A member of the association that advocates for black attorneys says the government’s expedited pot pardons bill is nothing more than a “token gesture.”

Gordon Cudjoe, vice-president of the Canadian Association for Black Lawyers, told MPs Monday that offering faster and free pardons for Canadians previously arrested for simple possession of cannabis won’t make it easier for them to find work because potential employers tend to ask if someone has ever pled or been found guilty of a crime, not if they have a criminal record.

“If you say you have pled guilty to a criminal (offence) you don’t even get your foot into the door for an interview,” he told members of the public safety and national security committee.

“Which is why I say the suspension of a record for many young men trying to get into the workforce is actually a token gesture because employers are not asking whether you have a criminal record.”

If passed, Bill C-93 would offer expedited, no-cost record suspensions for Canadians convicted of simple possession of cannabis (under 30 grams). Record suspensions, which are often referred to as pardons, typically come with a $631 application fee and are awarded after a five-year waiting period following a conviction.

The committee’s study of pot pardons began as C-93 underwent second reading debate in the House of Commons. The bill was passed and sent to the committee stage Monday evening, with 240 MPs voting in favour and only 28 opposed.

The NDP has been calling for complete record expungement for all Canadians convicted of simple cannabis possession. Unlike expungement, pardons do not completely eliminate a conviction from someone’s criminal record. And if someone is convicted of a crime after being pardoned, the pardon is nullified.

Some advocates and legal experts also warned that pardons aren’t an adequate solution to erase all the consequences of possession convictions because Canadians who have their records suspended can still be barred entry to the U.S. and other countries for a past cannabis conviction.

If the government isn’t willing to offer record expungements for simple pot possession convictions, Cudjoe said they should instead make the crimes regulatory offences, less severe offences that fall under the purview of the provinces, like those under the Highway Traffic Act in Ontario.

He said the problem is worse for youth offenders, whose records are sealed and reported to potential employers as an anonymous offence. This means simple pot possession is not displayed as different from any other sort of crime.

Cudjoe and another presenter before the committee — Elana Finestone, legal counsel with Native Women’s Association of Canada — were aligned in calling for expungements for all simple pot possessions, rather than pardons.

The Liberals have been unwilling to consider expungements, arguing the process for them is far more complex and unwieldy, and expungements are reserved for crimes later deemed unconstitutional.

Considering the Liberals’ views on expungement, Finestone proposed three amendments to the committee that she said would strengthen C-93.

She asked that MPs amend the bill to allow individuals to seek pardons for administration of justice offences (like failing to attend court and failure to comply with a probation order) related to their cannabis possession conviction and to extend the opportunity to receive an expedited pardon to those who have not yet completed their sentence for their cannabis possession conviction and any related justice administration offences.

Finestone also suggested that the government include in its bill a preamble that Indigenous, racialized and marginalized people were disproportionately harmed in the criminal justice system before the government legalized cannabis.

The Liberals have said that the disproportionate effect on minority groups prompted them to offer expedited pardons.

Follow @CharliePinkerto