Bill C-444 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to establish that personating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Indeed the bill before us came about because of discussions I had with the victim in this particular instance.

During the study and the development of information with regard to the bill, I had a chance to go through some of the different cases. We had a stack of maybe 50 news reports that had come out on this type of thing in just the last couple of years. It didn't just happen and it wasn't in any one particular area. It was happening throughout the country. We saw many cases. I remember specific cases happening in Mississauga.

Shortly after Bill C-576 was presented, we also had a case of something very similar in Calgary. Someone said they were a police officer, and a young person was kidnapped. There was some quick response to that, and fortunately that was able to be solved.

We didn't do a study per se, but in the development of this, we certainly spent a lot of time looking at that. When we presented it both times, as Bill C-576 and now as Bill C-444, we found that people were starting to recognize that it occurred in their ridings and communities as well.

Targeting specifically is based on opportunity, whether that involves youth, who are often there...and again there are specific circumstances. If we speak to the concept of sentencing, aggravating circumstances include the offence being against a minor. Our elder abuse bill looks at that for the elderly and for those with perhaps diminished mental capacity. However, this thought is for all people who are involved.

The second part is where this fell apart.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to each of my colleagues for this opportunity to address the justice and human rights committee regarding my private member's bill, Bill C-444, on personating a peace officer or a public officer.

I appreciate the support received during second reading, which allowed this bill to be sent to your committee, and the willingness of my colleagues from all parties to carry this discussion forward.

As you are aware, this is the second time that your committee will study this bill. It was Bill C-576 in the previous Parliament. The committee reported the bill back to the House for third reading without amendments, but it died on the order paper when Parliament dissolved. That was two years ago, but the issue is still very much relevant, and this additional sentencing provision is needed in section 130 of the Criminal Code.

I'm especially pleased to have the opportunity to present my bill to your committee this week, it being National Victims of Crime Awareness Week.

I am joined today by two of my constituents, a brave young woman and her mother, a hard-working registered nurse. Like too many families in our country, their family has endured the worst of our society. Victimized by an offender, at the mercy of the criminal justice system, and now facing future parole hearings, they are survivors and fighters. I am humbled by their courage to come to Ottawa and speak with you today, coincidentally during this National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. They have come here in support of my bill, and I am grateful for that.

I understand that committee members have the bill in front of them, so I'd like to cut to the chase by clarifying my intent and addressing some concerns that committee members might have. The very nature of my bill involves two or more charges, so when we're talking about multiple charges it's important to also discuss multiple sentences, concurrent sentencing, and whether or not my amendment would even apply in the case where the crown is unable to obtain a conviction for a second offence.

These are all important issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to have that thorough discussion with the committee, but I ask the committee to understand and remain focused on my intention to recognize the disarming effect that personating an officer has on a victim and the vulnerable situation that it puts them in. To support victims of this crime by strengthening the reparations provided to them, and to preserve the trust that Canadians have in peace officers and public officers, adding an aggravating circumstance to the sentencing provision for section 130 will achieve these goals.

In terms of the horrible crimes that occurred in my riding, we know that there were multiple charges, both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and many convictions and many sentences, both consecutive and concurrent. It's probably a great case study for a criminal law student, but for the victims here today, it is a nightmare.

I understand that judges have the discretion to consider any factors they feel may have constituted aggression on the part of an offender, but there are also some circumstances that judges are explicitly required to consider when sentencing. They are in the code because we believe they should always be taken into consideration by a judge.

To expand the discussion further, there are aggravating circumstances defined in section 718 that apply to all criminal offences. There are also some special cases of aggravating circumstances attached to specific offences within the code. To be clear, my bill seeks to have a special aggravating circumstance in regard to the specific offence of personating a peace officer or public officer.

When we look at the aggravating circumstances that currently exist in the Criminal Code, we can see there is a common denominator: the vulnerability of victims. Crimes against children, crimes against the elderly, crimes involving firearms, or crimes that abuse a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim are all circumstances that Parliament has required judges to consider when sentencing.

They are legislated because offenders have taken advantage of the vulnerable position the victims are in. When citizens see a police uniform, they naturally trust the authority that comes with it. Personating a police officer is a serious breach of the public's trust and it has the same effect as using a weapon: it forces the victim to submit. This is why it is important for a judge to be required to consider it an aggravating circumstance to personate a peace officer or public officer as a cover for some other criminal activity. It would apply regardless of the age of the victim.

To address the issue of my amendment having any effect on actual time served, I want to stress that my focus is on amending section 130 to add the sentencing provision regardless of the length of sentences received for other convictions and whether or not they would be served concurrently.

