Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 24, 1999
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 24, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was
referred Bill C-7, to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another Act
in consequence, met this day at 4:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. I call this meeting to order.
We have a direction from the Senate to enter into the proceedings of this
particular session of the committee all of the evidence that was presented
before this committee in the last session. Is it agreed, honourable senators,
that we do so?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: From the Department of the Solicitor General, we have before us Ms
Mary Campbell and Mr. Richard Zubrycki. I understand that they will be giving
us a fairly brief presentation because we have been over this ground before.
Mr. Richard Zubrycki, Director General, Corrections Directorate, Corrections and
Aboriginal Policing Branch, Solicitor General Canada: Honourable senators, we
will be as brief as we can. I appreciate that you have covered this ground
before, but there are some new members of the committee. We will try to provide
a quick summary of the purpose of the bill and its major features.
Bill C-7 will amend the Criminal Records Act. The central feature of those
amendments will make a narrow exception to the protections that are conferred
by a pardon under the Criminal Records Act. This will be only for the purpose
of screening child sex offenders from positions of trust that they may apply
for or be found in.
I will say a few words about the Criminal Records Act itself and then speak
about the national screening system.
The Criminal Records Act was enacted in 1970 after a recommendation by the
Ouimet Committee which was reviewing correctional practices and law in Canada.
The purpose of the Criminal Records Act is to remove, after a period of
demonstrated crime-free behaviour and good conduct, the stigma and any
disqualification that a conviction for a criminal offence might result in. The
act was revised fairly extensively in 1992.
Under the act, pardons can be issued for summary conviction offences after a
waiting period of three years; essentially, that is all the evidence of good
conduct that is required. For indictable offences, pardons can be granted after
five years of crime-free behaviour and demonstration of good conduct as
established by inquiries with police and in any place of residence of that
individual during the past five years.
A pardon removes an individual's criminal history from the criminal history
record system, usually referred to as CPIC, the Canadian Police Information
Centre, maintained by the RCMP. CPIC is generally considered the official
criminal record repository in the country. All police forces use it and they
are all connected to it. They all share in its governance and in the inputting
When a pardon is granted, that record is removed from that system and placed in
a sealed database. It is not destroyed, but it is no longer accessible except
with the authority of the Solicitor General. Applications can be made for
purposes that are specified in the Criminal Records Act, usually for purposes
of national security or else for the administration of justice. It is up to the
Solicitor General to decide whether or not a record may be disclosed.
That act has been exceptionally effective. Over the past 28 years, close to
250,000 pardons have been granted. During that same period of time, a few more
than 6,000 or 2.6 per cent of pardons have been revoked for the commission of a
new offence. New offences committed by pardoned recipients are very rare
Under Bill C-7, the sealing of those records or the disclosure of those records
will be loosened somewhat in the case of sex offenders who are being screened
for positions of trust.
In 1994, the federal government introduced the national screening system. Under
the national screening system, it is possible for bona fide requesters,
organizations or individuals to ask, with the consent of the applicant and
usually via the applicant, for disclosure of the criminal history to review
when they are considering placing a person as either a volunteer or an employee
in a position of trust with children or other vulnerable clients. That system
has been in place since 1994.
More recently, in 1997-98, a workgroup of federal, provincial and territorial
officials looked again at issues related to the protection of children and made
a number of recommendations which federal, provincial and territorial ministers
adopted. That workgroup noted that there is a gap in the screening system
resulting from pardons being granted: If a bona fide organization requests a
criminal history record of an individual and a search is made on the CPIC
system, no record for that person will be found if a pardon has been granted.
Those are very rare cases.
Our best estimate, based on a sample of cases, is that in those 28 years, only
114 sex offenders who have received pardons have committed a sexual offence.
However, I am sure that everyone will agree that one is too many.
The Solicitor General agreed today that he would consider and refer to cabinet
proposals to plug that gap, and that is what Bill C-7 sets out to do. Under
Bill C-7, a flag, or a notation as it is referred to in the bill, will be left
on the CPIC system, so that when an organization requests a record search,
rather than finding nothing on the CPIC system, the police officer doing the
search will recognize that there is a sealed pardon record in existence. The
notation will not indicate what that record is for, nor provide access to that
record; it will simply provide information that there is a record. An
application to unseal the record can then be made to the Solicitor General.
