Public Safety Committee on Nov. 17th, 2010

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Minister, pardons are an important part of our corrections system. We're talking about people who come before the parole board after three, five, or ten years of doing what society has asked them to do. I think they are the success stories of our justice system. These are people who are saying they have committed no crime, they have kept a good repute, and they've paid their debt to society. We all know the stain a criminal record has on people.

Wouldn't you agree, sir, that it is important to preserve that feature of our criminal justice system so that people have an opportunity to redeem themselves and to re-enter society as good people? Those people can have their pardon revoked if they ever commit a crime again. Isn't it good to give that as part of our corrections system? Shouldn't we be encouraging that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, there are certain exceptions in which I believe it is not in the public interest to grant a pardon to certain types of criminals, and I would suggest especially multiple offenders or those in positions of trust who abuse children. Quite frankly, I do not believe there's any appetite among the Canadian people for giving those kinds of people any opportunity for a pardon because of the unspeakable crimes they have committed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now go to the government side.

Mr. Lobb, go ahead, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you for appearing today, Mr. Minister and also for your willingness to appear many times in this fall session.

The first thing I wanted to get to was with regard to the point you made in your opening speech--and I thought it was an important point--about the changes you're now making around pardons and the suspension of records. I wondered if you could tell the committee and tell the viewers at home who are watching what you learned during your consultations and in talking with victims regarding that change in language.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I have to say that Canadians and victims' advocates have been overwhelming in their support for our pardons legislation. In fact, if we look at the bill as it was originally presented, some well-known victims, especially those who as children suffered at the hands of predators, have suggested that we have not gone far enough. But they have in fact supported this legislation because they believe it's an important and substantive step forward.

So, generally speaking, they have been overwhelming in their support of our pardons legislation, and I think that was evident when we passed Bill C-23A, which advanced the most critical aspects of pardon reform.

I would note at that point, Mr. Lobb, that many of these victims' organizations were very concerned. Indeed, I read in the newspaper how many pundits said we will never see Bill C-23B come up again and that the issue was dead. Many victims' groups were very concerned about that. They contacted me personally or my political staff so we could assure them that we would bring this bill forward. They see this as a minimum that government should be doing to respect the rights of victims.

So victims were pleased to see the first group of reforms go forward, and we are following through with our commitment to bring the second group before committee here. I've heard some concerns. Some are technical drafting concerns, in my opinion, but it doesn't change my commitment to the principle we're advancing in Bill C-23B.

Mr. Holland raised an issue, and I've simply said that if you, as a committee, can find a way to make sure that multiple offenders do not abuse the pardon system, I would be open to considering something like that, but I haven't seen anything better. Canadians out there are telling me that we don't give offenders third and fourth and fifth and sixth and multiple chances.

There are some circumstances in which, even for multiple offenders, we need to look at the situation. But generally speaking, I don't want to break faith with those victims who have trusted our government to do the right things to advance their interests over the interests of the criminal. So I'm committed to doing that.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I recently spoke with a victim of a sexual crime. She's now an adult, but it occurred in her youth. I want you to talk a little about the part about being ineligible for a suspension of record for sexual crimes against minors.

I know that her pain is still there. She has not forgiven the person who committed those crimes against her yet. She still has the pain.

I'm sure that's what you heard in your consultations, as you've mentioned already. Maybe you can talk about that piece and the significance of being ineligible for a suspension of record.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What I've heard from victims is that it would be presumptuous of governments to say to a criminal, “we forgive you”. Essentially, that's not the role of a government; that's the role of an individual. That's the role of a victim, but that's not the role of the government.

Government is there to ensure there is a fair system, to ensure that justice is done, that people are properly convicted under the rules. But the issue of the abuse of children by sexual predators is something these people live with for the rest of their lives.

So the elements we're moving forward include laws that would make any individuals convicted of sexual offences towards children ineligible for a pardon. I don't think anyone who has not lived through that experience will ever be able to understand what these victims feel. Certainly, as a former prosecutor, though I was one for only a short period of time, I can tell you that is something you never forget.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Also, in your opening statement you commented on the number of meetings taking place this fall regarding the G-20. In my opinion, from the questions I saw asked, I thought they were a waste of time when we could be dealing with important legislation such as this bill.

