Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

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

All right.

(Clause 108 agreed to)

(On clause 109)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have amendment NDP-31, Mr. Harris.

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

NDP-31 is to delete lines 33 and 34 on page 62. That is the repealing of the definition of “pardon”. I would like to speak to that, and perhaps my colleague Madame Boivin would like to speak as well.

I will state briefly that despite the argument we just had, clearly what this government is seeking to do, as Mr. Woodsworth pointed out--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I know that my colleague and I have not been that well acquainted, but I am frequently mistaken for a great Canadian by the name of Woodsworth. That is not, however, my name. It is simply Woodworth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

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

I would have called you Wordsworth if that was the case. But thank you for the correction. I don't know if I just misspoke or actually mistook your name. I did think it was Woodworth, but I may have added an “s” at the end.

The deletion of lines 33 and 34 effectively removes the definition of “pardon” being revoked in subsection 2(1) of the existing act. If I can find my copy of the act, which I just had here a moment ago, I'll read out the definition, because I think the definition does refer to a pardon granted by the board under section 4.1 of the existing act.

Under section 4.1—and this is why the definition of “pardon” is important—the board is entitled to grant a pardon for an offence if they're satisfied that the applicant has been of good conduct and has not been convicted of another offence under an act of Parliament, and in the case of an offence referred to in paragraph 4(a), granting the pardon at that time would provide immeasurable benefit to the applicant, would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen, and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

So it's important to recognize the role that a pardon plays and the use of the term “pardon”, if you are changing the definition and substituting for it a definition of something called a “record suspension”, which means a measure ordered by the board under section 4.1. This whole aspect of recognizing that if an offender has been of good conduct, the granting of the pardon would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant and maintain his or her rehabilitation is an important object to be achieved. Deleting the definition of “pardon” takes away that possibility for continuing and assisting and sustaining the rehabilitation of an individual as a law-abiding citizen, and that fact is particularly important.

We keep hearing from members opposite in the House about law-abiding citizens and how important law-abiding citizens are to their arguments on various matters. This is a measure aimed at assisting people to be and to continue to be law-abiding citizens. It's right here in the Criminal Records Act, and up until now, the granting of a pardon has been a mechanism that's widely accepted as a means of doing that.

I listened carefully to Mr. Woodworth's comments on what he called “confusion”. There is no confusion. Everybody understands what a pardon is, even though it may be revoked. I think people who are granted a pardon—and I haven't heard of a recent granting of a pardon—are told that the pardon can be revoked if they commit another offence under the act. As it turns out, of course, 96% of people who are granted pardons never have their pardon revoked. And why is that? Well, it's because the system is working. People who are granted pardons are almost guaranteed, with the exception of 4%, to sustain their rehabilitation as law-abiding citizens. I think that's a remarkable achievement of one aspect of our criminal law system, and I think it's something we ought not to interfere with unless there is a good reason, and I haven't heard a single one yet.

I believe my friend Madam Boivin would like to continue with respect to clause 109 of this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're down to about five minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, monsieur le président.

To continue along those lines, I think it is even clearer in the French version. The more I look at the text of Bill C-10, the more I see that there will be polishing to be done to the translation. Perhaps this type of consideration is not the aim of the committee, but if I had a recommendation to make to the government and its legal experts, it would be to clean it up a little. Subsection 109(1) of the French version reads: "La définition de « réhabilitation », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, est abrogée." The English version reads as follows:

The definition “pardon” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is repealed.

We can clearly see that the whole system was devised around the concept of rehabilitation. What strikes me in this bill—and we will have an opportunity to come back to it again in the context of other sections and I am sure my colleagues will also have things to say about it—is that we are talking amply about criminality, minimum sentences and so on, but when someone has served his or her sentence—and in many cases, the sentence will be increased once the bill has been adopted—access to the provisions under what was previously called the Criminal Records Act will be complicated.

We are talking about rehabilitation. A number of legal experts are here around this table. Many of them have practised in this field. All kinds of cases have been seen, including extreme cases where people have received pardons that they did not deserve. The statistics that Mr. Harris mentioned indicate that 96% of people who have obtained a pardon never saw this pardon revoked. That means that only 4% of them have had their pardons revoked. Sometimes we amend legislation because of small percentages, but I would like it if these small percentages didn't exist. So we need to find good solutions to ensure that these situations do not happen.

