Evidence of meeting #143 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 fee.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Daryl Churney  Executive Director General, Parole Board of Canada
Jim Eglinski  Yellowhead, CPC
Brigitte Lavigne  Director, Clemency and Record Suspensions, Parole Board of Canada
Ruby Sahota  Brampton North, Lib.
Angela Connidis  Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Louise Lafond  Registered Nurse, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Catherine Latimer  Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Rodney Small  Core Group Member, 7th Step Society of Canada

5:10 p.m.

Yellowhead, CPC

Jim Eglinski

I have one quick question.

In your experience with the shady operators—and I see this in immigration every day, and you're seeing it in the parole thing—is any government agency overseeing those shady operators, and are there any consequences?

5:10 p.m.

Registered Nurse, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

Louise Lafond

There's none that I'm aware of.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus

Thank you, Mr. Eglinski.

We now go to the next seven-minute round of questions and answers.

Mr. Dubé, the floor is yours.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to say on the record that I think that's a great question. You see on Facebook and Twitter these ads come up for these hack-job shops that deal with record suspension and parole, so thanks for that, Jim. I appreciate it.

I don't have many questions because I think a lot has already been said through your testimony. It's not a bad thing that we have less to say. It means it was straightforward.

Rodney, if I may say so, as my colleagues have said, you do us a service by being here and having the courage to talk about what you went through. Thank you for that. I really appreciate it.

It's sort of going back to the question that was just posed but maybe from a different angle.

Catherine, you raised this notion of something being automatic once there's been good behaviour, a fine paid or time served, depending on the circumstances. Our vision has always been if it's a non-violent crime, a first-time offence, a minor one or something like marijuana possession or any other thing you can think of—I use that example because it's rather current—is there a belief that...?

We could debate some of the details, but I think that's beyond where we are in this committee at this time. Perhaps a recommendation could be made that this needs to be looked at whether it means an automatic pardon, automatic expungement, or whoever is in charge putting those specifics aside and having something that would not require going through a process so that after a certain amount of time or behaviour or punishment served or whatever—I hate that term but for lack of a better one at the moment.... Is that something that should be looked at, something automatic so that you don't need to worry about it?

5:10 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

Catherine Latimer

Absolutely. If it's not automatic, you're penalizing people with cognitive impairments, people who are marginalized, people who are poor, or people who are illiterate. They may be putting their lives back together and being crime free, but if it requires this application process, it invites a lot of problems in terms of who has the ability to actually do that.

I would also say that the time for the automatic thing to kick in can be triggered according to how serious the offence is. If it is a summary offence, the period that they should wait should be a lot less than it is if it's an indictable offence. It should be automatic, in my view, across the board, as soon as that crime-free period or whatever is thought to be prudent has been met.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Fair enough.

5:15 p.m.

Registered Nurse, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

Louise Lafond

It also speaks to the revolving door that some people go through because of mental illness, because with so many small crimes like mischief and theft, they're not being treated for their mental illness. The criminal justice system is just putting them through a revolving door. That is another problem because, as Mr. Eglinski said, most of the time it's one and done, but for people who suffer from a mental illness that can be one, and then one, and then one, which makes it longer and longer and longer. Even if they are in recovery, their record looks terrible. Then, when they apply, they have to revisit that time when they were so ill that it wasn't them who was doing the crime, practically speaking, and they cannot further their recovery.

5:15 p.m.

Core Group Member, 7th Step Society of Canada

Rodney Small

I can only imagine getting a letter in the mail or a phone call or something like that to tell me that I've been pardoned. I think the feeling would be the complete opposite of what I felt going through the complete process and then taking that extra step further in order to get the letter that just reminded me that, “you got a suspension but the record is still there” type of thing.

I framed that letter because when I got it, I just laughed. I said, “This is what I worked so hard to get?” It was an insult to say the least. Even with my criminal record suspension, I felt like it was an insult more than anything. There was not even a question in my mind.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

It's interesting, because it's obviously not your case, but the issue of literacy was raised. It reminds me of some of the issues we face with the CRA, when you get a letter and you have to flip through two or three pages and you're still left there. I'm an MP and sometimes if they say they want to audit a charitable donation I made or whatever, it's innocuous, but you read the letter and you think this could have been so much shorter just to tell me something that's way more straightforward than they're making it sound. You're reading that letter and it's almost as if you have to read three sentences before you understand that it was turned down and what the recourse is.

In doing the X exercise, you mentioned the age of social media. This is probably beyond the scope of this study and our committee's work. It's probably something more for the justice committee, but I'm wondering, and you alluded also to mental health treatment. It's probably particularly pertinent for those who don't serve any time but do get criminal records and would probably benefit from that.

