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.