Evidence of meeting #134 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cost.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Let's go back, Glen, and talk about summary offences and so on and so forth.
Just let me get my numbers here....
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I only have a minute, Wayne, and I want to get to a couple of points.
One, we have to consider the eligibility. Should we be looking at the differences in eligibilities or at the types of offences? Should the time within which one becomes eligible be dependent on the type of offence? That's all part of this, right? Should the offence of stealing diapers a long time ago, to use the example we've heard both in the House and here, have the same wait time as a more serious offence? Conversely, should the more serious offences wait longer before they're even eligible?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I would like the committee to go down that road, obviously, and look at that. My main focus and priority area right now is the smaller offences, if you will, the shoplifting offences, etc., where someone made one bad mistake. As I said, I make a bad mistake every week. They're paying for theirs.
To me, with the quadrupling of fees up to $631, the numbers speak for themselves. There were 29,829 pardon applications in 2011. In 2015 there were 12,743.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll have to leave it there, Mr. Motz.
Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes, please.
November 1st, 2018 / 3:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Long, for being here and for proposing the motion.
Respectfully, I know you're here to answer our questions, and I don't particularly care for speechifying in question time, but there were a few points raised in the previous round of questions that I think I can help you address.
Public Safety did research on Canadians' perception of the pardon system—or record suspension; I prefer “pardon” as well. Three-quarters of those who were polled by EKOS, which was hired by Public Safety, found that the process should be easier and cheaper for those seeking a pardon. Eighty-six per cent of participants—I'll come back to this in my questions, Mr. Long—agreed with eliminating or expunging records of non-violent offences when it was a first infraction.
Another thing that I think is important for this discussion is with regard to what people “deserve”, to use the word we heard earlier. Since 1970, 96% of those who did obtain pardons have not committed another crime since. That was in 2010. I think right now it's more like 95%, which is still pretty overwhelming. In fact I believe the Parole Board, to go back to that question, would be supportive of this, because the Parole Board tells us that Canadians who have received a pardon are less likely than the average Canadian with no criminal record to commit an offence. I think the things you said are pretty clear about the impact this has on people being able to move on with their lives and contribute to Canadian society.
I'll get to my question. As I told you, I don't particularly care for speechifying, but I did want to get those things on the record.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Well, you can certainly bring those up, but I have a question for you.
The piece I just raised was regarding the 86% of folks supporting expungement of records for non-violent offences, for a first infraction. We're not talking about repeat offenders but rather, for example, someone who has committed a non-violent offence for the first time in their life. The example you gave was of a woman stealing diapers, for example, because she couldn't afford them for her newborn.
The other thing—as I'm sure you know from seeing what my party has been talking about—would be things like marijuana possession, for example. What are your thoughts on that? Is that something we should also be looking at as part of this study?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Yes, absolutely. It should be wide-ranging, and it should encompass that.
I agree that there are simply too many people right now who live with a criminal record. That wall is placed in front of them and they can't get over that wall. I will go back again to the cost to society of that. Again, some of my Conservative friends will argue about the cost of doing this, but I say there's a cost of not doing it.
It's something you learn as you go. I'm a new MP—I guess I'm not that new anymore, as I'm 3.1 years in now—but I'm really starting to get a feel for some of the hot spots and sweet spots, if you will, of some things that might have happened over the last 10 years that make me pull back and ask why. What was the motivation there? When you look at the stats again, 29,829 in 2011 and 12,743 in 2015—
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
We can agree on the motivations, though, because it's pretty clear that it's meant to be punitive. You said it yourself in quoting Senator Pate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your intention here as follows: that this program allows us to take folks who have been in bad situations and enable them to become less of a public safety risk by properly reintegrating into their communities.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
If I may read some numbers here, approximately 10% of Canadians have criminal records. That is 3.8 million Canadians. Ninety per cent of those with criminal records have not received record suspensions or pardons. Seventy per cent of offenders entering prisons have unstable job histories.
One study of men at one year after release from prison found that those who were unemployed had a recidivism rate of 40% compared to 17% for those who were employed. Think about that. The percentage went from 40% to 17% because they had employment.
