin Weir (Regina—Lewvan, NDP): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, we will be supporting the bill before us, which would provide an exemption from drug possession charges when someone calls 911 to report an overdose. It is a simple, common-sense, proven policy that will save lives. I thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing the bill forward.We know all too well how desperately our communities need action to end this crisis. As the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned, British Columbia's health officer has declared a public health emergency. This is the first time that such emergency powers have been used. The province took this step, because in the first three months of this year, there have been more than 200 deaths from overdoses of fentanyl. At that rate, we could see 700 to 800 British Columbians dead by the end of this year. We are talking about an opiate that is exponentially more powerful than morphine or heroin. We have seen provincial task forces created and police alerts issued in major cities across Canada. We know that this problem will not go away on its own. Indeed, it could get much worse. Recently, police in Edmonton seized a shipment of white powder from China before it could be prepared for street sale. Lab testing revealed it to be a substance called W-18, a synthetic opiate that is unimaginably deadly. It is 100 times more powerful than fentanyl, and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. To put that in perspective, the amount seized recently in Edmonton, four kilograms, according to public health officials, is enough to kill every person in Alberta 45 times over. However, this drug is so new that it has not yet been included in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Therefore, it is clear that in the face of such a complex crisis, many things need to be done, and done quickly. Bill C-224 is one essential step, and we must take it without delay. One study cited by the Pivot Legal Society suggested that most people who witness an overdose do not call 911. Fear of arrest for drug possession is one barrier among many, but it is one that we have the power to lift. This is a step that many jurisdictions have already taken. In the United States, New Mexico was the first to pass a good Samaritan law in 2007, and 31 states have followed suit. By all accounts, these laws have been successful in reducing the fear of police involvement as a barrier to calling emergency assistance during an overdose.We need to do more, as well, to ensure that drugs that counteract opiate overdoses are more readily available where they are needed. Naloxone was delisted by Health Canada on March 22. This followed the unanimous recommendation of 130 community groups, health experts, and other groups. However, this still leaves it up to the provinces to ensure broader access. In B.C., naloxone is now available without a prescription and is in the hands of almost all EMS personnel. In Alberta, more than 500 pharmacies are offering free kits without prescriptions. However, access is not as open in some other provinces, where it is still available only to trained responders, or through a doctor's prescription to friends and family of opiate users. Furthermore, cost and access in rural areas still present barriers to saving lives from overdoses.There remains a federal role to play in encouraging access to easier forms of dosage, for instance, replacing an injection with a nasal spray. Of course, we must also do more to prevent overdoses by increasing awareness about fentanyl-laced street drugs and by reducing its availability by tackling illegal production. On the former, I note, for example, the recent initiative by Toronto Public Health to create a simple website, ReportBadDrugsTO.ca, to allow fast, anonymous reports of tainted street drugs so that warnings can be spread immediately to opiate users through community agencies. On the latter, I note the recent introduction in the Senate of Bill S-225 by Senator Vernon White. This bill would add the ingredients of fentanyl to the schedule of controlled precursors in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.(1350)Together with the provinces we must do more to control the use of highly addictive prescription opioids. These initiatives must be considered as elements of a broader response by all levels of government to a crisis that is overwhelming too many communities.The bill deserves to be praised in the context of removing the ideological blinders of the previous Conservative government and instead adopting the evidence and public health based approach to drug policy for which New Democrats have long been proud advocates. I salute here the work of Libby Davies, the former member for Vancouver East, who has been a powerful advocate for harm reduction, public health, and safer communities for many years.If we are to make this long overdue paradigm shift real it will take much more from the government. We need to see the government's promise to repeal Bill C-2 honoured and to support supervised consumption sites. We need to see a review of criminal justice laws, including mandatory minimum sentences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That, as we saw in the Supreme Court just days ago, may not only be costly and ineffective but also unconstitutional. I know I speak for many communities when I say that this is not an issue that we can afford to leave on the back burner. In communities across Canada, overdoses are an epidemic, and we need action now.Just last week, the CBC printed an interview with a Winnipeg opiate user named Amanda. She reached out to reporters after a close friend died of an overdose. She said, “I've had 15 contacts on my phone and two of them die in three days. That's scary enough, that says it all.” There are many things we can do to help Amanda and the thousands of Canadians struggling with addictions and to renew and strengthen the health and safety of the communities they call home. This is one step we can take now, and I believe we should do it without delay.British ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Controlled Drugs and Substances ActCrime preventionDenunciationDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersFederal-provincial-territorial relationsInformation disseminationLegal proceedingsMandatory sentencingNaloxoneNumbers of deathsOpiates and opioidsOver the counter drugsPossession of a controlled substancePrescription drugsPreventive medicinePrivacy and data protectionPrivate Members' BillsSafe injection sitesSecond readingSurveysUnited States of America43994884399489439949043994914399492CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, I will keep my comments short, but I would first like to address the member's concerns in regard to W-18. We know it is a very powerful drug that has caused a great deal of damage to society. I can assure the member that the Government of Canada has acted very quickly on it. It is now on the illegal substances list. That means it is illegal in Canada for production, possession, importation, exportation, and trafficking. All of that is now illegal for the W-18 drug. We see that as a good thing, showing that the government can respond to incidents of this nature.I want to compliment our colleague, the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for