Is there a level of frustration amongst yourselves that this is taking so long to be discussed in committee?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, it's not my role to question the priorities of this committee. You're in very good hands with this chair. I know he is leading you as much as cats can be herded. I respect his abilities.

My frustrations may not coincide with the priorities of the committee. I will leave that type of discussion to you. I do not want to get into a partisan debate, especially on a bill as important as this one.

But thank you, Mr. Lobb, for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I almost hate to cut you off there, Mr. Minister. You had another 30 seconds and could have gone on a little longer, but that's fine.

We'll go back to the Liberals.

Mr. Kania, please.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Minister.

I actually see this as a relatively non-partisan issue. I don't know why it was necessary for Mr. Lobb to throw out that G-8/G-20 question. I could easily throw out the question, “Why did we have two prorogations?” We could been here earlier as well. So I don't think that was quite necessary.

Going to the bill, I want to analyze it from a public safety perspective. I have no problem with changing the terminology from “pardon” to “record suspension”. That's fine. The three strikes for not qualifying for a pardon are also fine.

In clause 1, the phraseology is “Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act”. Do you think that making obscene phone calls and being convicted of that is a serious crime that would, in essence, not allow somebody to receive a record suspension?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's a good question.

I'm not exactly sure how one classifies and categorizes them, but these offences are almost the initiating offences. I don't know if you remember the debate on the animal cruelty legislation, where people said we had to tighten up the animal cruelty legislation because that cruelty is an indication of, let's say, a child being very disturbed and able to commit very difficult and dangerous offences down the road.

The types of sexual offences like obscene phone calls and voyeurism can in fact be a good indicator of where individuals are going if they are not properly supervised and stopped. That's why I think it's important, and that's why the legislation in this case still recognizes the opportunity to grant a record suspension where there is no child victim, or in cases where they are close in age or there is no position of trust or issue of authority.

I don't know if the term is predicate offences, but I'm referring to the offences that move someone along the continuum. That's why it's important.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I have two practical areas that I'd like to address.

First, on page 8 of your presentation you talked about the purpose of this pardon system, soon to be called “record suspension”. You say, and I think it's a fair summation, that it's “an opportunity to start over with what amounts to a clean slate”.

Going to that point, I agree with you that some convicted persons should not have this opportunity. We've discussed that, the three times up or the persons with schedule 1 offences. I'm fine with that. But this bill contemplates it being acceptable for some people to get a record suspension. For some people, it's never; for some people, it's a yes.

So my question for you is that in the circumstances where it's contemplated as being acceptable for some people to get these record suspensions, what's the public safety rationale to extend the waiting time for the summary offences from three years to five years, and for the indictable offences from five years to ten years? How does that extension itself help public safety? Specifically, do you have any learned studies or objective empirical evidence that somehow suggests that by putting those extensions in, you're actually solving a pre-existing problem?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think the reason for extending the ability not to get a record or a suspension of a record for a longer period of time does act as a deterrent for that individual from actually committing another offence, if they're sincere about moving past that time and getting on with it.

It has been felt that three years is simply not enough time to make that assessment. The five years, in the case of indictable offences, is simply not enough time to make that assessment, recognizing, though, that there should come a time when these individuals should be in a position to apply for that suspension of record.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I understand that's the rationale, but my question was more focused on whether you have any empirical evidence to suggest that the extension of time was necessary to solve a pre-existing problem.

Can you provide to the committee any form of empirical evidence that you have relied upon in making this decision?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't have any empirical evidence before me that I can cite. I think this is a broader public policy position that we take.

It's the same reason we believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences are appropriate in certain circumstances. People can talk about whether a mandatory prison sentence facilitates deterrence or denunciation, but what is clear is that it incapacitates a criminal and that individual cannot then commit those crimes.

I think a similar philosophy is applicable in this case, and for that reason I'm very supportive of an extension. You could ask exactly the same question: Why increase it to five? Why not go down to one? Why not allow the person to make an application the day after?

