How The Canadian Pardons Process Unified The Parliament

When laws are subjected to parliamentary debates, it can be expcted that opinions on them will differ between parties. More often than not, it occurs an act submitted for debate by the Government or a member of Parliament is rejected outright by all other parties, or at least subjected to many proposals for review. This is hardly surprising, seeing as a political parties differ in ideology, on which their standpoints on various laws are based; the reasons of one party for supporting a proposal may reflect the very reasons why another party with a different political background might oppose it. All the same, there are cases when a bill includes elements with a universal appeal. How the whole Parliament can sometimes unite on a question was recently shown by how Canadian Parliament handled a controversial move to change the Canadian pardons process when faced with an impending controversy relating to it.

Before July 2010, the Canadian pardons process was relatively straightforward affair. People who had a conviction for a summary offence (petty crime) had to allow three years to pass after serving their sentence in order to apply for a pardon to the Parole Board of Canada, while those who had committed an indictable offence (felony) had to wait for five years after being released. The Parole Board would automatically grant a pardon provided that during these ineligibility periods a person had not committed another crime and had properly submitted their pardon application. The effect of a pardon was to make the person's criminal record a classified document that could not be accessed during a criminal record check. However, during 2010, the Canadian pardons process came under scrutiny when it came to light that Graham James, a hockey coach who had been convicted of sexually abusing NHL players Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy while they were his teen proteges, had been pardoned in 2007 after having served a short sentence, and was now in Mexico coaching other young players. This made Prime Minister Stephen Harper angry enough to have a law drawn up whith the aim to make it substantially more difficult to get a pardon. The result was Bill C-23, a drastic proposal that was set both to make cosmetic changes (pardons were to become “record suspensions”) and to raise the requirements for a successful application The Conservative Government’s general working toward toughening Canada’s criminal law and emphasizing harsher consequences for crime over clemency was manifest in this proposal. Not surprisingly, once introduced into Parliament, Bill C-23 became an object of heavy debate. The opposition Liberals slammed the bill for imposing a blanket policy of harshness upon both minor and serious offenders, and for attempting to make a pardon - an significant tool for rehabilitating offenders – more difficult to get. The NDP saw things the same way.

The debate might have extended past Parliament's summer break, when an situation of urgency arose. It was discovered that one of Canada’s worst criminal offenders would be eligible for a pardon on 5 July, specifically, Karla Homolka, who had been sentenced to 12 years in jail in 1993 for "manslaughter" - the effect of a plea bargain regarding her role in the rapes and murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, although it is widely believed that while her husband Paul Bernardo was the rapist, she was the actual killer. As she had been reased in 2005, Homolka could apply for a pardon very soon. All parties agreed on one thing: some provisions of Bill C-23, those which were meant to preventing people like Homolka from getting a pardon, were sound. And so, just before the House of Commons adjourned, the act was divided into two bills, of which C-23A was immediately agreed upon by all the parties and C-23B was left for the fall. The changes to the Canadian pardons process that were actually passed were limited to the following provisions:

• For sexual crimes against children and “violent personal injury offences” (according to Section 752 of the Criminal Code) the period of pardon ineligibility became 10 years

• The Parole Board can now refuse to grant a pardon that would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (thus, people as notorious as Homolka may never get a pardon)

• Now, anyone who has committed an indictable offence has to explain to the Parole Board what benefit a pardon will bring into their lives

The discussion concerning the Canadian pardons process should change is set to continue, as Bill C-23B remains in the committee stage. The issue is a contentious one, involving diverging ideological views on criminal justice. All the same, in the swift and united passage of Bill C-23A by all parties, it is remarkable to observe how different political groups can agree on something when pressed toward common ideas.

By: Ned Lecic

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Ned Lecic is an expert in the Canadian pardons process and has a broad general interest in the law.