Bill C-23B (Historical)

Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It extends the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension. It also makes certain offences ineligible for a record suspension and enables the National Parole Board to consider additional factors when deciding whether to order a record suspension.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I know there have been some previous discussions, and we haven't had confirmation of what Mr. Holland was saying. Our side had asked that we push our motion ahead about dealing with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-23B.

Public Safety

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, a criminal's right should not come first in our criminal justice system. As I said at the public safety committee, we need to draw the line somewhere. Our proposals are tough but reasonable and would make repeat offenders more accountable to victims for their crimes.

We call upon the opposition to support Bill C-23B, a bill that would deny child sex offenders the right to ever receive a pardon.

Oral Questions

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in question period, the Minister of Public Safety shamefully mischaracterized my position yesterday in the public safety committee and the position of the New Democrats.

Yesterday, in the public safety committee, I stood up for the rights of victims across this country, especially the victims of sexual abuse. I specifically said in the public safety committee that victims of sexual abuse in this country have the right to be heard, they have the right to be informed, they have the right to be listened to, they have the right to matter and they have the right to have input into the pardon process.

I pointed out to Mr. Sheldon Kennedy, who agreed with me, that government Bill C-23B would do nothing to inform victims that their offenders are obtaining pardons and would do nothing to provide them input into the pardon process. All I did yesterday was stand up for the rights of victims.

Today in question period, the minister stood and suggested that somehow the New Democrats got it wrong by standing up for the rights of victims. I would ask that the minister stand and withdraw his comment and do the honourable thing and apologize for misrepresenting my position and the position of the New Democratic Party when we stood up yesterday for victims of sexual offences.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to come back to you, Mr. Myette. Mr. Bérard, you could also enlighten us on this subject. It must be understood that Bill C-23 has been divided in two. In Bill C-23A, the provision that also concerns pedophiles has been discussed and adopted. In the case of Bill C-23B, that indirectly and non-exclusively concerns pedophiles; it also concerns a range of offences.

Let's take Schedule 1, for example. It states that all persons convicted of Schedule 1 offences are no longer entitled to a record suspension. That concerns arson, assault, aggravated assault, mischief and so on. There are all kinds of offences.

So if we wanted to amend this bill in accordance with Mr. Kennedy's remarks so as to target only child sex offenders, we would have to state specifically that child sex offenders are not entitled to a record suspension, period.

As it takes three offences, this could be a person who has previously been caught shoplifting and who is subsequently caught selling drugs once or twice. Then it would be over for that person, even if he or she wanted to rehabilitate.

[François Bérard, Policy Committee Representative, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This afternoon, I am representing the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, which represents some 60 Quebec community-based organizations that work, in particular, in the social reintegration of adult offenders. Our members work mainly with an adult clientele and serve approximately 35,000 clients every year.

At the outset, I must tell you that ASRS is opposed to Bill C-23 in its entirety, both Bill C-23A and Bill C-23B. We cannot endorse the approach taken by the first government in over 100 years in their apparently resolute opposition to pardoning offenders.

According to figures published by the Parole Board of Canada, 3.8 million Canadians had a criminal record in 2009-2010. However, it is estimated that fewer than 11% of people who have been convicted have obtained a pardon. Pardon is thus something that applies to a minority of individuals.

The figures also show that the Parole Board of Canada received 32,105 pardon applications in 2009-2010. It agreed to consider 24,000 of that number, 77% of applications received. In the same year, the board considered 24,559 applications, granted 16,247 pardons and issued 7,887 pardons. There were therefore 24,134 favourable decisions by the board. In other words, 98% of all decisions made by the board were in favour of pardon.

In addition, for individuals who have received a pardon since 1970, 97% have not since been revoked or cancelled by the board. Over the last 10 years, out of 9,171 pardons granted in sexual offence cases, 268 have been revoked for various reasons, not necessarily for subsequent offences of the same type. Here we're talking about 2.9% of all pardons granted in sex offence cases. We wonder what the problem is and why, despite such a high success rate for pardons in particular, we are now being presented with a bill under which we would have to go back and adopt an orientation different from the one that has been followed for very many years.

