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)