The National Pardon Centre™

Express pardons is one of several terms used to describe getting a pardon as fast as possible. There are many names for this service and express pardons is just one of them but most of the pardon service providers offer some form of this service. At the National Pardon Centre we call it an expedited pardon but I have heard it called an accelerated pardon, a rush pardon, a rapid pardon and many others.

There is nothing wrong with offering an express pardons service. However, some of the companies out there try to take advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge about pardons by offering something that is not possible to guarantee. Simply put no one has control over the various government agencies involved in piecing together a pardon application so no one can guarantee how long it is going to take. That being said let’s look at the facts about express pardons:

1. An express pardon means the company will get it done as soon as possible. It does not mean that company has special knowledge or insider tricks that will get it processed faster than the next guy getting an express pardon from another company.
 
2. The speed at which a company can process an express pardon is based on its efficiency and nothing else. Therefore if the company is disorganized the chances it can actually get your pardon done ASAP is next to zero.

3. Any company guaranteeing the fastest pardon in Canada is lying and committing fraud because it is not possible to guarantee such a thing under any circumstances. The ability to offer an express pardons service is based on several factors that ALL pardon service providers are subject to.

4. An express pardon is subject to delays incurred at the RCMP, The courts, local police stations and the Parole Board of Canada. NO ONE HAS CONTROL OVER THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND NO ONE CAN CONTROL THE SPEED AT WHICH THESE REQUESTS ARE PROCESSED.

5. Some factors can make your file move along more quickly at one company than the next. One major advantage is using a local service that you can actually visit in person because sending documents through the mail takes time. Not all pardon service providers will allow you to visit their facilities however.

6. Some provinces allow personal court information requests. In Quebec for example we are able to send our employees to the Montreal CSP court house to retrieve court documents in person. This saves an enormous amount of time because we do not need to wait for a court employee to fulfill the request.

Above are just a few examples of the kinds of things that make it impossible to guarantee a pardon service faster than the next guy. But if you are really concerned about finding the fastest pardon service provider that can offer real express pardons, and you understand that much of time involved in processing a pardon is waiting on a third party, then here are some things to think about:

1. Visiting an office in person is an advantage as it avoids the need to send documents through the mail.

2. Some local services can request court documents more easily than one from out of province.

3. A company that is RCMP accredited to handle fingerprinting onsite has an advantage when dealing with fingerprinting submissions, although processing times for fingerprints, once submitted to the RCMP, do not vary according to which agency they were submitted by.

4. Experience is important. Keep in mind that there are some companies that will claim to have 20 years plus experience because there are a few employees in the office who have been doing pardons for a few years. Add up those years and you get 20 years experience. So when deciding on a pardon service provider, ask when the company was started, not how much “experience” it has.

Above outlines the ins and outs of express pardons. At the National Pardon Centre we do pride ourselves on offering the fastest service possible but we also pride ourselves on being honest and upfront. And the honest truth is that a lot of the time involved in preparing a pardon application is out of our hands.

If you would like an honest evaluation on how long it should take to get your pardon give me a call on my direct line below. I have been in this business since I founded the National Pardon Centre with my wife and business partner Nicole Levesque in 2002. I am quite confident that the National Pardon Centre is the fastest AND the best in the business. But it’s not something I can guarantee and I don’t try to.

I do, however, deal with my clients honestly and in my opinion that goes a very long way.

Michael Ashby
Director
National Pardon Centre
1.866.242.2411 x 227
514.842.2411 x 227
mashby@nationalpardon.org

The Senate is now debating the Omnibus crime bill. All of us opposed to this legislation are hoping that an actual debate will take place with real people this time rather than the just another faux meeting of Conservative puppet politicians ignoring the universal criticism. One organization that is highly critical of the misguided bill is the John Howard Society. I was sent the following letter below which is a generic version of a letter JHS sent out to all members of the Senate. Anyone who wants can feel free to borrow from the version below and send you their own. I am not sure what it will now take to sidetrack this bill but hopefully it will not have to come to a charter challenge.

For anyone who hasn’t been following the issue the Conservative’s Omnibus crime bill contains measures that would make it harder and more difficult to obtain a pardon. It would also eliminate pardons for some offenders, making the entire program another form of punishment, rather than the rehabilitative measure it was created to be.