The government advances two arguments to justify its bill. First, it argues that it is not the job of governments to forgive; that that is for the victims to do. We would note that, in the realm of criminal law, our society has given the government responsibility for dealing with crimes. The idea is to assign the matter to a more neutral entity than victims and offenders. Following the same logic, we could go back to a system under which victims and offenders resolve their case between themselves. In the Middle Ages, Western societies chose to allow government, as a more neutral entity, to resolve conflicts between victims and offenders when a criminal act had been committed. To our mind, saying that it is for victims to pardon is mere sophistry.

The second argument advanced is that we have to put victims first. This argument suggests that there is a conflict between the rights of victims and those of offenders. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Reducing the rights of one will not enhance the rights of the other. We also believe that nothing in this bill meets the actual needs of victims. Pardoning is one of the most common unofficial practices in society. In certain situations, people say "Pardon me," "I'm sorry," and so on. That is simply part of living together.

Forgiveness may become much more formal in situations that are considered to be more problematic. That was the case, for example, in 2008, when Prime Minister Harper offered the most sincere official apology by Canadian society to the First Nations concerning the Indian residential schools. It is also in that more formal context that pardons for crimes committed must be understood.

The question of pardons fundamentally offers us a choice: do we opt for revenge or do we choose the path of reconciliation. Unfortunately, the language used by the government fuels the conflict between victim and offender. That is why we cannot support the approaches proposed in this bill. Instead, we urge parliamentarians to find other avenues for reforming the pardon system so that it will be better able to restore the social bonds that are broken when an offence is committed.

Thank you very much.

[Sheldon Kennedy, Co-Founder, Respect Group Inc.]

I'm a bit of a rookie here. I'm Sheldon Kennedy, co-founder of Respect Group Inc.

I'm standing in front of you today not as a victim looking for justice but as a person who understands the commitment needed on a daily basis to continually stay willing to change. My flag was raised when I learned that immediately after release from prison, Graham James, my abuser, was in another country running the whole hockey program, coming in contact with kids from six years old to young men on their national team. That was before he ever received a pardon. That calls for change.

He was banned from hockey all over the world by the International Ice Hockey Federation, but as perpetrators do best, he sought out the unaware and manipulated his way into the organization. There he was again in a position of power over youth. He was back in the same situation he is in jail for today, 12 years later.

I think it is clear, as demonstrated by the outrage that Canadians felt when the pardon issue was raised, that the vast majority of people in this country want to know, and have a right to know, their neighbour, their child's teacher, their child's coach, etc. I'm here today as a concerned parent, neighbour, youth advocate, co-worker, and most of all, the voice of all citizens who share these same feelings.

When I finally filed a report of sexual abuse against my junior coach in 1997, as an adult and a professional hockey player, there were people in the media, hockey, and the town where it happened who didn't believe me. On top of having to battle with the fear and shame that abuse brings, I had to deal with disbelievers. Children who are victimized spend a lifetime trying to explain what happened to them and working to restore their emotional well-being. Meanwhile, perpetrators get pardoned.

Victims often struggle with emotional issues, alcohol, drug dependency, and suicide. They have to seek out their own forms of rehabilitation. Perpetrators typically get forced treatment and many get rehabilitated, on paper. However, research shows that pedophiles can rarely be rehabilitated. Interesting. So how can they be pardoned?

My abuser got three and a half years for his crimes and was released after only 18 months. Then he got a rubber-stamp pardon and took off to Mexico, where he had a clean record, a name change, and a chance to start offending yet again. Is there a parent in this country who would have an issue with protecting their children from this animal and others like him? He and other perpetrators should never be allowed to get a pardon, period.

In the 13 years that I've worked on these issues, I've learned that child victims of sexual abuse are scarred for life. They are not rehabilitated in 18 months. Police, social services, and victim-assistance organizations view it every day. They have to work with these victims and they see first-hand the horrific short-term and long-term effects and outcomes. I don't know a single professional who works with these victims who can see any logic or rationale in pardoning child sex offenders, and I admire those professionals deeply.

On the term “pardoning”, well, that bothers me too. It implies that perpetrators of these horrific crimes have been forgiven. The laws that govern Canada don't have the power to forgive. To me, that's up to the victims and their families. “Record suspension” seems a more reasonable term to me. Of course, no convicted child sex offender should ever be afforded a record suspension, but for the other crimes considered in the study of this bill, the term “record suspension” seems to fit.

To me, the fundamental reason we don't want pardons for child sex offenders is simple: we can't let these perpetrators walk freely among our youth organizations, our schools, our neighbourhoods, and our workplaces. These individuals need to be clearly identified so the risk can be managed and our society can be better protected from future crimes against our children. In my mind, child protection is paramount.

