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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mary Campbell  Director General, Corrections Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Daryl Churney  Acting Director, Corrrections Policy Division, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting 40 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It's Wednesday, November 17, 2010, and today we're discussing two items of business before our committee. The first is Bill C-23B, an Act to amend the Criminal Records Act. We are also conducting a review of the Criminal Records Act in pursuance of Surrey North Member of Parliament Dona Cadman's private member's motion M-514.

I would just like to read to you an extract from the Journals of the House of Commons from Wednesday, September 29:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. Cadman...seconded by Mr. Norlock...--That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions.

So we do have a responsibility that's been given to us by the House in order to report back. We believe that today is part of the order that has come to this committee.

Appearing before us today, we're very pleased to have the Honourable Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Safety.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Chairman—

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

May I introduce our guests? Then we'll go to you.

We have the Honourable Vic Toews, who is the Minister of Public Safety. We thank you for attending again today. It seems like you've been here fairly regularly.

He's accompanied by officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Ms. Mary Campbell is the director general of the corrections directorate, and Daryl Churney is the acting director of the corrections policy division.

As the chair of this committee, I want to thank all of you for being here today and helping us in our deliberations.

Before we move, I think Madam Mourani had some kind of a point of order or privilege or something. We will entertain that very briefly, please.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

No, it's not a point of order. I just wonder if we could, before the witnesses begin, take 30 minutes, for instance at 5 o'clock, to debate a motion that I tabled here on July 5, 2010. It is the motion that the Committee blames Mr. Richard Fadden and asks for his dismissal to the Prime Minister.

I would like us to deal with this motion which has been dragging on the Order Paper for too long. I would like us to devote 30 minutes to it.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Well, I'll tell you what we're going to do. We have this minister. Until then, at the break, we'll discuss this, and then we'll either go to that committee business or we'll go to the minister.

The problem is we have asked Ms. Campbell and the department to stay for that second hour. So they are here in regard to that. That's what they were invited to do and that's why we have them.

If you need more than 15 minutes, we'll maybe discuss that at the five o'clock break. But otherwise we usually put committee business to the end of the day.

All right. Minister Toews, we look forward to your comments and we will--

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Chairman, it could be 15 minutes as well, it doesn't bother me.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Yes, I think we'll talk about that and we'll decide that. That's the first I've heard of it now, so we will at the break here. Thank you.

Minister Toews, thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to appear before you and this committee. I know you have a particular interest in issues of public safety, having served as the critic for Public Safety for a number of years. I know you did an admirable job in that respect, and I'm sure you are putting that knowledge to good use, as you are now entrusted with this very important position as chair of this committee.

I will say that after I and 30 separate individuals have appeared at eight committee hearings answering questions on G-8/G-20 costs, the chance to finally discuss government legislation is indeed a welcome opportunity. I'm grateful to contribute to your review of Bill C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act.

I have with me a number of senior officials, whom you have already introduced. I will defer to their knowledge in specific areas when it's appropriate in order for the committee to get all the facts necessary for consideration.

With your permission, I have a short opening statement, after which I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge the spirit of cooperation that all honourable members have demonstrated in strengthening Canada's pardon system. Together we've made some important progress in addressing serious shortcomings in the legislation, things that were a very real concern for Canadians, and things that the House was able to pass prior to rising for the summer break of Parliament.

With the amendments to the Criminal Records Act, passed in June, the Parole Board of Canada now has the authority to exercise discretion and to deny a pardon application in cases where the evidence clearly demonstrates that granting one would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The board must weigh this decision, taking into account factors such as the nature, gravity, and duration of the offence, as well as the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and of course the applicant's criminal history. You will recall that under the former legislation there was little difference in the criteria to differentiate between a pardon for an indictable offence and summary conviction offences.

Offenders must now show that there is a measurable benefit to granting them a pardon. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada that a pardon will contribute to their rehabilitation as a law-abiding citizen. Those amendments also increase the length of time before someone convicted of a serious crime is eligible to apply for a pardon. Anyone convicted, by indictment, of a sexual offence against a child or of a serious personal injury offence is required to wait 10 years, instead of the previous five, before they can apply for a pardon.

We have worked in collaboration with the other parties to make solid initial progress. In passing these amendments, we've also shown our respect for the wishes of victims and many other law-abiding Canadians. We believe more can be done, and I trust we can continue in the spirit of cooperation to make further improvements to the legislation.

Mr. Chair, to understand why Bill C-23B is important, we need only to go back to April of this year, when Canadians learned that sex offenders can have their records set aside if they meet the requirements and they have adopted a law-abiding life. Canadians reacted. Many were concerned.