the efforts he has put in to provide us with Bill C-224 today. It should be acknowledged that through the efforts of the member he will in fact be saving lives if we pass the bill. There seems to be a will of the House to give it, potentially, unanimous support. That speaks volumes. We have a member who recognized just how important the good Samaritan bill on drug overdose is not only to the community he represents but the community as a whole. I did get a chance to go over the comments the member provided and listen to the two examples. They were both young people, one in Ontario and one in Saskatchewan. These types of stories of overdoses and unnecessary deaths are very sad and tragic. It happens today in a very real and tangible way. I rise with pleasure to indicate not only my support, but the government's support for Bill C-224 in hopes that we will ultimately see unanimous support. C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDeaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceOpiates and opioidsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading4399505ErinWeirRegina—LewvanRonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59293RonMcKinnonRon-McKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKinnonRon_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at the end of this debate to acknowledge and thank the many members on both sides of the House who have risen in support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, many of whom have shared with us their personal, powerful stories about why the bill is so important. This support has resonated not only on a multi-partisan basis throughout the House but throughout Canada as well, from coast to coast to coast. We have, for instance, received strong expressions of support from the ministers of health in several provinces. In B.C., there is support from the B.C. chief coroner and the B.C. public health officer, as many have noted already, who has just recently declared a public health emergency due to the surge in overdose deaths, a dramatic increase that has in fact echoed across the whole country. In my own tri-cities community as well, a great many of our local public officials have stepped up, from the mayors of each of the tri-cities to school board trustees and a large number of city councillors. Indeed, Port Coquitlam city council passed a unanimous resolution of support. We have heard from police, firefighters, and paramedics as well, for first responders know that they can only save lives if they actually get the call. We have heard from religious leaders and ordinary citizens, as well as, throughout the country, families of victims who might have lived if only someone had picked up the phone and made that call a little earlier. By providing limited immunity from simple possession charges, we would remove a significant barrier to making that call. This means more lives will be saved and more people will live to have a chance to make better choices.In my opening speech, I spoke of Austin Padaric and Kelly Best, two young men who tragically died too young and who might have lived if someone had made that call earlier. Austin and Kelly are just two of the all too many unfortunate victims throughout this land who on a daily basis needlessly die because someone was afraid to call for help. Austin and Kelly, let these names stand now on behalf of all those victims through all the years, but better yet, let them stand as well for all of those we might yet save in the years to come by passing this bill.The bill will not end the scourge of drug overdoses and we will not end the intolerable toll of death, but surely, we can stem the rising tide. We will not slay this dragon in this one fell blow, but we can bring it to its knees.British ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Deaths and funeralsDrug educationDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency response and emergency respondersJudicial privileges and immunitiesLegal proceedingsNumbers of deathsPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading4399512KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59293RonMcKinnonRon-McKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKinnonRon_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)(1940)[Translation] moved that Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose), be read the second time and referred to a committee.Bill C-224. Second readingHe said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, this evening. This bill amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act with respect to assistance during a drug overdose. Three subclauses in this bill have a big impact on Canadians, and Bill C-224 will save lives. [English]Let me tell members about Austin Padaric. Austin was a typical 17-year-old high school student. He lived in Heidelberg, in rural Ontario. An athlete, Austin was passionate about sports, skateboarding, hockey, and all things outdoors.Those of us who are parents worry about our teenagers and what they get up to with their friends and acquaintances. However, when I spoke with Austin's mother recently, there was no worry about Austin. He was a good kid. Austin was just a typical high school student, but we cannot ignore the fact that kids experiment at parties. One night, he attended a gathering in rural Ontario and made a decision that so many young people make. He took some drugs that night.In the wee hours of that morning, Austin showed signs of distress. He was overdosing. Timely medical attention could have saved his life, but his acquaintances decided not to call 911. They figured they could handle it themselves. They placed him in a bathtub of cold water. When that did not work, he was put into bed on his side, where he stayed until the next morning. When they woke up and checked on him, they thought he looked dead. That is when they called 911.Austin died seven days later, in hospital, with his parents, brother, and extended family at his side. A timely call to 911 could have prevented this tragedy.That is the point of this bill.Let me tell members about Kelly Best from Saskatoon. He, too, was a young man full of promise, full of hopes, and dreams. This was another young life tragically cut short.He, too, took some drugs with a friend and began to overdose. The friend panicked, texted other friends about what to do and, eventually, phoned his dad, who immediately called 911. The delay was about an hour. It was fatal.The friend had a small amount of drugs on him and did not want to go to jail.Austin Padaric and Kelly Best, two names, one story, both had tragic outcomes. They paid the ultimate price. These kids did not have to die.Their story is far too common. Yet, it is a story heard over and over again, like a broken record. There are many more names, many more needless, pointless deaths, but the same story. This needs to stop.When I first heard these stories, I asked a very simple question. Why did anyone not bother to call 911 earlier?The typical reason is that they were scared, scared that they, themselves, would get into trouble. They did not want to go jail. They did not want a fine or a criminal record.