Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Considering all that's been said in the past hour or so, why do you think the bill is before us?

We talked about Bill C-23A, which was drafted specifically with one or two people in mind. I always have a hard time understanding how bills can be drafted for one or two people. The idea behind law is that it should apply to the majority. Unfortunately, we can't change the past.

Here is my main question: Why exactly is this bill on the table?

Mr. Eidse.

[Kenton Eidse]

I recognize that this committee is concerned with public safety. I understand that the purpose of this bill is concerned with the safety of the public, with vulnerable sectors. We are concerned with protecting society from further crimes.

I would like to remind the committee, though, that anybody who's been convicted of a crime under section 1 offences will still be flagged in the CPIC system; therefore, vulnerable sectors are protected under the current legislation. I would like to remind the public of that.

In terms of Karla Homolka or Graham James, what I see a pardon providing for these individuals--the most heinous criminals, as you suggest--would be that they'd be able to get a job. I personally wouldn't want people sitting around at home, bored, wondering what to do with their lives. I would really like Karla Homolka to be able to get a job and be able to be productive in society. Certainly we are protected from Karla Homolka working with children under the current legislation. I would like to really emphasize that a pardon would allow her to move, to be productive, instead of drawing off our welfare system, and moving forward or doing any other thing. I want her to get a job, and I think most of you would agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Eidse.

We'll now move to Mr. Lobb.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to say that I'm really proud of the three individuals who are here today for what they've been able to accomplish. I think that's a real testament to your goals and hard work. You should be proud and your families should be proud, because it's a great story. I hope, moving forward, if you have time, you can talk to other people who are going through the same thing. I think that would certainly give them a lot of motivation to keep going, even on the rough and rocky days that are out there.

I guess the first question I have is for Mr. Hutton. I wasn't clear if you feel that someone like Graham James, for the crimes he's committed, should receive a pardon. Do you feel as though he should receive a pardon?

[John Hutton]

At the time that first came up into the news, I did speak in the media about it. I said that if he qualified for a pardon, my understanding--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One moment.

Mr. Holland, on a point of order.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've let it go a number of times, but we keep talking about a bill that's already been passed, Bill C-23A. Currently before us today is Bill C-23B, so I wonder if we can maybe restrict our questions to the matter before us.

When there are a couple of instances, that's fine, but we seem to be having a protracted conversation about a piece of legislation that's already passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One of the things I would like to do is try to keep people focused on the legislation. I think we must have a certain latitude on this as well. We are speaking about pardons. I'm willing to let that go. I simply think that all of us need to keep focused, all the time, not on the specific technicalities of each piece of legislation.

But I think you're in order still, Mr. Lobb. You were still speaking about the pardons generally, so you can proceed.

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

Thank you. It certainly was intended to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I wanted to add, before you do, that I'll give you that time. Remember, when we are meeting in a meeting like this, it's not specific to Bill C-23B; it's also dealing with the Criminal Records Act, private member's motion M-514 of Madam Cadman, so there are larger parameters here than only Bill C-23B.

Continue, Mr. Lobb.

[John Hutton]

As I was saying, I saw nothing wrong with Mr. James getting a pardon if he had in fact met the criteria, had not committed any new offences and was living a crime-free life.

I think it's important to recognize the size of this carrot. Barrett talked about it as a carrot. For many of us, we would not break the law because we're afraid of being arrested and there's a lot of shame; we're also afraid of going to prison. But if you've already been arrested, if you've already gone to prison, then what's left in terms of the motivation to live a crime-free life in future? Well, what that leaves is a pardon. I would hate to see that taken away from anyone, and that does mean, obviously, that we have to apply rules to everyone and not an individual. What I would want for my clients, obviously, I would want for him too.

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

I'm sorry. For the sake of time.... Thank you.

Mr. Fraser, when you were delivering your opening speech you gave a very passionate reason for why it meant so much to you to obtain a pardon. I can see that. I can see why you want to have a pardon and have it be called a “pardon” and not a “suspension of record”.

On the flip side, not on your case specifically, but talking in more general terms about particular crimes, some people who are victims of crime would say that they don't forgive that person for the crimes. I think of a child who's been abused by a parent or something like that. They've had the scars and the emotional toll well into their adult life, and they don't forgive that parent or that person.

How does this committee deal with that? The crimes you've committed are very different from the acts somebody else has committed against, say, a child who is not forgiving. But others are forgiving. What do we do, in regard to the wording, with pardons and suspension of records?

[Barrett Fraser]

That's an excellent question.

I can only speak from what I feel and from my personal experiences. Your points are very valid. I too have been a victim of crime. I've had my house broken into three times. I've had my wife cry. I've had my dog stolen. I took those acts all very personally, and I don't forgive the people who committed them either.

That being said, if those individuals are ever apprehended and are tried and convicted, after they get out of prison, if they remain conflict-free for five years, I think they should have an opportunity to get a pardon, regardless of whether or not I personally forgive them. It's personal. It's malice. It's petty. It's spiteful. Yes, they broke into my home, took my stuff, violated all my property, and everything like that. I am entitled to feel angry, and I'm entitled to hold a grudge against them. But I'm not entitled to turn around and prevent those people from becoming better. That's really how I look at it.

If we talk about crimes that are of even greater gravity and that are much more heinous, the area becomes even greyer. I agree. There is a portion of me that would really say to just lock them up and throw away the key. Once they get out, let them try to figure it out.

