Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Barrett Fraser]

When I sit in the coffee shops, go to a pub, or go out with my buddies to a game, and stuff like that, the common consensus is that we need to be tougher on crime; we need to punish people and lock them up. But you're right that I don't confess. If I'm with my close friends they already know. If I'm with some acquaintances, of course I'm not going to say anything.

Having lived on both sides of the fence, so to speak, I think there is merit in what you're saying. We need to be tougher on crime and maybe have stiffer sentences. All of those things apply. But at the end of the day, someone gave me an opportunity; that's all they did. I had a choice to turn around and take that opportunity and run with it, or squander it, as I did with several thousand other opportunities. I made the right choice that time and took the opportunity, and it has served me very well.

Unfortunately, having insight from being on both sides of the fence, if this legislation passes perhaps I wouldn't be able to present an opportunity to someone else in the future. It really comes right down to the fact that there is a need for stronger and stiffer sentences, but if you put up too many barriers and restrictions you will ultimately take people who already have a very jaded and cynical attitude, and reaffirm what they think they already know: that the world is against them. They won't be able to recognize opportunities when they're presented to them. That's really what it comes down to, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Eidse, there are ten seconds left.

[Kenton Eidse]

I would simply like to say that I think the nays were zero because everybody is in favour of strengthening public safety. The mandate of this committee is to look at the evidence, to look at the facts, and to make a decision based on the facts, no matter what the public mood is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Eidse.

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that is the point. I think that every party, every member who's elected, is interested in public safety. I don't think any member is for crime or against keeping people safe, although if you listen to some of the rhetoric you might come to a different conclusion. I think the truth is everybody here wants that. The question is, what's the best approach to get it? That's where we have differences.

On this, we have to look at what's in front of us today, and it's the reason I made the point of order earlier. Bill C-23A is done, it's passed, so the Karla Homolka and the Graham James situation is the situation we've dealt with under that.

The situation we're now dealing with, under Bill C-23B, deals a lot, frankly, with the gentlemen who are with us here today. And what I heard from the opposite side a number of times was to say, “Well, we don't want to see someone like you or you or you not have the chance to be able to go out and get those opportunities”. I heard a number of people say, “Well, we're not thinking of you when we think of that”. And if I'm wrong, if I heard that incorrectly, please correct me, but that's what I heard.

The problem is that that's what this legislation does, as it's currently crafted. Every single one of the gentlemen in front of us today would be ineligible for a pardon, or call it a record suspension, whatever name you give it, if this legislation were to pass. I think that should give us pause, because when you actually look at real lives and real circumstances, it has a different meaning.

On that, talking about rehabilitation, if we're honestly interested in keeping people safe and reducing victimization, not having victims, then we need to have rehabilitation. Mr. Rota talked about the 96%. He talked about what impact it would have. But specifically, I think you gentlemen are in a unique position to talk about how important a motivating factor that light at the end of the tunnel is for something like a pardon.

As you've taken the journey—and many of you are now many, many years incident-free, without any relapse of any kind—can you talk about how important that light at the end of the tunnel is to you, as a motivating factor in your rehabilitation?

Perhaps I could start with Mr. Muhammed, because I didn't get an opportunity to hear from him last time.

[Mumtaz Muhammed]

To me, it's like a drive that gives me motivation, something worth all my work that I'll be putting toward an accomplishment that I will get something from at the end. Then my family will look at me and view me differently, which they already do. Accomplishing those things makes me feel that and lets me see the things they see in me. That's what it gives me.

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

Maybe the same question to Mr. Fraser, and also to Mr. Courchene, kind of in the opposite direction. You have to go through some difficult periods, obviously, of self-reflection, what caused you to make the mistakes you made and how you can improve yourself, how you can not make those mistakes, how you can make positive contributions to your community and to your own life. How important is that light, that possibility of being able to eventually get it, if you stay on the straight and narrow and stay on the good path, in your process of rehabilitation?

