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.