The National Pardon Centre™

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.

October 28^th, 2011

Premier Greg Selinger
Attorney General Andrew Swan

On behalf of the John Howard Society of Manitoba, I am writing to ask that your government speak out against Bill C-10, currently being debated in Ottawa, on the grounds that it will have dire consequences for Manitoba if implemented.  In doing so, you would be joining the Quebec National Assembly, who have unanimously called for the bill to be withdrawn, and the Official Opposition in the BC legislature.

 As you know, Bill C-10 would impose a number of new minimum sentencing requirements, limiting the discretion of judges to impose shorter and/or conditional sentences for a long list of offences.  As these minimum sentences are all under two years, those convicted are most likely to be incarcerated in provincial jails.  Minimum sentences will also mean more trials and fewer pleas, resulting in more pressure on provincial courts and longer remand.  In short, Bill C-10 will have a negative and immediate impact on a court and correctional system that is already overburdened and working beyond capacity.

 Based on earlier research done by the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Marks, we foresee that Bill C-10 will have a far greater financial impact at the provincial level, with the provinces likely to spend 75 cents for every 25 cents added to the federal government’s budget.  When asked where the provinces would get the revenue to cover these increased costs, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews indicated the provinces could use their transfer payments – leaving less for health and education.  I don’t think this choice is in keeping with the values of Manitoba or those of your government. 

 Lastly, the biggest fault of Bill C-10 is that locking people up longer doesn’t reduce crime, and may over time make crime even worse.  That is why the United States is currently moving away from the very strategy the federal government of Canada wants to embrace with this legislation.  What does work is prevention, addressing poverty, and creating more opportunities for employment, education and training – all things this government has shown a commitment to, especially in the inner city.  But if Bill C-10 passes, Manitoba will not have the money for these kinds of initiatives.

 I look forward to hearing your government speak out on this important issue, and to see continued support for the fight against poverty, under-education and unemployment in Manitoba.

 Sincerely,

 David Alper,

Chairperson, JHSM

An interesting development came out of a quick trip to Ottawa yesterday. I was invited by John Hutton of the John Howard society to attend a press conference denouncing the Conservative’s Omnibus Crime Bill C-10, specifically the section that deals with pardons.

Bill C-10 contains a measure to deny pardons to anybody convicted of more than three indictable offences. However, the way this particular section of the bill was written leaves it open to interpretation, although it is not quite as ambiguous as I originally thought.

Language is a tricky thing to manage. A simple comma can change the meaning of an entire paragraph.

See the section on three strikes below. When I originally read this measure online I could not see the comma preceding requirement that each offence be sentenced to more than 2 years in prison (printed in italics below). Without the comma the 2 years could apply to both the indictable offence criteria AND the service offence criteria, or to only the service offence. As it stands I now believe that the two years or more applies to both. But I could be wrong. Language is a tricky thing.

 Here is the clause. Have a read and make your own decision on its actual meaning:

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person is ineligible to apply for a record suspension if he or she has been convicted of

• (b) more than three offences each of which either was prosecuted by indictment or is a service offence that is subject to a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life, and for each of which the person was sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.

Three strikes is still a remarkably short sighted social policy. But I can personally confirm that hundreds of our clients we thought would be ineligible for a pardon will remain eligible. And it’s all because of a comma in a paragraph.

Of course that is how I am interpreting the bill. It could probably be debated. Perhaps it’s a conversation to be saved for a Charter challenge.  

With a Conservative majority government the crime bill is certain to be one of the first measures to be pushed through parliament. Although the pardons issue is not at the forefront of the crime issue it is still important. I have been following Bill C23 since it first appeared in the house so here are my expectations on what we can expect to see in the Tory crime bill. They have pledged to pass this legislation within 100 days of achieving a majority.

The chances are good that the pardons side of the new bill will read exactly as Bill C23-B currently does. If so we know exactly what to expect. This will not mean the end of pardons but it will exclude a fair number of people from the program.

But there is an alternative possibility. With a Conservative majority it is possible that Harper could soften his approach slightly and make some amendments to the crime legislation. If that is the case the following is what I would expect from the new crime bill regarding pardons.

I am fairly confident about the following changes to the pardon program will take place even if the details of Bill C23-B are amended.

*The term pardon will be replaced with record suspension (this is purely symbolic and not very important, people will continue using the term pardon)

*Sexual offences involving children will be ineligible for a pardon

*Serious criminals will be ineligible for a pardon (how they will define serious criminal is still up for grabs but the 3 strikes rule might remain and that would be the definition)

*Fee increase is certain to happen. The fee is currently $150 but will be increased to $631 (so if you need a pardon get going NOW!)

The following are some items that could perhaps be amended if theTories decide to take a more moderate approach.

*Changing the waiting periods from what they are now to 5 and 10 years (it is remotely possible that the waiting periods will be left alone, but I am not confident about this)

*The 3 strikes rule (it is possible this will be amended as there were even Conservatives who opposed this measure)

With a little luck we might see a softer approach now that Harper doesn’t have anything to prove. He is PM, for the next four years with no risk of a hasty election.

The bottom line about the Tory majority is that if you need a pardon get it started ASAP. Nothing is guaranteed anymore and there is a decent chance that if you start a pardon today we could get it into the Parole Board before the changes take place.