Giving Victims and Communities a Voice

An approach being considered for dealing with the Stanley Cup rioters is one that represents viewing conflict as an opportunity for a community to learn and grow, operating on the premise that conflict, even criminal conflict, inflicts harm. Individuals must accept responsibility for repairing that harm. Communities – family, peers, professionals – are empowered to choose their response to conflict: Victims, offenders, and communities actively participate in devising and implementing mutually beneficial solutions.

This restorative justice approach has the accused meet with the person the crime impacted, apologize, and then both sides work out a punishment. Restorative justice is designed to put more focus on the victim who, in the conventional court process, doesn’t get a voice beyond making a victim impact statement. Victims are basically excluded in the legal process, except as witnesses. The community doesn’t have a place within the criminal justice process. Through restorative justice, victims get a clear voice. The focus is on victim needs, offender responsibility, and community building.

In October, the Vancouver Police Department recommended 163 charges against 60 individuals suspected of taking part in the Stanley Cup riot. At this time, more than 60 charges have been laid against 25 people, and the VPD is finalizing the next batch of charges to be forwarded to the Crown in the coming weeks. As for the rest of the suspected rioters, evidence is still being reviewed.

All well and good – or is it? Some people are skeptical as to the type of punishment that will ultimately be handed down. Will many rioters simply be given a slap on the wrist; will some actually do jail time; how much probation will be meted out? And what good will any type of punishment actually accomplish?

To set the record straight, so to speak, restorative justice is not soft on crime. Far greater creativity exists in restorative justice in determining what needs to happen to make amends, set things right. The approach has been used successfully with all kinds of conflict, including serious crimes like assault and murder.

Canada was the first nation to offer a victim/offender reconciliation program, initiated by the Mennonite Community in Kitchener, Ontario. Viewed world-wide as having experts in the field of violent-offence (post-incarceration) mediation, Canada has also been on the leading edge of adopting the Aboriginal concept of circle remedies, now an integral part of progressive programming in the federal justice system.

We will continue to see offenders acquiring criminal records, but with restorative justice, conflicts will be resolved in a way that restores harmony in the community members’ relationships and allow people to continue to live together in a safer, healthy environment.

And anyone with a criminal record who sincerely wishes to make a new start can do so by obtaining a record suspension to remove that criminal record. Pardon Services Canada will handle the entire process, assuring you of results. Call 1-8-NOW-PARDON (1-866-972-7366) to speak with a Client Specialist.

Overcoming Roadblocks in Life - With a Little Help

Out of the deep depths of misfortune comes bliss [Chinese proverb] – Something that will seem surprising to many is the fact that, for the last two years, Sir Richard Branson has been encouraging the managing directors of hundreds of Virgin companies to take on ex-offenders.

Many people end up in prison because they’ve had bad luck, setbacks, and roadblocks in their lives. And when they try to find employment or suitable accommodation, their criminal record becomes another type of roadblock. Recruiters and some landlords routinely undertake a criminal record check when evaluating applicants. Very few get hired or approved once information about a criminal record is revealed.

Branson was prompted to employ applicants with a criminal record after being invited by his friend Jane Tewson to spend a day in a high-security prison in Melbourne, Australia. Known for championing unpopular causes, Tewson wanted him to see the work that was being done to get prisoners employed after being released and to see why it was so important.

Representatives from Australian transport company Toll met with Branson. Toll has employed about 460 ex-prisoners over the past decade, none of whom are known to have reoffended so far. He then contacted the managing directors of Virgin companies saying Virgin must also try to employ as many ex-convicts as possible. The response was generally positive.

Branson learned about the UK charity Working Chance, founded four years ago, that specializes in arranging recruitment for women offenders coming out of prison. He now is involved with the charity, which has successfully placed 173 female ex-prisoners with companies like Pret a Manger, Sainsbury’s, and Virgin.

If more companies were to follow Branson’s example, share his vision, ex-offenders would find doors opening where they never would before. Society needs to support positive initiatives to encourage rehabilitation of prisoners. Finding worthwhile employment is critical to that second chance.