A good part of Canadians' reactions was connected to the word “pardon”. One of the dictionary definitions of “pardon” is forgiveness. The other meaning, which is “remission of illegal consequences of crime or conviction”, is closer to what the act intended. The perception of forgiveness has prevailed, and in very serious cases in particular it has been very difficult for victims to contemplate forgiveness when the harm or injury is still being suffered by that victim.

This is why this bill would change the terminology. The Parole Board of Canada would no longer grant offenders a pardon, but rather a suspension of record. This change will provide a more accurate and understandable description of what in fact is being granted and an opportunity to start over with what amounts to a clean slate.

It affirms the fact that a person's criminal record will be kept separate and apart, but it makes clear that the record has not been erased. That is one important amendment contained in this bill.

A second amendment is directed at protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens, our children. While Bill C-23A made some improvement in this area, we believe more should be done.

As you will recall, the amendments passed in June provided that those convicted of a sexual offence related to a minor and prosecuted by way of indictment must now wait 10 years to apply for a pardon. In the case of those who commit a sexual offence against a minor and are prosecuted by summary conviction, the waiting period is now five years. The amendment proposed in Bill C-23B would go further and make anyone convicted of an offence involving sexual activity relating to a minor ineligible for a suspension of record.

I emphasize that this provision would not be all encompassing. If the offender can demonstrate that he or she was close in age to the victim, which is similar to some of the other provisions we have in the Criminal Code, and that the offence did not involve a position of trust or authority or a threat of violence or intimidation, a suspension of record could be granted in that circumstance.

This bill would also deny a suspension of record to anyone convicted of more than three offences prosecuted by indictment. We believe this is a reasonable cut-off point.

A final amendment contained in this bill would require the Parole Board of Canada to submit an annual report on its activities with regard to suspensions of record to the Minister of Public Safety. This report would be tabled in Parliament and therefore available to all Canadians. The report would let Canadians know how many applications the board received for suspensions of record for both summary convictions and indictable offences, as well as the number of suspensions ordered and refused for both categories of offences. The report would also list suspensions of record ordered by offence and by the applicant's province of residence.

The goal of this amendment is quite simple, and I trust honourable members will agree that greater transparency is always a good idea. We believe this is information that Canadians should be able to access. It's also information that parliamentarians need in order to determine whether the system is working as it should. This report would not contain any personal information.

Mr. Chair, in addition, the government will be bringing forward various technical amendments to this legislation in order to reconcile Bill C-23A and Bill C-23B. The reconciliation has to occur, given the fact that those two bills were split off, and it would appear that presently, unless that reconciliation takes place, there would be some inconsistencies if the House simply adopted Bill C-23B.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are all aware that certain provisions of the Criminal Records Act have been the subject of considerable debate in recent months. We have all read the editorials and the letters to the editor and we have listened to the calls on the talk shows. I know how many e-mails and calls I have received on the subject.

There is no question that the subject of pardons touches a nerve with Canadians. The amendments we are proposing in this bill are a reasoned response to the very reasonable concerns of Canadians. With the simple replacement of one word, these amendments would take a great deal of the emotion out of this debate and more accurately identify what in fact is being accomplished. Together with the previous amendments to the Criminal Records Act, they will help further ensure that suspensions of record are granted only to those who have earned them. They will provide Canadians with more information about the workings of an important part of our justice system.

I thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank committee members in advance, and I look forward to our discussions.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We will now proceed with the first round of questions, a seven-minute round, and we'll go to Mr. Holland.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for your appearance today.

Minister, I hope you can appreciate the need to proceed cautiously on this. I was glad that we divided the bill into two sections. We were able to find a compromise on one half, and now we are dealing with the second half. You'll recall that we originally thought this was dealt with when Minister Day made a number of changes back in 2006. There was a sensational case, we were told it was fixed, and now we're back here.

My concern, Minister, is not with sexual offences against children. I think you get 100% agreement on that. It's not with changing the term “pardon” to “record suspension”. I think that's a good move and one that's supportable. My concern is that there might be a number of individuals caught up in this bill who either weren't intended to be caught up in it or for whom it could be very destructive to be caught in it. I'll give you some examples and maybe you could respond.

Suppose, for example, you have a single mother working hard to make ends meet. She makes a desperate decision, a dumb decision, to write a fraudulent cheque. That could be a hybrid offence, which could be indictable. Suddenly, a 20- or 21-year-old single mother, who makes a bad decision in trying to put food on her table, one she shouldn't have made, is in a position where now she is ineligible to get her record cleared until her mid-30s, potentially. That would mean that she's going to be—

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

I'm sorry, I missed that.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

She may be ineligible to get her record cleared until her mid-30s. You have 10 years, but you have to wait until you serve your time and you've gone through the whole process before that 10-year clock begins ticking. And we know how nearly impossible it is to get a job with a current criminal record.

