Public Safety Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

The one thing they do not understand, that yet is so fundamental and basic when it comes to considering measures from a criminological perspective, is that public safety is dependent on rehabilitation. Canada has a system that is the envy of the entire world. Do you know why? Because we decided that society's protection is achieved through rehabilitation and prevention.

I must admit that since this new government took office in 2006, I have been asking myself questions about these concepts because all bills that they have brought forward in this area have systematically been designed to take apart this concept of rehabilitation. What do they do? They replace “rehabilitation” with “public safety” or “protection of the public”. What they do not understand is that “rehabilitation” equals “protection of the public”. They think that “incarceration” equals “protection of the public”. Well, Mr. Chairman, it hasn't worked in the United States, nor has it in other countries that adopted those techniques.

We have a good system that can certainly be improved from time to time, but there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. One doesn't change a tried-and-true philosophy. Rehabilitation is fundamental.

If you would like, Mr. Chair, I am ready to give a class to all members of the Conservative caucus. I will explain to them all the rehabilitation-related concepts and show them how rehabilitation can foster public protection.

Before addressing Bill C-23B, I would like to talk to you about another issue. You will be able to check the information, Mr. Chair. You will see, it is quite fascinating.

There was a time when criminal records did not exist. The technology that allows us to gather names, addresses and fingerprints had not yet been invented. It did not exist. Mr. Chair, do you know how people in the Middle Ages identified criminals who had stolen, killed, etc.? Today, their identity is contained in their criminal record. However, Mr. Chair, in those times, they were branded with a hot iron. That is how criminals were identified. There was a “T” for thief, “M” for murderer, “A” for—you will not believe this—adulterer. In some countries, women are stoned for cheating on their husbands, and believe it or not, there was a time, in the Middle Ages, when people in the western world, not in some exotic countries, were branded with hot irons.

Society evolved, and hot irons were no longer used. Do you know how things were then done? There came a time when torture was commonplace. Questions were asked, and then people were tortured until they admitted their guilt. Sometimes they were innocent. You know, Mr. Chair, if you were to be tortured, you would admit anything. You would make things up in order to put an end to the torture. That is why I have always said that using information obtained under torture, as CSIS does, is not appropriate. The information is not reliable.

We have evolved, Mr. Chair. Our society has evolved into its current, modern state. We are no longer in the Middle Ages. You might not know exactly what a hot iron is. Let me explain. It is the same instrument that is used to mark cattle—cows and bulls—belonging to farmers such and such, Mr. Chair. They have to be branded. An iron bar was used to brand them with a number or a sign: “M” for murderer and “T” for thief. When the iron was nice and hot, they were branded like cattle. The individuals were caught and branded on their backs. The smell was not pleasant. I was not there to ascertain that, Mr. Chair, but that is the case with cattle.

Society evolved, which is why we now have this wonderful thing called a criminal record. It contains all the necessary information. Criminal records are special in that only the police has access to them. People in general cannot access them, as was the case in the Middle Ages, when the letter “T” was visible. In the Middle Ages, those people were not employed; just like today. They were excluded outright and looked upon as social rejects. Similarly, no employer will want to hire someone who is known to have a criminal record.

Now, we do agree on one thing, Mr. Chair. We, the Bloc members, agree that the criminal records of pedophiles should not be suspended. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I am sure that they share my opinion. We all agree on that. I would not want my children, my son, to be molested by a man at his daycare centre or hockey club. You will tell me that there are also women pedophiles, but they are a minority. Generally, they are men—that is the sad fact, and the statistics do not lie. I would not want to live through such a situation, and I would certainly not want my son to experience that.

We all agree with that, but do we necessarily need Bill C-23B as it is currently drafted? No, not at all. Here is what is stated:

Make those convicted of sexual offences against minors ineligible for a record suspension [...]

That is all very well, we can agree on that, but if you look at the content of the bill a bit closer, you find out that it contains a series of other offences.

Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois will be moving amendments. Making those convicted of sexual offences against minors ineligible for a record suspension is one thing, but including a host of other offences, that is another, and that is what we do not agree with.