On behalf of all concerned adults and our most vulnerable and trusting commodity, Canadian youth, I fully support Bill C-23B, which eliminates the possibility of those convicted of sexual activity with a minor of any possibility of ever getting a pardon or record suspension.

Thank you.

Public Safety

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Ajax—Pickering stood in the House on a point order, saying questions should have, in his words, a “modicum of truth”.

Here is the real question. The member says that he wants the truth. However, can he handle the truth? At Monday's public safety committee meeting, the Liberal public safety critic gave credence to pleas from convicted criminals who wanted to keep Canada's pardon system as is. He said, “Aren't we in fact endangering public safety by saying to those people there is no light at the end of the tunnel?” We disagree. When will the member start showing as much compassion for the victims of crime as he does for the perpetrators?

I am proud to say that the Conservative Party has always been on the side of victims. We call on the opposition to finally listen to victims and to support Bill C-23B, a bill that would deny child sex offenders the right to ever receive a pardon.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that is the point. I think that every party, every member who's elected, is interested in public safety. I don't think any member is for crime or against keeping people safe, although if you listen to some of the rhetoric you might come to a different conclusion. I think the truth is everybody here wants that. The question is, what's the best approach to get it? That's where we have differences.

On this, we have to look at what's in front of us today, and it's the reason I made the point of order earlier. Bill C-23A is done, it's passed, so the Karla Homolka and the Graham James situation is the situation we've dealt with under that.

The situation we're now dealing with, under Bill C-23B, deals a lot, frankly, with the gentlemen who are with us here today. And what I heard from the opposite side a number of times was to say, “Well, we don't want to see someone like you or you or you not have the chance to be able to go out and get those opportunities”. I heard a number of people say, “Well, we're not thinking of you when we think of that”. And if I'm wrong, if I heard that incorrectly, please correct me, but that's what I heard.

The problem is that that's what this legislation does, as it's currently crafted. Every single one of the gentlemen in front of us today would be ineligible for a pardon, or call it a record suspension, whatever name you give it, if this legislation were to pass. I think that should give us pause, because when you actually look at real lives and real circumstances, it has a different meaning.

On that, talking about rehabilitation, if we're honestly interested in keeping people safe and reducing victimization, not having victims, then we need to have rehabilitation. Mr. Rota talked about the 96%. He talked about what impact it would have. But specifically, I think you gentlemen are in a unique position to talk about how important a motivating factor that light at the end of the tunnel is for something like a pardon.

As you've taken the journey—and many of you are now many, many years incident-free, without any relapse of any kind—can you talk about how important that light at the end of the tunnel is to you, as a motivating factor in your rehabilitation?

Perhaps I could start with Mr. Muhammed, because I didn't get an opportunity to hear from him last time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I wanted to add, before you do, that I'll give you that time. Remember, when we are meeting in a meeting like this, it's not specific to Bill C-23B; it's also dealing with the Criminal Records Act, private member's motion M-514 of Madam Cadman, so there are larger parameters here than only Bill C-23B.

Continue, Mr. Lobb.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've let it go a number of times, but we keep talking about a bill that's already been passed, Bill C-23A. Currently before us today is Bill C-23B, so I wonder if we can maybe restrict our questions to the matter before us.

When there are a couple of instances, that's fine, but we seem to be having a protracted conversation about a piece of legislation that's already passed.

[John Hutton]

I'm going to speak very narrowly. Because I was asked to come and speak to Bill C-23B, I should keep my comments focused on that.

As I've said, I don't see a lot in this bill that would help victims groups.

I do want to say that the John Howard Society also works with victims. Some of our programming is restorative in nature. Victims are very much involved in some of the work that we do with offenders to try to help them repair some of the harm that's been done. So I'm certainly sympathetic.

I will just say, broadly perhaps, that it would be good if the victim's voice could be heard more broadly in the justice and correctional system. I'd say that would be a good thing.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You're here, sir, with all due respect, to provide your opinions regarding Bill C-23B and with respect to the pardon system generally. So I'm asking you for your thoughts on Bill C-23A.

[Kenton Eidse, Employment Consultant and Facilitator, Community Office, Opportunities for Employment]

Good afternoon, honourable members of Parliament and this committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

My name is Kenton Eidse, and I'm an employment consultant with Opportunities for Employment, which is located in Winnipeg's west end. I work primarily with young men and women who have criminal records, assisting them with preparation for employment and their job searches.