That will always be done with the consent of the offender or ex-offender. That
person will have to consent in the first place to a search of the system to see
if there is a flag and then will have to consent, again, if there is a request
for that record and if the Solicitor General is asked to unseal it.
The simple fact that the Solicitor General will ultimately maintain the
discretion of whether or not to disclose those records also provides a
safeguard. I would expect that in every case where there is clearly a sex
offence, particularly a sex offence against children, but including other forms
of sexual offence as well, those files almost certainly would be disclosed.
However, there may be exceptional cases where it would be inappropriate. There
is some safeguard there. It is not automatic, not a simple administrative
process. There is a review process connected to it.
There are other sources for the proposals that are contained in Bill C-7. In
just a moment I will ask my colleague, Mary Campbell, to review the elements of
the bill. I would just add that I believe you are well aware of the fact that I
said that the proposals that are contained in Bill C-7 had unanimous support
from federal, provincial and territorial ministers. The bill also received
unanimous support in the House of Commons. Overall, it is a very well supported
When we came before this committee previously, certain weaknesses were noted,
and we have tried our best to respond and to provide proposals to amend, with
our minister's agreement. Therefore, from our point of view we are ready to
proceed and to provide whatever further assistance we can. With that, I will
ask Ms Campbell to speak to the basic elements.
Ms Mary Campbell, Director, Corrections Policy Division, Corrections
Directorate, Corrections and Aboriginal Policing Branch, Solicitor General of
Canada: Honourable senators, the essence of the bill, the flagging system, has
been covered, and Mr. Zubrycki has noted some of the procedural safeguards that
are in the bill: the offender's consent being required at two stages and the
fact that there is still ministerial discretion about whether or not to
disclose the record. The factors that the minister will use in making that
decision are also included in the regulations to the bill. A requirement in the
bill is that the information disclosed, that is, the unsealed record that is
provided to an organization, is to be used only for that specific purpose. The
organization is not permitted to use the information for any other purpose.
There are a few other, smaller amendments in the bill. Most notable is the
requirement that where a pardon application is denied, the applicant must wait
one year before applying again.
The definition of "pardon" has been clarified. The act currently
refers to "vacating the conviction." That is rather ambiguous and the
wording is clarified to describe what actually happens, which is that the
record will be kept separate and apart.
There are smaller amendments regarding the ability of an applicant who may be
denied a pardon to make submissions, and those submissions would normally be in
writing. Revocation of a pardon currently is automatic upon conviction of a new
indictable offence, and this would be expanded to include most hybrid offences.
Those are some of the companion amendments in the bill.
I will turn briefly to the proposed amendments of the bill that result from the
identification in the previous committee session of some of the weaknesses.
There are four proposed motions, some of which have subsets. Briefly, there are
three main changes to consider.
First, the definition of children and vulnerable persons has been moved from the
regulations to the bill. I would note that following the session of the
previous committee in September there was concern about the use of the term "handicap."
The one change that has been made since September is that the reference to "handicapped"
has been deleted. Therefore, it moves the definition into the act and takes
care of concerns about wording that was perceived to be inappropriate or out of
Second, the motions would propose to add the word "sexual" to the
description of the offences that would be flagged in order to make it quite
clear that the only offences that would be flagged are sexual ones. That
reference appears in the flagging section and in the section that authorizes
amendments to the schedule. It refers to the power to add or delete sexual
Third, the proposed amendment moves that schedule of sexual offences from the
regulations to the bill and deletes the regulation-making authority that
appears in Bill C-7 in relation to the definitions and the schedules. Those two
elements will now be in the bill.There is no need for regulation-making
I would conclude on that and welcome your questions.
Senator Cools: How many applications does the parole board receive annually? Of
those, how many receive positive recommendations and how many are denied?
Mr. Zubrycki: Without saying the exact numbers -- although we certainly can
provide them, and obviously it fluctuates from year to year -- each year the
parole board receives something in the order of 10,000 to 15,000 applications.
Very few are denied. The rate of denial is a few per cent a year. The vast
majority of them are granted. One reason for that, we believe -- although it is
difficult to prove -- is that this is a self-selected group of applicants; if
individuals feels they do not have a good chance of getting approved, they
probably either do not apply or withdraw during the process.
Senator Cools: I understand. Do you have any idea how many of the 10,000 are
refused? Would it be 10 applications or 1,000 applications? You say very few.
