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.