For background checks requested for purposes other than working with vulnerable people, the RCMP cannot disclose a pardoned criminal record, even for a sexual conviction. Once a record suspension has been granted, that criminal record is removed from the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database. While a record of the conviction still exists, it is kept separate and apart from the database used for criminal record checks.

Thus, an individual who sincerely wishes to make a new start, who regrets any previous mistakes that resulted in a conviction, can do so by removing that criminal record by obtaining a record suspension.

For your record suspension or a US Entry Waiver, contact Pardon Services Canada or call 1-8-NOW-PARDON (1-866-972-7366). A Client Specialist will handle the entire process for you.

Canada Should Learn From Measures Implemented Elsewhere

Canada’s federal government’s “tough-on-crime” package is headed in the wrong direction.

Researchers Alana Cook and Ronald Roesch of Simon Fraser University’s psychology department reviewed data from other jurisdictions that have already implemented some of the policies that Canada’s federal government is now pursuing relevant to cost, effect on crime rates, and impact on vulnerable populations. The results show that key elements have proven costly and ineffective in other countries.

Many changes to the Criminal Code that have been either enacted or proposed have the effect of increasing prison terms. However, analyses of studies conducted in Canada indicate that longer prison terms result in criminals being slightly more likely to reoffend upon release. Also, first nations and the mentally ill will be discriminated against.

Mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes will increase both the number of prisoners in the system and the length of sentence they serve. Yet research from the United States suggests they result in people who are not a threat to society being incarcerated and that prosecutors in that country often did not file charges calling for the mandatory minimum sentence even when the evidence was present. Research from South Africa suggested that the introduction of mandatory minimums in that country resulted in overcrowding of prisons and disproportionate prison sentences to offences.

The report points out that the reforms will also come at a significant cost to taxpayers. In the US, according to one study, a tripling of the incarceration rate over a 20-year period as a result of tougher crime laws resulted in a $43 billion increase in the amount of tax revenue spent on the prison system.

The researchers pointed out that studies suggest prisons in Canada are already overcrowded, the number of times guards have to use force against prisoners is increasing, and inmates have limited access to correctional programs. An increased prison population will only exacerbate these conditions.

Both first nations and the mentally ill are already over-represented in the prison system. First nations make up 4 percent of Canada’s population, but 20 percent of inmates. The proportion of Canadian inmates with mental illness is three times higher than in the general population. Mandatory minimum sentences will thus disproportionately affect these groups.

Cook and Roesch concluded that community-based programs targeting at-risk youth are more effective than incarceration at reducing crime rates and come with a much lower price tag. Researchers in California found that such programs working with at-risk youth are more effective and cost significantly less per person. 

Hidden Dangers in Conservative Omnibus Bill

Peter McKnight’s November 5 article in the Vancouver Sun, “Ottawa seems determined to gut youth act,” adds an element of concern regarding the Conservative government’s omnibus crime bill. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was passed in 2002 when Canada had the highest rate of youth imprisonment in the Western world. The YCJA was designed specifically to remedy this problem, to decrease our reliance on costly and ineffective imprisonment and provide alternatives to jail. Since the Act was passed, youth imprisonment and youth crime rates have dropped significantly.

Now, the federal government’s proposed amendments to the YCJA contained in Bill C-10 are directed toward getting more youths in jail and keeping them there. The YCJA provided for a lot of alternatives to jail, extra judicial measures that keep kids out of court but require them to accept responsibility for their behavior and to make amends through such efforts as engaging in community service or educational programs.

An important aspect of extra judicial measures is their informality, as such measures are typically imposed and accepted in the absence of legal advice or a judicial finding of guilt. If Bill C-10 is passed, this informality, as well as extra judicial measures, will likely become a thing of the past. The amendments require judges to consider past use of extra judicial measures as well as the existence of past findings of guilt.