(1945)Fear of prosecution is the largest barrier to people calling for help in an overdose situation. In fact, according to a 2012 Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council report, in the absence of a law such as this, 46% of respondents would either not call for help or would call and run. That is tragic and that is the point of the bill.That is why a significant majority of U.S. states have passed legislation of this kind. In a study in Washington state, where this has been law since 2010, 88% of respondents said they would call for help because of the protection in law.At last count, 36 states, plus the District of Columbia, have similar legislation on the books. Even states that are prone to a tough-on-crime approach, such as Alaska and Louisiana, have moved forward with such laws. Recently, Michigan's good Samaritan law passed unanimously. While the specifics vary slightly from state to state, the underlying intent is the same, for some things are crystal clear: delay means death and seconds matter.They also recognize that it is hard to learn from being dead. These laws are a turning point in the way drug policy is understood. Harm reduction actually works. It reduces harm. Every life saved is an opportunity for people to get the help they need, an opportunity to make better choices and move forward with life.(1950)[Translation]In Canada, our laws are a bit behind.[English]In Canada, we have been a little slow in helping to stop the harm caused by drug overdose, where people like Austin or Kelly could otherwise have lived, but that is not to say that there have not been calls for good Samaritan drug laws. The Waterloo report I just noted illustrates the barriers to calling 911 in the event of a drug overdose. It clearly highlights the need. It identifies that criminal justice response is the most significant barrier to calling 911. This report also shows that in the U.S.A. good Samaritan drug laws are the most widely recommended policy response to alleviating barriers to 911, laws such as the bill now before the House. The bill would provide limited legal immunity from drug possession prosecution for people who are involved in an overdose incident, who witness an overdose, and would encourage them to do the right thing, to call for help, to save a life.The work done by Waterloo is echoed in other reports across Canada. The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition also identified this as an issue and has made very similar recommendations. The compelling argument is that most overdoses occur in the presence of others. That noted Waterloo study also points to statistics from 2003 showing that 61% of drug overdose deaths occurred in the presence of others. That means that 61% of the time, there was someone else present who could have called for help, but witnesses, far too often, hesitate or waver on whether to call for help. In many cases, they just do not. What is even more frightening are cases where people are put in alleyways, abandoned on the street, or dropped off at a hospital emergency with no explanation. In January of this year, a report to the British Columbia coroner stressed the importance of a bill such as this. It highlighted the critical importance of working to develop strategies to promote calling for help. In more alarming recent news from B.C., Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.'s provincial health officer, declared a public health emergency because of the alarming rise of drug overdose deaths. In January alone, there were 76 deaths due to drug overdose. At the current rate, Dr. Kendall estimates that B.C. could have up to 800 drug deaths by the end of this year. That is an average of more than two deaths each day, every day, in B.C. alone. This has to stop. These are people's children, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends, and family. That is what this bill is for. It will not stop the overdoses, but surely, we can stem the toll of death. Dr. Kendall and B.C.'s chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, both support this bill because it would reduce barriers and save lives. In my own riding, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam's school district no. 43 trustees, Judy Shirra and Michael Thomas, support this bill. The city of Port Coquitlam unanimously passed a resolution supporting it. Coquitlam's mayor and many Coquitlam councillors support it as well.I have spoken and met with Coquitlam firefighters; Port Moody mayor, Mike Clay; and Port Moody's police chief, Constable Chris Rattenbury, who in fact sent a video endorsement expressing his own support. Port Coquitlam's firefighters sent a letter of support. First responders agree that their first priority is to save lives, but they can only do that when they are called.The Government of British Columbia's minister of health wrote to me expressing the importance of this legislation. These are among the growing number of Canadian jurisdictions that recognize that drug overdose deaths are becoming epidemic and need action now to start saving lives. It is time we listen to Canadians and take our own advice. In a 2014 report on prescription drug abuse, the House Standing Committee on Health recommended considering good Samaritan drug overdose legislation. This bill is precisely that. It is simply about saving lives.This bill is about giving people the tools they need to make life-saving decisions in a time of crisis. It would make it okay to call for help. Many members of this House recognize this. That is why the NDP member for Vancouver East seconded the bill and many more members on both sides of the House have rallied behind it. I thank them all for their robust support. They are showing that they too want to stop the harm.I ask all members for their support to demonstrate to all Canadians that we know that lives are worth saving, to show that we value life over death, life over punishment, and support over fear.(1955)[Translation]The purpose of this bill is to ensure that people are not afraid to call for help and, thus, to save lives.British ColumbiaC-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Deaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency servicesJudicial privileges and immunitiesNumbers of deathsPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond readingUnited States of America4321404BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an issue that our hon. colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam feels strongly about and I stand with him.I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of private member's Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. The hard truth is this. If a friend or a loved one suffered a heart attack, none of us in the House would think twice about calling an ambulance. