Evidence of meeting #40 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
We've heard from the minister that he's not in possession of any empirical evidence that would suggest there's a public safety component. If I could fairly characterize his evidence, I would say he feels a political reaction.
I'm wondering if you've seen any data that would indicate that our communities would be safer or that offenders would benefit by a provision that restricts pardons to only those who have three or fewer convictions.
Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would have to double check to give a definite answer.
I can give you one statistic today that has been provided by the parole board. Of all the files processed by the board for pardons, they've been able to ascertain that 25% of the files relate to persons with more than three convictions. It gives you an idea of the magnitude of people with multiple convictions beyond three.
In terms of other characteristics of that group, it's something I would have to look at.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Extrapolating from that, we're aware that a very high percentage of pardons are granted, and we've dealt with some of the reasons why we've tried to tighten that up. Would it be fair to say that about one-quarter of the people who are currently applying for pardons would not be entitled to even apply under this legislation were we to pass it?
Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Based on the statistics we've been given, that would appear to be the case.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I've done a bit of research. Out of all of the pardons granted in the last 10 years, more than 50% of the pardons are granted to people who have been convicted of one of three offences: a Narcotic Control Act offence, which would include marijuana possession and similar crimes; impaired driving; or low-level assault. Does that jibe with your understanding of the statistics?
Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think that's roughly correct, yes.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I can't leave without going back to my favourite piece of statutory language. I want to give you a chance, Ms. Campbell, to explain this to us.
The minister keeps saying that offenders who are convicted of a sexual offence against children are not forever barred from applying for a pardon. Some of those offences include things like exposure. They're not necessarily among the most heinous crimes against children, but of course some are listed there.
My reading of the section we're currently asked to support says that:
(3) A person who has been convicted of an offence referred to in item 3 of Schedule 1 may apply for a record suspension if the Board is satisfied that
(a) the person was not in a position of trust
(b) the person did not use...violence...and
(c) the person was less than five years older than the victim.
I would put to you that as the bill currently stands, it's only offences in item 3 of schedule 1 that would qualify that person to apply for a pardon. If they were convicted of an offence not in item 3 of schedule 1, this legislation would bar them from doing that. Am I reading that correctly?
November 17th, 2010 / 4:55 p.m.
Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As long as you don't stop me after I say yes, you're reading it correctly.
Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
You are reading it correctly, but I do want to say, in fairness to everyone and to assist the committee, that obviously clause 9 of Bill C-23B is, to put it simply, quite a jumble. What you find in clause 9 are some elements that were adopted in Bill C-23A, so the committee might well, at some point, feel they don't have to deal with those again.
There are some elements that are new. Therefore, I think the committee will want to consider those, and there are some elements that you may wish to adopt but they would need some technical amendment.
I would also say that the references to the schedules at this point are perhaps a little confusing. There are two schedules to the Criminal Records Act. The first one, schedule 1, is child sex offences. So item 1 under schedule 1 is all the offences that are specifically child sex. On the face of it, they're child sex.
Item 2 is offences involving a child victim but are not, on the face it, necessarily child sex. For example, voyeurism could be against an adult, but this captures only those against a child.
Of course, item 3 refers to offences that no longer exist.
You're quite correct that the exemption as it currently reads refers to only item 3 of schedule 1. Indeed, yesterday I said to Mr. Churney that that seems odd, and asked, why is that? We need an explanation.
I think what we're trying to piece together is, is that in fact the intention of the bill to apply to the entire schedule, or is there a reason why we would only refer to item 3?
I'm beginning to hear from Mr. Churney and colleagues that it may in fact be that it's only item 3, because by definition, in the Criminal Code substantive offences, one cannot be convicted if they fall into one of the exemptions. So we'd have a double exemption going that would not make sense; it would be duplicative.
I still need to confirm that with my Department of Justice colleagues, because obviously we want the committee to understand and to proceed with confidence that it's either item 3 or the entire schedule. All I can say is that we are looking at that. Your reading is perfect. The minister's statement of his intention is also perfect. We need to technically go back and make sure that it's been captured properly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
Seeing the clock at five o'clock, we will suspend this portion of the meeting and move to future business.
We want to thank you again, Ms. Campbell, for attending as our guest today and helping us to work through this bill. I think we made some really good headway on this today. We've seen some areas where all parties want to work together to see this amended.
We thank you for coming and for your help. I usually say this to our guests; f you have other submissions that you would like to make, if you want to help clarify some of those...item 3, section 1, section 2, whatever, you could submit something in writing or get a hold of our clerk to make those clear.
We will suspend for one moment, and then we will go in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]