The many alternatives to prison currently offered by the YCJA are better situated to address the reasons youth come into conflict with the law and thereby reduce their chances of reoffending. And the cost-effectiveness of such measures is apparent, since for one year it costs $20,000 to supervise one youth in the community, compared with $215,000 to house one youth in custody.

On a related note: Early November, Maclean’s and CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, hosted a round-table discussion on the subject “Stephen Harper’s Canada. How do you like it so far?” CPAC’s Peter Van Dusen moderated the event. Mr. Van Dusen began by stating that the majority Conservative government has been in office for six months now and has been clearly advancing on the agenda they believe they were elected on, such as getting rid of the long gun registry, scrapping the wheat board monopoly, and tabling anti-crime legislation.

Among the attendees was Montreal Liberal MP and House Leader Marc Garneau. Mr. Garneau expressed concerns about the omnibus crime bill, stating that it will not lower crime rate and will do nothing for victims. He feels the government is ignoring the evidence with respect to crime rates going down and the lessons learned, which our American neighbours are passing on to us, that the crime bill is a deeply flawed policy approach.

Another attendee, NDP finance critic Peggy Nash, feels that, “on what Canadians say are their priorities – jobs, the economy, securing their retirement income, and making life more affordable – the Conservatives have not delivered.” She also feels that this government is becoming divorced from the concerns of the average person, having spent billions on mega-prisons and increasingly shutting down debate on important issues. 

Removing a DUI Conviction From Your Record Worth the Effort

If you have a DUI conviction, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to clear your record in order to move forward, rid yourself of the stigma, renew your self-respect.


Albert was last charged with impaired driving in 2004. His business had failed primarily due to increasing fuel prices, and alcohol numbed the pain. Declaring bankruptcy was the only solution. This might sound like an easy way out, but it is actually demoralizing. He found out quickly that it was extremely difficult to get work with a criminal record. He is going through rehabilitation with the Workers’ Compensation Board due to a back injury and will begin retraining soon.

He was raised in a hard-working logging and fishing town in Alberta. Hard drinking was the norm, and he began to drink at a very young age. It was so easy to be a part of that lifestyle, leading to destructive and harmful acts. Even now, it still hurts to think about how much better he could have been without alcohol ruling his life. It took a very long time to grow up and change his ways.

He has made significant improvements in his life, eating properly and exercising. He maintains a positive attitude, making his wife of 30 years proud of his efforts. He is focusing on the future, hoping to secure meaningful employment now that his Pardon has established a clean record.

If you have a DUI conviction, you will want to consider getting a Pardon, which will seal your record so that it is no longer visible. A criminal record can follow you for life, so a Pardon will provide relief from the stigma once and for all. Contact a Client Specialist at Pardon Services Canada who will answer all your questions and guide you through the pardon process.

More Discussion Warranted on Conservative Government's Omnibus Crime Bill

Texas tried to do what Canada plans to do, and it failed. A state budget crush in 2005 forced Texas to take a hard look at its own justice policy. Texas had the highest incarceration rate in the US, with one in 20 of its adult residents behind bars or on parole or probation. Policy makers found that sending people to prison was costing ten times as much as putting them on probation, on parole, or in treatment.


Texas reversed a $2 billion plan to build new prisons and spent a fraction of that amount – about $300 million – on improved drug treatment programs, mental health centres, probation services, and community supervision for prisoners out on parole. The strategy worked: Costs fell and crime fell also. By strengthening some of the alternatives to prison, the rate of incarceration fell 9 percent between 2005 and 2010, while the crime rate fell by 12.8 percent.

A coalition of experts in Washington DC attacked the Harper government’s omnibus crime package, Bill C-10, in a statement early October.

Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute said, “Republican governors and state legislators in such states as Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs. If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs.”

Conservatives in Texas say the Harper government’s crime strategy won’t work. Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court states that billions and billions will be spent locking people up, but there will come a time when the public will say “That’s enough.” Representative Jerry Madden, a conservative Republican who heads the Texas House Committee on Corrections, says that building new prisons is extremely expensive, and if they are built, they will be filled. But if they are not built, innovative, creative strategies will evolve that keep the community safe and yet still do the incarceration necessary.