Is that 10 per cent or .001 per cent?
Mr. Zubrycki: It could possibly be 1 per cent.
Senator Cools: What are the reasons for those refusals?
Mr. Zubrycki: There would be a variety of reasons, but in most cases I believe
there would be some evidence of failure to maintain good conduct. There might
be a charge pending or there might be a police report indicating that this
person is under active investigation for some serious offence. It would be
something that is demonstrably an indication of poor behaviour or not good
Senator Cools: For those 10,000 to 15,000 applications per year, how much time
does a parole board member give to the review of each case?
Mr. Zubrycki: I am sorry, I cannot answer that, although we could provide that
answer for you. Every case is reviewed individually on its merits. Nothing is
fully automatic. However, the indictable offences receive the most careful
Senator Cools: If a parole member is sitting down for a day of reviewing
pardons, how many will he or she review in a day? I am trying to figure out the
number of minutes per application.
Mr. Zubrycki: I do not have that information and I do not think there is anyone
here from the parole board who could assist us.
Senator Cools: Does each application get an hour of a member's time, or 10
Mr. Zubrycki: There is a process. First of all, the applicant must provide a
significant amount of information about their record, their activities and that
sort of thing. Parole board staff prepare that file and if there is information
missing, or if there is anything ambiguous, they will contact the local police
and get more information. That information is assembled in the first place. That
is not the board member's direct attention but that is attention in terms of
preparing the case.
When the board member reviews it, it is a one-person review. I cannot say how
much time board members spend. Due to the volume, I do not believe it could be
an extremely long period of time, but if they had any questions or concerns
they would send the file back to staff and ask for more information.
Senator Cools: There was a body of opinion at some point in time that
recommended that these pardons could be given automatically to people who had
offended but who had spent a period of years without re-offending. I am sure
you have read the literature. There was a period of time in the history of the
parole board when many arguments were being made that you could save the
taxpayer a significant amount of money by moving, if you can legislate such a
thing, to a semi-automatic granting system for inmates or ex-inmates who have
been crime-free for so many years. According to the Constitution, that would be
quite difficult to achieve since these are not grants themselves. These are
recommendations to the executive for grants. I am curious about how that thought
It seems to me all those recommendations were turning on the fact that the
parole board actually gave it significant time. In point of fact, it was the
inmate whose own situation compelled the grant or the lack of grant. I am
curious about the debate. In that period of time, the debate was quite active.
Mr. Zubrycki: At a time prior to 1992 when the act was revised, all these
recommendations were reviewed by a special committee of cabinet. Sometimes,
because of various delays and backlogs, the special committee would need to
deal with as many as 20,000 files per year. That was arguably very cursory
In 1992 it was decided to differentiate between summary and indictable offences.
Summary offences, arguably the least serious offences, are not dealt with
entirely automatically but almost automatically. The three-year, crime-free
waiting period is the essential element there. In those cases, the pardon is
simply issued. That is why we use the two different terms. It is more of an
On the other hand, indictable offences are reviewed more carefully. Those
pardons are granted by the board members. I cannot give you the exact amount of
time spent, but even if it is not a great amount of time, it is still an
individual, case-by-case consideration. Of course, as I said, the success rate
is extremely high.
Senator Cools: Pardons seem to be valued and respected by those people who
receive them. The notes that accompany some of the applications are quite
profound. To that degree, it is a very valuable program.
The Chairman: I suggest that the subject matter of this bill is when granted
pardons should be unsealed. Your topic is peripheral to that subject matter and
our witnesses may not have boned up on that subject. Perhaps they can get their
answers to your questions later.
Senator Buchanan: My question also is not in relation to the bill. I may be out
of order but I will try it anyway.
I recently got an application for pardon for a constituent of mine. I helped him
to fill it out and to get his record from the RCMP Criminal Records Division.
One question bothered both him and me. His offence was not a great offence; it
occurred about 25 years ago and he wants it off his record. There was a
question asking who his employer was. The man would not send in the form because
he was convinced that the parole board would contact his employer and the
employer would be aware that he was once convicted of an offence. Is privacy
respected in those applications? Why is that question even in the application?
Mr. Zubrycki: In the usual process in the past, the RCMP would do a field
investigation. Often the officers had no choice but to speak to the employer,
even though they did not like to do so. It was always a serious problem that by
trying to expunge the record you were revealing it.