Would it be worth looking at two things? First, I know we want maximum transparency for the public but it would be revisiting publication bans and how that works with regard to criminal records in the age of social media. I know it's not for us, but for another committee I think the question is worthwhile. Second, whether this should be more robust. How can I put it? I don't want to say “prescribing”, but it would be implementing mental health services for those who don't necessarily get time served but who are given a criminal record of some kind through the justice system.

I'll start with you, since you raised the issues, but hearing from the others with any time I have remaining would be great.

5:15 p.m.

Registered Nurse, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

Louise Lafond

The mental health issue is paramount because so many people wind up in a psychotic episode and commit crimes. Once they're treated, they're okay. Then they have to go back constantly to where they were. Any system that would address that mental illness, rather than giving them a fine—and I know this is a justice committee question—would say, this person deserves mental health treatment, not a criminal record. They need health care not jail time, not an absence of recourse to care.

As a nurse, I cannot emphasize that enough because your physical and mental health.... As I said in my statement, so many people are so relieved to receive a record suspension but going through the process, as Rodney stated, is like revisiting a life that isn't yours anymore, and it feels like a horrible.... It's like going back to something you left behind.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus

Thank you very much, Ms. Lafond.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have seven minutes.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

I want to thank all of you. It's been really interesting. I've been following all the questions I've been hearing, and it's been great to hear us coming together, I think, on a lot of points.

One that I noticed when all of you were talking was the choice of words we use. It used to be a pardon. Now it's a record suspension. I believe Ms. Latimer used the words “open and closed file”. Maybe if I start with Mr. Small, because I believe if I'm quoting Ms. Latimer properly on it, she was suggesting that the words would now be “open and closed file”, that we change it to that.

How would you feel about that choice of wording?

5:20 p.m.

Core Group Member, 7th Step Society of Canada

Rodney Small

I never thought about it before so you've put me on the spot. I think the word “pardon” says a lot. It means exactly what it says. You're forgiven, and it holds a lot of ground. “Open and closed file” I still feel doesn't have that same oomph as a pardon, but Catherine may have a little more knowledge and experience in her position than I do to bring that forth. I definitely would need more time to think about it to give you a straightforward answer. A pardon does say a lot more to me than anything else. That's what I was shooting for.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Sure. That's fair enough.

Ms. Latimer, would you be able to comment on that as well?

5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

Catherine Latimer

Sure. I think the words receiving a pardon mean a lot to the people who get it, but it also hurts a lot more when they don't get it for some reason. I can tell you a number of John Howard clients are told they're not getting their record suspension or their pardon and then you have to torque up the process. You don't want to give up but that adds to the cost as well.

The idea of open and closed would attract less negative repercussions. I think the government is sometimes concerned about being seen as soft and forgiving and pardoning people who may have done something. They've done their time. They've paid their debt. It's done.

I think open and closed would make it a lot cleaner if it was administered as an operation of law. You've done this; it's closed. You've committed another offence; it's reopened. It's cleaner. It's simpler, but I take Rodney's point because a lot of people feel validated and they feel good when they receive the pardon. We need to think about that too.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

That's fair. There could be a way of dealing with it that is a pardoning process, that the actual arrangement—

5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

Catherine Latimer

It's a closure.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

—is an opened and closed file. It could be. There are different ways. I was just picking up on the fact that different words were being used, so I wanted to check on that.

I want to say that the John Howard Society did a report, “Reforming the Criminal Records Act”, which was funded by the Canadian Bar Association's law for the future fund. I was wondering if you would be able to file that with the clerk. Could you send that to the clerk to be filed?

December 6th, 2018 / 5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

Catherine Latimer

Yes, I'd be happy to do that.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

That would be wonderful. I will accept that to be sent in.

One of the things I thought was interesting, because we've talked a fair bit about the possible repercussion of still having a criminal record on employment and housing.... I saw in the report that there are others we haven't talked about—

5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

—that are worth considering in our discussion. One was adoption eligibility. I saw there was a quote from a person who had just married and was unable to conceive. She had one offence and because of the extra delay, couldn't get to the point where she would be able to adopt. That's one of them. Is that correct?

5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

The other one is child custody. It could have an impact on child custody arrangements. I believe child custody is an issue. I see that we've already talked a bit about housing and education, volunteer opportunities, then travel as well. I just need yeses. I'm sorry, I'm just going to get....

Travel can also be impeded with a criminal record.

5:20 p.m.

Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

Catherine Latimer

Absolutely, yes.