January 30, 2012

The Honourable Member of Senate
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A4

Dear Senator,

 Justice Barry Stuart spent 25 years as a judge in Yukon.  Earlier this month he told the CBC news program, the Current, that while Bill C-10 was likely well-intended, those supporting it must have the courage to see and hear those people saying that the Bill is not the way to go.  Unfortunately the courage Judge Stuart speaks of was absent during the debate in the House of Commons where supporters of this Bill refused to listen to any criticism of or suggestions for this Bill, despite the fact the short-comings of this legislation are both well researched and well founded.  Canadians can only hope that this courage is found on the floor of the Senate when debate opens.  This would truly show the value of the second chamber, in the way Sir John A. Macdonald envisioned. 

Despite its title, Bill C-10 will not create safer communities or streets. Overall, the Bill is intended to increase the amount of time an individual would spend in jail or youth custody, as a way of preventing crime.  It will do this primarily through the restrictions on conditional sentences and through a number of new mandatory minimum sentences.  This is known as the punitive approach and has been widely used – and subsequently rejected in both the United States and Great Britain over the last 35 years or so.  In both these jurisdictions the use of a punitive approach drove up the cost of incarceration at the expense of preventative programs (such as drug rehabilitation, and reintegration programs) with little or no real decrease in crime.  There is no reason to think the Canadian experience will be any different. 

Felix Collins, Justice Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose Conservative provincial government has come out in opposition of Bill C-10, said recently he has never seen a study that favours more prison time as a way to cut rates of re-offending and improve public safety (Globe and Mail, on November 3, 2011).

Nobody knows this better than our neighbours to the south.  During the last 35 years or so, when the United States whole-heartedly adopted a punitive approach to crime, US incarceration rates increased 600% to the point that now 25% percent of the world’s prisoners, are in the United States.  The cost of incarceration increased more than 300% and for all the money spent, there has been little or no reduction in crime.  Crime rates did decrease slightly (20-30%) in the US over 30 years but so did rates in Canada, indicating that even this modest reduction was the result of other factors and had nothing to do with increased incarceration.  

Newt Gingrich, a prominent US politician and outspoken proponent of the punitive approach in the past, has now taken an entirely new position.  Gingrich wrote last January that:

Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the recidivism rate were not so high, but, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison within three years. If our prison policies are failing half of the time… it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners.

 Many Americans have openly urged Canada not to repeat their mistakes:

Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs.  If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs. (Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute in an interview published by the CBC, October 17th).

Bill C-10 will have a direct impact on rates of incarceration.  Corrections Services of Canada is predicting a yearly 8% increase in inmates going forward (Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2011 Annual Report).  At the provincial level, the increases will likely be three or four times higher (putting it in the range of 24 to 32%) given that the vast majority of minimum sentences will be served as ‘provincial time’.   Added to that, the provinces will see an increase in remand wait times, as mandatory minimums make plea bargains less attractive causing more cases to proceed to trial.  The John Howard Society of Canada has previously raised the very real concern that the Provinces, already stretched to capacity as a result of Bill C-25, simply do not have the capacity to absorb the increase in inmate populations Bill C-10 will bring, creating chaos in corrections.

The emphasis on harsher punishment as a response to crime is also problematic when one considers the large (and growing) percentage of prisoners in Canada suffering from some form of mental illness and/or addiction.  Prison is ill-suited to respond to mentally ill prisoners in need of support and treatment.  Prison in general exacerbates mental health concerns, and the practice of segregating mentally ill prisoners makes the mental health issues faced both by prisoners and institutions much worse. The imposition of mandatory minimums and harsher punishment will undoubtedly increase the number of prisoners in Canada suffering from mental health issues.  The proponents of Bill C-10 in the House of Commons would not allow amendments so that judges could consider mental health when sentencing.  The inhumanity of this approach should be apparent to all but it is important to note that it is also in direct conflict with 718.1 of the Criminal Code which states that proportionality must be the founding principle in sentencing.

I am also particularly concerned with the increasing difficulty that individuals with criminal records have in securing stable employment.  As well, in the Province of Quebec, individuals with a record from which they have not been pardoned cannot get house insurance, which effectively prevents them from ever owning a home.  Over 3 million Canadians have a criminal record for which they have not been pardoned.  Despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever to show that a pardon somehow makes it easier for an individual to commit crimes in future, Bill C-10 will arbitrarily double the waiting periods for anyone wanting a pardon and will exclude large numbers of people from every getting a pardon, regardless of how long they have been offence free.  The act of branding someone a criminal for life, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy making our communities and streets less safe in future.

