The National Pardon Centre™

We have done a little work on our Facebook page to bring it more up to date. Let’s just go ahead and call it a Facebook Facelift, or maybe a Facebook Lift. Whichever term you prefer I think it is worth having a look considering that over one hundred billion people are now using Facebook (I may have made that last part up).

If you have a chance stop by and comment, post or like, whichever you prefer. And if you have any suggestions we would be happy to hear them either right here on our blog or on our Facebook page.

Thanks for following:

http://www.facebook.com/NationalPardonCentre

After reading the article in the Globe and Mail that I posted here yesterday I decided to send a letter to the editor explaining why I have a problem with the attitude the private sector constantly receives from the National Parole Board. And voila, the paper published it.

If you would like to read the comment online please click the link below. Otherwise it is reprinted below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/moderate-islam-haiti-pardons-and-more-on-tiger-moms-and-the-tucson-tragedy/article1867835/

Pardon me

As director of the National Pardon Centre I take offence at the idea that private companies like mine offer “questionable services” (Pardon Crackdown Demands More Staff, Cash And Online Sleuthing Skills – Jan. 11). As an RCMP accredited agency, we might expect to be exempt from such unsupported statements.

Considering that 25 per cent of the applications are done incorrectly, and considering that the review process is so lengthy, the National Parole Board might want to also consider that our entire economy is built on a division of labour. In other words, rather than being questionable, it makes perfect economic sense to hire a third party to prepare your pardon.

Michael Ashby, Montreal

The legislation concerning pardons, Bill C-23B is still being debated although it has attracted little media attention. The Tories like to keep a number of crime bills in play as a part of their tough on crime agenda.

My biggest concern with the legislation is this idea that certain offenders need to remain unpardonable. The problem is that we already have a category of offender for that. That category is anyone who received a lifetime sentence. If we take the Karla Homolka story as an example then it is of course very, very difficult to argue a case that she deserves to receive a pardon for her crime.

The problem with the case of Karla Homolka is that she received a plea bargain. Had Karla Homolka been convicted of the crimes she committed she would still be appropriately rotting away in prison and the idea of a pardon would be the furthest thing from anyone’s mind. But that didn’t happen. Unfortunately, she was convicted on a much lesser charge and because of that anyone with any knowledge of Canada’s pardon program understood that she would one day be eligible for a pardon. In other words there was no emergency situation that justified the hasty passing of legislation to stop Karla Homolka from receiving a pardon. There were years wasted when this should issue have been looked at and addressed.

This brings me back to sentencing. Since a lifetime sentence denies the possibility of a pardon perhaps the issue society should be looking at is sentencing procedures. Because it is my opinion that if a court of law hasn’t found a person to be beyond redemption at the time of sentencing then the possibility of a pardon should remain available. And if there are certain type of offenders who we do not want receiving pardons, then we need to accept that these types of offenders deserve a lifetime sentence.

Society needs to realize that Canada’s pardon program is not about forgiving criminals. It is rehabilitation. If we are going to accept that criminals are capable of rehabilitation then we must provide them the possibility of living without the consequences that come with a criminal record. We need to provide them with the opportunity to be pardoned.

Unfortunately Bill C-23B is a legislative contradiction. What the bill hopes to accomplish is contradicted by what a pardon is supposed to achieve. In other words you can’t rehabilitate people and punish them for life at the same time.
Let’s hope when it comes time to vote on this bill that cooler heads prevail.

Nicole Levesque and I were invited recently to appear in front of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in Ottawa recently in order to provide expert testimony on Bill C-23B, a poorly constructed piece legislation proposed by the Conservatives back in May.

It was an interesting experience to say the least. In addition to the two of us, Sheldon Kennedy was there to testify as a victim of abuse and to request that pedophiles no longer be eligible to apply for a pardon.

It was very difficult to disagree with Mr. Kennedy’s testimony; and truth be told we did not. What I had to disagree with was the legislation being proposed, as it lumps all sexual offenders together, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest.

Due to the experience we have at the National Pardon Centre we know that a sexual offence is not just black and white. A considerable number of the sexual cases we have dealt with are of a relatively innocuous nature. They do not involve people in positions of authority and they do not involve young people.

Here is an example. Recently I spoke to a gentleman who had been to a “tailgate party” outside a football game. Obviously there was beer and they were drinking it. And at some point he made a very poor judgement call and decided to relieve himself where he probably shouldn’t have.

In addition to drinking in public, mischief and other charges, he received a sexual offence for exposing himself in public. And there you have it. He is now on the sexual registry for the rest of his life.

While I have no problem refusing pardons in the kinds of cases we hear about in the news, Bill C-23B did not even make an effort to address the various kinds of offences that count as a sexual offence. Therefore, as representatives of the National Pardon Centre we suggested the bill be defeated.

Our other concern with the measure in the bill that would refuse pardons to certain offenders was that it failed to recognize that allowing ex-offenders the opportunity to apply for a pardon is an opportunity to learn something about their behaviour. And since the Parole Board was no longer obliged to grant a pardon it didn’t deem appropriate, there was no harm at all in allowing these people the opportunity to plead their case.

Other parts of the discussion revolved around increasing the waiting periods required before a person became eligible for a pardon and the now infamous clause that would change the term pardon to record suspension.

As the session progressed it became increasingly evident that none of the expert witnesses supported the bill in its entirety. And as the questions continued it became increasingly difficult for anyone to support anything other than the most meaningless measures contained within the bill.

If Bill C-23B passes I will be further disillusioned with our legislative process. Watching committee members scroll around on their blackberries (not all but certainly more than one), while those of us who had taken time away from our families attempted to relay our message was discouraging. I was also a little shocked that some of the committee members took Mr. Kennedy’s presence as a chance to grab an autograph. I am sure Mr. Kennedy is used to it but it struck me as inappropriate.

However, Nicole and I were honoured to have an opportunity to help direct public policy in a positive direction. I don’t know what will happen with Bill C-23B but at the very least it should be amended to remove the reactionary clauses

I am fairly certain the opposition parties realize that Bill C-23B was not properly thought out. With a little luck it will be defeated.