Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome here. This is meeting number 41 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Monday, November 22, 2010.

Just before we get into the orders of the day, I want to encourage all of our members to submit their lists of witnesses for the coming hearings on Bill C-17, the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions bill. We have only two meetings scheduled for that bill, on December 13 and December 15. The justice minister will be appearing for the first hour and departmental officials in the second, but we do have witnesses who we would ask opposition and government members to get in for the other. We will want to hear those witnesses. We have not had too many submitted as of this point. For the clerk to be able to send the invitations out, we would ask that you get them in as soon as possible.

Today we're going to continue on our study of Bill C-23B, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act, and at the same time we're conducting a review of the Criminal Records Act as per Dona Cadman's private member's business motion M-514.

Our committee thanks the witnesses who have appeared before us here this afternoon. From the John Howard Society of Manitoba we have John Hutton, executive director, and Barrett Fraser, board member. From Building Urban Industries for Local Development, we have Chris Courchene, level one carpenter apprentice, and Andrea Derbecker, training coordinator. From Opportunities for Employment, we have Kenton Eidse, employment consultant, facilitator for the community office, and Mumtaz Muhammed, a participant at the community office.

I understand that each of these three organizations has opening comments and brief remarks, and then we will go into the first round of questions, which is a seven-minute round. The second and all other rounds are five-minute rounds.

Madame Mendes has asked—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

One request. One little request, Mr. Chair. Could we reserve 15 minutes at the end of the meeting for committee business, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

If it's the will of the committee, we have a motion to move to committee business at 5:15.

Is that the will, then, of the committee?

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I just have one question. Is it new business?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It's to propose that we have, once a week, half an hour for committee business, every week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Have you submitted that as a motion?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I did. I retracted it. I thought it would be best if we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it's probably better as a motion.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

—arrived at a consensus. Yes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I would think it's better to send a motion like that in so we're prepared.

[A voice]

A full motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

A full motion would give us 48 hours, and we'll deal with that next time.

So do you withdraw your motion for 15 minutes? Yes.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think it brings up a bit of an issue. I'm not sure if my friend would agree, but my understanding is this committee was dealing with committee business at the last meeting. We can't move to new committee business till we complete the committee business that was before the committee at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, that is the case. When we have committee business and when it ends in the midst of debate, the process is that this is the committee business we go back to. So on the Wednesday, if you want to have your committee business for 15 minutes, it shouldn't take long to get that out of the way, I would think, and then proceed. So it should be all right. I think we're all right.

But you are correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But I'm not sure we are all right, because I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, with all due respect, that my friend understands the process. At the last meeting—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

What I'm proposing is that as part of our procedures, once a week we dedicate a certain amount of time to committee business, not that we change the committee business. Okay, and I know we have to address what we have not dealt with yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, so when we go to committee business, we will deal with what was on the table when the clock ran out last week and then we will proceed into any new motions.

So I would suggest, Madame Mendes, that you submit that, that we get the 48 hours and it be a motion, because I knew that you had submitted it.

Very quickly, Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would also like us to set aside maybe 30 minutes every week or every other week to talk about our motions. So many motions have been brought forward, and we have not discussed them at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Mourani, on that point, with committee business, once the motion is in, and once we ask for committee business, we move to those motions. There are different reasons for having a whole group of motions on the books. Different parties have different motions. The point is, they can bring forward those motions as they see fit at the proper time. It's not up to the table or the chair to remind each one that you have an outstanding motion on the books. When you want to bring forward a motion, you request committee business, and we move to those motions.

It's not that your motions haven't been dealt with and that we've tried to prevent that. We will make that available. All we have to know is that you want to proceed with the motions.

I think, then, that we will not proceed to committee business today. We will wait until Wednesday.

Again, to our guests, we have some of these housekeeping duties we have to take care of every once in a while.

We welcome you. I'm not certain if there's any particular order....

Mr. Hutton, you're straight down the way here. We look forward to your comments.

[John Hutton, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity.

The John Howard Society of Manitoba, with support from the John Howard Society of Canada, BUILD, and Opportunities for Employment, is appearing this afternoon to respectfully ask this committee not to make any further changes to the legislation governing pardons, especially those set out in Bill C-23B. In our opinion, the proposed changes are unnecessary and would ultimately make Canadians less safe.

We're particularly concerned about changes that would double the waiting period for those wanting to apply for a pardon, prohibit those who've committed specific offences from ever getting a pardon, and deny anyone convicted of more than three indictable offences from ever applying for a pardon.

The society is also opposed to changing the term “pardon” to “record suspension”. In discussions around Bill C-23B last spring, it was said that the government should not be in the business of giving pardons, and this was the purview of victims. I respectfully submit that two different concepts--pardon and forgiveness--are being confused here.