Opportunities for Employment is concerned with being a presence that promotes strength, growth, and safety in our neighbourhoods by assisting community members with finding and keeping meaningful employment. We hope today to contribute to a complete picture of how the proposed Bill C-23B legislation will affect our communities.

With our community in my mind, Opportunities for Employment wishes this committee to consider that unnecessary barriers to honest employment placed before job seekers with criminal records will increase the risk to public safety. Numerous proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act constitute significant barriers to reintegration by denying offenders the opportunity to prove themselves, earn a pardon, and reach their full potential as productive members of society.

Job seekers with criminal records envision an earned pardon as a twofold benefit: one, a strong incentive to lead drug-free, crime-free, and productive lives in the community; and two, a means to achieving success in the long term, as a pardon removes an increasingly common barrier to employment, housing, volunteering, and educational opportunities.

Specifically, the proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act that would significantly reduce the incentive and increase the barriers to long-term success are doubling the waiting period for those wanting to apply for a pardon, prohibiting those who have committed specific offences from ever having the chance to earn their pardon, and prohibiting those who have been convicted of more than three offences from ever having the chance to earn a pardon.

Half of the participants who come through our employment agency's doors have a criminal record. These job seekers, who are taking positive action and staying out of trouble while waiting for their pardon eligibility, face a vastly diminished job pool because of their criminal record. No longer are criminal record checks confined to banking, health care, teaching, security, and government sectors. An increasing number of employers in the skilled trades, warehousing, building maintenance, landscaping, and manufacturing industries are also requiring a clear criminal record.

By asking on their application form, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime for which you have not received a pardon?”, these companies recognize that potential employees with criminal records can rehabilitate. They will hire ex-offenders if they have proven good conduct and evidence of rehabilitation--in other words, if they have achieved a pardon. Based on the current pardon system's 96% success rate, employers can be, and they are, confident that a pardon signifies reform. They are willing to hire based on skill and experience, not on past mistakes.

A 2007 report of the Correctional Services of Canada review panel, A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, observed that

Informed and engaged citizens and communities are integral to safe offender reintegration. CSC depends on the communities it serves to accept and support offenders. The Panel believes that this is critical to public safety.

If this proposed legislation takes away the opportunity for offenders to prove themselves, to turn a new leaf, to shed the stigma of their past, it will further separate offenders from the needed acceptance and support of their communities. In my experience as an employment counsellor, this separation will increase the likelihood that an offender will come up against too many walls in his or her efforts to change and return to old destructive patterns of survival, which may lead to further crimes.

We see so many people working hard every day to change their lives, to rebound from their mistakes. We are doing everything we can to assist them, with the knowledge that by doing so we are helping build safer, productive communities. We sincerely hope this legislation will continue to help and not hinder this vital endeavour.

Our recommendation to the members of this committee is to consider carefully the success that our current pardon system enjoys; the role of employment, housing, volunteering, and education in reintegration and the importance of an earned pardon in achieving these goals; and the necessary foundation of our correctional system, that offenders can be rehabilitated under the right supportive conditions.

I would like to turn it over to a participant of ours, Taz Muhammed. In my opinion, he exemplifies amazing potential in his particular career hopes, which could definitively be lost if he is not given the chance to apply for his pardon.

[Barrett Fraser, Board Member, John Howard Society of Manitoba]

Good afternoon, everyone. It is a privilege to be here among you all.

Can an old dog do new tricks? Can a leopard change its spots? Yes, indeed. I am a testament to that. I have a significant criminal record—over 25 indictable convictions. When you get arrested in Manitoba, the prosecutors are very good and they pile on indictable offence after indictable offence after indictable offence. One arrest got me five indictable procedures.

But that was a long time ago. I've been conflict-free with the courts for over six years. I am the director of sales and marketing for a national online community called teambuy.ca--a great place. Check it out. I formerly ran and operated Manitoba's largest radio station, NCI-FM. I am contracted through Corus Media as well as Astral Media in Winnipeg. All my colleagues know of my past indiscretions.

I mention this not so much to qualify myself, but rather to qualify everybody else who has a criminal record, everybody who has somehow found a reason to live life the way it should be led. I'm no different from anybody else. Fortunately for me, though, I have strengths, supports, and resources in the community. The pardon is one of those strengths; it is one of those resources that I fully intend to take advantage of.

