Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Chris Courchene, Level 1 Carpenter Apprentice, Building Urban Industries for Local Development]

Bonjour.

My name is Chris Courchene. I'm a member of Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba. I live in Winnipeg, and I am a carpenter's apprentice. I am here today to tell you my story and how it relates to the legislation being considered.

The first 11 years of my life I mostly lived with my grandparents on reserve. I went to school, and it was a fairly functional environment. Then I turned 11. My mother did the best she could, but she suffered from having attended the residential school system. She was a drug addict and an alcoholic and was very abusive. This was her hurt. She wasn't able to look after me the way she should have, had she had a normal upbringing herself.

She got me involved with a local street gang when I was 11. I want to repeat this: My mother got me involved in a street gang when I was 11. The gang offered me belonging, opportunity, and safety. Between the time I was 11 and 24, I was arrested more than seven times, and I have more then seven offences.

I spent more than half of this time in jail. Every time I got out of jail, I had good intentions for starting a new life, but I continually hit dead ends, partly because I was unemployable with my history, partly because of alcohol and drugs. The cycle of offence, arrest, conviction, time in jail, and release would repeat itself over and over until I was 24. It was then that I was hired into a program called BUILD, in Winnipeg's inner city.

BUILD is an aboriginal social enterprise that accepts people with backgrounds similar to mine where we receive training, job experience, and a supportive environment. It helps us go from being unemployable to being an asset in the labour market.

While at BUILD, I took a parenting course and realized the patterns I had to break in order to be a good parent to my two children. I took a budgeting course, WHMIS, first aid, and CPR and even obtained my driver's licence through their driver's licensing program.

Now I am ready to take steps to move on to my second apprenticeship level. But I can't do this with a criminal record. I am prevented from obtaining a good career job with employers such as Manitoba Hydro. I haven't reoffended now in soon to be five years, and I was intending to obtain a pardon, given that I will soon reach five years with no offence.

I have now completed my grade 12, my level one apprenticeship, and my driver's licence. I am career-oriented and am a loving, committed parent to my two children.

Prime Minister Harper offered an apology to aboriginal peoples here in the House of Commons. When I heard about this apology, it encouraged me to heal and put the past behind me, and I look forward to becoming a productive citizen and a member of society.

I feel that the proposed legislation paints everyone with the same brush. I think that the pardon should be meant for people who clearly have demonstrated without a doubt that they have reformed and that they have a very negligible chance of reoffending. I know that with this legislation you are hoping to reduce crime. I think that is commendable. There have to be consequences for actions, but painting everyone with the same brush won't serve that purpose.

I hope that you allow me to apply for a pardon. I'd like to move on with my life.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Courchene.

Ma'am, did you have a statement as well? All right, go ahead, please.

We'll go to Andrea Derbecker.

[Andrea Derbecker, Training Coordinator, Building Urban Industries for Local Development]

We at BUILD believe in consequences. For example, we think that some offences should have stiffer penalties, like home invasions. However, let's help people break the cycle of violence when they are ready. A one-size-fits-all approach to pardons will increase violent crimes rather than decrease them. Once out of jail many inmates are unemployable. How many employers will hire an ex-offender with no job experience, no driver's licence? Even former inmates who want to find work are unable and many of them are forced back into a life of crime, building up offences and ruining lives.

Chris's story is one of a multitude in the north end of Winnipeg. His mother got him involved in gangs when he was very young. The fact that Chris is out of that life and is being a role model should be rewarded, not punished. In Chris's situation the problem is not related to the individual; rather, it is systemic, thanks in part to the residential school system, reservations, poverty, lack of employment. Many good employers, like Manitoba Hydro, and many construction firms, for example, require a clean criminal record. Pardons should be for people who have clearly shown reform and who do not present a risk of reoffending. Let reformed inmates get on with their lives on a case-by-case basis. We at BUILD know from front-line experience that many, if not most, of these individuals can become productive members of society. They need supportive employers to enter the workforce and build a résumé. The court incarceration and police systems have likely spent well over $1 million arresting, sentencing, and incarcerating Chris Courchene. At BUILD we spent $20,000 to train and support Chris so that he could enter the workforce. He is pulling his family along with him now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Derbecker.