Having said that, I am not convinced that the amendments we are making to the criminal record provisions of Bill C-10 are going to help us achieve what we are trying to do, which should be our aim. We want to ensure that these people have paid their debt to society and that their subsequent reintegration into society goes well. I am not convinced that the pardon, which will not be called the suspension of the criminal record, will help them in that regard. It wasn't easy to obtain one previously. I don't know if any of you have recently helped someone eligible for a pardon. If you have, you know how long it takes. We are going to talk about how long it takes before going into the right to the suspension of the criminal record. It is not clear that this is going to have the desired effect and that it is not instead going to create hardened criminals who, normally, would have deserved a second chance at this stage. I repeat: by repealing what these provisions are based on, meaning the very definition of rehabilitation…

I just have one minute left, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There was an NDP motion that was passed unanimously by this committee last Thursday to limit time. I believe we're at 10 minutes, or very close—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're not.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But, Mr. Chair, I just want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

If we take out the time of your point of order, we're at less than nine minutes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand, Mr. Chair. But I know Mr. Harris has a stopwatch in front of him. We had 11 minutes of submissions by Mr. Harris in relation to a title, and I recognize now that we are going into what I would consider to be a filibuster.

I wanted to put it on the record, Mr. Chair—and I'm sorry, but it is a point of order, and we have gone over it several times. We agreed we would be lax and flexible in respect of good faith, but this has gone beyond good faith; it has gone beyond flexibility. It's a situation in which I feel that clearly there's a filibuster going on, a 10-minute filibuster per clause.

It's his right to do this, but I want to put on the record that I will have to be whipped in order to agree to adjourn this matter before midnight, at this stage, because I am not going to sit here and deal with this just on the basis of being able to extend it and then adjourn before six o'clock tonight. I am not prepared to agree to an adjournment before midnight on this basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

That's your choice. At this point, they're at eight minutes and 59 seconds. The clerk has been keeping the time.

With all due respect, the time has been taken on amendments. I don't think that's unrealistic, and—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

—as everybody agreed—

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

To that point of order, Mr. Chair, we did reach a compromise agreement last week as to how we were going to proceed; we agreed to 10 minutes per clause. There are many clauses that have to do with this. We're not taking 10 minutes on very many clauses, frankly. So the fact that something is of importance enough to have me speak twice, and Madame Boivin has spoken for less than five minutes, and there may be one or two others who want to speak on the issue of pardons, because we think it's important, and you have very many clauses affected....

I think it's not really in keeping with our agreement that we should not be able to do this. This is not a filibuster; this is an attempt to put on the record the concerns that various members of our committee have about the whole change that is taking place here, which we think is important.

Why that would be a point of order and a point of breach of good faith is beyond me, frankly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Boivin, continue.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, exactly, especially since I was at only the third of my five minutes. So why invoke a point of order on something that had nothing to do with what I was saying?

Overall, we are against this because this is a complete shift that is distancing us from what the concept of a pardon was previously based on, which was linked to rehabilitation. We need to keep in mind that the people targeted by this have already paid their debt to society and that they have served their sentences, either in prison or elsewhere.

So that is the basis for most of the amendments we are putting forward for this part. This is why, with this amendment, we are asking that the two lines in question be removed. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We have now used up 10 minutes of NDP time.

(Amendments NDP-31 and NDP-32 negatived)

Shall clause 109 carry?

(Clause 109 agreed to)

(On clause 110)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Borg.

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

Thank you.

I am going to express my disagreement with this clause. I think that all the members of the party share my opinion.

I want to draw your attention to the French version of the bill, which previously spoke about rehabilitation. We are moving from rehabilitation to record suspension. I think these are really strong words. It's a significant change in language. We are seeing a shift and we are moving further away from the idea that there can be safe communities through rehabilitation and preventive measures.

So we are opposed to this clause that, once again, puts forward the idea of record suspension and imposes the related vocabulary and language, which takes us away from—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Excuse me, Ms. Borg—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in that clause 109 has been passed, which defines a record suspension, and that clause 110 is simply seeking to include the word “record suspension” now, to refer back to that, I don't see that this can be debated, as to whether it should still be called a record suspension or not. It has now passed. This is the name of it, is it not?

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

I understand your point. But I am explaining why we will vote against the clause. Please let me explain why I am going to vote against it. I am fully capable of expressing why our party will vote against it. We will vote against it because it includes the words "record suspension".

May I, Mr. Chair?