Monday, February 14, 2011

Bill C-23B - Proposed changes to Canada's pardon system

I spent much of the day researching a piece of legislation currently on the table in Parliament. Given that it’s been a long day (including a few hours observing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Parliament Hill), I’m going to turn these notes into a blog. And as a warning, I’m likely to only become more interested in issues of criminal justice and so there will be more blogs about topics such as this. This blog will also be divided into two parts – with more to follow tomorrow.

On June 17 of last year, the House of Commons split Bill C-23 (An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act) into 2 new bills - C-23A and C-23B. Bill C-23A was passed quickly without much debate – pushed through because Karla Homolka, having completed a 12-year manslaughter sentence, would have been eligible for parole under the old legislation and the government used her example to push for legislative changes. It essentially allows the National Parole Board to “deny any pardon that would bring the system into disrepute”.

The second part of the bill – C-23B: Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, is currently before the house. It addresses the remaining aspects of Bill C-23 with such things as substituting the term “record suspension” for “pardon” and extending the period of ineligibility for a record suspension to five years from three for summary conviction crimes, and to 10 years from five for more serious indictable offences such as manslaughter. It also makes those convicted of sexual offences against minors and those who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences as ineligible for a record suspension.

And as with the other current ‘tough on crime’ legislation initiated by the Tories, there is no evidence that this Bill will result in gains to public safety or that it will further the objective of protecting victims. Instead, it’s been described by Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, as “yet another sad and sorry attempt to inflame, rather than to inform, the public.”

Tomorrow, I will offer more information about why such legislation is actually counter to efforts to build safer communities.

No comments:

Post a Comment