This is a judgment call we have to make as policy-makers, as parliamentarians. We bring our experience to this job to make that determination. I wouldn't agree with a one-year extension. I wouldn't agree with a two-year extension. I don't agree with a three-year extension.

Where do we go from that? Do we agree on four years? Do we agree on five years? I think five years is good. Everything I know about the criminal justice system and my experience in life tells me that five years is a pretty good compromise from never giving it or giving it immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Rathgeber, please.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Minister, thank you for your appearance here today and for your other appearances during this session.

My friend Mr. Kania wanted some empirical data and I have some. In 2006-07 the parole board issued over 14,000 pardons and denied only 103 applications.

Would you agree with me, Mr. Minister, as many victims' groups have told me, that up to this point and up to this proposed legislation and the bill that passed in the dying days of the spring session, that the pardon system at least had the appearance of being a rubber stamp system?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Rathgeber, I think you're exactly right. I think the general impression of Canadians, of our existing pardon system, was one of shock that the National Parole Board, under the legislation it applied, simply rubber-stamped applications.

This is not to take anything away from the National Parole Board. We provide them with the legislation. They followed the legislation.

In 2006, when our colleague Minister Day looked at the issue, it was suggested that these changes could be made through administrative measures. It's clear from the experience between 2006 and 2009-10 that administrative provisions were not enough in order to accomplish the policy goals that we wished to accomplish.

So to move it away from a rubber stamp or simply an administrative system to what is now, I believe, quasi-judicial in terms of the decision-making process is very important. I think that will go a long way in convincing Canadians that there is a purpose for the pardon system, that the parole board puts thought into its decisions, and where a pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the board will in fact deny a pardon.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Many of us were moved by the compelling and very tragic story of Sheldon Kennedy, and I think he may be appearing in front of this committee in the days to come. I know you've met him. I'm curious as to what part, if any, his tragic story played in the drafting of this legislation.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have to say that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Fleury were very important individuals in the drafting of this legislation. To bare your soul the way those two individuals have had to do over the last number of years is quite remarkable. That we have individuals who can speak out in an articulate and a clear and firm way about what it means to be a victim in these circumstances is truly impressive and very moving.

It's not just Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Fleury I'm worried about disappointing; I'm worried about disappointing all of those other victims they're speaking on behalf of, victims who will never come to this committee, who will never speak out. I think what they have done on behalf of Canada and on behalf of victims is very important.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Many victims' groups have written letters to members of this committee, and I know you've consulted with many of them: Victims of Violence, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance, the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. The list goes on and on.

Are you aware of any victims' group that opposes this proposed legislation?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, I'm not. I know that certain victims' groups are not satisfied that we've gone far enough, but they are supportive of the general principles we have put in place.

I think the individuals who have expressed certain concerns were actually quite shocked when they saw our government moving ahead with this. I think there was a belief that no one would ever do anything about it. It was with that kind of sense that many of these individuals approached us. They wanted as much as they could possibly get, because they felt they had to speak out very strongly and forcefully to get these changes made.

Generally speaking, in answer to your question, I am not aware of any victims' group that says this is the wrong direction to move in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rathgeber.

I know the minister has to leave right at 4:30. We still have a couple more minutes, so I would go back to Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I have a two-part question. Here is part one.

You mentioned offenders who have offended multiple times as providing one of the rationales for amending legislation in this manner. I'd ask you—not today, as I assume you don't have it with you—to table whatever documentation, data, or whatever you're relying upon to support the assertion that it's necessary to amend this bill because of that problem. There must be something.

Let me just get the second part out.

The other thing is this. The purpose of the legislation—I read this before—as you indicated it was in your speech, on page 8, is an opportunity to start over with what amounts to a clean slate. I'd like to know whether, if somebody gets a record suspension, they will be able to say when asked, as on a job application, that they do not have a criminal record. And when a criminal record search is done, will the record suspension show, will the previous record show, or will they actually have that “clean slate” that is enunciated here as the purpose?