Under Canadian law it is the crown, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that brings charges as an aggrieved party, not the victim. If convicted, an individual is found to have committed an offence against Canada. Therefore the government clearly has a role in granting pardons as an aggrieved party, which is separate from forgiveness that a victim may or may not grant. Furthermore, the word “pardon” has deeper significance than “record suspension”. “Pardon” implies that the individual in question is no longer an offender or a risk to the community in a way that “record suspension” does not.

At most, only 4% of those pardoned reoffend at a later date, strongly suggesting that the current criteria are more than sufficient. A pardon doesn't prevent a person from being investigated for other offences or make it any easier for the person to commit a crime in the future. What benefit is there to public safety in doubling waiting periods and taking away pardons altogether from those who commit specific offences or have more than three indictable offences? On the contrary, putting additional pardon barriers in the way of individuals trying to move forward and live crime-free lives decreases public safety. It is in the interest of public safety that, once convicted of an offence, the individual has a way, through the pardon process, of putting their past activities behind them and not committing any further crime.

There's also an element of unfairness in this proposed legislation for those it would most impact. It is well known that aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the correctional system. In Manitoba, aboriginal people make up only 12% of the overall population, but represent approximately 70% of those who are incarcerated. Therefore, Bill C-23B would be many times more likely to negatively impact this community, especially in Manitoba.

It has been said that the legislation has been drafted with victims in mind, yet it does not give victims any say or part to play in the pardon process, nor does the bill appear to advance victims' interests.

In my experience from working as a mediator in victim-offender mediation for many years, victims have three key needs: to know that the offender will not victimize them again; to know that they will not victimize someone else; and to know that the accused has learned from the experience and is making himself or herself into a better person as a result.

None of these needs are addressed by making it more difficult for an individual to get a pardon. In fact, the victim is more likely to be satisfied that his or her accused has been able to move forward and demonstrably live a crime-free life, which is symbolized by the offender getting a pardon.

The committee will now hear from three individuals who have committed crimes in the past and are working hard to move forward with their lives. I ask that you consider the consequences these individuals would face by not having a pardon, and how denying pardons in their instances would in any way make our community a safer place to live.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser.

[Barrett Fraser, Board Member, John Howard Society of Manitoba]

Good afternoon, everyone. It is a privilege to be here among you all.

Can an old dog do new tricks? Can a leopard change its spots? Yes, indeed. I am a testament to that. I have a significant criminal record—over 25 indictable convictions. When you get arrested in Manitoba, the prosecutors are very good and they pile on indictable offence after indictable offence after indictable offence. One arrest got me five indictable procedures.

But that was a long time ago. I've been conflict-free with the courts for over six years. I am the director of sales and marketing for a national online community called teambuy.ca--a great place. Check it out. I formerly ran and operated Manitoba's largest radio station, NCI-FM. I am contracted through Corus Media as well as Astral Media in Winnipeg. All my colleagues know of my past indiscretions.

I mention this not so much to qualify myself, but rather to qualify everybody else who has a criminal record, everybody who has somehow found a reason to live life the way it should be led. I'm no different from anybody else. Fortunately for me, though, I have strengths, supports, and resources in the community. The pardon is one of those strengths; it is one of those resources that I fully intend to take advantage of.

Quite candidly, my criminal record costs me a tremendous amount. When I travel to the United States, I need to get a border waiver, as they call it. It costs me money every time I want to do that. I understand that the pardon would not allow me entry into the United States, but the pardon is significant. I look at it this way. I served a six-year sentence. I did four years on a six-year sentence. I served every day of it. I went out on mandatory supervision. I served the rest of my sentence in the community. My debt to society is paid. I've paid my fines; I've done my time. Now I live a positive and pro-social lifestyle. Heck, I'm a member of the John Howard Society. I would never have thought I would sit on a board like that and have the opportunity to speak to you people.

My question is when do I and 400,000 other people stop being ex-offenders? When do we become citizens? By passing Bill C-23B, you're removing a tremendous piece of motivation for people like me. Trust me, that pardon, that opportunity to have my name cleared, is a tremendous carrot. It's a tremendous piece of motivation to keep me moving forward, to keep my eye on the prize.

As I said, I'm not unique. I might be a bit of an overachiever, but I guarantee you there are plenty of others like me out there, people who can come out of a federal institution after serving long sentences, get their lives in order, get married, get good jobs, and become respected members of their communities. I guarantee you there are other people in the same situation as I am.

I ask, beg, that you not pass this legislation. Ultimately, all you're going to do is hinder some good people.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We will move to Mr. Courchene.