[Barrett Fraser]

I think I've been rehabilitated for a long, long time. For me it's tremendously important, because, if you haven't noticed, I'm pretty type A, I'm pretty achievement-oriented, I'm goal-oriented. I take complete responsibility for everything that I've ever done in my life, and I don't look at a pardon as a pat on the back, “Oh, good for you for being a good boy”. Pardon, for me, ultimately, is credibility. At the end of the day, I can only speak for myself. I work in a very cut-throat industry, I work in media, I work in communications. You are constantly under a microscope, as you guys know, because I'm putting you under the microscope—well, not me, personally. But it's credibility.

One of the big things, for me, is that I do have peers and I do have colleagues in my industry who are of influence, who look at me and think there has to be some way that he managed to back-door his way into this situation. Nobody in seven years can go from where he was to where he is now without pulling some strings. I fight that fight every day. With a pardon, I'm vindicated. All of the hard work and all of the effort that Taz puts into making himself feel good about himself again, that pardon, that piece of paper, becomes vindication for him.

So it's immense. To answer your question, sir, it's immense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Mr. Courchene

[Chris Courchene]

Growing up, I didn't even know what a normal life was. I thought being a better gangster was normal because that's what I was surrounded by. But when I got into the BUILD program, I was with different kinds of Indians, you could say. They had normal lives. They showed me what normal was: going to work everyday, taking care of families, and taking them out to places. I took programs at BUILD where I got in touch with my cultural side. They took me out to sweats and showed me how people of my nationality lived. I've taken anger management at the John Howard Society.

When I was sentenced, the judge said, “This man doesn't need more jail time. What he needs are programs and rehabilitation. He needs AA.” What we need to find out more about are what are the motivations behind the crimes, and how we can get offenders to go through a program while they're still incarcerated, so that they can understand how they're supposed to act when they come back into society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Courchene.

We'll now move to Madame Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Good afternoon.

I don't normally sit on this committee. I will nevertheless ask you some questions.

You, the young people, are very brave for coming today and for sharing your experiences with the committee. Mr. Fraser is also young. He is actually younger than me.

My home has also been broken into in the past. I replaced what was stolen and had an alarm system installed. That fixed the problem. We usually know some people who have made mistakes and have paid their dues to society. I don't think it's up to us to repeatedly pass judgment on these people. You have taken responsibility for your actions, or you wouldn't be here today. You have decided to take a giant step towards becoming a productive member of our society, and I tip my hat to you for that.

Ninety-six per cent of people can be rehabilitated. Yet, the provincial governments are always saying that there is a shortage of professionals workers.

Mr. Courchene, your goal is to become a professional. You have attended post-secondary courses. I would like you to explain to this government, which is somewhat reactionary, how a pardon would help you. Would it help you get even further ahead, become someone who pays his taxes, raises his children, loves them and provides them with a better future?

[Chris Courchene]

It would help me because I would get a better job. There's PCL. There's Manitoba Hydro. There's JEDS Construction. They all need criminal record checks. Even going to school.... I'm trying to get into Red River College. I'm sure there will also be a criminal record check for that.

But if I could get a pardon, it would mean I could climb up the ladder. I would get paid more. I wouldn't be stuck at $9.50 forever. I am making $17.10 now. I just want to get more money, so I can provide for my family.

If I were to get my red seal in carpentry, I could start my own business. I could teach my cousins, my aunts, and my uncles how to do what I do, and then they wouldn't have to be on welfare. They wouldn't have to live the lifestyle they are living. I'm trying to create a program to help my own family, and help their friends and help their friends. But I need a pardon to get on with my life, so that I can do these things.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I am glad to hear you say that. In addition to being someone who has reintegrated himself into society, you will create jobs, and that's what this country needs. Your vision is extraordinary, and I tip my hat to you.

I would like Mr. Muhammed to tell us—and let's keep in mind the shortage of workers—whether he also wants to get ahead, to learn a trade in order to be able to, someday, become a good father, if he wants a family, and so on.

How could a pardon help you?

[Mumtaz Muhammed]

Receiving a pardon would help me a whole lot, in terms of those aspects. It would help me to move from where I am situated right now, in the job I'm in. It would help me to do the other job I was into, helping disabled children and such. Doing that would help me provide for my family and build my credibility. I would very much like that.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have a minute left.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Okay.

As I said earlier, we all know many people who have made mistakes. I know someone who has paid their dues, in a way. This person also owns a company and creates jobs.