Furthermore, we have to be careful. These issues must be debated before we can move on to a clause-by-clause consideration. We still have to hear from witnesses. We might want to add elements to this bill that might make it even more effective. We all agree that our goal is to protect our children, but not any which way. Who is against protecting our children? Clearly, everybody wants that. The children of Quebec and Canada are our children. When I watch television and see that a child has been abused, I find that disgusting. Do you think we are callous or unfeeling? No. We want to improve this bill. That said, I think that we are all acting in good faith. However, we do not want to amend it in such a way that it will penalize people who can be rehabilitated.

Might I drink a bit of water, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's certainly not because of your dry humour or your dry content.

Continue.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

That is quite amusing, Mr. Chairman.

Personally and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and all my colleagues around this table, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone who is watching a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2011, full of health and prosperity. I take this opportunity because my time has almost run out. Mr. Chairman, that was an aside.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Mourani, you're close to being run out; you're correct.

I appreciate that you are wishing the millions of Canadians today a Merry Christmas. I'm sure they are glued to their televisions watching this. However, I would encourage you--as I have encouraged Mr. Davies and Mr. Holland, and I don't want to be Scrooge or the Grinch who stole Christmas--to move it back to Bill C-23B.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Yes, of course, that is not a problem. Since we are debating a bill that is intended—and I do say “that is intended” to protect people by making those convicted of sexual offences against minors ineligible for a record suspension, which is a provision that we support, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to all the little children of Quebec and Canada. I extended that wish to parents, but that is unfair, given that Christmas is first and foremost a celebration for children. It speaks to the little child in all of us. I simply wanted to send out a wish to them. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not prevent me from greeting the children, now will you? I can wish them a Merry Christmas, no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm just wondering if you're going to name each one of them.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

If I did know them all, I would do so. Oh, oh!

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Continue, Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I will wish you a Merry Christmas later. Oh, oh!

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. After such nice sentiments, I will continue.

There is something about Bill C-23B that is greatly disturbing to us. I think that my colleague Mr. Davies, in particular, as well as Mr. Holland, has raised the issue of making those who have been convicted of more than three offences resulting in prison sentences of more than a year ineligible for a record suspension.

Where is my copy of the Criminal Code? I could list for you the offences that are punishable by one-year sentences.

Ah, thank you, sir!

[A voice]

It is only in English.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I will translate it for you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, oh!

There are tons of offences that are punishable by one-year sentences, including theft and shoplifting. It all depends on the value of the goods that were stolen. If a person steals something worth $5,000 and more, once, that person can be fined. However, the accused will be criminally charged, i.e., by way of indictment. If the stolen object is worth less than $5,000, the offender will still receive a fine, but will be convicted of a summary offence.

Let's us say that the stolen object is worth more than $5,000, and that later the person is caught fighting outside a bar. Those are two different offences committed within a few days of each other. Do you follow?

This is a simple example. A man enters a store and shoplifts merchandise worth more than $5,000. He gets caught, pays a fine and is automatically given a criminal record. Two or three days later, he goes out to a bar with his girlfriend, and then he gets into a fight with someone who tried to pick her up. That is something that happens every day and sometimes, unfortunately, turns ugly.

For the second offence, he might be sentenced to 3, 4 or 5 months, or even more, if the judge considers that he used a serious or lesser form of violence. How in fact does one assess violence? That is another issue. It depends on who the judge is. If the person is given a one-year sentence, he is put in jail. If he received a one-year sentence in a provincial jail, he can expect to be released after having served one sixth or one third of his sentence, given that there are so many people in those institutions. Let us say that he comes out after a few months. He finds his girlfriend, but she has left him. I would say that things are not going too well for him, and he ends up committing another theft, but this time he is also charged with assault. That is his third offence. He is sentenced to one year and a half in prison, and when he is released, that is it: he is no longer eligible for a record suspension.

However, he had the good fortune of meeting a chaplain in jail who helped him turn his life around. He says to himself that he will take charge of his life, will work on managing his anger and go see a psychologist for help. He has to recognize the cause of his inner rage.

I am not talking about myself, but about the man in my example. I am play-acting, Mr. Chair. This is a Conservative performance, and the show must go on. Oh, oh!

So the man tells himself that he will manage his anger. To do so, he will attend anger management classes. With a little bit of luck, he will meet a psychologist—that is not a given, because waiting lists are quite lengthy. He will meet a good person who will set him straight. He will meet a nice, very caring woman who will get him to forget about his former girlfriend and stop sniffing coke. She will offer to help him heal the wounds from the abuse he suffered, the incest he experienced.