We can only speculate on what type of crimes may be committed alongside section 130 violations, how individual cases would be committed, tried, and sentenced, how much evidence the crown may have in any particular case, or all of the mitigating or aggravating factors that may affect an offender's sentences.

Our role as legislators is to ensure that the maximum sentences and sentencing factors prescribed in the Criminal Code for each offence serve the purpose and principles of sentencing. I'm asking Parliament to add a sentencing provision to the crime of personating peace officers and public officers to ensure that future sentences for this crime serve section 718 of the code.

As for the types of crimes that are committed in concert with personation, what aggravating or mitigating factors might apply to an offender, or how an offender's total time served might pan out, these are all hypothetical scenarios. Mr. Chair, I'm not a lawyer, as many of my honourable colleagues at this table are—I was a math teacher—so I suggest that there are numerous permutations along that line.

Could there be a case where my proposal results in a sentence for section 130 offences being the longest of multiple concurrent sentences? I argue that this could be a possibility.

Could there be a case where my proposal results in a lengthier than otherwise sentence for a section 130 offence while the crown is unable to obtain a conviction for a concurrent offence, or the concurrent offence is thwarted and not carried out? I would argue, Mr. Chair, that this is also possible.

Of course, within the parameters of the maximum sentence for personating an officer, the appropriateness of a sentence would still rest with that sentencing court, but it is up to us as legislators to establish sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. We should recognize that this is a crime that can have varying degrees of harm, and therefore should be penalized accordingly.

We have legislated a new maximum for this particular crime. Now I believe we should give the courts this additional sentencing provision to ensure that the new maximum is exercised in the most serious cases.

Mr. Chair, during debate in the House, all parties remarked on the lack of credence that is given to this type of public deception. It was only in the preparation of comments that the prevalence of this deceit in the commission of crimes in Canada was brought to a conscious level for members. For victims, it's always at a conscious level.

In section 130, the crime is in the deception of the public about a person's status as a peace officer or public officer, whether or not it is for the specific purpose of facilitating another crime and whether or not another crime is actually attempted or committed. But in cases where the deception is intended to, and in fact does, facilitate the commission of other crimes, these are extremely serious instances of the offence of personating officers, and they therefore deserve appropriately high sentences.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for your prompt study of this bill. I would be pleased to answer questions from the members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Now we will move to today's order of reference.

Mr. Dreeshen, the MP for Red Deer, is here with his private member's bill, Bill C-444.

The floor is yours for 10 minutes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call this meeting to order.

This is the 69th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on Monday, April 22. Our orders of the day are to deal with Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).

All of you have the report from the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I will accept a motion on it, but before doing that, I should inform you that although we had set aside two meetings for Bill C-444, we have only one set of witnesses provided, so we thought we could do it all today. That will leave Wednesday open. I will say that we will not be meeting this Wednesday. I'm sure you'll find that two hours helpful to do other things for your constituency.

We will start next Monday on Bill C-452. We have enough witnesses that it will actually be Monday, Wednesday, and an hour of witnesses on the following Monday, and then clause-by-clause consideration for that hour. Those are the three meetings for that private member's bill, Bill C-452. It's a slight difference because there's been different information since we had the meeting, but that's it.

I'll take a motion to approve the sixth report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. That is the bill for today.

I just want to comment before we break. On Wednesday we're dealing with another private member's bill. We have witnesses. On Bill S-209, we have the mover from the Senate, and he can only be here for half an hour. The mover or supporter from the House is coming for the first half hour. So try to be focused on that. Then we have a witness—and we only have one witness—for a maximum of an hour. Then there's only one clause. It's a long one, but there's only one, so I left a half an hour to deal with that.

Then we're on a two-week break from here, back to our ridings, which I know we will enjoy. Happy Easter to everybody who celebrates Easter.

This is what we will do when we get back. In the first week back we will deal with Bill C-444, which is the impersonating a police officer private member's bill. We'll have the mover, then we'll do witnesses, and then we'll try to do clause-by-clause, if we can, that week.

In the second week I'm hoping we will do the Criminal Code official languages three-year review of section 533.1, which deals with being able to have your court case in both official languages. It's a requirement of this committee to look at how it's gone for the last three years. It's a three-year review. We will be inviting, obviously, the minister's officials to come and talk to us about how it's going. If you have any witnesses for that, it would be great.

If you have any witnesses for next week's bill on impersonating police officers, please give it to the clerk as soon as possible, because it's going to be hard to chase you down when we're back in the ridings. It's much easier when you're here.

