To make this clearer, the comment I was replying to says, "If someone is arrested and charged, that record is publicly accessible to anyone for a few dollars. If the charges go nowhere, the record of the arrest and charge remains on the public record forever." But neither statement is true upon a search.
Separately, Barker's quote in the article asserts that in Canada, there is a single criminal record check available for a person, and that "is not a record of conviction, it’s a record of charges." The reality is that there are several types of background checks, and the base level lists a record of convictions while omitting charges—though in any case, Barker is clearly an innocent person who should have the incident dropped from a check at any level.
I found that Canada has three types of background checks: the Vulnerable Sector Check (VSC) as you mentioned, the Police Information Check (PIC), and the Criminal Record Check (CIC).
The VSC always includes non-conviction records. The CIC omits these types of records, as this only reports convictions. However, the middle-level PIC can include these records on a case-by-case basis. The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre reports [1]: "The police will often disclose your non-conviction records in a PIC if they believe the information will help the potential employer or other agency in their decision-making process. This assumes that these agencies are qualified to make a determination that the information disclosed will determine the candidate’s suitability or pose a safety risk."
The circumstances are especially unfair to Barker as he has been working for Duncan First Nation in a role that requires involvement in finance. So, Barker may be especially affected by the non-conviction record even for jobs related to managing finances that don't require a VSC, but also a PIC, as a police department would likely find the record relevant for any position related to finances.
It's true that Barker is now disadvantaged for certain types of jobs for an accusation he was never convicted of, which is completely unjust. He deserves far better treatment.
However, requiring consent means that the records are not publicly available, so he is not immediately disqualified when he applies. In addition, a company has to specifically request for a deeper background check for this to appear—the base level of a background check only includes convictions. No person in Canada who is charged yet not convicted is therefore barred from work, which is an impression made from Barker's quote and a previous comment.
A more precise understanding of the system is important for advocacy to change it. It's more effective to argue for reforms related to Police Information Checks (such as for more transparency) to be specific, and this requires a specific awareness of how Canada's process for background checks works.
It's still a problem for Barker, and I don't want at all to discount that his situation is unjust. However, the non-conviction records will not necessarily show up on his report. If the employer requests the base level of a background check, the records will not show up. If the employer instead requests a more in-depth check (a PIC), the records may or may not show up.
Not all employers would request the more in-depth check. Barker is therefore not at a disadvantage for all jobs for a non-convicted charge, but it is completely unjust that he can potentially be at a disadvantage for a fair number of jobs.
Barker deserves recourse and more awareness of his case. But at the same time, the potential impression that any Canadian resident that is charged-but-not-convicted will have a publicly-available record that bars them from work, is not a correct one.
Separately, Barker's quote in the article asserts that in Canada, there is a single criminal record check available for a person, and that "is not a record of conviction, it’s a record of charges." The reality is that there are several types of background checks, and the base level lists a record of convictions while omitting charges—though in any case, Barker is clearly an innocent person who should have the incident dropped from a check at any level.