Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We'll resume the meeting.
(Clauses 105 to 107 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 108)
The NDP have a couple of motions, NDP-29 and NDP-30, if you'd like to move them.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
NDP-29 takes on the first principle, I suppose, of what the government is trying to do here, which is unnecessarily punitive and contrary to the rehabilitation of someone who has been an offender. We already know, those of us who understand the pardon system, that the purpose of a pardon is to provide an opportunity for someone to get a new start. Having committed an offence they can rehabilitate themselves, demonstrate that they are now of good character, and be able to go forward. The idea is that an individual has made a mistake, has done something wrong but wants to be able to move forward, and there having been a proper evaluation of their circumstances, it allows them to have a situation where they can say yes, I did make a mistake but I was granted a pardon.
One of the oddities of this particular approach the government is taking here is that they've replaced the word “pardon” with a brand-new notion called “record suspension”. Now I practised law for 30 years. This is a strange and odd new notion. Since 1970 one could get a pardon from the parole board. That has a meaning out there in the public and in the minds of people who want to rehabilitate themselves. People who have obtained a pardon are very proud of the fact that they have applied for a pardon. They've been subject to the scrutiny and inquiries being made by the parole board, normally an investigation done by the RCMP, that results in the grant of a pardon. It doesn't mean they never had a record, but it means that the decision has been made that it's not.... In fact, under the human rights codes of the country it's not permitted to discriminate against someone who has committed an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
Now there still is, and this is going to cause some confusion, something called a pardon. That pardon is by virtue of the royal prerogative. In other words, Her Majesty the Queen, acting by the cabinet, can issue a pardon to someone by virtue of the royal prerogative. This has always been the case going back to the kings and queens of England. That's left in the legislation somehow or other to distinguish it as a result of this legislation from a pardon obtained by another legal process.
The other legal process is the one we have now. It assists the individual with a criminal record in moving forward in his or her rehabilitation and enhances the safety of communities by motivating the individual to remain crime free and to maintain good conduct. You know, it doesn't erase the conviction. The conviction can be used for the purposes that we would want it to be used for. It doesn't cancel legal obligations under the Criminal Code to register, for example, if someone has a firearms prohibition, or some sort of driving prohibition, or there are still exceptions with respect to the flagging of someone's name in the CPIC database. If there's a sexual offence, it doesn't remove any other legal obligation. Also the name, date of birth, and last known address of the person who has received a pardon or a discharge may be disclosed to a police force if a fingerprint identifying that person is found at the scene of a crime.
It doesn't remove the record entirely, but what it does is give that person a sense that they have been granted a pardon that allows them to assist in their rehabilitation.
We've heard a lot of information about this. This amendment is particularly devoted to the notion of changing “pardon” to “record suspension”. Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator, said to our committee, in respect of the use of the word “pardon” versus “record suspension”, that legal language is extremely important. It has to be clear. Simpler is better. The words have deep meanings to people when they're involved with criminal justice, and “pardon” does have a particular meaning that is useful.
Professor Michael Jackson, University of British Columbia professor, an expert on criminal justice, talked about what happens in terms of the impact on changes to the pardon. He talked about the kind of people who end up seeking pardons for the kind of offence that might be committed by children or grandchildren. Someone who's convicted of a summary conviction, for example, could be a person—these are his words—who gets a little drunk on a stag night or at a university celebration, punches someone, and is convicted of common assault, or it could be a conviction for a drug offence. There's an entire raft of things that some young people may commit in the immaturity of young adulthood that they would like to have removed.
The record suspension merely sounds like—and I say this as someone who's practised criminal law in the past. To the people, in the lingo of people on the street who know about these things, record suspension almost sounds like a suspended sentence. In fact, that's the implication of all this, that it's temporary, that it's conditional, that somehow we'll put it on this list for now but it's not really meaningful.
That's incredibly important. There doesn't appear to be any real argument in favour of it. It seems to be designed to increase the intensity of punishment here without offering any redemptive value. We often talk about rehabilitation, and that's pretty important, but a pardon gives us a notion of redemption as well, that even though you have committed a crime.... If you look at the stats, 96% of people who are granted a pardon never have that pardon revoked. I have some stats here on the kinds of offences that people are convicted of that receive pardons, and the vast majority of them are in relation to matters like impaired driving—simple summary conviction matters like drinking and driving, assault, theft, and drug-related crimes.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Sorry. I was just curious if I may be on the wrong section. I thought we were dealing with the long title of the Criminal Records Act and actually replacing the word “relief” for “suspension of the records”. We're just changing the title to accurately reflect what is actually happening in the code.
