Follow this forum: Subscribe above to receive an email when anyone responds or add the RSS Feed below into your own newsfeed reader.
This is from the NDP website:
At the end of June, the House of Commons passed an important justice reform bill in C-5. The Bill removes a number of outdated mandatory minimums for drug convictions, a big step that will allow judges to use their own discretion for how to sentence people for minor possession charges.An important part of Bill C-5 actually came from an amendment from New Democrats. The amendment involves the sequestration of existing criminal records associated with simple possession charges. What this would mean is that for people who have had previous charges for minor drug possession offenses, particularly for marijuana prior to legalization, their records would be sealed two-years following their conviction. The bill is currently being debated at committee in the Senate and is anticipated to be passed in the very near future.
Why is this important? Too many people, particularly from marginalized communities, have criminal records for minor possession that prevent them from leading normal lives that many of us take for granted. For those with marijuana possession charges from prior to legalization, they still face significant barriers due to convictions: from finding jobs; accessing housing; volunteering; or travelling.
Sequestration is not the same as expungement. Sequestration means sealing a person’s record so that it’s no longer accessible. Expungement means that the record is eliminated. So why would it be important to include sequestration for minor possession charges? The process for sequestration would become automatic, whereas an individual has to apply for an expungement, a complicated legal procedure that takes a significant amount of time and effort.
For example, following the legalization of marijuana, the Parole Board of Canada opened the door for those who had previous convictions for marijuana possession to apply for a record suspension. The government had initially anticipated approximately 10,000 people would apply for a suspension, but to date, in the three years the program has been available, only 972 applications for cannabis record suspensions have been received, and only 628 of those have had their record suspended, according to a recent report from CBC News. Sequestration would occur automatically after two years, ensuring that people convicted of simple possession would no longer face barriers.
Having a record sealed is clearly not the same as having it expunged, but it gives people the opportunity to get their lives back. Following the recent announcement from U.S. President Joe Biden that he would be providing a blanket pardon to those convicted of federal marijuana possession charges, it may feel that we are moving very slowly to correct this injustice while the U.S. charges ahead, even while marijuana possession is still currently illegal in most states throughout the U.S.
The issue in Canada is that there is a patchwork of rules that can make it difficult for people to get access to documents they need to receive an expungement. A recent CBC News story spoke about Chris O'Neill of Stittsville, now 51, who recently lost a job because of a marijuana conviction at the age of 18. The documents regarding his arrest were destroyed because they were over 30 years old, and the police department that arrested him no longer existed, making it impossible to access the documents that would have allowed him to expunge his record. Sequestration would at least shield cannabis convictions from criminal record checks and would prevent situations faced by people like Mr. O'Neill.It’s not a perfect solution, but let’s not make perfect the enemy of the good. There will be time to ensure that those with criminal convictions for minor marijuana possession issued prior to legalization can have their records expunged, as they deserve. But for right now, we must ensure that those people can get on with their lives and eliminate the barriers they face because of something they did that is no longer illegal.
And although I have used the information above because its easy to understand, it contains a bunch of inaccuracies. Mostly the terms. But remember, its written by a political party employee, not a legal expert.
An example is giving the impression this occurs with no action by the person. The RCMP does not scour CPIC for records to remove. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how CPIC and the RCMP work. Its like me assuming the NDP KNOWS I want to vote for them because I "like" NDP posts on Facebook, then act surprised when they don't pick me up to cast a ballot.
Couple of things.
1. I looked into this because I had been noticing these records were disappearing. So I realized something had changed.
2. You have to be fingerprinted for the RCMP to NOTICE the record needs to be removed. Pardon prints are the best way.
3. If you do not get fingerprinted, the record sits there and the United States can SEE IT. And then it doesn't matter if they catch you, you need a waiver
4. The US requires waivers if they know you USED to have a record.
5. If you have never been denied entry, this means you simply get pardon prints done. When they come back, they will show NO RECORD. You should then answer "no" if you are asked at the border "ever been arrested?" If you answer YES...you are going to be denied 100%.
YOU TYPE: | YOU SEE: |
---|---|
_italic_ | italic |
*bold* | bold |
"This is quoted text." | This is quoted text. |
::This is a title | This is a title |
:::This is a smaller title | This is a smaller title |
--- | |
% inline code text % | inline code text |
+Bulleted unordered list item+ +Bulleted unordered list item+ |
|
#Bulleted ordered list item# #Bulleted ordered list item# |
|
YES: http://www.google.com NO: www.google.com YES: email@email.com |
http://www.google.com www.google.com email@email.com |