House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-3.

Topics

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.48 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It being 5.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion for third reading of Bill C-3.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment defeated.

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be counted in the vote in support of the government.

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I have announced the results and your vote will not be counted on the last vote but will be counted on this one.

The next question is on the main motion.

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply in reverse the results of the vote just taken to the motion now before the House, adding the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Division No. 231Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 232Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-53.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes. I would like to note the absence of the member for Peace River for this vote.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to the motion.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no on this motion.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote against this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 233Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment negatived.

Division No. 233Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Records ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here this evening and speak in the final hour of debate on the private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Calgary Centre. It is of profound importance for the health and well-being of our most important resource in Canada, our children.

Governments at all levels often say that they recognize the importance of children's welfare for the future of the country, but they often have a strange way of showing it. Our income tax structure encourages two income families and common law relationships, although there is overwhelming empirical evidence that both these situations are among the least desirable for the healthy development of children.

Many members of this House have probably bought into United Nations documents that are supposed to protect the rights of the child. Because of manipulation by special interest groups, many subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, these charters actually seem to undermine the ability of and the responsibility for parents to guide and nurture their children.

In a recent news article the Secretary of State for Children and Youth said “We feel our activities are child centred. Our main concern is what happens to children, and the issue of parents is very, very, I would say, controversial”. If the concern really was for the child, then the well-being of parents and their families would be front and centre, not considered an annoyance by this government.

The term “child centred” also appears in education literature that was popular a few years ago. The philosophy that letting kids decide what they wanted to learn, when they felt like learning it, was somehow going to lead to happier, well adjusted students. The result, as we now know, is that a lack in direction and in an appreciation of the responsibilities that adults were supposed to provide them, many children felt no obligation to learn at all. Many jurisdictions across Canada are retreating from the failed experiment of trying to turn innocent children into miniature adults.

I am not claiming that there is a direct connection, but the policy of absolving adults of their responsibilities to behave properly seems to be the other side of the coin. We seem to have forgotten the social impact of giving individuals a free ride when it comes to the consequences of their actions. We often seem so concerned about the rights of the convict that we completely ignore the loss of dignity, privacy and the enjoyment of life that these criminals visit upon their victims and families.

Members on this side of the House recognize that all legislation must be concerned with balance.

The administration of justice requires not only a presumption of innocence for the individual charged with a crime, but that any punishment that results from a rightful conviction must fit the crime.

There is a process in place for dealing with criminal activity that has to include mitigating circumstances. We may stop a lot of thieves by ordering their hands to be cut off, but our society has decided that sort of punishment is too extreme.

We believe in mercy and we believe that people should get a chance to atone for their transgressions at a later date. At one time these were a couple of elements among many in our justice system, but these days many Canadians feel that they have become the driving force.

Many Canadians feel that the balance has been upset and now the justice system assumes that criminals are always remorseful and will automatically respond to things like day parole and psychiatric counselling. Far from it.

Rightly or wrongly, the perception has been created that the justice system has been skewed to give every consideration to the criminal and little is being done to heal the wounds of the victims.

Many Canadians have expressed the desire to see more done on the side of prevention. They want more police officers on the street, more direct and immediate consequences for all criminal acts, more onus being placed on parents for the actions of minors, a greater emphasis on making criminals pay the full price for their crimes and less of a push to get them back on the street.

While opposing sides may argue about the efficiency of incarcerating versus rehabilitating criminals, police are aware that a rash of property crimes, for example, usually points to the recent release of a criminal who favours that sort of action. It is a fact of life.

There is no end of statistics to show the tendency of various criminals to reoffend and these are often used by people to prove their pet theories about justice.

I do not want to get into a numbers game, nor do I want to argue whether criminals need more or less jail or whether one kind of punishment is more effective than another. That is not what Bill C-284 is all about. It is not about tormenting a particular type of criminal for the rest of their life or imposing more jail time on someone who has supposedly served their time and is now trying to make a life for themselves.

It is true that Bill C-284 does target a particular kind of criminal and seeks to put at public disposal an item of personal information that our system has a method of keeping from the public under ordinary circumstances.

Some may interpret this as being unnecessarily intrusive, but this bill seeks to safeguard a particular kind of victim and is an attempt to bring balance to the system on that victim's behalf.