Then, for the last two weeks of the four-week section that we're in, I'm hoping we will see whether Bill C-54 gets referred to the committee from the House, and we'll deal with that legislation for at least those two weeks is my guess. We have a large witness list already started for Bill C-54, so we'll see what the committee decides in terms of length for that.

At this point, those are the next two weeks when we come back, and you know what's happening on Wednesday.

With that, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

Criminal Code

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago Canadians took to the airwaves for the Let's Talk initiative to help bring awareness of those struggling with mental health issues.

Today on this Valentine's Day we recognize the things that play to matters of the heart, and so to that end I would like to say Happy Valentine's Day to my wife. That said, it is fitting that we remember how important it is to talk, to listen and to act by supporting those who are so significant in our lives.

I am honoured to close second reading debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-444. I appreciate the fact that my colleagues from all sides of the House have shown that they too are prepared to talk, to listen and now to act as we take this very important step of moving this bill to committee. I thank everyone for their support.

My bill seeks to amend section 130 of the Criminal Code by adding a sentencing provision to the crime of impersonating peace officers or public officers. There are really three main components of this bill.

First, it is an acknowledgement to those who fall victim to this cowardly act of deceit that society views this crime seriously and that our trust in authority, which has been ingrained in our psyche since childhood, is not to be trifled with. We can do this by recognizing that the personation of an officer in the commission of another offence should be considered an aggravating circumstance at the sentencing of a criminal.

Second, since aggravating circumstances in this case are currently specific to those who abuse a position of trust or power, this bill would create clarity by recognizing that those who pretend to have this position of trust to overpower or disarm a victim should be treated similarly when sentencing occurs. Herein is the key aspect of my bill: the existing aggravating circumstance does not currently apply to offenders who are posing as police officers. I am calling on Parliament to recognize this gap in the law and to work with me to fill it by passing my private member's bill. My bill recognizes this gap in the law and would ensure that this kind of malicious deceit would be dealt with properly.

Third, by making this change to the Criminal Code, we would also show our support to the fine men and women who put their lives on the line and whose public trust is diminished by the actions of these unscrupulous criminals. Our police officers' jobs are difficult as they are, and by highlighting this type of criminal activity we would recognize the damage done by these illegal acts.

Here I will recap some of the issues germane to this bill. Within the maximum sentence for personating an officer, the appropriateness of a sentence would still rest with the sentencing court. Sentencing is a pillar of our justice system and it is up to us, as legislators, to establish sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. When an offender personates a police officer to further victimize someone, this is a severe instance of personating an officer and can have serious and long-lasting effects on a victim. The sentence for this kind of malicious deceit must denounce this unlawful conduct and reflect the significant impact that the crime has on victims' lives. Victims must be assured that there will be serious consequences for the criminals who have hurt them.

As a further point, the way that section 130 now reads, the crime relates to the deception of the public about a person's status as a police officer. It does not differentiate whether it was for the specific purpose of facilitating another crime, or whether another crime is actually attempted or committed. However, in cases where the deception is intended to and in fact does facilitate the commission of another more serious crime, this is an extremely serious instance of the offence of personating an officer and therefore deserves an appropriately higher sentence. In 2009, we legislated a new maximum sentence for this crime and now we must give the courts this tool to exercise the new maximum in those most serious cases. Personating a police officer to force someone to do something is just as effective as pointing a firearm. It is no less aggravating than breaking and entering with the knowledge that a residence is occupied, nor many of the other situations that fall into the category of aggravating circumstances. Moreover, it is no different to a victim than having been abused by a person who really was in a position of authority.

By supporting this bill, we are also helping to preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for real bona fide police officers. When citizens see a police officer's uniform, they naturally trust and respect the authority that comes with it and our laws must reflect this reality. The bill brings to light the support that our police forces need to combat this type of crime.

I would like to once again thank my colleagues for their support. I appreciate that they, too, recognize the timeliness and the necessity of the bill. I look forward to working with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we can further our discussion.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Red Deer, for tabling this piece of legislation. It is identical to Bill C-576, which he tabled in the 40th Parliament and at that time was supported unanimously at second reading. I will beg his forgiveness if I repeat a lot of the information that was already said, but when we are supporting a good bill, there is nothing wrong with repeating the good points about it.

It is my understanding that the bill is a response to a very tragic incident in Red Deer, where a young girl was sexually assaulted by a man disguised as a police officer. Our society should not have to tolerate this kind of abuse of trust. We need to ensure that our citizens can turn to police officers and other public officials when in need and feel safe in doing so. We see in other countries where criminals disguise themselves as police officers in order to commit crimes, many of them very violent crimes against unsuspecting citizens. We cannot allow this to take place in our country.