What can those people who are among the 96% of those who can be rehabilitated bring to all the small rural and urban communities in Quebec and Canada? I am focusing on Quebec because I am more familiar with it. I don't know anything about Manitoba or all the programs offered there. Can you estimate what these people could bring to communities in your respective areas?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bonsant.

I don't know who would like to respond.

Mr. Hutton, I see your finger in the air.

[John Hutton]

An aspect we haven't talked about is that it's very important to also have a criminal record check before you can volunteer at your own school, at your child's school, or the community club.

It's not just about work, it's also about having a fuller role in the community. You don't want the principal of your school to know you've spent several years in prison; that may prevent you from volunteering at the school. So it has very wide ramifications.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hutton.

We'll now move to Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This spring, in response to a couple of high-profile cases—Graham James getting a pardon and the prospect of Karla Homolka getting a pardon—this Parliament met, and all parties got together and made a couple of changes to the Criminal Records Act.

We increased the time you have to wait for a pardon to ten years for manslaughter, for indictable sexual offences committed against children, and for offences that involve serious personal injury. We added a broad discretionary power that permits the National Parole Board to deny a pardon in any case where to do so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

We're here today because the government wants to go further than that. There are those of us on this side of the table who think the system is now cured. The ills that were there before are cured by what we did in Bill C-23A. I want to be clear about that. I think we have made steps to address what some of the concerns are.

I want to get to the heart of the matter. This bill before us would paint everybody with the same brush, were the words you used. It would mean anybody with more than three indictable offences, even if those happened in one bad weekend when you were 18 years old and you lived 25 years of perfect conduct after that, would prevent you from ever getting a pardon. There are certain people who would never be able to get a pardon under any circumstances, even if they committed one offence. It means every single person who commits one single indictable offence would have to wait ten years before they could even apply for a pardon.

When it comes right down to it, I guess what I want to know is how many of you think this legislation is positive in terms of helping offenders reintegrate into society, and how would this affect public safety as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I don't see anyone jumping forward.

Mr. Eidse, please.

[Kenton Eidse]

I certainly don't see this as being a positive contribution to the reintegration efforts of many of the people I work with.

I think five years is a really long time already. I notice individuals in my work struggling in job after job, never being able to get promoted in their jobs, being stuck in a lot of the same industries when they want to do something else.

Taz tried to get into working with kids with disabilities. He did an amazing job, and he has amazing references. He was loved by the children and the staff there. They want to hire him back if he gets a pardon, but he might not get a pardon and he might not be able to work in that field. Right now, he's roofing and enjoying it, but there are other possibilities for someone with the skills that Taz has. I think five years is a long time.

As John has mentioned, when you've proven yourself, proved you can move on with your life in five years, when you've overcome the huge barriers that are placed in front of you every single day coming out of prison, out of our federal system, and you do that over and over again for five years and you make it, you have earned your pardon.

I think ten years is enough to break someone, and I don't think that's worth it for public safety.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I just want to focus a little bit on victims. The former victims' ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, appeared before this committee in April, and he spoke about the needs of victims. He mentioned a speech Prime Minister Harper gave at the opening of the victims of crime symposium, and he said, regarding Mr. Harper's speech, and I quote:

I was a little disappointed, however, that he proceeded in his speech focusing almost exclusively on how we treat offenders. On the day we were supposed to remember and recognize victims of crime, he talked about Karla Homolka, Clifford Olson, and Graham James. And I can tell you that when he left and a discussion began among those victim service providers and within those workshops, the issues we talked about were very different.

He mentioned some of the things you elaborated on. Victims really want those offenders not to reoffend. They want to be safe. They want those offenders to not hurt anybody else. And they want those offenders to understand and appreciate the harm that's been caused. That's fundamentally, I think, what victims have expressed they want in this country.

It's not just, as I think Mr. Rathgeber expressed, that victims are one-sided on this. Victims have testified, and they say in this country every day, and in the coffee shops of this country, that they want offenders to succeed. They want you to become productive members of society as well, because after all, that's the best way to have public safety.

I just want to know if any of you have any final comments on that and maybe on how victims' interests may be served by you obtaining pardons.