We'll now go over to Mr. Eidse.

[Kenton Eidse, Employment Consultant and Facilitator, Community Office, Opportunities for Employment]

Good afternoon, honourable members of Parliament and this committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

My name is Kenton Eidse, and I'm an employment consultant with Opportunities for Employment, which is located in Winnipeg's west end. I work primarily with young men and women who have criminal records, assisting them with preparation for employment and their job searches.

Opportunities for Employment is concerned with being a presence that promotes strength, growth, and safety in our neighbourhoods by assisting community members with finding and keeping meaningful employment. We hope today to contribute to a complete picture of how the proposed Bill C-23B legislation will affect our communities.

With our community in my mind, Opportunities for Employment wishes this committee to consider that unnecessary barriers to honest employment placed before job seekers with criminal records will increase the risk to public safety. Numerous proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act constitute significant barriers to reintegration by denying offenders the opportunity to prove themselves, earn a pardon, and reach their full potential as productive members of society.

Job seekers with criminal records envision an earned pardon as a twofold benefit: one, a strong incentive to lead drug-free, crime-free, and productive lives in the community; and two, a means to achieving success in the long term, as a pardon removes an increasingly common barrier to employment, housing, volunteering, and educational opportunities.

Specifically, the proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act that would significantly reduce the incentive and increase the barriers to long-term success are doubling the waiting period for those wanting to apply for a pardon, prohibiting those who have committed specific offences from ever having the chance to earn their pardon, and prohibiting those who have been convicted of more than three offences from ever having the chance to earn a pardon.

Half of the participants who come through our employment agency's doors have a criminal record. These job seekers, who are taking positive action and staying out of trouble while waiting for their pardon eligibility, face a vastly diminished job pool because of their criminal record. No longer are criminal record checks confined to banking, health care, teaching, security, and government sectors. An increasing number of employers in the skilled trades, warehousing, building maintenance, landscaping, and manufacturing industries are also requiring a clear criminal record.

By asking on their application form, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime for which you have not received a pardon?”, these companies recognize that potential employees with criminal records can rehabilitate. They will hire ex-offenders if they have proven good conduct and evidence of rehabilitation--in other words, if they have achieved a pardon. Based on the current pardon system's 96% success rate, employers can be, and they are, confident that a pardon signifies reform. They are willing to hire based on skill and experience, not on past mistakes.

A 2007 report of the Correctional Services of Canada review panel, A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, observed that

Informed and engaged citizens and communities are integral to safe offender reintegration. CSC depends on the communities it serves to accept and support offenders. The Panel believes that this is critical to public safety.

If this proposed legislation takes away the opportunity for offenders to prove themselves, to turn a new leaf, to shed the stigma of their past, it will further separate offenders from the needed acceptance and support of their communities. In my experience as an employment counsellor, this separation will increase the likelihood that an offender will come up against too many walls in his or her efforts to change and return to old destructive patterns of survival, which may lead to further crimes.

We see so many people working hard every day to change their lives, to rebound from their mistakes. We are doing everything we can to assist them, with the knowledge that by doing so we are helping build safer, productive communities. We sincerely hope this legislation will continue to help and not hinder this vital endeavour.

Our recommendation to the members of this committee is to consider carefully the success that our current pardon system enjoys; the role of employment, housing, volunteering, and education in reintegration and the importance of an earned pardon in achieving these goals; and the necessary foundation of our correctional system, that offenders can be rehabilitated under the right supportive conditions.

I would like to turn it over to a participant of ours, Taz Muhammed. In my opinion, he exemplifies amazing potential in his particular career hopes, which could definitively be lost if he is not given the chance to apply for his pardon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Eidse.

Mr. Muhammed.

[Mumtaz Muhammed, Participant, Community Office, Opportunities for Employment]

Thank you, Kenton.