Bill C-444 amends section 130 of the Criminal Code to establish that personating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

This is not a very common offence, but the Criminal Code must be amended all the same. We recognize that this offence is not only an attack on its victims, but it also represents an abuse of the institutions in our society that Canadians must be able to trust. Considering false representation as an aggravating factor instead of proposing a minimum sentence allows us to support this bill, because it respects the victim and judicial independence, and punishes the offender appropriately.

We believe that justice for victims is important and we are pleased to have been able to work with the government on this bill. It is not often that we are able to work with the government so closely, and so I am pleased that we were able to do so on this.

As I already said, this bill comes as a result of an incident that happened in Red Deer when a poor young woman was sexually assaulted by a man who had disguised himself as a police officer and had put fake flashing lights on his car. The assailant is now in prison after being sentenced to 18 years, including an additional six months for impersonating a law enforcement officer. My colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer, described this as the equivalent of committing a crime with a weapon, because the victim is forced to submit to a false authority who is committing a violent act.

This bill says nothing about a minimum sentence. Allowing judges discretionary power is very important.

We will therefore support this bill at all stages, as we planned to do for its predecessor in the previous Parliament. We on this side of the House recognize that this type of crime is not only a horrible attack on the victim, but also an usurpation of the power of the forces of law and order, which is very serious. By pretending to represent institutions that Canadians trust and obey, criminals are attacking society as a whole.

This bill will formally codify this offence and achieve justice for those who have been victims of such crimes.

New Democrats are satisfied with this bill, which will fill a void in the Criminal Code. This bill will ensure justice for victims, respect for judicial independence and suitable punishment for offenders.

We agree with my colleague and his party on this bill. It models a logical and balanced approach to justice, and we are happy to support it. I think this is an excellent example for democracy.

Once again, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Red Deer for his hard work and for introducing this bill again.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-444.

I will not keep you in suspense and I will tell you right off the bat that I will support this bill at second reading. As for the other stages, we will see, but there is a very good chance that I will continue to support this bill after it is examined in committee.

As my colleagues from all the parties have said, although this bill addresses very specific and relatively rare cases, it still proposes a positive amendment to the Criminal Code. The bill seeks to address a number of needs that have been expressed, particularly by my esteemed colleague from Red Deer. He has legitimate reasons for introducing this bill and I congratulate him for doing so. I congratulate him in particular for choosing to introduce a bill that adds a provision to section 130 of the Criminal Code.

The bill is somewhat based on the notion of making the offence an aggravating circumstance, instead of creating, as some of his colleagues tried to do, a mandatory minimum sentence. This took away the court's freedom to act and even undermined the desired objective of some of my Conservative colleagues.

I had the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will use the example of a bill that my Conservative colleague from Kootenay—Columbia introduced. That bill also had legitimate goals, but the effects were rather worrisome. There were even fears that the purpose intended by my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia would be overridden and that we could end up taking a step backwards because of how the bill was presented. Unfortunately, the bill passed and we hope that it will not have any devastating consequences.

I am pleased to reiterate that I will support Bill C-444. I am so pleased because I have a vested interest in this bill—I will not hide it and want to disclose it in the House. I have a loved one who is an active member of a police force.

I want to mention what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and member for Saint-Boniface said during another debate, regarding the public's view of and lack of trust in police forces. It is not true that the public no longer trusts police forces. What we are saying is that because of certain situations, this trust may be wavering, may be fragile, and as elected members of the House, we have a duty to protect it.

Of course, I feel a direct link to this, because I have a loved one who works for a police force. More than anything, I do not want him to become a victim, either of the misconduct of some of his colleagues on the force or another police force in the country, or of any perception, whether legitimate or false, on the part of the public because of problems related to the involvement of police forces.

Although I do not wish to dwell on the issue, I would quickly like to mention the unfortunate case of the now famous Robert Pickton. It is not something that we would have liked to achieve such notoriety. However, as they say, the damage is done. What is important is finding solutions, rather than just pointing the finger. That is what is most important, which is why I am very pleased to see that all members of the House plan to support this bill.

I wish to explore the importance of the authority enjoyed by anyone who wears a uniform or appears to be in a position of authority, that is, when someone steals an identity and takes it on as their own. This is an aggravating factor, so it is very important. Although things change completely whenever a firearm is involved, there is no denying that the authority held by someone in uniform or with a certain title can very easily intimidate and frighten some people who are sensitive to such authority. That is a fact.

The bill introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer sends a clear message to Canadians and builds some level of confidence. The 308 members of this House all have an opportunity to send this message. The level of trust will depend on the means that are developed.

My hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi was right to repeat some parts of the speech given by the member for Mount Royal. As the Romans used to say, “dura lex”. The law is strict, indeed—in its existence, in its form and in its message, as well as based on the means put in place to enforce it. These means can take various forms and avenues.

Our esteemed colleague from Mount Royal rightfully raised concerns about the availability of uniforms, for example, and the fact that although a tough law will be on the books, if we do not take certain measures, the law will come too late, which will defeat the purpose. That is very important to recognize.

I want to talk about section 130 of the Criminal Code. To begin, it states:

130. (1) Everyone commits an offence who

(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer; or

(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform...as the case may be.

It goes on to say:

(2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The bill proposes adding section 130.1, which states:

If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused personated a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence.

I think it is a major step forward. Once the bill has passed, it will be interesting to see how the courts and the various stakeholders use it and apply it to different types of offences.

Obviously, the member for Red Deer introduced this bill in response to a truly appalling crime, an extreme case. However, the bill has some potential, and it will be fascinating to follow the work of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to see how it could be useful.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-444, presented by the Conservative member for Red Deer. According to the bill, its enactment amends the Criminal Code to establish that impersonating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

From the outset, I want to reiterate the position put forth by the Liberal Party critic, the hon. member for Mount Royal, that this bill be sent to the justice committee for review. I would also suggest, as did my hon. colleague for Mount Royal, that the bill seems more declaratory than prescriptive. I say this not to in any way impugn the motives of the member, who raises an important issue, but rather to suggest that the effect of the bill, if passed, would be of little consequence. It is already an offence under the Criminal Code to impersonate a police or peace officer. However, I am pleased that the member resisted the temptation to constrain judicial discretion in the bill and that he further resisted the temptation to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. I want to say that the hon. member is providing an opportunity to draw the much needed attention of Parliament and the public to the fact that there are people out there who will impersonate a police officer.

The case that motivated the hon. member for Red Deer to introduce the bill relates to a very tragic and disturbing situation whereby an individual posing as a police officer pulled over a young women. He did so using police-style flashing lights and wearing what appeared to be a police uniform. I would note that this young woman of 16 reacted the way most of us would. Most of us would pull over if we saw flashing lights. The young woman regrettably placed her trust in the hands of someone who caused her great harm, both physically and emotionally. This type of event would naturally cause most of us to stop and wonder how this could happen and what we might do to remedy it in future. Therefore, I understand the motivation behind the bill and applaud the member for his effort.

As mentioned earlier, we should review this bill at committee. We should ensure that the justice committee hears from victims, law enforcement and the legal community. We need to do this to ensure that the bill meets the intended objective of the member and the House. The committee process would also provide an opportunity to highlight the issue of individuals impersonating police officers.

I took the opportunity to read previous interventions on this bill, including the speech given by the member for Mount Royal. In his speech, he correctly indicates the difficulty of deterring an individual intent on impersonating a police officer. For whatever reason, there are obviously troubled individuals who seek to become people they are not. As suggested, an individual impersonating a police officer is not likely to parse through the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to identify the sentencing regimes involved for such and such a crime. Therefore, a higher sentence in a circumstance such as this is unlikely to be a deterrent. What would be of some value is to explore the possibility of limiting or cutting off the ability of individuals to buy and sell paraphernalia that allows criminals to impersonate police officers. In particular, I speak of limiting the ability of individuals to obtain flashing lights and police-like uniforms.

I want to return to the point about public awareness, which to me is the value of the bill. It is important that governments and police at all levels work together and encourage public awareness. We need to tell Canadians that it is okay to ask questions when pulled over or when otherwise engaged by people presenting themselves as police officers. Canadians should know that it is okay to be cautious. It is okay to request a badge number or to call 911 if something seems to be seriously amiss.

I commend the initiative put forth by the hon. member for Red Deer. I would also suggest that in some respects, he is setting himself apart from his Conservative colleagues.

Time and time again, we have seen a right wing ideology emerge in the private members' bills of the Conservative back bench. These so-called tough on crime pet projects are approved by the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Justice. Most of them, except the measure before the House today, are rooted in ideology not in reality.

Conservatives have a very loose relationship with facts. They have an even more distant relationship with reality when it comes to crime. Far too often, Conservatives use the Criminal Code as a fundraising tool. Most of us would agree that we must deal with crime in our communities. We must continue to send the message to criminals that there are consequences to committing crime. However, Canadians want a justice system that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on crime prevention. Therefore, while most members of the Conservative caucus have an approach to crime that lacks evidence and facts, Canadians want and deserve evidence-based policy.

