The Conservative government wants to change the rules around criminal pardons, even going so far as to change what they are called.
The government introduced proposed changes this week that would make it more difficult for convicts to get pardons and increase the time they will have to wait before applying.
Local member of Parliament Brent Rathgeber said the current system grants pardons too easily.
“The mechanics of this made the applications almost automatic and there was very little discretion for the National Parole board to decline a pardon.”
Rathgeber said the government is also looking to change the name of pardons to record suspensions because the word pardon implies forgiveness, which they are uncomfortable with.
“Victims’ groups have said to us the word pardon denotes a sort of wiping of the slate clean and forgiveness and they find the suspension of a criminal record less offensive.”
Under the new legislation, people who are convicted of a summary conviction offence, which includes crimes like shoplifting and simple drug possession, will have to wait five years — up from the present three — before they can apply.
People convicted of more serious or indictable offences such as robbery or drug trafficking will have to wait 10 years, up from five.
There will also be a whole collection of offences like sexual interference or possession of child pornography in which anyone convicted of such a crime would be virtually prohibited from receiving a pardon.
Rathgeber said he is aware that it will be more difficult for people to find employment or travel without receiving a pardon, but the government believes they have to look at more than the needs of offenders.
“Our approach shifts the balance to the rights and the needs of the victims,” he said. “We place more emphasis on the rights of victims and the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
The pardon changes have been driven to the forefront by news that sex-offender Graham James has received a pardon and that Karla Homolka will soon be eligible.
Rathgeber said the government always intended to change the system and those cases simply put the issue front and centre.
“It is not a knee-jerk reaction at all. It is just the catalyst that put it right from the back burner to the front burner.”
