Don’t Get Hit by the Omnibus: Pardon Regulation Set to Change

The brigade of campaign buses have been rolled out and the partisan trumpets are blasting party platform from coast to coast. Election time again in Canada. What does this mean for the Canadian Criminal Code and importantly, the issue of Pardons and the Pardoning Process?

The Conservative Party of Canada, under Stephen Harper, has announced that if elected with enough of the vote, they will pass an all-encompassing crime bill. These are generally known as omnibus bills – bills that contain multiple pieces of legislation that affect various segments of the legal code. This is not a footnote of Conservative Party platform. The Harper government wants to pass this bill within 100 days of the election on May 2^nd.

             

Inside the bus is Bill-C23B. This bill has the purpose of giving the National Parole Board of Canada more discretion and power. The bill states “National Parole Board has...exclusive jurisdiction to grant or refuse to grant or to revoke a pardon”. Regardless of the merits of implementing this amendment and others to the Canadian Criminal Code the implication for Canadians remains clear. The process for applying for a pardon – soon to be known as “record suspension” – will become more difficult. Between 2009 and 2010, 7,000 applications to the NPB were rejected because they were incomplete or ineligible. With these amendments that number is bound to rise.

The large number of Canadians who are living with a criminal record, 13% and climbing, should be aware of the changes that will be coming down the legislative pipeline. There are options, Pardon Services exists to help Canadians successfully navigate the pardon process and arrive ultimately with a granted pardon. This enables Canadians to move forward, travel, receive due promotions and get employed. Pardon Services enables the growth of Canada and Canadians and will continue to do so as criminal legislation changes and moves forward.

            

If you are keen to get your pardon before the enactment of these legislations visit the most trusted pardon service provider to get the process started today.  

HIRING PRACTICES EXPOSED - Red Carded Before the Game

Increasingly, companies are using criminal record checks in their hiring process before even talking to the applicant. The criminal record check industry has provided a readily available, popular, and inexpensive tool for pre-screening hopeful applicants. This use, now widespread, eliminates all job candidates with criminal records. People with criminal records are routinely being denied any opportunity to establish their job qualifications. Such a “blanket” approach is clearly flawed if not plain wrong; it seems not only unreasonable but also potentially illegal under civil rights laws.

Criminal background checks serve to determine the safety and security risk of candidates for employment or promotion. However, to assume that the existence of a criminal record accurately predicts such risk is illogical. Employers are using these checks as a way of determining character rather than qualification. The best qualified or even well-qualified individuals are being swept aside irrationally. These blanket exclusions provide no opportunity for employers to consider critical information, such as the nature and age of an offence plus its relationship to the job.

Another emerging aspect is the potential for covert discrimination – using criminal records to screen applicants serves as a facially neutral selection process that invites consideration and review. As such, the National Employment Law Project’s March 2011 report urges employers to reconsider their current hiring policies. An individualized assessment should take into account the nature and gravity of the offense(s), the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job held or sought. This approach would ensure that people with criminal records are not eliminated for youthful indiscretions, minor run-ins with the law, or more serious offenses from long ago.

Supporting this approach is the fact that a criminal record is difficult to interpret, making it a misleading tool to determine risk on the job. The BC Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns about employers using the PRIME (Police Records Information Management Environment) database for pre-employment checks. In the past, this database was considered a highly confidential tool for law enforcement. One of the problems inherent in using this database now for employment screening is that some information is being recorded as “negative contact,” a concept far too broad in scope for employers to base life-defining decisions upon. If it is going to be used increasingly for background checks, people will be demanding greater access to ensure information provided is accurate. 

This is another example of what you don’t know can hurt you. How many people can tell you with 100% certainty what is in their file? How many of these hiring managers even know what their file says about them? If you are serious about your employment search or career advancement – do your best to have ALL the answers before you become excited about an application submission. Your past experiences, hard work, education and qualifications may be worth absolutely nothing to a potential employer if you set off a red flag. 

‘The New Canadian Pardon: More Expensive & Harder To Get. Really?

The Canadian Government has proposed that the cost of applying for a pardon be raised to $631, after only recently raising it from $50 to $150. Some people feel that those who commit crimes should have to pay for their own rehabilitation, whereas others feel that if getting a Canadian pardon proves too difficult or expensive, many will never be rehabilitated.

Quite interesting is the fact that, for pardoning criminal records, the price is under debate at the same time as the general requirements: Is the pardons process strict enough, or should it be made more difficult?

This raises two important questions for discussion:

Raise the price? The Government claims it would offset the cost to the taxpayer – a claim that defies logic to some degree. Consider that taxpayers’ money is used to administer the justice system. Raising the cost of a pardon – and quite significantly - would prove obtaining a pardon prohibitive for many, most likely because their criminal records are currently preventing them from  becoming gainfully employed. Not being gainfully employed results in the individual NOT being able to contribute to the public purse, and in some cases actually taking more away from it by relying on some form of public assistance. These people want to work. They are willing to pay taxes. Why stop them?

Make the process more difficult? One might well wonder what end this would serve. Take economics out of the equation. People who are legally entitled to receive a criminal pardon and are well rehabilitated or certainly have learned their lesson should not be further tripped up with another stumbling block. These are people who are working hard and are contributing members of society. The Canadian pardon process is already fair and effective, although it requires accuracy and thoroughness both on the part of the Parole Board of Canada and the applicant. Many people seek the assistance of Client Specialists to assure accuracy & thoroughness to better guarantee success with their application. But why make the process more complicated? A person who is working hard at life and contributing to society is not planning crimes. Do they really need more paperwork in Ottawa?

Because the spectrum of crime in Canada is so great, the likelihood of the average person knowing and/or associating with someone who has a criminal record is actually very high. Many everyday people have a minor conviction along with a criminal record. Most of these convictions usually result as a lapse of better judgment rather than an outright strategic criminal endeavor.

To make pardons more expensive or more difficult to obtain would be harsh and counterproductive to the average person.

Ultimately it will take more money away from the Government through lost future employment taxes than is collected from a one-time increased application fee. Rather than serving as a significant deterrent to the intended criminal, it hinders the productive rehabilitated individuals and looks more like an immediate, non-logical cash grab by the Government.