Even though crime in Canada is down to its lowest level since 1973, the Canadian government has increased the prison budget sharply. Federal spending on corrections in Canada has gone up from $1.6 billion in 2005-06 to $2.98 billion in 2010-11 – an increase of 86 percent. The budget for 2012-13 is $3.13 billion.

Prison sentences have already increased with the elimination of the two-for-one credit for time served waiting for trial. Bill C-10 would add new and longer sentences for drug offences, increase mandatory minimums, and cut the use of conditional sentences such as house arrest. In each of these aspects, Texas, as well as several other states, is doing the opposite.

Studies in Texas show that treatment and probation services cost about one-tenth the costs to build and run prisons. Besides, offenders emerge much less likely to commit fresh crimes than those with similar records who go to prison.

What this means for anyone interested in applying for a pardon is that the time to act is now. Any applications acknowledged and accepted by the Parole Board of Canada prior to the new legislation passing will be governed by the current laws. What is still unknown is exactly if and when the new legislation will take effect. The new legislation is currently before Parliament, but the timelines for passage and what the final version will look like remain to be seen.

Sweeping Omnibus Crime Bill Includes Controversial Measures

Bill C-10, the Conservative government’s omnibus crime legislation, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, blends nine previous bills that did not pass before last spring’s election. Late September’s debate on the bill was limited by the Conservatives at the same time as BC’s top trial judge was raising concerns about its consequences. BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman is concerned in particular about the bill’s plan to put more people in jail for longer.

 

Justice Bauman feels it will certainly put a strain on his court from the point of view of a manpower issue as well as on Corrections Canada and on the corrections in British Columbia actually housing these people. Given that judges rarely comment on political issues, and that controversy is raging over the crime bill, the Chief Justice was remarkably candid. He emphasized the views of correctional officers who insist jails and prisons are already overcrowded.

 

These comments are further evidence of the growing concern that more discussion, not less, is needed on these controversial measures. The ability of MPs to review and scrutinize the contents of this bill has been severely curtailed unjustifiably. Stiffer sentencing measures ignore the best evidence on public safety, crime prevention, and corrections. As well, no clear cost estimate has been provided for this punishment-oriented approach, which will cost taxpayers billions in correctional spending because of the vast increase in mandatory sentencing.

 

Another regressive step is the proposed changes for eligibility requirements for pardons. Under current legislation, the duration of the waiting period prior to your being eligible to submit your application for a pardon to the Parole Board of Canada depends on the nature of the offense, as follows:

 

• A summary non-sexual offense carries a 3-year waiting period.
• An indictable non-sexual offense or a summary sexual offense carries a 5-year waiting period.
• An indictable sexual offense or a personal injury offense, for which a sentence of 2 or more years was imposed, carries a 10-year waiting period.

 

This waiting period begins when your sentence has been completely fulfilled, and only when the waiting period has elapsed will the Parole Board of Canada accept your application. Bill C-23B currently before Parliament would make significant changes to these eligibility waiting periods, resulting in substantially longer eligibility waiting periods for prospective pardon applicants.

 

Under the proposed new legislation, the waiting period prior to eligibility would be extended to the following:

 

• A summary offense would carry a 5-year waiting period.
• An indictable offense would carry a 10-year waiting period.

 

Additionally, the new legislation extends the criteria that would render an applicant permanently ineligible for a pardon. Permanent ineligibility would apply to anyone:

 

• Who was convicted of any offense listed in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act - broadly speaking, Schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act consists of sexual offenses
• Who was convicted of more than 3 indictable offenses each carrying a sentence of two or more years

 

What this means for anyone interested in applying for a pardon is that the time to act is now. Any applications acknowledged and accepted by the Parole Board of Canada prior to the new legislation passing will be governed by the current laws. What is still unknown is exactly if and when the new legislation will take effect. The new legislation is currently before Parliament, but the timelines for passage and what the final version will look like remain to be seen.