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to drug overdoses, many of which result in death because people are simply too afraid to make that call.In 2015 alone, there were as many as 465 overdoses in British Columbia. As our colleague mentioned, the statistics for January 2016 show 77 deaths alone. That is simply unacceptable.Witnesses fear that when they pick up the phone, they may be criminally charged for possession. They fear judgment from others. These fears ultimately force the witness to choose between saving a person's life or being arrested and charged. It is time that we recognize that it may not be always in the public's interest to prosecute an individual who picks up the phone and asks for help when someone has overdosed.There are some who will say that this may encourage drug use or in some way minimize the severity of drug use. Let me be very clear right from the onset. I am not for drug use, nor would I ever promote or advocate for the use of drugs. However, if this bill would give people the courage to pick up the phone and take greater action because they are not afraid, then there is no question that this would benefit the nation. It would save lives.All members of the House can agree that in our country every life is valued. In fact, the courageous debate and discussion that we have had over the last few days is evidence to that.If this holds true, considering the number of overdoses occurring in Canada, we also must believe that it is necessary to take every measure possible to protect these vulnerable lives.In the U.S., accidental overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death. In fact, overdoses now count for more deaths each year than HIV and AIDS, murder, or car accidents. Many of these are preventable if and when emergency assistance is summoned. With the increasing strength of prescription drugs and the popularity and availability of synthetic party drugs, these statistics will only grow if we do not take action. In fact, we are seeing an emergency in our province of British Columbia. Action, we have talked a lot about that this week. To be clear, good Samaritan laws do not protect people from arrest for other offences such as selling or trafficking drugs, or driving under the influence of drugs. These policies protect only the caller and overdose victim from arrest, prosecution for simple drug possession, possession of paraphernalia, or being under the influence.Most deaths and complications occurring from overdoses can be prevented with the appropriate medication and emergency response time. Too often, however, these calls are not made and people are left without the necessary medical assistance. The British Columbia Review Panel found that when a person overdoses, immediate medical intervention is critical to reducing the risk of death or serious injury. Statistics point to the fact that in the case of 15% of youth overdoses, someone expressed concern about the well-being of the individual, yet 911 was never called.Police routinely attend emergency 911 calls involving suspected overdose. Research indicates that in some cases fear of police involvement may heavily influence a witness's decision to not contact emergency services. The facts are indisputable. Research also suggests that medical attention was attempted in less than half of the young adults who suffered from an overdose.(2005)Fear of criminal charges should not be a barrier to calling 911. Police departments are already aware of this stigma and have attempted to mitigate the perception of fear. The Vancouver Police Department is known to have policies about police attendance when it comes to an overdose. They do not normally attend the calls involving a non-fatal drug overdose unless B.C. Emergency Health Services advises that its assistance is required. The rationale for this is to reduce a potential reluctance that people will have to seek emergency medical intervention when someone is overdosing. When police do not attend an emergency 911 call for a suspected overdose, the health and well-being of that person who requires medical attention remains the paramount focus.The review also concluded that it would be beneficial for all police agencies to reinforce the message of calling 911 to report people in medical distress in an effort to reduce any perceived barriers to seeking help. Simply put, police recognize the stigma around picking up the phone and they want to fix this. They want us to fix this. In doing my research for this debate, I spoke to many of my friends in police agencies across Canada. There is overwhelming support for this bill. As a matter of fact, one of my very good friends who has been a police officer for decades said that in his line of work, they develop relationships with people from all walks of life and because of how often they work with them or interact with them, they develop feelings of friendship. They care about their well-being. These relationships truly are the only reason the police can be successful. He said, “Over the years, I have had several of them overdose. Some of them unfortunately are no longer with us.” In almost all of the instances, death could have been avoided by calling for help.” Police experience human tragedy every day. They do not want to see another case where an individual makes the wrong decision and does not seek emergency care for his or her friend or loved one. I believe everyone is on the same page when it comes to Bill C-224. I hope they are on the same page. It is necessary. It means the difference between life and death. I recall reading an article in the Toronto Star of a teenager who overdosed and died at the age of 17. The victim was showing signs of distress and overdosed seven hours before being attended to by emergency medical services. There were numerous people there who could have called for help in those seven hours, but no one called 911. Instead, they put him in cold water, then laid him on his side on a bed, assuming that he would wake up and everything would be okay. It was not okay. By the time the paramedics were called in the morning, it was too late. The victim's mother said that had there been a law, she thinks it would be reasonable to think that her son would still be around, would still be alive.We have stated our support for a bill pertaining to this issue before, suggesting that Health Canada, the government, consider the introduction of federal legislation that would exempt individuals seeking help for themselves or others during overdose situations from criminal prosecution for trafficking and possession of controlled substances. Bill C-224 would accomplish this. This is one way that barriers may be broken down by providing limited immunity for criminal charges.As I have already stated, every year, far too many lives are being lost to drugs and alcohol, and many more Canadians are injured or disabled as a result of an overdose. I am a husband. I am a father of four beautiful young adults. I have brothers and I have a sister. Accidental death by overdose has negatively impacted our family also. In 2008, as I was preparing to head overseas to speak at an aviation conference, we received a call that my brother-in-law had been found deceased just a few minutes before the call. My brother-in-law was not a drug user. He was not a criminal, and he did not live a high-risk lifestyle. While all of the facts of his death are still unknown to this day, so many years later, the facts are that he died of an accidental overdose. Whoever was with him at the time chose not to call the police or an ambulance to provide assistance. Rather, they erased all the call history and contacts on his phone, and any evidence of their involvement. (2010)I cannot help but think that if this bill was in place in 2008, my brother-in-law would still be with us today. My mother-in-law and father-in-law would still have their only son. My wife and her sister would still have their little brother. My children would still have their uncle. Our family would still be whole.I have stood in the House before to say that collectively we can leave a positive legacy. Like countless others, the growing numbers, my brother-in-law did not have to and should not have died. That is why I choose to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of Bill C-224. Through this bill, we have a chance to end the stigma of fear, and choose life instead. If the bill will allow people to pick up the phone and take greater action because they will not be afraid of being charged, there is no question it needs to be adopted. Once again, we can give individuals a second chance at living. We can restore hope in humanity that might otherwise have been missed. It is our duty as members of Parliament to facilitate change, and this bill is a perfect place to start. Maybe, just maybe, lives will be saved in the process.