Thank you today for the opportunity to have me speak to you here today. This is the last place I ever expected I'd be.

I'm an ex-offender who is trying to put his criminal past behind him, but the way our society is structured, and how far I've become unstructured from society, on its own is a long and trying endeavour. It's an absorbing road that one may never find a way out of, so people choose to give in. But I refuse to quit, because I know that with my family, my beliefs, and my goals that I've set forth, those things that I achieve will bring me happiness and a sense of self-worth.

I believe that by increasing the pardon waiting period to make it impossible for anyone with more than three indictable offences to apply for a pardon, many lives will be affected--as well as mine. If this new bill were to pass, it would close many doors for me and condemn me to live with my past indefinitely. I may never be able to achieve a job with respectable pay like the one at Turning Leaf, which I acquired through the help of the staff at Opportunities for Employment, who didn't discriminate against me and believed in me, believed that I could do it.

I volunteered at Turning Leaf. It is an organization that works with children with disabilities, and it was a rewarding experience. I'm passionate about this work, and my referrals from this organization will tell you that this work is a great fit for me and for my skills as well. Though they couldn't hire me because of my record, they hoped that after I received my pardon I would come back and work for them.

I'm in the middle of my pardon process and trying to get all the necessary documents. It may still take quite a while. But if this bill goes through, I will not be eligible for a pardon at all, and the field of work that I love may never be accessible to me. Many opportunities in my life will be impacted by this new change, and I'm pleading for you to consider this bill, because my future opportunities will be limited.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muhammed.

Thank you to each of you for your testimonies.

We'll move into the first round of questioning with Mr. Holland, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses, and in particular I want to thank Mr. Fraser and Mr. Courchene and Mr. Muhammed. I know it's not easy to come forward with your stories and to share those, but you put a human face on an issue we're dealing with, and I'm deeply appreciative of your doing that.

We had the minister in last week and we went over a number of weaknesses in the bill. The minister acknowledged a number of them, and they concern me deeply. One is referenced in one of the presentations--I can't remember whose. It made the point that in one night you could in fact have five indictable offences. It was Mr. Fraser who indicated that. So you could have a person in one night make one mistake from which there stem five indictable offences, and under this current bill as it stands, that person would never have an opportunity for a pardon.

The other concern, of course, is the nature of the indictable offences. The bar is pretty low. A lot of people don't consider that when you're dealing with hybrid offences, some of those indictable offences could be possession of marijuana, or they could be somebody in a desperate situation writing a fraudulent cheque. We're not saying they should do these things, but clearly these are not the types of things on which we would want to bar people forever from being able to get a pardon.

Mr. Hutton, if I could go to you to start, my concern is this. If we shut the door, if we say to people that there is no hope, that they're not going to get the opportunity to get a pardon, or call it a record suspension, whatever the title you might want to put on it, aren't we endangering public safety by saying to those people that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, that they have no way back in, they have no way to become a productive member of society in the way that other citizens are? That would be the first question.

Secondly, if changes should be made, where do you think the line should be redrawn? Are there examples where you feel that a pardon or record suspension shouldn't be made available to individuals?

[John Hutton]

Thank you.

In terms of your first question, I think we're concerned about any barriers that are there. Essentially, what you've heard is that a pardon isn't something that's just nice to have; a pardon is instrumental in the lives of these three gentlemen as they move forward and build stronger, healthier lives for themselves, their children, their families, and their community.

And frankly, I don't see that there should be any barrier put in place, that there is anything to be gained by making it more difficult for Barrett, for Chris, for Taz, or for the 400 or 500 or thousands of other Canadians to move forward in a crime-free life.

At the John Howard Society some of the people we work with have committed some very serious offences, have spent a lot of time in prison, and they too would have this opportunity. And it never comes at one point. I've met people who have seen the light after their first sentence. I've met people who have seen the light after 25 years. But they are working in the community, they are crime-free, they are not hurting other people.

