Skip to content

Editorial: Wipe out old records for pot possession

Now that it is legal to possess marijuana for personal consumption, a question arises.

Now that it is legal to possess marijuana for personal consumption, a question arises. What about people who were previously convicted for what is now a lawful activity?

About 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession — defined as having less than 30 grams. That’s no small matter. Entry into the U.S., for example, is often denied if the traveller has a criminal record.

True, individuals convicted of simple possession can petition the National Parole Board to suspend their criminal record — usually referred to as a pardon — though there is a $631 fee and a five-year waiting period.

But even then, if they are asked, by an employer perhaps, or at the border: “Have you ever had a criminal record?” they are obliged to answer yes. A suspension, in other words, doesn’t remove the stain of having once had a criminal record.

The federal government has announced it will go some way to remedying the situation.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says both the five-year waiting period, and the $631 fee are being eliminated.

But the government is refusing to budge on the matter of record suspension. That leaves a significant barrier in place for people who have been convicted in the past of simple possession.

Murray Rankin, MP for Victoria, is proposing to deal with that. Rankin has tabled a private member’s bill in the House of Commons that would expunge entirely criminal records for anyone convicted of simple possession. Individuals would still have to apply to the parole board, and fill out a sworn declaration as to the facts of their conviction, though the fee and wait time would be removed.

But if the expungement is granted, the person involved is deemed never to have been charged or found guilty of the offence in question. Unlike a suspension, that removes the permanent stain.

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has gone further, calling for an immediate deletion of all criminal records for simple possession, without the need for an application to the parole board.

That might be a step too far. Federal officials noted that it would be too costly and time-consuming to issue a blanket amnesty. Much of the paperwork required for that is held in courthouses across the country, and the logistical problems would be formidable.

Fair enough. But why is the government refusing to follow Rankin’s lead?

One possibility is that expunging any record of a conviction, as Rankin proposes, throws in doubt a longstanding legal principle.

It is one thing to decide a law is wrong today, and either amend or annul it. That has been done here.

It is another thing to say the law was always wrong, and retroactively remove all record of convictions. Might that not invite defiance of the law, or at least a lessening of respect?

There are many pieces of legislation that some Canadians find offensive. There are groups that oppose paying income tax on the grounds that the money raised supports activities they disapprove of. Some adults who have no children object to paying school taxes.

If statutes can be declared, at some future point, not just wrong in the present, but wrong in the past, does this perhaps send a message that our legal system is not as firmly based as we might wish it to be?

Perhaps. But while there may be some virtue in that stance, the concern seems arcane.

On balance, we agree with Rankin that prior criminal records for simple possession of marijuana should be expunged entirely. If the government is prepared to go part way in erasing these records, there is no obvious justification for stopping short of full expungement.