We recognize that criminals have certain rights and that the criminals who have served time for their crimes may have earned a certain relief from further punishment. However, the victims who we are concerned with here, like many victims who survived the violation against them, often serve a lifetime sentence themselves. They carry those emotional scars for life.

The victims who this bill concerns itself with are usually helpless, vulnerable and find it difficult to comprehend or deal with what is done to them. These victims are our children and our families.

The perpetrators of this most hideous crime are known as pedophiles or sex offenders. Despite what our deepest revulsion urges us to do to these people, we try to remember that we must have balance.

The members of this House should understand that Bill C-284 is not about the punishment of that individual based on suspicion or prejudice, it is about directing convicted criminals away from situations in which they have proven they cannot be trusted.

We are not asking that pardoned sex offenders be barred from society, but that people in positions of responsibility over children be given the opportunity to discover the true history of the potential employees they are looking at hiring.

This bill does not call for the public broadcast of anyone's criminal history. It merely allows for responsible parties to find out if an individual had ever been pardoned for a sexual offence, and then only if that individual actually applies for a job working with children.

When we consider the words of Correctional Services Canada that there is evidence of a substantial increase in the risk for sexual re-offending for that group of offenders with a prior history, and when we discover that the National Parole Board does not even keep track of the more than 16,000 pardons it hands out by type of crime, then we can say that there is a very small price to pay in terms of curtailing the freedoms of this group.

I would like to close by saying that the solicitor general already has the legal authority to override a pardon if it is in the interest of the administration of justice.

I believe it is only just that we work to prevent the tragedy of child victimization any way that we can, and this bill gives us one more tool to accomplish that end. I urge everyone in this House to support the bill.

Criminal Records ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very important issue on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington. It is obvious the hon. member for Calgary Centre has worked very hard to bring this matter to the attention of the House as a votable item. His desire to improve the law, to redress the anomaly he perceives in the legislation and his suggestions for reform outlined in the bill before us today are examples of the impact private members can have in the Parliament of Canada.

The hon. member is doing the House and the government a service by identifying an area of the Criminal Records Act that affects the process of granting pardons and the subsequent treatment of both the pardoned records and the pardoned individual. He points out that the current provisions of the act could favour the pardoned individual to the possible detriment of society at large.

It follows therefore that the proposals put forward by the hon. member may adversely affect Canadians with criminal records even after they have successfully turned their lives around and been given the benefit of a pardon. Therefore by proposing solutions as he has done the member is contradicting the apparent intent of the legislation which at its inception was duly considered and approved by those who went before us and by the members of the other place.

While we might all benefit from his industrious example and emulate his thoughtful efforts, we must carefully consider what he is saying. He clearly believes that the reasoning applied in drafting our current Criminal Records Act and indeed the human rights act was somehow faulty. This is a level of intervention we must all take seriously. I find that my attention is immediately engaged when it becomes necessary to amend our human rights act to accomplish a legislative change that is otherwise put forward as a positive reform. Most often we discuss issues in terms of generalities or as they say now at the macro level.

However, in our jobs there can be insufficient time to respond fully to the concerns of individual constituents. This is particularly problematic when the issue concerns those citizens who do not have experience in dealing with the mechanism of government and who feel powerless in the face of bureaucratic rules. Also left out are those who do not have an organized or sophisticated proponent to speak loudly for their rights.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre has taken the time to be just such an advocate by responding to reports of harm done in a few individual cases. I am not saying for a moment that harm has not befallen Canadians or that individual tragedies are unimportant. They are. In particular I recognize the level of concern we must bring to bear on the protection of young Canadians from sexual predators. Nothing that may occupy our time in this place is more important than the safety of those least able to defend themselves.

Nonetheless, difficulties may arise from the pursuit of solutions based on specific experiences however distressing and tragic. I could offer as examples some of the most recent cases of deplorable, repeated and devastating child sexual abuse where the predators had no previous record to be found, pardoned or otherwise. In others, the organizations responsible for the offenders' involvement in positions of trust had not only made no effort to investigate the offenders' backgrounds but also had actively shielded them from complaints and possibility of investigations. In light of these examples, it is possible that the proposal put forth through Bill C-284 may be either incomplete or somewhat misdirected.

I believe that more and more the role of the private member may be to respond to the needs and aspirations of individual citizens. This is why I believe the effort of the member for Calgary Centre in identifying a possible source of inequity and harm and in proposing legislative solutions is so important. By sponsoring the initiative before us today, my honourable colleague has fulfilled his most important obligation as a private member.