I can't predict when that's going to happen. I want to be able to say to all of my clients, “You have that opportunity at some point. If you don't break the law in the future, if you don't hurt people in the future, you can put this behind you and move forward.” That is a huge piece of hope for someone, and I don't think it should be taken away.

You asked me where I would draw the line. I say that the line is fine where it is. The number of people.... Ninety-six percent of people who get a pardon don't have it revoked. And some of those who have it revoked have it revoked for something that occurred before the pardon was granted--a past offence that the police have found out about--as in the case of Graham James, for example.

I say that the line is fine where it is. If someone is crime-free for five years from the end of their sentence, statistically they are not going to commit another crime.

The people we see, the repeat offenders--and I work with a lot of repeat offenders--don't wait five years to commit another crime. They're doing it within five weeks or five months.

I think the line is fine where it is and there is no need, from a safety point of view, to change that.

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

One of the things the minister referenced in his appearance before the committee was that people who are committing multiple offences--and I'm talking here about very serious multiple offences--are his concern. He wasn't able to furnish to committee as of that point the number of people who would be in that circumstance who would be getting pardons.

Would you or anybody on the panel have access to that kind of information and be able to provide it? Because I think it's an important thing. If that's what he's trying to go after, the first question I'd be interested in is how many people in those circumstances are getting pardons under the current system? I haven't seen that. Are you aware of any statistics in that regard?

[John Hutton]

Semantically, could we just separate between people who are committing multiple offences and people who have committed offences in the past? When somebody has reached a point in time--five years from their last offence--they are no longer in my mind a repeat offender, a chronic offender. And if somebody continues to break the law, they would not be eligible for a pardon. There is already that cooling-off period.

I think the minister is pulling in two things. He's talking about somebody who is actively breaking the law and confusing that with somebody who has had a period of a minimum of five years since they've broken the law. I think at that point, the pattern is broken.

In terms of the numbers, I can't say. I am told that the number of Canadians with a criminal record approaches 3.5 million. How many of those would be multiple offences, I couldn't tell you.

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

I have a very limited amount of time. So to Mr. Courchene, Mr. Fraser, and Mr. Muhammed, can you just tell the committee...? And first of all, I'm assuming that this bill would preclude any of you in your circumstances from being eligible for a pardon or a record suspension, as it might be called. Can you tell us what that would mean to you? If that door were shut, what impact would that have on you? Aside from the issue of fairness, what impact do you think that would have on your life, your circumstances, and what impact do you think it would have on others?

[Barrett Fraser]

I can speak to that first.

First of all, it would affect me tremendously professionally. I've been fortunate enough to find myself in a career where people are forgiving, understanding, and results-oriented. As long as you do a good job, they're prepared to overlook your indiscretions. However, I'm fast approaching a ceiling in my work. In order for me to move from senior management to a senior executive, I'm going to need a pardon. I would love nothing more than for Reuters to phone me and say, “Mr. Fraser, we'd love for you to come and work for us and you have to live in London.” I will need a pardon for that. I'd love for CNN to call me and say, “Would you like to work for us and move to Atlanta or to Washington?”, but I would need a pardon for that, too.

I want to emphasize that I don't think I'm a unique individual. My story is different from Chris's; it's different from Taz's. But we have a common bond between us—that the pardon represents closure. I've been conflict-free for six years now. I'm married, I own my own home, I have a mortgage. I have all the responsibilities that you have. But I also have this burden, something I always have to be prepared to answer for, something I get challenged on virtually every day.

Those are the consequences I have to deal with because of the choices I made some time ago. However, I'm making all the right choices now. Not getting a pardon would prevent me from getting any closure on that portion of my life, and that closure is important to me. Also, the lack of a pardon would put a hard ceiling on where I can go professionally.

Chris.