You know, people do not become criminals just like that. They always come from a horrible background. I worked a long time in prisons, Mr. Chair, and I have never met a prisoner who had had a good life.

As for the man in my example, he took charge of his life and he is now working, has a family, is doing well and applying for jobs. He is told that he cannot be hired because of his criminal record. He does not want to go back to a life of crime. And so he holds low-paying jobs to feed his family, and even goes back to school. He graduates and could hold a good job. But he is turned down, because a Conservative government decided that he would unfortunately be ineligible for a record suspension, having been charged with three offences.

A number of people experience a similar fate. That man went to school, worked hard and was very happy when he could request to have his criminal record suspended. Finally, he says to himself that he studied, took charge of his life, has a woman and children, and things are going well. He might have a low-paying job, but he is not alone in that predicament, and he can now request to have his criminal record suspended so that he can work in his area of expertise. That is why he went to school. He sees the authorities, fills out the form that is presented to him, has his fingerprints taken, but then is turned down because he committed three offences and is no longer eligible for a record suspension. It has been years since he committed a single crime. He has become a law-abiding citizen. He pays his taxes, thus allowing the Conservative government to invest in prisons. He is able to move ahead. But he is now told that he is no longer eligible for a record suspension because he committed three offences. And those were not serious offences, but offences resulting in sentences of less than one year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'd just remind Madam Mourani that according to this bill, with only three offences they still would qualify, but they wouldn't with four.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. I will reread what is written. It says “ineligible.” What does that mean? Let me give you the definition of the word “ineligible.” What, according to you, does that mean? It is very simple. It means: “cannot be eligible.” It is something that cannot be accepted. It is something that cannot be permitted.

Let us take, for example, someone who wants to request that his criminal record be suspended and who is ineligible—that is what he will be told if he cannot do so. I could have given you the exact definition of the word. Unfortunately, I do not have a dictionary close at hand. That is another significant document that I should have brought with me.

In short, those who have been convicted of more than three offences—three or four; I do not think there is such a thing as three and a half offences—resulting in sentences of over a year are ineligible for a record suspension. Obviously, there are those who commit such crimes who will commit a number of criminal offences within a month. That could be during a time of crisis during which the person is fighting for his survival, or in a fit of rage, which leads him ultimately to commit several criminal acts within the space of a month. And others can experience highs and lows and commit several offences within one year.

Mr. Chair, what people should understand is that this part of the bill is inadmissible. Why? Because it calls into question everything that has been done in Quebec for many years. Rehabilitation is no longer considered. In fact, a number of people who committed criminal offences and later were pardoned came to see us. Among them was a man who has requested a record suspension and who said that, if the bill were adopted, he could no longer go ahead with his request. These people have rightly noted that it is no longer worth trying to become rehabilitated, because it is impossible to request a record suspension once you have committed three offences. The message we are sending to people is that they should forget rehabilitation, it is useless. In any case, someone might do everything he can, work hard, but it is all in vain. Mr. Chair, that is important to note, even if everything else that was said is also important.

Given how humans have evolved, I would now like to show how this relates to the practices of the Middle Ages. We will be telling people that they might work hard and do everything they can to become rehabilitated, but they will still be branded for their entire life, they will not receive a record suspension. That amounts to modern day branding, although it is not done with a hot iron. This is a way to brand thousands of people for life. There are some 3.8 million Canadians with a criminal record, including nearly 32,000 who request pardons. They are now being told to be careful, that they will be branded for life because of this bill, just like in the Middle Ages when people were branded with hot irons. What is more, that is unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law and where people's rights are upheld. The terms “ineligibility” and “ineligible for a record suspension” mean the same thing. Mr. Chair, that point is unacceptable.

We in the Bloc Québécois will vote against it. It is our intention to bring forward an amendment that would abolish the provision making those convicted of more than three offences resulting in sentences of more than one year ineligible for a record suspension. These are not people who have killed others. That has absolutely nothing to do with murder. That will affect all those charged with economic offences.

There is one thing we should not forget. In fact, there is a fundamental issue that has not been raised. Before receiving a record suspension, a person cannot have committed other criminal acts. That means that the person who committed—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

No, not at all. A person cannot have committed any criminal offence whatsoever. A record suspension cannot be granted to a repeat offender. Not at all.