Quite candidly, my criminal record costs me a tremendous amount. When I travel to the United States, I need to get a border waiver, as they call it. It costs me money every time I want to do that. I understand that the pardon would not allow me entry into the United States, but the pardon is significant. I look at it this way. I served a six-year sentence. I did four years on a six-year sentence. I served every day of it. I went out on mandatory supervision. I served the rest of my sentence in the community. My debt to society is paid. I've paid my fines; I've done my time. Now I live a positive and pro-social lifestyle. Heck, I'm a member of the John Howard Society. I would never have thought I would sit on a board like that and have the opportunity to speak to you people.

My question is when do I and 400,000 other people stop being ex-offenders? When do we become citizens? By passing Bill C-23B, you're removing a tremendous piece of motivation for people like me. Trust me, that pardon, that opportunity to have my name cleared, is a tremendous carrot. It's a tremendous piece of motivation to keep me moving forward, to keep my eye on the prize.

As I said, I'm not unique. I might be a bit of an overachiever, but I guarantee you there are plenty of others like me out there, people who can come out of a federal institution after serving long sentences, get their lives in order, get married, get good jobs, and become respected members of their communities. I guarantee you there are other people in the same situation as I am.

I ask, beg, that you not pass this legislation. Ultimately, all you're going to do is hinder some good people.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[John Hutton, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity.

The John Howard Society of Manitoba, with support from the John Howard Society of Canada, BUILD, and Opportunities for Employment, is appearing this afternoon to respectfully ask this committee not to make any further changes to the legislation governing pardons, especially those set out in Bill C-23B. In our opinion, the proposed changes are unnecessary and would ultimately make Canadians less safe.

We're particularly concerned about changes that would double the waiting period for those wanting to apply for a pardon, prohibit those who've committed specific offences from ever getting a pardon, and deny anyone convicted of more than three indictable offences from ever applying for a pardon.

The society is also opposed to changing the term “pardon” to “record suspension”. In discussions around Bill C-23B last spring, it was said that the government should not be in the business of giving pardons, and this was the purview of victims. I respectfully submit that two different concepts--pardon and forgiveness--are being confused here.

Under Canadian law it is the crown, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that brings charges as an aggrieved party, not the victim. If convicted, an individual is found to have committed an offence against Canada. Therefore the government clearly has a role in granting pardons as an aggrieved party, which is separate from forgiveness that a victim may or may not grant. Furthermore, the word “pardon” has deeper significance than “record suspension”. “Pardon” implies that the individual in question is no longer an offender or a risk to the community in a way that “record suspension” does not.

At most, only 4% of those pardoned reoffend at a later date, strongly suggesting that the current criteria are more than sufficient. A pardon doesn't prevent a person from being investigated for other offences or make it any easier for the person to commit a crime in the future. What benefit is there to public safety in doubling waiting periods and taking away pardons altogether from those who commit specific offences or have more than three indictable offences? On the contrary, putting additional pardon barriers in the way of individuals trying to move forward and live crime-free lives decreases public safety. It is in the interest of public safety that, once convicted of an offence, the individual has a way, through the pardon process, of putting their past activities behind them and not committing any further crime.

There's also an element of unfairness in this proposed legislation for those it would most impact. It is well known that aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the correctional system. In Manitoba, aboriginal people make up only 12% of the overall population, but represent approximately 70% of those who are incarcerated. Therefore, Bill C-23B would be many times more likely to negatively impact this community, especially in Manitoba.

It has been said that the legislation has been drafted with victims in mind, yet it does not give victims any say or part to play in the pardon process, nor does the bill appear to advance victims' interests.

In my experience from working as a mediator in victim-offender mediation for many years, victims have three key needs: to know that the offender will not victimize them again; to know that they will not victimize someone else; and to know that the accused has learned from the experience and is making himself or herself into a better person as a result.

None of these needs are addressed by making it more difficult for an individual to get a pardon. In fact, the victim is more likely to be satisfied that his or her accused has been able to move forward and demonstrably live a crime-free life, which is symbolized by the offender getting a pardon.

The committee will now hear from three individuals who have committed crimes in the past and are working hard to move forward with their lives. I ask that you consider the consequences these individuals would face by not having a pardon, and how denying pardons in their instances would in any way make our community a safer place to live.