 

Move to Quadruple Pardon Application Fees Provokes Backlash

The Conservative government wants to quadruple the cost of applying for a pardon, increasing the cost from the current $150 to $631. Critics say this will have many negative consequences. Last spring’s public consultation process overwhelmingly rejected the fee increase. A report on the consultations was released mid-August.


An impressive body of discerning groups, including prison advocates, church groups, criminologists, psychologists, and the Canadian Bar Association are greatly disturbed at the prospect. As well, among 14 government bodies that felt the increase would prove prohibitive were the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, the Justice Department, and Public Safety Canada.

More than 98 percent of the 1,074 individuals and organizations who responded in the public consultations objected to the fee increase. The three-member independent advisory panel used the public and internal government responses to advise Public Safety to keep the fees at $150, but this recommendation has been rejected.

A summary of the common responses provided by government agencies states that such a large fee increase for applicants would pose a financial burden and serve as an impediment for many potential applicants attempting to reintegrate into society.

Ontario Conservative Senator Bob Runciman is urging the government to reconsider its proposal to quadruple the fees for seeking a criminal pardon, saying that he thinks that there’s an inherent unfairness in the approach the National Parole Board is taking.

Thousands of Canadians apply for pardons for such necessities as employment opportunities, security clearances, rental requirements, volunteering, and adoption. Runciman feels that the Board should consider the complexity of each case when calculating fees. For example, processing a pardon for shoplifting is less complicated than for someone convicted of arson.

The Parole Board’s director for clemency and pardons, Denis Ladouceur, testified about the process to a group of senators studying the fee increase. He explained that for an indictable offence the act compels his staff to do more exhaustive verifications.

Senator Runciman has suggested a tiered approach, based on the level of the crime committed. The Liberal public safety critic is open to the idea, whereas the NDP’s justice critic opposes any fee increase.

A pardon doesn’t erase a conviction, but it does allow people who have completed their sentences and shown that they are law-abiding to have their criminal record kept separate and apart from other criminal records.

If you are interested in starting the Pardon process, the time to act is now. While there is still uncertainty regarding if and when the new legislation will become law, what is certain is that the sooner you begin the process, the better your chances of having your application governed by the current legislation.

Waiting Period Prior to Pardon Eligibility Subject to Change

Under current legislation, the duration of the waiting period prior to your being eligible to submit your application for a pardon to the Parole Board of Canada depends on the nature of the offense, as follows:

 

• A summary non-sexual offense carries a 3-year waiting period.
• An indictable non-sexual offense or a summary sexual offense carries a 5-year waiting period.
• An indictable sexual offense or a personal injury offense, for which a sentence of 2 or more years was imposed, carries a 10-year waiting period.

 

This waiting period begins when your sentence has been completely fulfilled, and only when the waiting period has elapsed will the Parole Board of Canada accept your application. Bill C-23B currently before Parliament would make significant changes to these eligibility waiting periods, resulting in substantially longer eligibility waiting periods for prospective pardon applicants.

 

Under the proposed new legislation, the waiting period prior to eligibility would be extended to the following:

 

• A summary offense would carry a 5-year waiting period.
• An indictable offense would carry a 10-year waiting period.

 

Additionally, the new legislation extends the criteria that would render an applicant permanently ineligible for a pardon. Permanent ineligibility would apply to anyone:

 

• Who was convicted of any offense listed in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act - broadly speaking, Schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act consists of sexual offenses
• Who was convicted of more than 3 indictable offenses each carrying a sentence of two or more years

 

So what does this mean to you? It depends on how far into the Pardon process you are. Any applications acknowledged and accepted by the Parole Board of Canada prior to the new legislation passing will be governed by the current laws. What is still unknown is exactly if and when the new legislation will take effect. The new legislation is currently before Parliament, but the timelines for passage and what the final version will look like remain to be seen.