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Drug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency servicesJudicial privileges and immunitiesPolice servicesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading4321432432143343214384321446RonMcKinnonCoquitlam—Port CoquitlamWayneStetskiKootenay—Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89281WayneStetskiWayne-StetskiKootenay—ColumbiaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/StetskiWayne_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): (2010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-224, and I want to thank my colleagues for their very impassioned plea for the bill, particularly the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I lived in Port Coquitlam for 10 years, and I am sure the constituents there very much appreciate this bill coming forward.I want to begin by sharing with the House some of the headlines from my riding of Kootenay—Columbia in the recent weeks. These come from Cranbrook Daily Townsman and the Columbia Valley Pioneer, two of the many fine community newspapers we are fortunate to still have in Kootenay—Columbia.On April 7, the Townsman headline was “[East Kootenay] getting eight ‘substance use’ beds from [Interior Health]”. The text reads:These new beds for Interior Health are part of a large provincial initiative to improve care outcomes for individuals living with substance use challenges, said [the province's health minister].The beds will provide a safe and supportive environment for clients [who have complex substance issues]. A few days later, there was another headline, this time from the Columbia Valley Pioneer: “Overdose reversal drug now available in BC without a prescription”. The text from this one is: The goal of reducing the fatal effects of an opioid overdose among the B.C. drug-using community has recently gained momentum. Health Canada revised the Federal Prescription Drug List on March 22nd to make a non-prescription version of naloxone, which is the life-saving antidote commonly being used to reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, more accessible to Canadians.... ...making the medication more accessible to the people without a prescription [will help to save lives]. [This new measure] is separate from [B.C.'s] Take Home Naloxone program...[which] has trained over 6,500 people to recognize and respond to overdoses.... 488 overdoses have been reversed since the program's inception. On April 15, going back to the Cranbrook Daily Townsman, the headline read: “B.C. declares drug overdose emergency”. The B.C. government has declared its first-ever public health emergency to deal with the sharply rising cases of opioid drug overdoses across the province. ...the [emergency] measure will allow for rapid collection of data from health authorities and the B.C. Coroner's Service, so overdose treatment kits can be deployed to regions where there are new clusters of outbreaks.There has been a steady increase in overdoses of drugs containing fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid made in Chinese drug labs and smuggled to Canada. We have to do what's needed to prevent overdoses and deaths, and what is needed is real-time information, [said B.C.'s health minister]. Medical Officers need immediate access to information about what's happening and where so that they can implement effective strategies to prevent these tragedies.We are in a crisis situation when it comes to drug overdoses. We must do everything we can to save those lives. That is where Bill C-224 comes in. Bill C-224 would provide a good Samaritan exemption, ensuring that no evidence obtained as a result of responding to a drug overdose can be used to support possession of substance charges. This exemption would apply to any person at the scene when police or paramedics arrive. The exemption would apply to all schedule I, II and Ill drugs, the common street drugs, but would only cover charges for possession. Production and trafficking charges would not fall under the good Samaritan clause. Let me say that again. The good Samaritan exemption in Bill C-224 would only apply to possession charges. Drug producers and drug traffickers will not be let off the hook. The bill will also not in any way diminish our efforts to fight organized crime or to support communities affected by gang-related violence. Bill C-224 simply removes a barrier to medical help reaching a person who is overdosing in time to save them.Some of the validators for the bill are the Pivot Legal Society and Canadian Drug Policy Coalition executive directors. They say: Fear of prosecution has proven to be a barrier for people to call for help when they are with someone who's having an overdose. Only 46 per cent of respondents to a Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council survey said they would call 911 during an overdose situation. Seconds matter in these cases and saving a life shouldn't be weighed against facing a potential drug possession charge. Granting amnesty to Good Samaritans is a simple answer. The Liberals should move to pass this bill as quickly as possible. (2015)A Facebook user, posting on Overdose Canada in support of this bill, said, “My son Austin would be alive today had those who witnessed his overdose called 911.” An article in The Globe and Mail reported:Amid mounting signs that the illegal form of the painkilling drug is expanding east from Western Canada, where it is linked to a surge in overdose deaths, health-care advocates say federal and provincial government leaders are not doing enough to address the problem.Pivot Legal Society, in an article entitled “A three-point plan for ending overdose deaths”, wrote: Research suggests that between 10 and 56 percent of people witnessing an overdose actually call for assistance.... We need to remove the barriers...The NDP has a proud, progressive record of standing up for sensible drug policies that promote harm reduction and create safer, healthier communities. Supporting this bill is very much in keeping with this tradition.Bill C-224 is about saving lives. More lives could be saved if users and witnesses did not hesitate to seek emergency assistance for overdoses. New Democrats will always stand for smart, progressive, evidence-based policies that promote stronger, healthier, and safer communities. This bill does that, and it deserves the unanimous support of this House.