Recent data provided by Statistics Canada tell us that crime rates are going down in Canada. Serious crime, in particular, is down across the board.

Justice must be firm, fair and proportionate. It cannot, however, be arbitrary and punitive. Nonetheless, the government continues to introduce bills that run contrary to evidence and facts. One of the more egregious aspects of their so-called crime agenda is their wilful failure to make a proper connection between addiction, mental health problems, generational poverty and resulting criminal activity. We can never excuse crime but we cannot ignore the role, for example, that poverty and addictions play as key factors in the commission of crime.

The real danger, it seems to me, with these one-off crime bills is the damage they cause to the coherence of the Criminal Code. It is simply not good public policy to cherry-pick the Criminal Code. Changes to the Criminal Code should never be made to satisfy the political interests of the Conservative caucus. Furthermore, the Criminal Code should never be used as a fundraising tool by Conservative operatives. Unfortunately, however, this is what is happening in Canada under the Conservative government.

I will close by saying to the hon. member for Red Deer that this bill is an exception in this regard. I believe that the issue he is raising in this legislation is worthy of review and study, and I salute him for his effort.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-444, introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code to establish that personating a peace officer or public officer for the purpose of committing an offence must be considered by a judge to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

This bill is a good, balanced response to this real problem, and I support it at second reading.

It reproduces what was in Bill C-576, which died on the order paper during the 40th Parliament, and it adds the notion of personating a public officer.

The purpose of this bill is to sanction such actions. I commend my hon. colleague from Red Deer who worked on this issue. During previous debates, he mentioned a number of sad stories from across the country in which criminals have used this scheme to commit offences ranging from theft to forcible confinement.

The hon. member for Red Deer also mentioned the fact that Canadians' trust in peace and public officers must be protected. He said in the House:

By supporting the bill, we are also helping to preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for real, bona fide police officers. When citizens see a police uniform, they naturally trust and respect the authority that comes with it. Our laws must reflect this reality.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice clearly explained the importance of this relationship of trust, and the bill seeks to strengthen that relationship between citizens and police officers.

I would also like to comment briefly on the reservations the hon. member for Mount Royal has about this bill.

Although he agrees with the objective and supports the bill, the hon. member doubts that the bill will have the desired effect, namely, of making it possible to impose longer prison sentences. He also mentioned the efficacy of the deterrent effect of longer prison terms. This is a very interesting debate, and I will have the pleasure of talking to him more about it when this bill is sent to committee.

We must recognize that, for once, a bill that amends the Criminal Code is a good thing.

There is no reference to minimum sentences, the independence of the justice system is not being challenged and respect for victims is being made a priority. These things do not happen often enough in this Parliament, and it is important to point it out.

Too often, the Conservatives do not take a logical approach to justice, and I always criticize bills that are sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that either seriously undermine judicial independence or add standards to the Criminal Code that weaken its legal logic.

I would like to commend the hon. member who worked long and hard on this issue and introduced this bill on September 27. I will vote in favour of it.

I would like to come back to the valid statements made by the hon. member for Mount Royal, who brought up some things to think about as we work to solve this rather uncommon problem of personating a peace officer or public officer.

The hon. member brought up the problem of access to police uniforms and equipment. It is true that that is a concern. Restricting access to this sort of clothing and other equipment could be worth looking into.

My hon. colleague also suggested that there be a campaign to raise awareness about police identity cards. These are two interesting possibilities that in no way diminish the merits of the bill. I would like to talk about another point that the bill sheds light on, the fact that people have lost trust in our police institutions.

The member for Red Deer insisted that this was something he thought about when drafting his bill. Therefore, it is essential that people who are approached by police officers for whatever reason know who they are dealing with.

I will come back to my colleague's comments, which echo the member for Mount Royal's suggestion concerning badges, which could be explored:

This is an opportunity to encourage people to think about why they are being stopped, to make sure they ask to see a badge and look for the number. The police are prepared to do that. When I spoke with police officers they said it was common practice. I know a lot of times we think that if we ask for the number, it will cause more concern, but that certainly was not an issue in my discussions with the members I spoke with.

This quote shows that some people are intimidated by the police and do not dare make this legitimate request. The bill brings this out into the open.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Gatineau, who provided a good explanation of how the judge and crown prosecutor determine the sentence when the offence is punishable by indictment or by summary conviction.