[Chris Courchene]

I wouldn't be able to get a job at places that ask for criminal records. Lots of places ask for criminal records in the carpentry industry. I don't know what I'll do if I don't get this pardon. I'm scared that I'll end up on welfare or something, or that I'll be sweeping buildings and cleaning toilets for the rest of my life, or that I'll doing back-breaking labour until I'm 80 before I can save up to take care of my kids. All I want to do is get on with life. I want to continue to be a good member of society, a good citizen. I want to teach people like me how they can do it too, how they can get away from that type of stuff. But if I can't get this pardon, what do you expect me to do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The chair was caught up in some of these stories.

Mr. Muhammed, maybe you'll be able to work it into another question.

Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here. I would also like to thank you for sharing your life stories with us. You represent many of those who were accused of a crime at some point in their lives.

I think that one of the main issues with this bill is that, once someone commits a third offence, he or she becomes completely ineligible for a record suspension. Your story is making me think that this ban could cause a major problem. It's possible for someone to commit several crimes in one night or in less than a week. As you deftly put it, Mr. Courchene, people don't necessarily choose to join a street gang. Sometimes, that lifestyle is deeply ingrained and can be traced to the family.

You could perhaps help us with the following point. The bill also states that once a person is accused of an offence referred to in Schedule 1, which covers a number of sexual offences, he or she becomes ineligible to apply for a record suspension. We know that, for crimes involving drugs, and so on, the success rate of rehabilitation is quite high.

I am wondering about sex offences such as, for instance, pedophilia and sexual assault of a minor. I must admit that I have a hard time believing that people who commit these types of crimes can be rehabilitated. I worked at the Institut Philippe-Pinel for a long time. I can tell you that when offenders also have mental issues, it is very difficult to rehabilitate them, even with the help of all the programs currently available.

Don't you think that, in such cases, record suspension should not be granted, since these people could end up working in schools, with sports teams, and so on? What do you think about this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Hutton.

[John Hutton]

I'd very much like to respond. Thank you.

First of all, anyone who's applying for a pardon has not reoffended, certainly not to the awareness of the police or the courts, or else he or she won't get the pardon. There's an assumption that sexual offenders can never be rehabilitated. I've heard this. People always say “they say”. Yet the evidence is that 90% of sexual offenders do not reoffend. And we are talking only about people who can prove they have not, when we are talking about being able to apply for a pardon. So anyone who is applying for a pardon, including Mr. James, has gone offence-free for at least five years from the time they finished their last sentence. So I think we can accept, at some point, that they have stopped the behaviour.

In terms of whether they should be able to get a pardon, they should, absolutely. In terms of protection...I have applied both in this country and in other countries to work with the vulnerable sector. I have had a criminal record check. There is already a provision there. There is a box you're required to check if you're going to be working with children. Even if you have a pardon, it will show if you have had a sexual offence working with children. So there's already a provision there whereby the vulnerable sector is protected and people can find out, even when there has been a pardon. Simply by requiring that the volunteer or employee check the box for a vulnerable person check, the employer will be told whether there has been a sexual offence.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

You're saying that, currently, when people whose record has been suspended after they were accused of a sexual offence involving a minor apply for a job in a daycare centre or a school, the prospective employers, who request a criminal record check of the applicant, can see whether that person had been accused of a sexual offence involving a minor. Is that right?

[John Hutton]

Yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So, these provisions already exist.

[John Hutton]

Yes. As long as the school--and this is an education piece rather than a legislative piece--makes sure that the box for “vulnerable persons search” is checked. Then the police will say whether there was a sexual offence. Whether there was a pardon or not, they will say.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Okay.

So you're saying that this bill is completely useless. On studying it, we see that it contains two major provisions, aside from the change from the word “pardon” to the word “suspension”, which is really just filler more than anything else. If we examine the bill, two problems emerge. The first is people's ineligibility if they've committed an offence referred to in Schedule 1. The second is the ban on a record suspension following a third offence. So you're telling me that these two points, and thereby this bill, are completely useless.

[John Hutton]

As I said, I think the existing criteria in terms of protecting public safety are fine and we see no need for further changes at all. And if I might add, doubling the waiting period is the third aspect, from five years to ten if someone has even one indictable offence. We see no need for that.