Bill C-93 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 1, 2019
- Debated in principleMay 6, 2019
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 6, 2019
- Passed the second chamberJune 19, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 1 March 2019, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-93 amends the Criminal Records Act to, among other things, allow persons who have been convicted under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act only of simple possession of cannabis offences committed before October 17, 2018 to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the period required by the Criminal Records Act for other offences or to the fee that is otherwise payable in applying for a suspension.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
57% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,543 words introduced, 2,114 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill added detailed rules for applicants with both cannabis and other offences, including waiting periods, onus of proof, and limits on inquiries. It also expanded provisions on record disclosure for unpaid fines tied to cannabis offences.
- Added rules for mixed offences applications.
After: “Other offences including at least one offence referred to in Schedule 3 (3.11) A person who has been convicted of an offence referred to in Schedule 3 and other offences may only apply for a record suspension after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (1), without taking into account any offence referred to in Schedule 3.”
- New onus provision for mixed cases.
After: “Onus — person referred to in subsection (3.11) (4.12) For the purpose of subsection (3.11), a person referred to in that subsection has the onus of satisfying the Board that the person has been convicted of an offence referred to in Schedule 3.”
- Restrictions on inquiries for cannabis applications.
After: “Restrictions on inquiries (1.2) The inquiries referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an application referred to in subsection 4(3.1) and, with respect to all other applications for a record suspension, are not to take into account any offence referred to in Schedule 3.”
- Limited disclosure for non-payment of fines.
After: “Limited disclosure (2.1) The prior approval of the Minister referred to in subsection (2) is not necessary for the purposes of sections 734.5 and 734.6 of the Criminal Code or section 145.1 of the National Defence Act for non-payment of a fine or victim surcharge that is imposed for an offence referred to in Schedule 3.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact statutory cross-references, a closed Schedule 3 list, fixed dates, and mandatory language for eligible applicants. A few judgment calls remain on record sufficiency and Board inquiries.
Open to argument
“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”
Leaves the Board to decide what counts as sufficient evidence.“the Board may not require a person who makes the application to provide a certified copy of information contained in court records”
Uses a conditional prohibition rather than an absolute rule.
Clear-cut
“A person who has been convicted only of an offence referred to in Schedule 3 may apply for a record suspension in respect of that offence before the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (1).”
Creates a clear exception with no waiting period or fee.“the Board shall order that the applicant’s record in respect of that offence be suspended if the applicant has been convicted only of an offence referred to in that subsection and has not been convicted of a new offence under an Act of Parliament, other than an offence referred to in that subsection.”
Uses mandatory 'shall' tied to objective conviction history.
Discretion. Governor in Council may amend Schedule 3 by order; Board employees handle applications and decide record sufficiency; limited residual discretion on inquiries for mixed-offence cases.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions confer benefits through narrow, objective criteria and do not restrict Charter rights, making vagueness or overbreadth claims difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. Eligibility turns on verifiable conviction records and payment status rather than subjective standards, so disputes are limited to factual accuracy.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.