Am I on the right path, Mr. Chair? I'm just curious. It appears that we're on some other clause.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It doesn't say “pardon” anywhere in the change or in fact in the old or new language. It's just simply replacing the word “relief” with “suspension of the records”.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'd like to thank the chair for the clarification and continue with my argument.
As the member knows, the entire clause that we're dealing with here, changing the name of the Criminal Records Act to talk about suspension of records when the majority of the act talks about pardons.... The majority of the changes here, in addition to preventing people from getting pardons—changing the definition of “pardon”, dealing with the whole aspect of removing the possibility of people actually getting pardons unless Her Majesty the Queen gives a pardon by way of royal relief.... That seems to me to be a significant change.
We would like to start by taking out of the long title this whole implication that this is about suspension of records as opposed to providing relief for people who have been convicted of offences and who have subsequently rehabilitated themselves. Clearly, the intention in the long title is to talk about record suspensions for people who have rehabilitated, not pardons. That's what it's all about. That's why we have this amendment.
We want to make it clear from the outset that we're not interested in seeing the loss of this redemptive and important opportunity for young people. It's not necessarily only young people, of course, but also people who have shown by their conduct, to a demonstrable effect, that the parole board takes their application seriously and grants a pardon. This is an important aspect of a rehabilitation system in our criminal justice paradigm.
I'm not raising this as a frivolous thing at all. It is in fact extremely important that we support rehabilitation by allowing the continued consideration of pardons. This is the kind of amendment that I would hope persuasion at this committee level would actually have some effect on those opposite.
We all have children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law who may run afoul of the law. As we noticed, a lot of these offences are impaired driving charges, or something like that. Somebody who seeks rehabilitation and seeks to restore their good name in their community and their reputation can hold their head up high and say, “Yes, I may have done something wrong, and it's clear that I did, but I have gone to the trouble, as a responsible citizen, to demonstrate my rehabilitation, to apply to the parole board, and they have recognized, after inquiries and a report and a study being done, an investigation and report by the RCMP—”
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. I don't know if that includes the erudite point of order.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'll be mindful of that, sir, if I could just make my point.
I think it ought to be persuasive that if the real intention, as stated on the other side, also consists of having a rehabilitative effect, then this is something that ought to be reconsidered. We'd like to start with clause 108 and have a change made.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to support the point made a moment ago by Mr. Jean, that in fact if you are simply looking at this particular clause, we are replacing the word “relief” with the words “suspension of the records”. Quite frankly, that, in my view, brings greater clarity to the long title than the word “relief”, which is quite undefined.
Apart from that, I'm glad Mr. Harris had a chance to expound on the distinction between a suspension of record and a pardon, because I know there are other upcoming provisions in which this issue applies.
In that respect, I want to say that I too practised law for practically 30 years. I was about three months short of it when I got elected. I had extensive practise in criminal law, both in defence and in prosecution. I had many clients who applied for pardons, and in all of my practice, I think the issue of pardons was the one that most confused people.
After all, most people, when they hear the word “pardon” think that's a pardon for life. How many of them really understand that a pardon can be revoked? Actually, a suspension of a record is a more accurate way of describing what the practice has been under the word “pardon”. It's really a more accurate way of describing it. Indeed, people would think that when they were pardoned, that record of conviction would be wiped totally off the face of the earth. But nothing could be further from the truth. The record still remains and is subject to being reactivated and used for a variety of purposes.
I am not one of those lawyers who likes a law that is purposefully vague and misleading. I would much prefer a law that actually says what it is we're doing. In fact, even pardons really only were a suspension of record. I think it's a much more accurate phrase.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.
We will now vote on NDP-29.
(Motion negatived)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
If you will move NDP-30, Mr. Harris, I have a comment as soon as you move it.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay. It is inadmissible. Bill C-10 amends the Criminal Record Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. This amendment proposes to replace “record suspension” with “pardon”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the deletion of a key element is contrary to the principle of Bill C-10 and it is therefore ruled inadmissible.
We now move on to clause 108.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I see, okay.
The time allocation deals with all of clause 108, I presume.
