Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

As I was saying, the expression "record suspension" distances us from the vocabulary related to the principle of rehabilitation. It's a very significant change in language, and symbolic for the criminals who will leave prison, who will have paid their debt to society, who will have done their time and will have a record suspension. These words do not have the same meaning for someone who has perhaps spent 20 years in prison and who really wants to reintegrate into society, re-establish his or her life or start a new life, work and forget the mistake.

But the record suspension would only suspend the record, which could be re-opened at any time. I know full well it's the same thing for people who receive a pardon: they can go back at any time. It's the change in what the expression symbolizes that is important.

We also need to remember that most people do not reoffend once they are released from prison. We should let these people be pardoned for their crimes, even though the discretionary authority to truly pardon someone lies with the Crown. These are two different things. I am well aware of that. But I think we need to recognize what this new expression symbolizes, especially in French. It really moves us away from the vocabulary around the principle of rehabilitation. I don't think that this is the direction the Criminal Code and criminal justice should take.

Would my colleagues like to add anything?

(Clause 110 agreed to)

(On clause 111)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

If you would move amendment NDP-33, Mr. Harris, I have some comments.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The motion is to amend clause 111 by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 63 with the words:

application for a pardon, to decide whether to revoke a pardon under

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I would suggest that Bill C-10 amends the Criminal Records 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 is therefore inadmissible. So I would rule that your amendment, motion NDP-33, is inadmissible.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, the amendment is clearly aimed at avoiding the consequence of changes that were being proposed to change “pardon” to “record suspension”. We have made it very clear that we're opposed to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I've ruled it inadmissible.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I know you've ruled it inadmissible. But I'm speaking to clause 111 as it stands right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

As it stands right now, we find the use of the term “record suspension” contrary to our view of what this legislation is and what has been in effect for some 40 years and is very useful in this country. It's a shame that this opportunity for rehabilitation, and for sustaining a road to rehabilitation and sustaining a person as a law-abiding citizen, is now being eroded by this government. It's shocking that this would happen and it's shameful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I think it's important to put on record that young people make mistakes. This is what I find sad in all of this. I'm not talking about people who commit horrible crimes. I'm not saddened by the fact that we are making things a little more difficult for them, that we are extending the time before they have the right to this, even though I find it strange logic. We want these people to become contributing citizens to society again and want them to find jobs, but we put all possible obstacles in their way. We can't say it enough: we are talking about people who have paid their debt to society. The message we are sending them now is quite simply: so what. We aren't talking about someone who has three strikes against him, we're not talking about a notorious reoffender where a mechanism is already in place. We're making sure that this type of person isn't "pardoned". We'll have to get used to not using that expression. It's as if we are putting a big stamp on their forehead saying "Guilty for the rest of your life. Remember that it's just a suspension".

I understand what Mr. Woodworth said earlier. He said that it's almost a privilege and that it can be withdrawn, but I will repeat that 96% of them have never lost the pardon they have received. It's as if we are telling them that we will always see them as guilty individuals and that we will make sure that that image of them always exists somewhere.

It's a shift that is not surprising given the government in power, but that does not seem to make our streets and our communities safer necessarily because this hardened position will certainly have an impact on rehabilitation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

(Clause 111 agreed to)

(On clause 112)

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not going to repeat the arguments we've just made. I think they are very important and cogent arguments. I'm disappointed, obviously, that the government has refused to accept a sincere attempt to maintain what has been effective and important and I guess is underscored by this particular provision itself.

They're talking about the effects of a “record suspension”, which should be the effects of a “pardon”, but what is very interesting is that it says that in this case a record suspension

(a) is evidence of the fact that

(i) the Board, after making inquiries, was satisfied that the applicant was of good conduct,

—that is similar to what the rule is for a pardon at the moment—and secondly that ...the conviction in respect of which the record suspension

—or pardon, in our view—

is ordered should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant's character;

Now, those two findings by the parole board, that the applicant is of good character and that the conviction should no longer adversely reflect on the applicant's character, make an admirable conclusion to reach. When you look at the record of the parole board in granting pardons over its recent history, I guess it reflects in part the nature of the people who apply. Those who apply for a pardon are ones who have a pretty good idea, first of all, that they don't have a second offence, and that, under investigation, they will be found to have rehabilitated themselves.

The record is quite high of people who apply actually receiving pardons; not very many people are turned down. I'm assuming that's because the people who take the trouble to apply have sufficiently rehabilitated themselves. What that tells me is that the holding out of a pardon is a very good thing, and it will be interesting to see whether or not this “record suspension” will have the same ameliorative effect.

I'm going to vote against this clause because it talks about “record suspension” instead of “pardon”. But I am very encouraged by the wording that's being used here, because this is the finding that the board has made in granting pardons: it has been so meaningful to people that they apply in numbers on the order of 25,000 a year for pardons, because they think that a pardon is meaningful and is useful. In fact, some 400,000 pardons have been granted by the parole board since 1970.

(Clause 112 agreed to)

(On clause 113)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Here we won't repeat the arguments, but we'll be voting against it because it changes the heading “Application for Pardon” to “Application for Record Suspension”. We clearly don't support that.

(Clause 113 agreed to)

(On clause 114)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

For the same reason, it replaces the word “pardon” with “record suspension...within the meaning of the International Transfer of Offenders Act”. This is a provision that currently allows persons who have been transferred to Canada under that act to apply for a pardon even if the offence occurred in another country. Now you can apply for a record suspension.

(Clause 114 agreed to)

(On clause 115)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris, if you will move NDP-34, I have comments.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I will withdraw amendment NDP-34.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay. On amendment NDP-35, if you will....

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Amendment NDP-35 relates to the time limit, the time period, that applies with respect to line 15 dealing with summary conviction offences. The amendment proposes five years in the case of an offence punishable on summary conviction before someone can apply for what's now called a record suspension—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are you moving...?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm moving it, that line 15, which says that (b)—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

So you're moving amendment NDP-35?