In closing, I would like to recognize the work of the member for Red Deer and give him my full support for his bill, because it respects the victim and also the independence of the judiciary, and provides appropriate punishment for the offender. This is a well thought out and balanced approach. If a similar approach is taken again, I would be happy to collaborate.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking to this before, I commented on the problems that could arise with police personation because it offends a natural trust, which we would like to think is ordinarily well-founded, that could be exploited and abused by criminals for their own purposes. Every time someone pretends to be a peace officer or a public officer with the intent of deceiving the public or a particular person, damage is indeed done to society's overall ability to trust in the uniform and the other identifiable tools and equipment that such officers would normally carry.

This leads to the second conclusion about this offence. No matter what the purpose of the personation is, or even if there is no purpose at all, it is dangerous and criminal conduct. Public trust in the police and other public institutions is critical to public order and stability.

Returning to Bill C-444, the legislation addresses the most serious forms of the offence of personating a peace officer or a public officer. I would pause to note that the offence under section 130 applies to personation of both peace officers and public officers, both of which are defined in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-444 proposes an aggravating factor that also addresses the personation of a peace officer and a public officer. This is a reasonable approach when one takes into account the definitions of those terms. “Peace officer” is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code and includes holders of particular offices, most important, police officers and corrections officers. The term “public officer” is also defined in section 2 of our Criminal Code and includes, for instance, customs officers and officers in the Canadian Forces. There is some overlap between the terms and therefore it is sensible to include both.

The personation of a peace officer or a public officer, and most especially the police, is the most troubling circumstance. Pretending to be a peace officer or a public officer is serious, regardless of the purpose for which it is done, as I said, or even if there is no purpose at all. However, when a person's trust in the police is exploited in order to make it easier to commit another crime, and in particular, a crime against the person who was made to believe they were dealing with a police officer in the first place, that is extremely blameworthy conduct. Bill C-444 aims to ensure that individuals who would do exactly this are punished accordingly.

We are fortunate in Canada to have a society in which citizens, on the whole, trust their law enforcement. This trust leads citizens to want to accept the authority of anyone who appears to be a police officer. A police personator can exploit this trust and use it to more easily approach, interact with and assert physical authority over others.

Peace officer or public officer personation is, in general, quite rare, and thankfully, this more blameworthy form of it is even rarer. Unfortunately, however, it does still take place. Bill C-444 aims to identify this situation as one that aggravates the crime and should lead to a harsher sentence than that which would otherwise be imposed on the offender.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for introducing Bill C-444, and allowing us, as parliamentarians, to discuss this serious problem, and in doing so, educate Canadians on these very real risks.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Justice

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since this government was first elected, we passed more than 30 measures to improve the confidence of Canadians in our justice system. In order for Canadians to have confidence in the justice system, they must know that police officers are who they say they are. Personating a peace officer is a serious offence, which must be condemned by this House and all members.

Can the Minister of Justice please inform this House about the government's position regarding my private member's bill, Bill C-444, on personating a police officer or public officers?

Criminal Code

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer). The bill was introduced by the member for Red Deer and is virtually identical to former Bill C-576. The only difference is that in Bill C-444 the aggravating factor applies to personation of a public officer as well as a peace officer. Former Bill C-576 was approved by the members of this chamber at second reading and was subsequently also adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment before dying on the order paper.

Bill C-444 is a simple and straightforward bill with only one provision. It would make it a mandatory aggravating factor on sentencing for the crime of personating a peace officer or a public officer, if the offence was committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence. As I will shortly explain, the purpose of personating a peace officer or a public officer in order to facilitate the commission of another crime is not an essential feature of the offence for reasons that will become obvious.

Let me begin with the offence itself. Section 130 makes it a crime to personate a peace officer or a public officer. This offence is punishable by up to five years in prison. A person can commit this offence in one of two ways. The first way is if people falsely represent themselves as peace officers or public officers. The word “falsely” means obviously that people only commit the offence if they do not in fact hold the office they pretend to hold. The offence has been interpreted to require that people intentionally misrepresented themselves to someone as if they did in fact hold such an office. There will have to be some evidence that the person deliberately tried to deceive another person about his or her status as a peace officer or a public officer.

The second way people can commit the offence is when they use a badge or other uniform article or equipment in a manner likely to cause others to believe that they are peace officers or public officers. Once again, of course, a person can only commit the offence in this way if he or she is not a peace officer or a public officer. As well, it is clear that there has to be some evidence that the use of the equipment or badge was likely to deceive the public or a person.

Whichever way the offence is committed, two things are clear. First is the harmful nature of this conduct. The very fact that people who have certain functions wear uniforms and use badges and other identifying equipment is testament to the importance of ensuring that the public is able to identify them as people who have those functions.