What problem has my colleague identified and what solutions does he propose? The purpose of Bill C-284 is to amend the Criminal Records Act to provide for the automatic revelation of the pardoned criminal records of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children should the offender thereafter seek a position as a caregiver, coach or in another role in which he or she might have power and influence over young people.

Bill C-284 is limited in focus to a single primary objective. It seeks to address concerns over the current act which requires that the records of those who are granted a pardon be sealed and set aside to be revealed only in a very particular circumstance and only on the approval of the Solicitor General of Canada. The proposal suggests a pardon that could be set aside in a much more casual way at the stroke of a bureaucratic pen. We must proceed very cautiously in this regard.

It should be noted that regardless of the disposition of a criminal record reference to the particulars of a case may exist in various locations and be under the control of various authorities. When the Criminal Records Act was passed the limited effect of pardons granted under its auspices was acknowledged.

As I am sure other hon. members will mention, only the release of federal records is directly constrained through the granting of a pardon.

There may be local court and police records that persist and certainly the original media coverage and local knowledge of the crimes in question remain unimpeded except by the passage of time. Such historical records are becoming more available through the search capabilities of our society's increasingly sophisticated electronic research tools. The benefits of a pardon are limited but the hon. member nonetheless seeks today to remove even this relief from certain pardoned offenders.

My colleague's proposal for the revelation of records in a narrow and specific fashion may prove difficult to implement. I reiterate that there is no single exclusive record keeping system in the country. Due to the federal nature of our political arrangements, records of criminal occurrences including records of arrest, trial, conviction and conditional release and supervision may exist in many places. As mentioned, media reports are more likely to exist in cases that may be of such a serious and shocking nature that they may lend themselves to media sensationalization. These are the records the hon. member seeks to remove from the protection of pardons under the Criminal Records Act.

A further complication is that the pardoned record sought in the interest of a children's safety offence may form part of a series of charges and dispositions. Should these more or less related convictions also come to light? I think not.

Perhaps the most significant flaw in the hon. member's bill is that it ignores that the Criminal Records Act already provides for disclosure and indeed revocation of pardoned records where necessary and appropriate.

Under section 6 of the act the solicitor general may at any time disclose a pardoned record to any person where the minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the interests of the administration of justice or for any purpose related to national or international safety or security. This is a very broad test if not an onerous standard to meet. Any person or organization may make an application for the unsealing and disclosure of an ex-offender's pardoned record.

Further, under section 7.2 of the act a pardon will be automatically revoked if the person is ever again convicted of an indictable federal offence. It does not end there. Under section 6.2 of the act there can be limited disclosure of the existence of a pardoned record to police forces under specified circumstances.

I mention all of this because the bill before us today seeks to provide corrective solutions to a factor that may not be as problematic as it first appears. Let us be clear that there are already a number of straightforward mechanisms for disclosing or revoking a pardoned record in appropriate circumstances. Many people have advocated more substantial reform during the past decade. Specific proposals have been developed which identify other provisions under the current act which would benefit from review and amendment.

Representatives of some provincial governments have made their views known, as has the voluntary sector active in the criminal justice system. These wider reforms are intended to address identified inconsistencies as well as important areas of possible improvement which have been put forward.

If the outcome of the member's work to date has been that the government is moving ahead to complete a review of outstanding issues focusing particularly on the areas to which my friend has drawn our attention, I suggest this has been an indication of the close collaboration between private members and the government. This would amount to proof of the effect that one member speaking for the rights of private citizens and constituents can have in changing the laws in Canada.

In wrapping up I return to a theme which I commented on earlier, the important role of private members' bills and the often unheralded accomplishments of those members who identify problems. I thank the hon. member for bringing that to our attention.

Criminal Records ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, the aim of Bill C-284 is to provide for a specific instance where public interest so requires for a limited disclosure of a record of conviction for an offender who has been pardoned where the conviction was for a sexual offence against a child. Thus when a sexual offender applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or children, the employer could have access to the individual's criminal record.

Before looking at the individual clauses in detail, I think it would be a good idea to look at the clauses individually.

Clause 1 amends the preamble to the Criminal Records Act by providing for an exception whereby a criminal record may be disclosed where public interest so requires it.

Clause 2 amends section 6 of the Criminal Records Act by requiring—and this is very important—the minister to disclose information on the criminal history of a job applicant pardoned for a sexual offence against a child.