But at the end of the day, we're a society of compassionate people. We're a society that is generally forgiving. We give second, third.... I'm a big believer in third and fourth chances, and this is a country that gives third and fourth chances. I just think we would take on an awful lot of responsibility, and therefore an awful lot of consequences, if we were to turn around and just say, “You have four indictable offences. Regardless of what they are, you won't get a pardon.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We'll move to Mr. Rota. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very interesting being here today. I was just going through listening, and Mr. Fraser said something very interesting, in that he works for a very results-oriented company and he really wants to see results. I know I read this before, and it's nice to hear it again. There's a 96% success rate after a pardon. Those are pretty darn good results.

I'm looking at this, and I'm just trying to make some heads or tails of it. I don't normally sit on this committee. I'm listening to the bill, and when somebody commits a crime, there's a mixture there. There's some retribution and some penance. You have to be punished a certain amount, but to me the penal system should be more about rehabilitation. How can we avoid having this person doing that crime again? I don't see that here. It seems to set up barriers.

We hear about how the victims are not listened to on the other side. Mr. Hutton, maybe you could give us your comments. What does this bill actually do for victims to prevent them from being victimized again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Rota.

Mr. Hutton.

[John Hutton]

As I said in the brief, in my experience working with victims, it is very important that the victims have an opportunity to understand what happened and why something happened. And they want to have some assurance that it's not going to happen again so that they feel safe. I think this is an important point. Ultimately, they want to know that somehow this incident has had an impact on the offender, as well. They would like to know that the offender is going to be a better person or make some amends, not just to them but to society, as a result. These are things I've heard when interviewing victims in mediation sessions, in preparing for mediation, and that I've seen come forward.

I think, actually, what this bill would do is make it harder for victims to feel a sense of satisfaction, because they wouldn't get the sense that the person is moving on, that in being pardoned, the person has achieved a certain level, has met certain criteria, and has not committed a crime. I think that would be lost.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

That's exactly the way I was looking at it, because I'm thinking that the victims want to be able to see that yes, there's been an injustice to the person they love or to them. But they want to see that maybe this person has changed, or that maybe hearing that person's side of the story would allow them to move on.

I want to go back to the 96% success rate, if you will. I look back to what happened in the U.S. years ago with the “three strikes and you're out” policy. I know that it had to do with sentencing, but all it did was fill up prisons. There really wasn't very much rehabilitation. It was all retribution. What would something like this law do to the 96% success rate with pardons now?

I'll leave that one open. Mr. Fraser, I see that you're kind of grinning there. Mr. Hutton, I know that you probably have some opinions on this as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Barrett Fraser]

Ultimately, I think you're going to crush that 96%. I was thinking of how to say it eloquently, but that's really what's going to happen, because no one is going to get a pardon.

I go back to my opening remarks. When I was arrested, one incident netted me 11 indictable offences. That's one incident. That's the police coming to my door and saying, “Mr. Fraser, you're under arrest”. And what am I under arrest for? They listed off a sheet off them.

Here's an interesting thing, too. In Canadian law, crowns have an opportunity on some offences to either go summary or indictable. In many, many instances, at least in Manitoba, I have seen people who should have been prosecuted in a summary fashion have those charges brought up to an indictable level. Why? Maybe a crown is looking to further his or her career. Maybe there's a grey area in there too.

But it would crush that 96%, sir. It would bring it down to zero is what would happen, because no one could get a pardon.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hutton, do you have a comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have ten seconds.

[John Hutton]

I will be quick.

I think the process of rehabilitation begins in prison and in jail. And parole is a tool a probation or parole officer can use with clients to encourage them, even before they've left the institution--“here is something you can work towards”. We would be taking that away. I think that would not be helpful in terms of public safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hutton.

We'll go to Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

I would also like to thank the witnesses, especially those who have encountered our criminal justice system and been brave enough and have enough belief in themselves to be able to come forth and tell their stories.

I was listening to a lot of the evidence. Of course I can't speak for Manitoba, but between my fellow caucus mate the parliamentary secretary and I, we have about 60 years of police experience, and 60 years of sentencing and court experience. So I can tell you that in Ontario--generally, not always--in dual-procedure offences the crown tends to, after negotiations, go to summary conviction.

When there are multiple charges the crown tends to--although not always--combine the charges and there's a conviction for one out of three or four offences, especially when those offences are three or four thefts in a row, or three or four break-and-enters stemming from the same set of circumstances. Again, you can only speak in generalities, but I speak from 60 years of experience. I was a court officer in two jurisdictions in Ontario, so I had day-to-day experience with it. I think some of the fears and issues brought up are mitigated by actual practical experience of what happens in court.

I am particularly interested in some of the statements that were made about being able to get on with one's life. We have various members of Parliament around the table here, but I get the pulse of the community from the place where Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary or regular Ontarians go to socialize. It used to be that on a Friday night they might go to a pub, but today we go to the coffee shop, and I listen to the general conversation.

I've heard some of the comments made here as to why would this or that happen, and why would the government do this and that. I think it's a collective experience we've had, based on the general perception. Canadians feel a certain way, and governments respond to the feelings and aspirations of the average person in society.

When you go out to the coffee shops you don't necessarily confess what you've done every time you go out in public to everyone who wants to listen. But especially to Mr. Fraser, being in the communications field with that radio announcer's voice you have....

I'm asking this because I seconded a motion--I'll cut out a lot of the parliamentary stuff--that says:

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.

That was the question put to the House of Commons. There were 285 yeas and zero nays.

So using what I've just said and the direction of this committee, can you give us some quick comments? Perhaps we can start with Mr. Fraser, work to the other three, and maybe go to Mr. Eidse after that.