 

If you are interested in starting the Pardon process, the time to act is now. While there is still uncertainty regarding if and when the new legislation will become law, what is certain is that the sooner you begin the process, the better your chances of having your application governed by the current legislation.

 

Restorative Justice Deserves Greater Consideration

Restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused by crime. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational. It is viewed as a process that improves upon the traditional criminal justice in that it has significant benefits:

• Rather than defining crime only as lawbreaking, it recognizes that offenders harm victims, communities, and even themselves.

• Rather than giving key roles only to government and offender, it includes victims and communities as well.

• Rather than measuring how much punishment has been inflicted, it measures how much harm has been repaired or prevented.

• Rather than leaving the problem of crime to the government alone, it recognizes the importance of community involvement and initiative in responding to and reducing crime.

The concept that true healing after a crime doesn’t necessarily come from harsher punishment but rather from the coming together of criminal and victim, giving them a chance to understand one another and work to repair the harm done.

In theory, this approach has merit, viewed strictly from an objective point of view. But when a victim is given the opportunity to be involved in such a program, the prospect of meeting with the offender could well be daunting. So a better understanding of the process would be helpful and beneficial for anyone concerned with the Federal Government’s Safe Streets and Community Act, Bill C-10.

Three principles form the foundation for restorative justice:

1. Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured.

2. Those most directly involved and affected by crime should have the opportunity to participate fully in the response if they wish.

3. Government’s role is to preserve a just public order, and the community is to build and maintain a just peace.

Resources for information on the process, when reviewed, show it to have great potential. Yet, although programs exist across Canada to facilitate such meetings, restorative justice hasn’t become widely accepted. Now some victims’ advocates fear such programs will be used even less often due to the federal government’s tough-on-crime agenda and its emphasis on incarceration. Of particular concern are the mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and sex offences.

Measures introduced recently in the government’s sweeping omnibus crime bill interfere with judges’ abilities to tailor sentences and consider restorative-justice options. Mandatory minimums do not allow restorative justice to take place.

Understandably, for anyone wanting to get a pardon to clear his record, now is the time to act. Pardon Services Canada assists people in the process. A Client Specialist ensures that all the required forms are created and compiled to support the application. Pardon Services Canada’s pro-active approach ensures that each case is processed expeditiously and applicants are kept informed at each stage of the process.

Straightend Out, Moving On

The benefits of counseling, along with the support of family, cannot be fully realized and appreciated until a person needs to seek help.


Larry currently lives in Red Deer, Alberta, with his wife and teenage son. He strives each day to be a strong, positive influence in his son’s life. He owns his own home and has had steady employment for over 20 years. Now, with the prospect of retiring soon, his pardon has allowed him to gain peace of mind, closing once and for all that chapter of his life. He looks forward to traveling more comfortably, perhaps volunteering as well. He truly has moved on.

When he recalls the time when he had succumbed to the pressures the being involved with the wrong crowd, he is numbed. All the negative influences that controlled him were overpowering. He regularly used narcotics, and he became aggressive and antisocial. He eventually was charged and convicted for possession of narcotics, and then for the purpose of trafficking. The last blow came when he was charged and convicted for assault with a weapon.

His decision to undergo two years of counseling to straighten himself out was one of the best moves he’s ever made. His parents’ influence, in particular his father’s, helped him to reassess what is important in life. During this stage, his parents helped him to become a mature, respectable, productive member of society. Now, several years later, he realizes that family ties and good health are the two most important factors any person can have.

Pardon Services Canada assists people who want to obtain a pardon in order to do just that, put the past behind and move on. A Client Specialist ensures that all the required forms are created and compiled to support the application. Pardon Services Canada’s pro-active approach ensures that each case is processed expeditiously and applicants are kept informed at each stage of the process.

Speak to a Client Specialist – toll free at 1-8-NOW-PARDON (1.866.972.7366) – at Pardon Services Canada to guide you through the process.

Disclosing a Pardon for a Criminal Record Not Advisable

When a prospective employer requests a criminal record check through the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database, information about a pardoned conviction cannot be released.