What does that mean? For example, take someone who committed a criminal offence in 1995 and who must wait 10 years after having served his sentence before being able to request a record suspension. If the person commits another criminal offence in the meantime, that will postpone the moment he can make his request. The individual has to serve his sentence for the second crime and wait out the new period of time before being able to request a record suspension. All in all, that person might have turned 90 and wonder what all that meant to him.

Record suspensions only work for those individuals who are very likely to become rehabilitated. A hard-core criminal will never request a record suspension. Why, do you think? Because that person knows full well he will never receive one, that he will never even be eligible because he is still involved in criminal activities.

The provision that provides for the suspension of criminal record, or pardon, as it is now called, is meant for people with a strong capacity to rehabilitate themselves. In any case, those people are already rehabilitated, having served the time required before being able to request a pardon. During all that time, they demonstrated that they were able to be rehabilitated. In fact, they are already rehabilitated because they have not committed another criminal act.

This bill, which includes offences other than serious offences against people, will unfortunately target the 97% of people who obtain a record suspension and never re-offend. Those people will be affected by this bill, simply because the minister finds that to be logical. The Conservatives do not understand the meaning of the word “rehabilitation.” This is akin to something from the Middle Ages.

The important thing is for us to take our time, to hear witnesses—I myself have submitted a number of names—and to make appropriate amendments to this bill so that it effectively targets the right people. If we want to target pedophiles, then let us target them. We should not target the woman who shoplifted in order to feed her children, or the man who committed a youthful mistake at 18, outside a bar, when he fought with another man who wanted to pick up his girlfriend. Let us refine the aim of this bill. We want to ensure that pedophiles are no longer eligible for a record suspension; so let us do it, but let us do it right. Let us target the right people, or rather the right crimes.

That said, Mr. Chair, we will be moving amendments. We will enthusiastically contribute to ensuring that child predators are ineligible for pardons. As it is currently drafted, this bill is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your kindness, Mr. Chair, and I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mourani.

I have Mr. Davies, and then Madam Mendes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we have a brief amount of time here. I just think that at the end of the day, before we take away the possibility of removing pardons from a wide swath of people for life, we study the issue carefully and base our decision on our best knowledge, the best evidence, and the best understanding we can get. And having 120 minutes of testimony is simply not sufficient in this regard.

I also just want to point out that I do want to hear from more victims' groups. We did hear from two, and I thought the perspective they brought to bear on this was helpful. I notice that the witnesses also testified that there's nothing in this bill that would provide for them being notified of someone making a pardon application or being aware of a pardon application happening, and that may be something that we, as a committee, want to look at. I think that's another area that we should delve into before we proceed hastily to rush this bill to pass for political purposes.

So far the only testimony we've heard is that lengthening the waiting periods for so many more crimes will hurt the rehabilitation process, and then that also, in turn, hurts community safety. If it's one thing that we all share here together, Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc, and NDP, it's that we all want to make our communities more safe. And while we may have differences on the best way to do that, one thing I think we can agree on is that these are serious issues that Canadians are concerned about, so they're worthy of our respectful treatment, to make sure that we're making decisions and amending the law in a way that is really going to help achieve that objective of making our communities safer places.

Mr. Chairman, I want to again mention that the minister himself, I think to his credit, indicated that he was open to suggestions. A couple of his quotes are: “There are some circumstances in which, even for multiple offenders, we need to look at the situation.” He also said: “If this committee can find something that will address the concern of multiple offenders taking advantage of the system...it would be worthwhile for the committee to consider.”

So we have two clear indications from the minister himself that further consideration is not only beneficial but welcome. I think they were wise comments on behalf of the minister, and that's why I think we do need to have at least another couple of sessions so that we can make sure we hear from everybody, all the stakeholder groups, to have that consideration that the minister talked about that I think is important before we change the laws of Canada. And once again, before we permanently take away the rights of people to have a pardon in this country, we should be doing that on the best evidence available and making sure it's good policy.

Mr. Chairman, I see the clock is at 10:30. I don't know if we're going to be adjourning the meeting at this point? Or at what time do we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

At 10:45.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

At 10:45.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I have Madam Mendes on the speaking list.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, I have a couple other quotes that I would like to raise, then, and that is about victims. Some of the testimony that we heard—and I'll quote—said this:

...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.