Clause 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by providing that a hiring policy based on a criminal history is not discriminatory where the job involves young children.

The aim of Bill C-284 is to protect society and especially children against potential repeat offenders. Crimes involving violence against young children are probably the most repugnant of all. People find such acts both shocking and incomprehensible. It is difficult to comprehend how an individual can sully youth in this manner and, more importantly, then want to put themselves in a position to repeat the offence with young people in a job involving the care of children or such like.

The member for Calgary Centre is legitimately attacking this scourge. He proposes that someone who has committed a sexual offence against a child be never permitted to obtain work that would put children in his care or put him in a position of authority over a child.

We have already examined this in the past. Society has already looked as these problems, but there are perhaps loopholes in the law, and the hon. member's work is important.

Our community recognizes that everyone has the right to be free from all forms of discrimination on the basis of social conditions. In this respect, section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect—to the principle that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on—conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

The Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms more specifically provides that individuals may not be discriminated against upon hiring on the basis of criminal background. Let me read you section 18.2 of the charter, which provides for an exception that is extremely important and interesting in relation to our debate today. It reads as follows:

No one may fire, refuse to hire or penalize a person in any other way in his or her job by reason solely of the fact that this person has been convicted of a criminal or penal offence—

What follows is very important. I read on:

—provided this offence has no relation to the job or a pardon was granted.

The phrase “provided this offence has no relation to the job” is extremely important.

As we can see, the right to non-discrimination is not an absolute right; in some cases, the lawmaker saw fit to include exceptions. For example, section 15 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

It is not a discriminatory practice if ( a ) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;

This means an employer may refuse to employ an individual who does not meet the skill requirements without this being considered a discriminatory practice.

On the other hand, recognition of the employee's right to not be penalized for having committed a criminal act under section 18.2 of the Quebec charter does not prevent the employer from acting. In fact, where the alleged offence is related to the job, the employer may take appropriate measures to bypass or sanction an employee whose duties are directly linked to a criminal past. This applies to positions considered ones of trust by the public, such as those held by peace officers, teachers and even lawyers.

Under the Criminal Records Act, rehabilitation and pardon are synonymous. It is therefore to be expected that an individual who has been given a pardon may enjoy unrestricted freedom. Rehabilitation should ensure that such an individual is no longer a threat to public safety. However, this is not always the case, even where rehabilitation has occurred. Certain illnesses, as I shall mention, are hard to treat.

Nevertheless, as responsible lawmakers, we must make sure that rehabilitation does not lead to recidivism. For example, some experts say that pedophilia is incurable and that no psychological treatment can correct this deviance. If this were true, all penal corrective measures would be ineffective. Given that pedophiles are not in prison for life, it is reasonable to fear that on their release some form of recidivism is possible.

It is probably because of this uncertainty, which young people could pay for, that the lawmaker established ways to supervise and monitor sexual criminals after their release. I think the government member covered this earlier, but unfortunately, this monitoring and supervision is not foolproof.

Section 161 of the Criminal Code provides that the court may prevent a sexual offender from taking or keeping a job or volunteer work that would put him in a position of trust or authority with persons under 14 years of age.

The effectiveness of the process in section 161 of the Criminal Code is, however, contingent on the good faith of the offenders who want to comply with the court order. One only has to visit the courthouse on days when the court is sitting to realize that many orders are breached. Section 161 is a good section, it is a start, but it is too discretionary. It puts the onus on the offender to declare certain things. Follow up is a problem, because follow-up is based on the good faith of the offender.

A question arises here: Are we to enable employers to anticipate the bad faith of certain offenders by allowing them to have access to offenders' records and to deny employment as a result? I think this is a question raised by the bill, and with all I have said, we must say yes to this question in order to protect children.

In conclusion, non-discrimination implies the right to not be subjected to an illegal distinction based on criminal offences for which one has been pardoned. Non-discrimination is not, however, an absolute concept. Public safety may justify specific measures which take individuals' characteristics into consideration, their criminal background for instance, as well as giving consideration to those whom we wish to protect.

In the case of Bill C-284 introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, those we wish to protect are children, and I wholly support that objective.

Since the safety of children necessitates unceasing vigilance and since the right to non-discrimination is not an absolute concept, in that the public interest could justify restriction of that right, a controlled disclosure of the records of sex offenders could be justified. For this reason, I can tell the hon. member introducing this bill that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of it.