 In closing, I would ask that you listen closely to the concerns about this Bill raised by the Aboriginal community, particularly those raised by the three Grand Chiefs from Manitoba who jointly condemned this legislation last December.  In Manitoba, Aboriginal people make up 70% of those in custody, despite being only about 15% of the total population of this province.  Bill C-10 will render the Supreme Court’s Gladue Decision largely meaningless, disproportionately impacting our Aboriginal community which is still recovering from the legacy of residential schools.  For this reason alone, it should be voted down.

Please vote against Bill C-10 to ensure that Canadians do not have to sacrifice our social safety net work in order to pay for provisions that make us less humane and ultimately less safe.

 If you have any questions about specific components of Bill C-10, or about the contents of our letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Canadians in favour of sensible crime policy.

As part of our continuing efforts to ensure our clients receive the highest level of service possible, we have launched www.canadianpardon.com - a website operated by National Pardon Centre that affords Canadians the ability to source pardons information from the convenience of their mobile devices.

The National Pardon Centre was founded in September 2002 and has grown to be one of the largest and most complete providers of pardon and waiver services in Canada.

With offices in Toronto, Montreal and Calgary we offer our services nationwide. All our offices are walk in centres. You do not need an appointment to visit us and speak confidentially with one our counselors. All our staff have security clearance and are able to handle protected information.

Apply today!

The Conservatives not only want to send more people to jail more often and for longer periods of time, they want to make sure that those who finally get out will not work a decent job for as long as possible. They want to prevent people from obtaining a pardon. In this day and age job hunting with a criminal record is about as about promising as fishing without a hook.

There are many arguments to be made in favour of an accessible pardon program. The astonishingly low rate of recidivism is the most important. Since the program began more than 400,000 people have been granted a pardon. The number of people, who subsequently reoffend, most often for minor crimes, amounts to about 4%.

With success in the 96% range there can be no legitimate argument against the effectiveness of a pardon. To think that a social program aiming to rehabilitate offenders into society could do better is to live in a fantasy land where common sense has no place and evidence has no meaning. Canadians demand a better approach.

A pardon is obviously a powerful incentive. If you make a mistake with law you must pay your debt to society. But once that debt is paid, once the sentence is complete, the criminal justice system says that one day you will be eligible to have your criminal record sealed. In other words, if you stay out of trouble with the law, one day a pardon will allow you to look for a job with a hook on the end of your line.

The Conservatives want to take that possibility away for some people, and make the waiting period much longer for the rest.

The former approach fails in the face of common sense. If the debt is paid the punishment is over. But denying the possibility of a pardon and a decent job forever is obviously another form of punishment. And the Conservatives might consider that anyone who receives a lifetime sentence, as handed down by the courts, can never get a pardon anyway.

The latter approach fails due to an absence of evidence. Asking offenders to live a law abiding life before being eligible for a pardon does make sense. Few of us would argue with that. But there is nothing to suggest that the current waiting periods are inappropriate or ineffective. Nothing even close to an argument is being offered, let alone evidence that might support it. With a 96% success rate we have to wonder what it is the Conservatives are trying to accomplish.

Changes to the pardon program, therefore, must be for ideological reasons. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion because there is no argument being made and no evidence being offered to support the changes contained in the omnibus crime bill. The Conservative government is simply telling Canadians that these changes will make us safer, that they are the right thing to do. We just have to trust them.

The problem is the lives this will affect and the families that will continue to struggle. I have spoken to many people who are just about to get things back on track. They would become eligible in the next few months for a pardon after completing their sentence and having had no trouble with the law for quite some time. But when the omnibus crime bill passes the hopes of a pardon and a decent job go out the window, for quite some time. Why? We can’t say. It’s just because the Conservatives want it that way. Try telling that to someone struggling to find work.

The Conservative government needs to reconsider its position on pardons. It should try to understand that people really can change. But most of all the Conservative government, being the party of fiscal responsibility, should recognize what a decent job does for the life of someone trying to build a positive future.