Only one exception requires such disclosure, that being convictions for violent sexual or personal injury offences. These are “flagged” for vulnerable sector background checks. A vulnerable sector check will be performed for potential employees or volunteers who wish to work with children, ill or disabled people, or senior citizens.

The purpose of a pardon is to restrict access to a person’s criminal past, and once a pardon is granted, a conviction will not be disclosed on a background check. The person’s clean record is reinstated and there is no reason to ever have to admit it.

No one should ever feel compelled to volunteer information on a past conviction when a pardon has been granted. Unfortunately, sometimes when a person is asked directly if he has ever been convicted of a crime, the sense that honesty is the best policy prevails. He feels obliged to reveal that fact but to also state that he has received a pardon. However, is this decision wise?

In several Canadian provinces, human rights legislation prohibits discrimination based on a pardoned conviction. This protection may be theoretically guaranteed, but actual enforcement is not always assured. Discrimination based on other aspects such as gender, race, age, and disability is illegal, yet anecdotal evidence exists to show it is still practiced. Therefore, the reality is that a person who volunteers that he has a pardoned conviction will more than likely be passed over for someone else with a crime-free background.

Thus, if an employer poses any sort of question regarding the existence of a criminal record, anyone who has been granted a pardon can honestly reply that he has a clean criminal record. That pardon is a person’s vehicle with which he can wipe the slate clean, make a fresh start, and move on unencumbered.

Pardon Services Canada assists people who want to obtain a pardon in order to do just that, put the past behind and move on. A Client Specialist ensures that all the required forms are created and compiled to support the application. Pardon Services Canada’s pro-active approach ensures that each case is processed expeditiously and applicants are kept informed at each stage of the process.

Encumbered by Debt, Saw No Way Out

Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of [Henry Wheeler Shaw] – With significant debt and credit obligations, “John” became burdened with an enormous debt load as he was inexperienced with managing his financial commitments. Having multiple creditors and feeling powerless and fearful, he made the fateful decision to bilk his employer to try to make the long-overdue payments.


Since that time, he has attended a debt counseling workshop and has completely restored his excellent credit rating. With a supportive family, he has completed an apprenticeship at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and now holds a journeyman machinist certification. His path has not been easy, but he feels it has been rewarding, having learned many valuable lessons about himself and his role as husband, father, and member of the community.

His pardon has improved his ability to travel for work as well as allowed him to work in roles for which security clearance is required. He believes it has also helped to lessen the shame and embarrassment he feels due to the mistakes he has made. He looks forward to being able to help with his children’s sports teams and clubs by coaching or volunteering.

Anyone wanting to apply for a pardon should take advantage of a complimentary private consultation. Pardon Services Canada’s role and familiarity with the pardon process will ensure that all documents required are obtained in a timely manner and that each applicant’s case is handled expeditiously.

Speak to a Client Specialist – toll free at 1-8-NOW-PARDON (1.866.972.7366) – at Pardon Services Canada to guide you through the process.

Possible Disclosure of Criminal Record Causes Concern

The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), an office of the RCMP, maintains criminal records in a database accessible for criminal record checks. However, a pardoned criminal record is removed from that database and will not show up on background checks. Except for the few offences that carry a life or indeterminate sentence, all Canadian criminal offences can be pardoned. But, if a person has committed a sex-based offence, the conviction will remain flagged in the database in case a “vulnerable sector” background check is done.


Vulnerable sector checks are performed only when a background check is requested for the purpose of working with vulnerable persons, who are defined as being in a position of dependence on others (1) due to age, disability, or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent, or (2) are otherwise at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of authority or trust relative to them. Therefore, a vulnerable sector check will be performed for potential employees or volunteers who wish to work with children, ill or disabled people, or senior citizens.

Employers are generally thought to have well-reasoned criminal record check policies tailored to the jobs for which they are hiring; they typically do not implement blanket prohibitions against hiring applicants with a criminal record. Protecting the safety of their employees, customers, and service providers is a legal obligation, which is met by background checks ensuring that people with unsuitable histories are not employed in vulnerable positions.