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Drug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency servicesJudicial privileges and immunitiesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSecond reading432146743214684321471ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeKamalKheraBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88705KamalKheraKamal-KheraBrampton WestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KheraKamal_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMs. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (2020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to support my colleague, the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, as we debate his very important bill, Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. Canada is experiencing an unprecedented rise in accidental drug overdose deaths, particularly related to opioids such as fentanyl. As a legal pharmaceutical, fentanyl is usually prescribed for patients already tolerant to high doses of other less powerful opioid drugs, such as morphine or oxycodone. However, it can also be diverted from a legitimate source, stolen from a pharmacy or patient, or manufactured illegally in a lab. This is extremely troubling because illicit fentanyl can be mixed with or disguised as other drugs, such as oxycodone or heroin. This means people who use these drugs are not always aware of their high potency. The unknown potency of street drugs, including fentanyl is being linked to the recent increase in accidental overdose deaths occurring across Canada, particularly in the western provinces, where it is being characterized by some health officials as a public health crisis.The majority of overdose deaths are preventable if early intervention is made. Many overdoses occur in the presence of others, and instant death is rare. The chance of surviving an overdose often depends on how quickly an individual receives medical attention. Provinces, territories, municipalities, and other public health organizations know this and are making efforts to raise awareness about how to detect the symptoms of an overdose and the importance of calling 911 as the first course of action. However, far too often people are afraid to call 911 if they or a friend experience an overdose. A 2014 Ontario survey shows that only half of individuals said they would call 911 and wait at the scene for emergency personnel in the event of an overdose. The remainder would hold back for fear of negative consequences, such as an arrest or criminal charges. No one would think twice about calling 911 for any other medical emergency. This is a clear sign that there are systemic barriers at play here, as well as issues of stigma and fear that need to be addressed. No one should be afraid to reach out for medical help in the case of an overdose. I think all members can agree that the most important thing for emergency personnel and law enforcement to do at the scene of an overdose is to save a life. I recognize that problematic drug use is a complex issue for which there are no easy answers, but we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. Government must take a comprehensive approach that is based on evidence and that balances regulation and law enforcement with support for the health and well-being of Canadians affected by drug use and addiction. Neither the medical community nor the law enforcement community can address this issue on their own. That is why our government is committed to a balanced approach to drug policy. Health Canada has demonstrated this commitment through several recent decisions. First, through support for the Dr. Peter Centre and lnSite, both of which are supervised consumption sites that have proven to have a positive impact on the health and well-being of individuals who use drugs. These centres have trained medical professionals who monitor drug users and can help save their lives in the event of an overdose. They also provide clean needles so that drug users do not contract life-threatening blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, while also connecting them with treatment and other health care services. In some cases, this is their first contact with a medical professional. Second, in March 2016, Health Canada removed naloxone from the federal prescription drug list, clearing the way for this life-saving drug to be purchased without a prescription. Naloxone is a drug that temporarily reverses the effects of an opioid-induced overdose. This change will make the drug more accessible to those most likely to need it, including friends and families of drug users, as well as first responders, such as paramedics or law enforcement personnel. However, improving access to naloxone is only one piece of a comprehensive approach to reducing overdose deaths. (2025)The effects of naloxone eventually wear off and overdose symptoms can reoccur. In fact, repeat doses of naloxone may be needed to save the life of someone who has overdosed on a stronger opioid, like heroin or fentanyl.This underscores the importance of calling 911 for an overdose, even when naloxone is administered. To encourage individuals to call 911 in overdose situations, Bill C-224 would provide immunity from minor possession charges for anyone who experiences or witnesses an overdose and seeks emergency help. This is a harm reduction measure that is typically known as good Samaritan legislation and has been implemented in more than 30 U.S. States. The good Samaritan drug overdose act is consistent with our government's approach to drug policy. It would support efforts by law enforcement to help curb overdose deaths and would recognize the importance of saving lives. Law enforcement personnel are often the first to arrive at the scene of an overdose and in some communities, law enforcement is the only first responder available. This bill sends a clear message to all Canadians that every life matters.Bill C-224 also complements our government's efforts to curb overdose deaths, including through improved access to naloxone. This bill would help to ensure that people who experience or witness an overdose would not be afraid to call 911 for fear of charges for minor drug possession. At the same time, let me assure the House that our government recognizes the extremely important role that law enforcement plays in drug control and we commend the ongoing efforts of our police to protect the safety of Canadians by getting dangerous drugs off the street. We know there are illicitly produced opioids like fentanyl that are being sold in Canada and we know drug trafficking brings gang activity and crime with it. That is why law enforcement efforts are focused on drug trafficking and associated violence. Our government recognizes that problematic substance use is both a health and safety issue and that reducing demand is an important piece of this puzzle. We believe government has an important role to play in helping to protect Canadians from the problems substance use can create. That means preventing and treating addiction, supporting recovery, and reducing the negative health and social impacts of drug use on individuals and their communities.We know that a major predictor of having an overdose is having experienced an overdose in the past. Therefore, rather than arresting those who are suffering from a disease of addiction, an overdose is an important opportunity for first responders to intervene and help direct individuals toward community and social services to obtain treatment for their illness. I fully support Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act. It is an example of a balanced approach to drug control. It aims to address a systemic barrier that is preventing individuals from seeking help for an overdose, while not impeding law enforcement from focusing public safety efforts on the issues that are truly at the crux of Canada's drug problem, which are drug production and trafficking. Once again, I congratulate my colleague for introducing this very important bill.