Another situation would be a young person, maybe 18, 19 years old, who makes a dumb decision and takes marijuana to a party. Because it's a hybrid offence, and part of it may be an indictable offence, this person is now going to be caught up in the same situation.

My concern, Minister, is that with people like that, in those kinds of situations, who I'm sure we would both agree we want to see do better, we would shut the door to getting them back into society. We'd shut the door to their being able to get jobs and make meaningful contributions to our society.

I can go through some other examples, but I'm wondering how we ensure that this bill doesn't catch folks like that.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Minister?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Thank you.

I note your examples. I think there are some assumptions in them that the committee needs to consider.

You're a lawyer with undoubtedly a fair bit of experience in the criminal courts. I was a prosecutor for a time. In all the years I've prosecuted, I can honestly say that I would never have proceeded on a hybrid offence by way of an indictable offence if there was the option of going summary on a first offence, unless there were horribly aggravating circumstances. So I think the scenario you're putting forward is very remote and probably not possible. In my experience, I can't think of a case where a prosecutor would have proceeded by way of an indictment in that, shall I say, Jean Valjean kind of situation.

I think the balance we have struck here is a fair one; we have given a certain amount of discretion. The 10-year period would not apply in situations where the crown proceeds by way of a summary conviction offence, even though the person, for example, would have had to give his fingerprints. As I understand it, in the hybrid situation, you still have to provide fingerprints.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

This concern has also come to me from the folks at the National Pardon Centre. They foresee that this situation could happen. So I guess the fact that they say it's probable and you say it's unlikely still leaves the door open to it being a possibility. That's very concerning. I don't think we want—and I'm not hearing from anything in your speech that you're seeking—to catch people I've just described in that kind of scenario. I'm worried about that door being open.

The second point I want to comment on deals with schedule 1 offences. Somebody convicted under a schedule 1 offence will never be eligible for a pardon. There's not even 10 years; they're right out. Some of the things included in here are voyeurism, making obscene phone calls, mailing obscene materials, and indecent acts. It could be argued that a university student streaking during frosh week—again, something they shouldn't be doing--isn't necessarily an act from which you should never be allowed to recover. You'd never be allowed to get your record cleared. So I'm concerned about that. Maybe you could speak to that concern.

The other concern is on the three strikes rule. Going back to my earlier point about indictable offences, take the example of a young person 18 or 19 years old--I use them as an example because it's often most tragic and life-destroying when they can't get a chance to clear their name--who commits three offences in one night. They're charged with three separate things, even though it happened in one night. Suddenly they'll never be eligible for a pardon, even though what had happened transpired in one evening--one mistake. I don't think we want to catch up folks in that situation either.

Perhaps you can comment on those two points.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

I think those are, quite frankly, good questions. I have stated publicly already that if I were assured that multiple offenders could not take advantage of the pardon system, I would consider another proposal. But we have to draw the line somewhere. While the generosity and tolerance of Canadians is a good thing, their concerns about crime have to be respected.

I was very surprised, in my rather extensive discussions with Canadians about this issue, that they felt people should not get more than one chance, never mind four chances, which this essentially gives. So the public attitude is quite hardened in respect of this situation.

If this committee can find something that will address the concern of multiple offenders taking advantage of the system, yet address the situation you've raised, it would be worthwhile for the committee to consider. In the meantime, I haven't found anything better than what has been proposed.

On the sex offences, as I noted in my comments, the individual streaking would not attract that kind of automatic bar, even if it somehow came within schedule 1. I'm not exactly sure about all of the offences—they're all listed here in front of me. But in my opinion, if the offender could demonstrate that there was no victim--unlike in a personal assault on a child--and the offence didn't involve a position of trust or authority, they would still be eligible for a pardon.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Madam Mourani.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here.

I must admit that I would have appreciated having you appear at a meeting where we could have discussed Mr. Fadden's allegations concerning ministers and municipal officials in British Columbia who might be under the influence of foreign countries.

You have asked to appear before us about this matter, considering that Mr. Fadden suggested, when we met him—

November 17th, 2010 / 3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Madam Mourani, that is not the reason why the minister is attending today, as much as you wish it was. He's here on another bill today, so try to make your comments on Bill C-23.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

It is just my preamble, Mr. Chairman.

So, I would have appreciated if you had appeared before the Committee to discuss this issue, particularly because Mr. Fadden gave you his report on this matter. You know how important it is for all those office holders—

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We have Mr. Rathgeber on a point of order.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

As you know, we have the minister for only a short time. If Ms. Mourani does not have any questions concerning the bill before the committee, I'd ask that you go to the next questioner.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We've had close to a two-minute preamble on an issue that is not relevant to what he's here for today.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Chairman, this is my preamble and I shall ask my question after that.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Your preamble was too long. It's not relevant to the discussion today. I'm not used to you going too long, but in this case you have.

You can continue on this bill.