Evidence of meeting #51 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aboriginal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Do you know why the federal government is not providing funding for this study? Do you have any idea?
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais, As an Individual
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Do you know whether similar studies are being conducted in other Canadian provinces or territories?
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais, As an Individual
Possibly, but I don't know. A quick study subsidized by the department was conducted within one or two years of the legislation coming into force, but to my knowledge, there have been no studies to determine what has been working well, and not so well, in terms of application.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Good afternoon. I'm sorry for being late, I had another commitment.
I am very concerned about the aboriginal issue. My question is for Ms. Nicolet.
You said that you attended the roundtable in Ontario. The following is an excerpt from the roundtable report: “Participants in Ontario expressed the need that the Ontario government do everything possible to increase diversion and implement some of the new sentence options.”
Do you share that view?
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Okay. I listened to the questions asked by my colleague Mr. Dechert. However, the number of aboriginal adolescents placed in custody has apparently not decreased.
4:30 p.m.
Policy Director, Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres
It has not decreased.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and, based on the information we get, not only has the number not decreased, but it has actually increased. Can you confirm that?
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We're not talking about serious crimes—and I'll try to choose my words carefully—such as murder. The crime rate has gone up because aboriginal communities are plagued by serious problems and demands have not been met. Is that right?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dionne or Mr. Doob, either one of you could answer my question. Do you agree that the new legislation should, as it's been suggested, contain provisions that would allow judges to know about the extrajudicial sanctions involved in the case? You know that in Quebec, judges cannot know about extrajudicial sanctions. We're talking total confidentiality, and the system is very similar in other provinces. Do you agree that a judge should have full knowledge of all the extrajudicial sanctions that have been imposed on a young person going back seven or eight years, in order to be able to hand down the appropriate decision at the person's trial? The problem right now is that judges know absolutely nothing about the young offender being tried and sometimes render inappropriate decisions.
Are you favourable to this suggested change, Mr. Doob or Mr. Dionne?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I don't agree with the change that is proposed to paragraph 39(1)(c). The reason for that is that 39(1)(c) is the gateway to custody. If we were talking about the judge being aware of them, that would be one thing, but it seems that we're loosening the conditions that allow the judge to put the youth in custody.
It's no longer a pattern of findings of guilt; it's a pattern of findings of guilt and extrajudicial sanctions. A middle ground, and it might well be a very appropriate middle ground—I would have to think about where it was going to be used and how—is that the judge would be aware at sentencing of the various kinds of things having to do with extrajudicial sanctions. But I think putting it in as equivalent to findings of guilt in proposed paragraph 39(1)(c) is wrong.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you very much. I want to thank all four of our witnesses for....
Monsieur Dionne.
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais, As an Individual
Mr. Petit, I would like to add something to the answer provided by my colleague Mr. Doob. I think that it would be acceptable if this provision were perhaps added to the current legislation intermediately. Earlier, I talked about the importance of conducting a differential assessment and enabling the judge to take into consideration the adolescent's background and social situation. I think that this would be the best way to do things. Skilled professionals should conduct an adequate and rigorous assessment without necessarily revealing the details involved in previous brushes with the law. I think that judges should have the opportunity to get a clear picture of the situation with the help of an assessment before they hand down a sentence.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
I want to thank all four of our witnesses for their time.
Your testimony will form part of the public record, which well help us in moving forward on Bill C-4.
Thank you, to all of you.
We'll suspend for two minutes while our next witness takes his place.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I'll reconvene the meeting.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 9, 2011, we're considering Bill C-576, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer).
We have with us today our colleague, Earl Dreeshen, the MP for Red Deer. Welcome to our committee, Mr. Dreeshen.
I think you know the process. We'll ask you to introduce the bill to us and explain why it's necessary. Then we'll open the floor to questions.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I 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-576, personating a peace officer.
I'd like to start by saying that 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 the committee is aware, I was moved to table this bill following discussions I had with the victim of a horrendous crime in my central Alberta riding of Red Deer. Flashing lights and a police uniform were used as weapons to abduct a 16-year-old who had just earned her driver's licence. This brave young woman was held captive for 46 hours and brutally assaulted before she managed to escape from her attacker. The cold fact of the matter was that she was abducted only because she thought she was doing the right thing. When confronted by someone she thought was a police officer, she did what she had been taught to do: she stopped and she followed instructions. And in this case, she ultimately lost any opportunity she might have had to protect herself.
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.
It has another effect that is also of great concern, not only for the general public but for the police who are out there trying to do their jobs. Mr. Chair, for this young woman, the police uniform no longer represents safety and security. With time, she will cope with this fear and will hopefully regain her trust in authority. But every time we hear of these types of incidents, one more person has had this trust shattered.
The police I have spoken to in my riding, both RCMP veterans and serving members, have also encouraged me in my quest to have the Criminal Code amended so that the personation of a peace officer in the commission of another offence be considered an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.
This bill seeks to add one short section following section 130, which committee members will have before them. That is all it does. It does not seek to affect any interpretation of the offence. It would simply direct a sentencing court to consider an aggravating circumstance when dealing with the conviction under section 130.
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, this bill seeks to be a special aggravating circumstance in regard to the specific offence of personating a peace officer.
Of course, within the parameters of the maximum sentence for personating a peace officer, the appropriateness of a sentence would still rest with the sentencing court. But it is up to us, as legislators, to establish sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. Therefore, we should recognize that this is a crime that can have varying degrees of harm and therefore should be penalized accordingly.
I was aware that with the changes introduced with Bill S-4, the maximum sentence for personation was increased to five years from six months. The specific case I have outlined was dealt with prior to its passage, so there was only a six-month sentence allowed. But it did beg the question of whether personation of a peace officer is not just as serious to a victim as being abused by a person in a real position of authority, which is considered to be an aggravating circumstance.
Some of the specifics I encountered when I first started looking at this issue related to section 718 of the Criminal Code, which sets the principles of sentencing. In section 718.2, we see that aggravating circumstances would be involved if there was “evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim”. This would apply if an offender had an existing relationship with the victim, such as a teacher or a coach, or it would apply to a real police officer who may have abused a position of trust, but it doesn't apply to offenders who are posing as police officers.
I hope this committee will recognize this gap in the law and work with me to fill it through the acceptance of my private member's bill.
Mr. Chair, during debate in the House, all parties remarked about the lack of credence that was 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, whether or not it was 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 and in fact does facilitate the commission of another more serious crime, this is an extremely serious instance of the offence of personating a peace officer and therefore it deserves an appropriately high sentence.
In conclusion, let's give the sentencing courts the tools they need to apply appropriate sentences in serious cases and thereby seek to protect innocent people from these types of crimes.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for your prompt study of this bill. I am pleased to answer questions from members.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you. I'm sure members will have questions.
Ms. Jennings, you have the floor.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Dreeshen, I'd like to commend you for bringing forth this private member's bill, which is, I believe, well drafted. I think it is very narrow in scope, but it addresses a real issue and I wish to commend you.
It is not often that we receive private members' bills that are well balanced and don't claim to do something that they will in fact not do. So I'd like to commend you.
I have recommended that my caucus support this bill. This is why we supported sending it to committee, and I will be recommending that my caucus vote in favour at clause-by-clause, report stage, etc., as long as the bill stays in the state that it is now.