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Drug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency servicesJudicial privileges and immunitiesNaloxonePossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsSafe injection sitesSecond reading432148343214904321492WayneStetskiKootenay—ColumbiaChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGood Samaritan Drug Overdose ActInterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (2025)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, speaking to this bill was very important to me. As we have heard, it will save lives.I also want to thank my colleagues who have already talked about the bill, since many of them shared some very emotional personal experiences. When a loved one dies of cancer, it might be easier to talk about than when a family member dies of a drug overdose. Often we are more embarrassed to talk about that.However, it is important to do so and to point out that this problem affects a lot of people, even people from good families who seem to be fine. This problem really affects everyone.When I was 15, I lost a cousin. He died of a PCP overdose. PCP is commonly used in veterinary medicine, but unfortunately, it caused a lot of devastation around me when I was a teenager. It was a very difficult period in my life. Losing my cousin was very painful.Since I do not know all the details, I cannot say whether such a bill would have saved his life, but I think that in situations like his, it is important that other people are not afraid to call an ambulance.Unfortunately, young people, especially, are afraid they will get arrested or that their parents will find out what happened. They are very scared. Telling those young people that they have nothing to worry about in this type of situation could truly save lives. That is why it is important to pass this bill.Another reason why it is important to pass the bill is that it would help health care professionals in identifying the substances involved. There are far more synthetic drugs on the market than ever and it is extremely complicated. The treatment is not necessarily the same every time. It depends on the drug the person used.Someone on site needs to be able to quickly tell the ambulance attendants and the police what the person in distress consumed. That someone cannot be afraid to reveal that information, first hesitating and then finally after 15 minutes of interrogation saying that the person took something else.The first responders have to be able to tell people that they have nothing to fear, that they will not be charged with anything, that they will be protected, and that they have to quickly say what the person consumed so that treatment can be administered as soon as possible.There are various antidotes on the market for different substances, but those antidotes have to be administered very quickly in order to prevent unfortunate consequences.This bill would also help health care professionals identify the substance, which is another important factor to consider in overdose cases. People must be able to respond quickly and need to know what medical treatment is required.Another factor, which may be more specific to rural areas, is access to ambulance services. We all know that more and more parties are organized in isolated areas or places that are not necessarily accessible.If an ambulance or the police cannot arrive on the scene promptly and there is an additional delay because people do not dare make that call, and then once responders arrive, people are reluctant to say what substances were consumed or what exactly happened, the response time increases tremendously.Ensuring that someone will promptly call to report that an individual has overdosed and needs help and that the substance can be quickly identified will somewhat reduce the challenge faced by ambulance services in rural areas.We cannot control or change the fact that some towns are further away from hospitals and ambulances than others. However, if we can at least reduce the response time, we can save lives.As members know, I am a nurse. I decided to practise primarily in intensive care and emergency. That is really what I enjoy the most. I have seen cases of overdose, which, unfortunately, are often due to a mixture of substances.(2030)It got so that I dreaded Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. For nurses, the night of Saint-Jean-Baptiste is really one of the worst nights to work. Every year, we have to intubate teenagers to save their lives at the last minute. Unfortunately, on big party days like that, teenagers are nervous and scared of getting caught, and they might leave someone who is a bit too drunk alone somewhere.Often, it is someone else at the party who realizes there is a problem and ends up calling the ambulance. The person making the call has no idea what happened. They find an unconscious teenager somewhere, but they have no idea what caused the problem. They do not know if the teen just drank alcohol or consumed a mix of other substances. That makes treatment much more complicated. Having to intubate a 15-year-old without knowing whether it will save his or her life is not an easy thing to do.As parents, we realize that our children could find themselves in this situation one day. We can try to control everything to ensure that our children have a good life and do not have problems. However, we know that one day or another, when they are not in our sights, something like this will happen. The situation is not really obvious.Sometimes, our children have good friends who think about stepping in, but sometimes they are really too scared. Recently, my husband got a call and went to pick up one of his teenage cousins who had abused substances. In that case, it was just alcohol, but the young people were scared. They at least thought to call the young man's mother, but they did not call an ambulance. My husband's aunt did not really know what to do, and so she called my husband and asked him if he could go and help his cousin. That is what he did.In this situation, the young people could have responded in a different way. They could have been scared, chosen to leave him in a room, and waited for him to sleep it off. Unfortunately, that might not have ended well.It is absolutely crucial that we pass this kind of legislation in order to protect young people. Not only must we pass it, but we also need to make sure the public is aware. We need to make sure that the message gets out there to Canadians, so that people know that they no longer need to worry about being charged in the event of an overdose. That is very important. Even if we pass this bill, if people still think