Some professions require the use of a uniform for a variety of reasons. The uniform is intended, in part, to provide visual proof that the person wearing it belongs to a particular group. This has several beneficial aspects. When people know they are in the presence of a law enforcement officer, their behaviour may change. Not only does the uniform alert potential criminals that law enforcement is present, but it also alerts law-abiding citizens to the same. When citizens need help, they may scan the area for the distinctive uniform of a police officer. When drivers approach an intersection or roadway that is occupied by a person in a police uniform, they typically submit to that person's hand directions without question or delay.

Many parents teach their children to respect and trust a person in a police uniform. The overriding message the uniform sends to law-abiding citizens is that such an individual can be trusted and that is precisely how the problem of police personation arises. It is that natural trust, ordinarily well-founded, that can be exploited and abused by criminals for their own purposes.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to participate in the debate on Bill C-444, which has to do with personating a peace officer or public officer.

This bill is nearly identical to the former Bill C-576, which died on the order paper during the previous Parliament. Bill C-576 made it to second reading and was passed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The bill has to do with the existing offence of personating a peace officer or public officer. More specifically, it suggests that the fact that an individual personated a peace officer or public officer for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence should be considered an aggravating circumstance during sentencing. The only difference between the two bills is that the current bill also includes the term “public officer”.

Personating a peace officer or public officer is a hybrid offence punishable under indictment by a maximum of five years in prison. Before 2009, this offence was only a summary conviction offence. At the time, it was punishable by a maximum of six months in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000, or both. It was obviously not considered to be a very serious offence.

In 2009, our government changed this offence to a hybrid offence and increased the maximum prison term to five years in the former Bill S-4, the identity theft bill, which came into force on January 10, 2010.

The five-year maximum prison term takes into account the fact that the offence requires only that we establish that the accused personated a peace officer or public officer. There is no requirement that there be malicious intent to specifically do so or that something malicious be accomplished in doing so.

Some individuals may decide to personate a police officer, for example, simply to feel powerful or as a way to do something else that may or may not be serious, such as getting information or gaining access to a location. Personating a peace officer or a public officer so that others believe that one really is such an officer can, in itself, lead to a conviction. No other evidence is required.

In a few instances, personating a police officer or a public officer will be directly associated with other offences. It is a way to enable the commission of other crimes. Since most people in our society have faith in the police and in other public institutions, they may, because of that faith, submit to the authority of an individual they believe to be a peace officer or a public officer.

Cases where people's trust in police and public officers is abused are very troubling. They must be condemned by sentencing courts and by Parliament. Bill C-444 addresses these cases. The bill would require that personating a peace officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

We could think of many situations where someone would voluntarily get into a police officer's vehicle, or let an officer into their home, before realizing that this person actually means them harm. Such cases are rare, fortunately. However, they are extremely serious, which justifies including them specifically in the Criminal Code.

It is also important to recall that in determining a fit sentence, the court must in all cases take into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code describes a number of aggravating factors that apply to all offences. These include, for instance, evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. But in addition to these factors which are specifically listed, the sentencing court always retains discretion to determine if additional circumstances revealed by the evidence are aggravating or mitigating factors that should affect the sentence.

It is already the case that a sentencing judge can take into account the aggravated nature of this form of police or public officer personation. What Bill C-444 does is essentially codify this practice in the text of the law.

Bill C-444 deserves serious consideration in this House because it addresses a truly horrific form of criminality which has so many negative consequences on the public at large, on the ability of police to carry out their functions, and especially on any individuals whose trust in public institutions and authorities was used against them to facilitate their victimization.

While this form of conduct continues to be rare in this country, there have been a number of incidents reported in the media in the last few years. One case involved drivers being stopped by a police impersonator and requested to pay immediately for an alleged speeding offence. Another case involved motorists who were followed after leaving a casino, and then pulled over and robbed of their winnings. There have also been profoundly disturbing cases involving police personation so as to get someone into a car to facilitate their kidnapping.

There was the tragic and devastating incident involving the kidnapping and sexual assault of a teenager in the riding of Red Deer, the riding of the member who is sponsoring this bill. No doubt, this incident is what prompted him to introduce this bill.

All Canadians should be aware that such things can happen and should be encouraged to be vigilant. Citizens should trust the police, but they should also recognize that criminals are not above exploiting that trust. It is a difficult balance to achieve. The exercise of a little bit of caution is a good thing. It is reasonable to ask to see the badge of someone who appears to be a police officer, especially if you are being asked to go with them or to allow them to enter your premises. This kind of verification process must be done respectfully and cautiously.

As Parliamentarians, we can help educate and inform Canadians about these risks. That is exactly what the debate on Bill C-444 is allowing us to do.