Understandably, individuals with arrest and conviction records face almost insurmountable barriers in getting hired. Certainly one might worry about arrest records being used improperly, such as long-ago arrests that never led to conviction, or inaccurate information being considered in the evaluation or a person’s eligibility. People’s attempts to maintain gainful employment have been thwarted by arbitrary restrictions. One such individual was let go after two years of solid service because the company obtained a contract that barred employment of anyone with a conviction record.

It should be emphasized that, for background checks requested for purposes other than working with vulnerable people, the RCMP cannot disclose a pardoned criminal record, even for a sexual conviction. Once a crime is pardoned, it is removed from the CPIC’s database. While a record of the conviction still exists, it is kept separate and apart from the database used for criminal record checks.

Thus, an individual who sincerely wishes to make a new start, who regrets any previous mistakes that resulted in a conviction, can do so by removing that criminal record by obtaining a pardon.

Conservative Government Proposes Pardon Application User Fee Increase

Numerous complaints have been expressed about the Conservative government’s proposal to increase the user fee for pardon applications. The proposed increase is viewed as dramatic and prohibitive, stemming “from a purely economic logic without regard for the needs of pardon applicants or the community.” As well, “it would discourage people with a criminal record from applying,” and “will only result in pardons becoming more inaccessible to a majority of those with records, especially women who will be unable to afford to apply.” “Criminals who could not afford to apply … would be shut out from employment and education opportunities.”


The $50 user fee for the processing of a pardon application was officially increased to $150 on December 29, 2010. Then, the Government of Canada announced its intent on February 2, 2011, to have pardon applicants assume the administrative costs of processing a pardon application, which would increase the current user fee to $631. The proposed increase is based on a cost-recovery approach. The Parole Board of Canada held an online consultation in February to seek feedback from Canadians on the increase. Of the 1,086 responses received, only 12 were supportive.

The most common reasons expressed in support of the increase:

1. A person who commits a crime should be responsible for the fees associated with processing their pardon; and
2. Pardons should not be subsidized by hardworking law-abiding citizens/taxpayers.

The most common reasons expressed in opposition:

1. It would pose a financial burden for applicants, with many unable to pay the increased fee;
2. It would make it difficult or impossible for people to apply for a pardon who need one to help them obtain employment or pursue their education; and
3. It amounted to further punishment to that already imposed by the court.

Even an Independent Advisory Panel that reviewed the complaints about the proposal said “it also feared the proposal fee hike would have a punitive effect on many applicants.” Their June report tabled in Parliament mid-August states that those who do not have the means to pay such an amount would be doubly penalized, and recommended the government maintain the $150 fee and instead give the Parole Board more resources.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews suggests that the fact a number of criminals currently use third party companies to prepare their applications shows some are willing to incur a greater expense in order to obtain a pardon. What should be apparent is the fact that people want to make sure the challenging and somewhat difficult process is done correctly. The current fee is $150; a fee increase of such significant proportions will surely prove prohibitive and detrimental.

Considering that well over 3 million Canadians have criminal records, with 1.5 million being eligible to apply for a pardon, and that the number of those eligible grows by about 60,000 per year, it is apparent that the societal impact is significant. Most of these records resulted from minor offences, many for a lack of better judgment that people are trying to rise above and put behind them. The majority of pardon recipients, over 95%, have not reoffended, proving the fact that people do put the past behind.

Without a pardon, people with a criminal record definitely have difficulty getting employment, finding accommodation, pursuing education, travelling – quite simply, living a normal life. The pardon process helps free offenders from the limitations of having a criminal record, shedding the associated stigma, and moving on with their lives.

Pardon Services Canada assists people who want to obtain a pardon in order to do just that, put the past behind and move on. A Client Specialist ensures that all the required forms are created and compiled to support the application. Pardon Services Canada’s pro-active approach ensures that each case is processed expeditiously and applicants are kept informed at each stage of the process.