Today, the RCMP does not do the field investigations. Local police are asked to
provide any local record, the CPIC record and any other knowledge about the
individual. The local force knows the person and/or the community better, so
the need to contact the employer is reduced. However, I cannot say to you that
the employer would never be contacted. The local police could say that
something is troubling them and the only way to get at it is to speak to the
Senator Buchanan: Generally, if there is no problem with the local police -- and
I understand there was none with this fellow -- the employer would not be
contacted; is that correct?
Mr. Zubrycki: That is correct.
Senator Andreychuk: On the subject of consents in the draft regulation, will
every job applicant be required to sign the disclosures? One's consent allows
access to information found as a result of a criminal-record check for a sexual
offence for which a pardon has been granted or issued. Will this be given to
every person who applies for a job that demands a criminal-record check?
If so, who will have the responsibility to explain what that consent actually
means? The Breathalyzer caused great problems for police officers who had to
explain the consequences of taking or refusing that test. I foresee a similar,
parallel problem here. Who will explain it? Will there be an argument put
forward that a person did not really understand the consent when it was signed?
Mr. Zubrycki: The forms set out are models; the wording may be reproduced. In
some cases, the agency or organization doing the screening will have the
applicant sign the form. In other cases, applicants may go to the police
station to obtain their records and the police will ask them to sign it.
Everyone has some responsibility to understand and to explain but, ultimately,
the police are the ones who must confirm that consent has been received and
that a record is disclosed based on that consent. The buck stops with them in
terms of explaining the effect of the consent.
Senator Andreychuk: I am confused. Did you say that in some cases the agency may
request the signing of the consent?
Mr. Zubrycki: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: The agency staff may not have the kind of training necessary
to explain the intent and the consequences in a criminal sense and in a
Mr. Zubrycki: We are dealing with a very diverse universe here. There are many
agencies in many geographic locations. We have a partnership with Volunteer
Canada. They engage in the training of volunteer agencies. They give public
information about screening. I do not know how many training sessions have been
done. In the first year of our partnership, they conducted 200 training sessions
all across the country and the people who train other volunteers are trained.
Efforts are certainly being made to provide information and training. Those
efforts will continue. In the end, I am sure some will have a better grasp than
Ultimately, if the agency does not understand or explain it well, concern should
be expressed to the police and the police should explain it.
Senator Andreychuk: What would be the consequences of someone's signing a
consent based on an explanation that was incorrect? What is the recourse for
people who are truly, perhaps innocently, misled?
Mr. Zubrycki: That depends on when they realize they were misled. They can
withdraw their consent or withdraw from the process at any point in time. In
most cases, the record is given to the individuals who can then produce it to
the recruiting organizations. If there is anything of concern, people can
explain their own record. If on obtaining their record they decide they do not
want it disclosed, they can simply withdraw from the process. If they become
concerned earlier than that, they can simply withdraw their consent and the
police will not go any further with the search.
Ms Campbell: I would just add the fact that the legislation will now say that
the organization cannot use the information or disclose it any further. It adds
another protection. If individuals ultimately find out that the information was
disclosed and they did not understand that that would happen, clearly they may
be at some disadvantage in getting in a particular position, but at least they
will know that the legislation specifically prohibits the organization from
using the information or further circulating it.
The Chairman: On a point of clarification, will applicants fill out both forms
at the same time or just the first form and then later, if needed, the second
Mr. Zubrycki: I think it could work either way. It will depend on local police
practices. The system is designed so that specific consent will be needed for
both procedures. Therefore, logically, you would do one first. If there were
reason to go to the second step, then you would have the second consent given.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree entirely with the bill as amended. There is only one
point I should like to check. We had a long discussion on children and
vulnerable persons. I understand that is now right in the proposed legislation
at clause 6. That being the case, I am ready to vote on this.
Senator Joyal: My question may have been asked previously. I apologize for being
late. Nevertheless, I should like to put my question forward to our witnesses.
Can you tell us if you have statistical data showing that convicted persons
would have been prevented from committing another crime if the disclosure of
their past activities had been made to their employer or to the victim?
The principle I have in mind is the following. We have a principle of
rehabilitation. Once the person has paid his or her debt to society, he or she
is entitled to the protection of confidentiality. If we are breaking away from
that principle, we should have very clear reasons and arguments for doing so.
We can take many measures to protect society, measures in all ways, shapes and
forms, and our prisons would not be large enough to keep everyone there.
