@HollyGolightly
First of all, GREAT questions. These are 2 topics I have talked about in the past, but its time to put it back out there so more can see it.
1. Discharges. An absolute or conditional discharge means you PLEAD GUILTY. Its IS a conviction.
-The criminal records act was amended on July 24 1992. These "convictions" do not need a pardon, you simply wait 1 year for an absolute, and 3 years for a conditional, and then get a set of fingerprints done. That is it.
-The RCMP do not "look for things to remove" that is why you need fingerprints to "bring it to their attention".
Do you need a waiver? Yes. (you plead guilty to SOMETHING)
How would you avoid doing a waiver?
-If you have never been denied entry
-if you do not have a gun prohibition
-if you get fingerprinted and the discharge HAS BEEN REMOVED
Then there would be NO SIGN you ever had a record. No need to admit it. The US cannot see it.
Pardons/Record Suspensions
If you have a single conviction that predates March 2012 you can get a pardon 3 or 5 years after your sentence
If you do not have a conviction BEFORE 2012 then you get a Record Suspension, 5 or 10 years AFTER your sentence.
-If you get a Pardon/Record suspension BEFORE you are denied entry, then your record is gone (sealed) The US would have no way to KNOW you have a record, unless you admit it.
**Exceptions**
-If you admit you have been arrested
-If you admit you had a record or HAVE a record or pardon
-If you have a gun prohibition, or have HAD an EXPIRED gun prohibition, they can SEE the prohibition. Then they KNOW you had SOMETHING.
Also, if you get a pardon and try and get a "green card", they FORCE you to do fingerprints under the "Privacy Act" so they see it anyways.
Remember, the US has access to CPIC, and they also have their OWN immigration database.
If you are wondering which administrations try to hurt Canadian Citizens, ask yourself this:
Which Prime Minister gave the US access to the part of CPIC that shows gun prohibitions, who also tried to ELIMINATE pardons, (was stopped) so then jacked up the price x4 and made them HARDER TO GET, then renamed them so on the campaign trail, he could pretend he "eliminated pardons"?
Stephen Harper. What did Canada get in return? Nothing. He was HAPPY to RAT OUT Canadians to the United States. Pierre Poilievre was IN HIS CANBINET when he did this. He also REFUSED to legalize marijuana, because Julian Fantino, another cabinet member, (former Toronto Police Chief) told him "it would lead to more crime". This despite statistics showing the opposite.
For all the criticism he gets, Justin Trudeau did the following:
-lowered the cost of the pardon back down to $50
-legalized marijuana
-in 2022 "quietly" passed "Sequestration" which meant the RCMP could AUTOMATICALLY remove "Possession" convictions. This meant if you had been convicted of that, even multiple times, (not trafficking) you would NOT need a pardon.
Remember, we KNOW how to lower crime, and crime rates. REDUCE POVERTY. Countries that take money from the ultra rich and INVEST them in communities to reduce poverty, reduce crime, reduce the cost of police, reduce the need for jails, and reduce TAXES.
But remember how Stephen Harper got elected. "tough on crime". He even introduced mandatory sentences which were struck down by the courts. He did everything he could do to PUNISH people more severely, increase police budgets, and keep- people in jail longer. He also cut taxes to the ultra rich.
Why would a politician do this? Because fairy tales like "tough on crime" get you ELECTED. If I told you the truth, that the way to lower taxes is to actually treat the "causes" of crime, to TREAT drug addicts, not punish them, NO ONE WOULD VOTE FOR YOU.
Don't worry, crime is NOT way up in 2026. Only people who have "means" get bail. Poor people DO NOT get bail. But politicians know the electorate is dumb, bitter and vindictive. Also a bit racist. "Tough on crime" is a dog whistle to white voters. More police and harsher sentences NEVER lead to less crime, just higher taxes. Statistics prove it. But compassion to a 50 something year old voter feels "unfair". They like "harsher justice"......unless its them.