Seventy per cent of female offenders are mothers with children under the age of 18. We have great conversations with Judy Murphy of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Saint John, and 100% of the Elizabeth Fry Society's clients have criminal records. In 2016 the Sophia Recovery Centre for women reported that 50% of their clients had criminal records.
According to the Parole Board of Canada, 96% of those who were pardoned never reoffended. So you go back again—
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I have one last question for you, Mr. Long, before my time runs out.
As I mentioned at the top, Public Safety Canada has conducted a study on Canadians' perceptions of the record suspension program with pardons. To me, that implies an intent to want to do something about it, and now we're here studying it in committee.
Is it your hope that after this study we'll see legislation from the minister that will cancel the changes that were made in 2010 and improve on the program with some of the elements that have been brought forward?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
That is absolutely my hope. I've had some discussions with the department, with the minister and his staff, and obviously they're very supportive because I'm here. It is my hope that after we do this comprehensive, full study, my government is going to look at this and reconsider.
I've proven in my past that I'm not afraid to challenge and I'm not afraid to stand up for what I think is right. I'm very passionate about this and I'm going to continue to pursue it.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We can all agree that you're not afraid to challenge, Mr. Long.
Ms. Sahota, you have seven minutes.
4 p.m.
Ruby Sahota Brampton North, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Long, for being here today. I appreciate your passion.
I legitimately don't know exactly how I feel about this and I want to learn a lot more so we can come to the right conclusion about what we should do. You have obviously looked into this quite a bit.
Can you tell me about what you think these should be, what you think the wait time should be, and what kind of crimes...? Everyone who has committed a crime isn't the mother stealing diapers. It's also a lot of other situations.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We've gone through different thoughts and processes and modelling of how this should work, and whether it could go back to where it was—I may be off on this, so I apologize—at $50 in 2011 and up to $631 in 2012.
One thought I had, almost for lack of better words, was to make it like the Canada child benefit, except in reverse. For those who had no means to pay, it would be free, but those who could afford to pay more would pay more. It would be almost tiered, based on ability to pay. That was one theory. The other theory we came back with was to take it back to at least the $167 that it was before 2012.
You take for granted.... I'll be perfectly transparent. When I was first told it was $631, I wondered what the big deal was, but knowing what I know now, $631 is a life-changing amount for people living in poverty.
4:05 p.m.
Brampton North, Lib.
Okay.
What kinds of crimes do you think we should be looking at?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Again, to Glen's point, I think that most certainly the minor crimes like shoplifting should be first and foremost the ones that would have the most leniency, most focus for pardoning. I think we should change the name back from “record suspension” to “pardon”.
4:05 p.m.
Brampton North, Lib.
What if somebody had repeat shoplifting crimes and they were trying to apply for a retail job? Do you think the employer would deserve to know?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Yes, I would like to see the committee flesh that out as to exactly where that sweet spot is, if you will. I think there is room. I am not suggesting for a minute that repeat offenders should have the same opportunity for a pardon as somebody who made one bad judgment at 18 years of age.
4:05 p.m.
Brampton North, Lib.
I think you were saying earlier that 60% of workplaces require a criminal check. Are there some categories of workplaces?
I know that we're allowed to do one here if we so choose to employ.... I think now we maybe have to but originally, a few years back, you had a choice.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
To the best of my knowledge we had the 60%. It seemed that who required what went business by business, corporation by corporation. As far as we understand it, about 60% of the companies required it.
Further to that, I think the people—and, again, I'll speak of the people whom I know personally, who came into my office—carried that criminal record with them like a ball and chain.
4:05 p.m.
Brampton North, Lib.
I've had people come into my office as well. I've been sympathetic to this issue before—don't get me wrong from my questions—but you were trying to figure out where that sweet spot is.
I had a father come in who had a son in his early twenties and according to him had made a mistake and now can't get his life back on track because the number of years you have to wait is a lot longer. I could see the pain in the father's eyes and his wanting to give his son a second chance. We have to figure out how to get it right.
Then I can also see the arguments on the flip side, of people having a record for a reason. Maybe it's even a deterrent for some.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Sure.
I can quote here again that the base fee was quadrupled to $631, and wait times after the completion of the sentence were increased from three years to five years for a summary offence, and 10 years for an indictable offence.