Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2010

[Michael Ashby]

I can only offer you my own personal thoughts on this question. I don't know that I have any actual experience to back this up, because once we're done with the application for a pardon, we don't see the person any more.

My feeling is that whenever you marginalize someone in society and take an opportunity away from them, you're creating a situation in which it's much more plausible to assume that they're going to return to a life of crime. Beyond that, my objection to the three strikes rule is that it just seems like an arbitrary number. I have a very tough time supporting legislation that's built around a baseball metaphor. Why three? Why not four, or whatever?

As I said in my presentation, I think affording someone at least the opportunity to apply for a pardon when we're under no obligation to grant it is really the more sensible way to go.

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

You mentioned the issue of cost. It could be a significant factor for somebody trying to get back on their feet. Even the cost of trying to apply for a pardon could be difficult, so it might take somebody a long time.

Can you talk to the fact that if somebody had even three summary offences, if enough time goes by and the records of the case are tossed out, the process then treats it as an indictable offence? Therefore, if enough time passes--maybe because they didn't have the money to be able to apply--people who have, say, three summary offences could now suddenly find themselves not ever being able to apply for a pardon in their lives, even though they had summary offences.

[Michael Ashby]

I'm not really sure. Nicole, do you...?

[Nicole Levesque, Program Director, National Pardon Centre]

I can hazard a guess on this one.

We often have situations like that when people have summary offences. They come to us at the point that they need the pardon. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't proactive when they try to get a pardon; some of our clients have been eligible for 10 to 20 years and just didn't know the program was in existence.

At lot of the time, through processing the paperwork, we find people have outstanding fines. That fact prevents them from getting the pardon for another three, five, or possibly ten years, so people who have been marginalized already for lack of being able to afford things are then held back for that much longer as well, because everything has to be done under the completion of the sentence. If you have an outstanding fine, you haven't completed your sentence, and therefore your timeframes haven't started. We have seen some people in lower socio-economic circumstances held back for that much longer.

As for a summary offence turning into an indictable offence, that's not my area of expertise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Madame Levesque.

Ms. Mourani, you have seven minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here today.

Mr. Kennedy, I would like to thank you for your evidence and your courage in coming to talk about it. I also know that you work with youths to help them and make them aware of this phenomenon so that they are not victims. I very much believe in prevention. I think what you're doing is extraordinary and I encourage you to continue.

I was listening to your testimony a little earlier. Unless I'm mistaken, you said we shouldn't grant a criminal record suspension to pedophiles. In other cases, however, if persons are rehabilitated and the board appears to be able to grant them a pardon, you don't see any problem in doing so. More specifically, you said there shouldn't be record suspensions in the cases of pedophiles. Did I correctly understand you or am I mistaken?

[Sheldon Kennedy]

Thank you for the comments.

What I was saying was that I believe that sex offenders against children should not be granted pardons. The reason is that we work with the organizations that allow adults to work in positions of trust with youth across this country and abroad; right now there are 400 youth organizations in Calgary alone, only 200 of which use the red flag background check, so the other 200 are pretty vulnerable.

For me, it really needs to be very clear for these organizations. They need to know who's in front of them. We have a right to know. It's already been identified that obviously these individuals need special treatment. If there's a red flag there, it needs to be brought to the forefront. It needs to be very clear. The way these people work is to befriend a co-worker, and the next thing you know, they're babysitting their kids.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

In other cases, that is in the cases of non-sex offenders—we're not talking about pedophiles—such as fraud artists, drug dealers and so on, you are in favour of granting a record suspension if those people have been rehabilitated.

[Sheldon Kennedy]

I'm all about change. It's my understanding that it would be up to the parole board to use their discretion.

We talk about it in here. I've heard lots about criminals trying to reintegrate into society. I can tell you we work with a lot of victims, and they need to reintegrate into society too. A lot of work has to happen there.

I've been in prisons, I've spoken to criminals who are in jail as lifers, and most of them were victims of abuse of their own sort. So to me it's not only integrating the criminal, but it's reintegrating the victims into society as well.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to come back to you, Mr. Myette. Mr. Bérard, you could also enlighten us on this subject. It must be understood that Bill C-23 has been divided in two. In Bill C-23A, the provision that also concerns pedophiles has been discussed and adopted. In the case of Bill C-23B, that indirectly and non-exclusively concerns pedophiles; it also concerns a range of offences.

Let's take Schedule 1, for example. It states that all persons convicted of Schedule 1 offences are no longer entitled to a record suspension. That concerns arson, assault, aggravated assault, mischief and so on. There are all kinds of offences.

So if we wanted to amend this bill in accordance with Mr. Kennedy's remarks so as to target only child sex offenders, we would have to state specifically that child sex offenders are not entitled to a record suspension, period.

As it takes three offences, this could be a person who has previously been caught shoplifting and who is subsequently caught selling drugs once or twice. Then it would be over for that person, even if he or she wanted to rehabilitate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Mourani.

We have about 40 seconds.

Mr. Myette.

[George Myette]

I'd just like to comment on Sheldon's comment that a lot of people who are perpetrators are also victims and have many other underlying reasons for why they committed offences.

In response to that, yes, I think it's important to separate the number of offences. Three is such an arbitrary number. It could be 15. I've known people who have committed many offences who rehabilitated and became useful members of society. I think it is important to separate the type of offence. It isn't necessarily just a personal violence offence; it depends on the degree and the nature of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Myette.