In order to be totally at ease with the objective of this bill, which I do not
question, I should like to know if you have a study that clearly shows that the
measures included in the bill would have prevented someone from committing
another crime or would protect better the persons we aim to protect with this
Mr. Zubrycki: I cannot say that we have very direct evidence of that. However, I
can explain the thinking that went behind making these proposals.
I am just rounding off, but approximately 250,000 pardons have been granted in
the last 28 years. From among those, 4,200 -- or a little over 4,000 -- have a
sexual crime on the record. These are estimates because we could not count
every file. Through sampling, we made an estimate that 114 of them would have
committed a new sex offence. I do not think you can say that all 114 would have
been prevented necessarily, but that is the scale. It is not very large numbers.
The thinking was that if a person with a history of sexual offences,
particularly against children, applies for a position of trust to work with
children, we can assume that the risk is much higher than it would otherwise
be. Therefore, the proposals in the bill focus on those situations where a
person has a record of sexual offences, has obtained a pardon, is applying for
a position of trust and, because of the pardon, might not be recognized by the
employer as having that sort of background. An employer might look at that
person's background and explanation and say, "Fine, that is not relevant to
this position," and hire the person. On the other hand, they might decline
to hire the person through an abundance of caution.
This is not an exact science, but we have tried to limit the likely cases to a
small number in these particularly high-risk situations and we have tried to
provide safeguards so that individuals can protect themselves if they feel it
would in some way harm their interests.
Senator Joyal: You said that approximately 4,200 persons have been found guilty
of some sexual crime and that approximately 114 of those would be people
breaking their pledge to society by recommitting the crime.
On what basis do you limit your objective only to sexual crime? Are there not
other crimes that are as important as sexual crimes? Are we just more
preoccupied by sexual crime because it is sex? What principles of morality are
we aiming at here? I do not want to draw a parallel, but from my religious
history I remember that there was only one sin: the sin of the flesh. If that
mentality must be reflected in our legislation, we should be very clear about
I want to be sure that I understand the reasoning behind the fact that we have
identified this type of crime and left out of others that we feel are less
important. In other words, other crimes can be committed against a person by
someone who is naturally violent or has a natural predisposition to be violent.
I understand the objective. However, if it is stated only in terms of sex, I
want to know exactly your philosophy behind that. If we start doing that with
sex, then we can come late with another aspect and say, "Oh, this is as
important," and reopen the legislation to add that crime. I know that this
is a broad question, Madam Chair, but I would be happy if our witnesses could
Senator Cools: I was of the understanding that originally the bill had a wider
definition of offences and that it was this committee's wish that it be limited
to sexual offences. It seems to me that it is not for these people to answer
that question. It seems to me that the answer is here among the committee
members who seem to think that the offences should be limited to sexual ones. I
am quite happy to be wrong, but that is my understanding.
The Chairman: Senator Cools, this bill came before us without any definition of
offences whatsoever. This committee, in the previous session, said that there
should be a listing of offences in the bill. However, it was always quite clear
that it was sexual offences against children.
Senator Cools: That is what I am saying.
The Chairman: It was always quite clear that those offences would be addressed
in the bill, but the actual definition of the offences was left to the Governor
Senator Cools: Was it all the offences?
The Chairman: All sexual offences against children and vulnerable persons.
Senator Cools: If it is "all sexual offences against children," why do
we need an amendment to say that it was sexual offences?
The Chairman: Because it was not in the bill before and we wanted to be
absolutely certain that it was in the bill rather than left to the regulations.
Please carry on, Mr. Zubrycki.
Mr. Zubrycki: I must spring to the chairman's defence because we originally told
this committee that it said that in the act, and it did not. I stood corrected
and we made the adjustment. However, it was our intention to focus primarily on
sexual offences. The reason, in particular, is pedophiles. It is very
difficult, just from looking at criminal history records, or records of
conviction, to determine exactly the nature of the offence. We had to look more
broadly at sexual offences. A person might be charged with assault rather than
a sexual offence against a child, but if it were sexual assault we felt that
that would be relevant.