Now, on the other hand, in fairness to some of the other victims who testified, they do support in some ways the thrust of this bill, and that's why I think we need to hear from more victims in this case.

I also wanted to briefly quote—we talked about the offenders who came before this committee, and the kind of evidence that I'm talking about helps me, as a legislator, figure out what the best way forward is. I'm going to briefly quote from that witness who testified, because this is the kind of evidence that I think Canadians need to hear more of.

He said:

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.

That's Bill C-23B.

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.

So that would be approximately six years.

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.

That was the testimony from an offender who this legislation would prevent for the rest of his life from getting a pardon.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is a person who doesn't have the typical life that we would envision for most of the children in this country. Being put into a street gang by your mother when you're 11, a mother who suffers from addictions, and being part of the street life as a young aboriginal in this country, is not exactly the kind of productive start we want to give our children.

By the time this young man was 24, he had more than three convictions. Do we give up on him? Does this sound like a person whom we give up on? This is a person who's turned his life around, who has taken a number of commendable steps—finishing high school, doing an apprenticeship, not reoffending for five years, taking budgeting courses, taking first aid courses, taking CPR, trying to be a good parent to his two children. Well, this legislation the government wants to push through would mean this person will never get a pardon for the rest of his life. He's already explained how that would be a barrier to his finishing his career. He couldn't even finish his apprenticeship.

Now I also want to talk briefly about public safety. We heard this testimony as well:

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.

These are the people who would be disproportionately affected and targeted by this proposed legislation if it were to pass.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard that there are a number of sex offences in this legislation that would come under the category of someone being unable ever to obtain a pardon. I think there may be some sex offences that should never be pardoned, but we have not heard one minute of testimony from anybody who knows anything about sex offences. We haven't heard from any researchers, any therapists, any people in the correctional facilities, or anybody from Corrections Canada. I want Corrections Canada to come to this committee to explain what the actual data are, what the expectations are, and what the real experience of those working with sex offences are.

This summer I went to the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon, and I sat and I talked to some of the very special people who work with sex offenders in that place. The Regional Psychiatric Centre is where federal sex offenders not eligible for programs are sent so they can get access to programming. I sat and listened to a doctor explain to me that a number of these people were illiterate, had mental ages between 5 and 15, and couldn't access the regular sex offender programming. She told me that there is a vast diversity of personalities and types of people when we talk about sex offenders. We have some who perhaps are dangerous for their entire lives and should never get a pardon. We have others who actually are capable of rehabilitation and of never offending again.

I don't know what the percentages are. I don't actually know how far we should go in this regard. But I do know this: I know that nobody at this committee has any factual basis for making that determination, including me, because we haven't heard from anybody.

I haven't made up my mind. I think as legislators it's an important point to approach each of these subjects with an open mind, but surely before we take away the right of a person to apply for a pardon for the rest of their life for broad categories of sex offences, we should have a factual basis before us.

I know what the Conservatives are going to do. For all the Canadians watching, they're going to run out and say, “The opposition says that people convicted of sex crimes against children should be pardoned.” That's what they're going to say, and of course that's not true. That is not at all what the opposition is saying. It's certainly not what I am saying.

What the New Democrats are saying is that we need to study this issue carefully, because the truth is that there is a broad swatch, a great diversity in range of people who are convicted of sex offences. Some of the offences that are in this legislation should be considered for prohibiting getting a pardon, particularly when we're talking about sex offences against children. But there are some offences that are caught in here that perhaps require some more nuanced thought, and I think some of the wide range of offences in this legislation require some study.

I want to hear from the ministry. I want to hear from the Correctional Service of Canada. I want to hear from the people who actually work in our prisons and work with the offenders of all indictable offences, so that we can have the benefit of their testimony and expertise.

When they come to this committee.... We pay them, and we entrust the care of our offenders to these people. They work every single day with offenders: correctional guards, prison psychologists, social workers, prison wardens, parole officers, people who work in halfway houses, people who work with offenders, and former offenders themselves. We need that perspective to bear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rathgeber, on a point of order.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

As much as I'm enjoying Mr. Davies' eloquent exposé as to why some sex offenders deserve pardons, it's 10:45 a.m. and I'd ask you, Mr. Chair, to bring this meeting to a conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.