We'll now move to Mr. Davies. Mr. Davies, you have seven minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming and giving what I think is really helpful evidence as we consider some of these important issues. And I want to particularly thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for coming, for your courage and honesty in bringing your personal experience to bear on this.

Yesterday I met with the new victims ombudswoman, Sue O'Sullivan, and we had a good discussion. She told me about the broad needs of victims. She said that victims need to be listened to; they need to be heard; they want to participate in the process, where appropriate; they want to feel as if they matter; and they need to be informed.

I think all Canadians were quite rightly shocked when they heard the Graham James story, and how he had systematically violated the trust and physical and sexual integrity of many young men under his charge, boys under his charge, really. I think a secondary shock was that we found out accidentally about Mr. James being pardoned. And I wanted to ask you first, Mr. Kennedy, were you aware of Mr. James being pardoned, or did it come as a surprise to you that he had received that pardon?

[Sheldon Kennedy]

Graham James had received the pardon. I had found out after he had received it, and it really gave me time to reflect and understand and take a look at the whole pardon system around sex offenders. That's really where my mind is here. We talk about victims, and yes, there are victims. But I look at this as the Graham Jameses of the world—and it seems to be that every day we pick up the paper and there's a case happening somewhere of child abuse. I believe that by not allowing the Graham Jameses of the world the ability to get a pardon, it's preventing us and our youth from having more victims.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to stop there. Where I want to hold you on is in terms of the informants. So you found out after. Nobody informed you that he was getting a pardon before he got it, right?

[Sheldon Kennedy]

No, I had no idea.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So you would agree with me, and all witnesses, I guess, that there's nothing in this bill, nothing whatsoever that the government has drafted that would further the ability of a victim to either be informed of a pardon process or participate in any way. That's correct, isn't it? There's nothing in this bill that does that.

[Sheldon Kennedy]

No.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Now I want to move to a different area, and that's the “three strikes and you're out”. I think all Canadians want to find a way to prevent those who don't deserve a pardon from getting one, while still making sure that those who have legitimately rehabilitated themselves, and demonstrated that, to get one.

As we all know, last June all parties cooperated together and passed Bill C-23A, which does a number of things. It raised from five years to ten years the waiting period for people convicted of an indictable sexual offence against children, ten years for manslaughter, and ten years for a major physical injury. And it raised from three years to five years summary conviction sexual offences against children. But it also did something else important. It gave the National Parole Board for the first time the clear discretion to deny a pardon in any case—Mr. James, Karla Homolka, any case—where it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

One of the concerns is that we fixed the problems that may have been in the National Parole Board before, but now we're talking about prohibiting anybody from getting a pardon at all who has more than three indictable offences. I believe Ms. Rosenfeldt––if I heard right—said “three serious indictable offences”. It's not “serious”; it's “three indictable offences”.

Where I want to go is, on Monday we heard three offenders testify. One of them had 24 indictable offences. That sounds really bad until you delve into the facts. We found out that he's now an executive; he works in the media. He sold steroids. He told me that after his wife died of cancer he was grieving, he had financial problems, and in one transaction of selling steroids he had multiple indictable convictions. I think he said seven. So this is a person who would be prohibited from getting a pardon under this legislation.

So I want to hear from the witnesses and find out about this. In your experience, have you met people who have successfully rehabilitated themselves who have more than three indictable offences, who you think have deserved a pardon and who have successfully rehabilitated themselves?

[François Bérard]

Yes. The vast majority of individuals with whom the members of our association work have committed at least three offences for which charges have been laid against them.

I'm going to cite the example of break and enter offences. Under the Criminal Code, persons who commit those offences are liable to life imprisonment. An individual who committed four thefts or break and enter offences would no longer be eligible for pardon in the context of a sentence. A large number of individuals usually receive a suspended prison sentence or a term of imprisonment at a provincial detention centre. In itself, this is not considered an extremely serious crime. We're not talking about murder, rape or sadism, but rather about breaking and entering.

The problem with regard to this provision of the bill is that it is so wide in scope that we invite you to consider the percentage of offenders who could be targeted by this kind of provision. We can't conduct that assessment, but, at a glance, we can claim that nearly all the individuals we have to work with would not be eligible. That would have the effect of marginalizing these people for life, whereas everyone here seems to want to facilitate rehabilitation for people. So we would be going exactly in the opposite direction.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Go ahead.

[Nicole Levesque]

I think one of the successes of the bill that was passed in June is that now anyone who has an indictable offence, or an offence that the court can't confirm was summary, has to write a personal explanation letter on why they feel they deserve a pardon. With that they can conclude any paperwork showing any rehabilitation.

So it's not a matter of three, four, or five strikes and you're out; it's based on the person, their character, where they are at that point of their life, why they feel they deserve a pardon, and evidence of rehabilitation. It's no longer a rubber stamp, but it gives people the opportunity to show they have changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Levesque.

We'll now go to Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panel for being here today.

Ms. Rosenfeldt, when this legislation was first introduced a number of victims groups were contacted. I haven't heard of a victims group that is opposed to the bill. Those folks who work with individuals who have been convicted all have a fairly strong opinion. I wonder if you can tell us if you've found victims who feel strongly about the bill and its implications.