Pedophiles are known to be very insidious and deceptive, to plan and to spend a
lot of time trying to orchestrate their offences. For that reason, we felt that
we had to look at a selection of offences that could potentially hide a
pedophile who is intentionally seeking a position of trust. Keep in mind the
national screening system that is in place. If a person does not have a pardon,
then the organization could obtain the record of any offence. If they are
screening a case for work as a volunteer and they ask for the record of that
individual, they get that record whether it is break and enter or petty theft or
fraud or sexual offences or whatever. They get the whole record to look at and
they can decide whether or not it is relevant to that position.
In this narrow band of cases -- that is, sex offences and, in particular
pedophiles -- the fact that a pardon exists could prevent them from obtaining
that record. Our consideration was not moralistic, but I cannot say that those
who express concern were not part of it. A great deal of concern was expressed
at federal-provincial ministers' meetings about this area, and there were calls
to do something and calls for a national sex offender registry and other kinds
The officials who looked at that major question said, "We do not need these
massive Draconian kinds of measures but there is a gap here that should be
plugged." This was the measure that was proposed.
Ms Campbell: There is, of course, a comprehensive screening program. Volunteer
Canada has been instrumental in promoting that. The screening program talks
about looking at the applicants broadly -- that is, not only focusing on a
criminal record but also doing a background check, employment check, reference
check and so on. They would certainly be alert to any kind of criminal history
that the applicant might have, whether armed robbery, impaired driving or
whatever. They might well consider that kind of criminal background to be
relevant to the position and would have some discussion with the applicant.
Since the Criminal Records Act was created in 1970, there has been a provision
to authorize the disclosure of sealed pardoned records. This bill does not do
anything new in that sense. It adds an additional element to that process, but
it is important to bear in mind that there is an ability now to inquire into
other offences persons might have committed or other activities they engaged in
that were not criminal activities but might still be of concern.
Finally, to continue with Mr. Zubrycki's point, it is the concern about the
particular, predatory nature of some sex offenders that was behind the thinking
for the bill; for example, armed robbers might not engage in predatory
behaviour by trying to become volunteers for Scouts Canada. The concerns are
different. Therefore, the amendment focuses on people with a sexual offending
background who may want to join Scouts Canada for a very particular malevolent
purpose. This system would allow for greater transparency about their
The Chairman: It was pointed out before you got here, Senator Joyal, that there
is a two-stage process by which the person who is applying for the job can back
off and refuse to give permission for this to become open to the public.
Senator Fraser: I wanted to address some of the issues that have just been
addressed relating to the focus and the purpose of the bill. This seemed to be
the least damaging form of action to protect the vulnerable.
I wish to add the observation that although abuses do not happen often, they do
happen. Last night's news reported a case in Hudson, Quebec, where a man with a
sexually related criminal record got himself a permit to run a daycare centre
and has now been charged with the sexual abuse of two four-year-old children. I
do not think he had been pardoned. The system fell apart before it got that
far. However, it is a reminder to us that, although these cases are very rare,
they deal with the most vulnerable people among us.
Senator Cools: Do we have copies of the regulations?
The Chairman: The draft regulations were in front of everyone today.
Senator Cools: Do we also have copies before the committee of the total
The Chairman: These are it.
Senator Cools: All right. I believe I am still following along with Senator
Joyal's thinking. Clause 6.3(1) of the bill states:
...to determine whether there is a record of an individual's conviction for an
offence listed in the regulations in respect of which a pardon has been granted
According to what you are saying, only sexual offences are listed in the
regulations. The intent was always to get at sexual offences, it is just that
committee members have been attempting to ensure that the bill does not go
beyond what we were told it was intended to do; that is, we do not wish to see,
as we expect might happen, a host of other offences starting to be listed in the
regulations. We do not want the regulations to spring off in another direction.
That is my understanding.
The Chairman: Precisely.
Senator Cools: Therefore, the current list of sexual offences is contained in
these draft regulations. It is quite extensive. There are about a dozen of
Mr. Zubrycki: There are about 30 of them.
Senator Cools: About 30 different kinds of sexual offences have been identified.
Mr. Zubrycki: Yes.
Senator Cools: I can live with that. That just limits the use of regulations to
the offences the government asked us to consider.
The Chairman: That is correct, Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: I can support that, then.
The Chairman: I will point out, too, to committee members that there is human
rights legislation as a recourse for people who feel that they have been
discriminated against on the basis of a pardoned conviction. They can certainly
apply to the courts under that legislation. Again, there is a third level of
If there are no further questions, I wish to thank the witnesses for appearing
The committee adjourned.