they can be arrested and get into trouble, we will be no further ahead. What will need to happen, and it is up to us to do it, is to send a very clear message to all Canadians to make sure they know that they no longer need to be afraid to call an ambulance. It may seem pretty obvious, but not all young people follow what is happening on the federal political scene very closely, and they are unfortunately often disconnected from politics. Our greatest challenge will be to ensure that all young people have this information.This is how we will save lives. We will save them not only by passing legislation, but also by ensuring that people are aware of our laws. I hope that what I am doing today will have a positive impact on the lives of young people, as well as on the nursing profession, and that we will be able to save lives, especially at parties, where the circumstances can be more difficult.C-224, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance — drug overdose)Drug use and abuseDuty to provide assistanceEmergency servicesJudicial privileges and immunitiesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsRural communitiesSecond reading4321506432150743215204321521KamalKheraBrampton WestBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsJusticeInterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, on February 25, the member for Scarborough Southwest and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice answered a question of mine in which I pointed out what I thought was confusion that Canadians were experiencing about the status of the government's policy on marijuana reform. I want to point out his answer to my question. He said:...we want to remind all Canadians that until that important work is completed, the only control that is in place is the current criminal sanction for the production and trafficking of marijuana, and those laws remain in effect. Of course, the member is an expert on this topic, so we know it was a slip of his tongue when he forgot that the word “possession” should have been included among the remaining criminal sanctions for marijuana. I acknowledge that. However, it is time for the government to stop denying that there is indeed confusion among Canadians about the current legal status of marijuana and about the government's intentions. The parliamentary secretary and I sit together on the justice committee. In that committee, we have also learned that the government may spend up to $4 million this year alone prosecuting simple possession cases. Who knows how much more the provinces are spending, who of course are responsible for the administration of justice and pay crown council, have court rooms available with judges, and the like? How much are they spending for prosecuting possession of marijuana?It needs to be said that the Liberals are spending this money despite the government's promise to legalize marijuana and despite what we hear is a growing concern from judges regarding the continued prosecutions for marijuana. Indeed, we have obtained from the director of public prosecutions the recent case of Regina v. Racine from the Ontario Court of Justice, in which the hon. Justice Selkirk refused to accept a guilty plea for possession of marijuana. This is the court transcript of what Mr. Justice Selkirk's remarks were in December 2015. I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana....You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous. That is not me speaking. That is a justice from the Ontario Court of Justice. By all means, the government must take the time to craft a responsible framework for legalization, but do not ask ordinary Canadians to keep paying the price.My question is a simple one. Why does the government refuse to take the common-sense step of immediately decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana?Adjournment ProceedingsConstitutionalityCourt ordersDecriminalizationHerbal medicineLegislationMarijuanaPossession of a controlled substance427033442703354270336427033742703384270339427034042703414270342GregFergusHull—AylmerBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made campaign promises about marijuana reform, but now courts are buzzing with confusion and the Liberals are doing nothing to clear the air. They are spending over $4 million a year prosecuting people for simple possession. There were 22,000 people in 2014 alone, and hours of court time wasted on something that should not even be a criminal offence. When will the Liberal government fulfill its promise to make simple possession of marijuana legal?DecriminalizationMarijuanaOral questionsPossession of a controlled substance42410154241016SeanCaseyCharlottetownBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and the opportunity to clarify.Yesterday, the director of public prosecutions indicated that of the 1,136 judges in Canada, one had expressed confusion and concern about the law.This matter has been very clear, and this government has been very clear. We are resolved to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana, and that work has begun. In the interim, the law of this land is still in effect. Therefore, I would remind the member and all Canadians that the rule of law remains in effect. The law should be obeyed. The law should be upheld.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOral questionsPossession of a controlled substance4241017424101842410194241020SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/23915GuyCaronGuy-CaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaronGuy_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): (1135)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the government has been improvising on the marijuana file from the beginning, and no one knows which way is up anymore.The police and now judges are wondering why charges are still being laid for the personal possession of marijuana if the government intends to legalize it. The government needs to stop saying one thing and doing another. Unfortunately, the answers the parliamentary secretary has been giving are just adding to the confusion. What are the Liberals waiting for? Why do they not act and decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana? DecriminalizationMarijuanaOral questionsPossession of a controlled substance424102142410224241023BillBlairScarborough SouthwestBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodJusticeInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government has been very clear that we are going to replace the criminal sanction with an effective and strong regulatory framework that will achieve our purposes of protecting our kids, making our communities safer, and taking the profits of this crime away from criminals. Decriminalization has been described by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health as a half measure. It does nothing to protect our kids and nothing to make our communities safer. The experience of other jurisdictions has made it very clear. The implementation of half measures undermine and make ineffective our efforts to introduce stronger effective regulations. Therefore, we will do this job right, and take the time to do it right.DecriminalizationMarijuanaOral questionsPossession of a controlled substance42410244241025GuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE