Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2013

[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.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I move the approval of the report as amended.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[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.

[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, Mr. Dreeshen.

The first questioner on this is Madame Boivin from the New Democratic Party.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dreeshen, thank you for introducing your bill. We support it.

But I do have a few quick questions, and if there's still time, I will hand the floor over to my colleague, Mr. Giguère.

Did you do a study? I am asking because whenever I try to get information, no one can give me any figures. Do you have any statistics on, for example, the number of peace officer or public officer impersonation cases that are heard by the courts? Who are the groups usually targeted by this kind of offence?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

Your first question has to do with the study. I missed a little bit of your second question.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It was more about the stats, the cases that involved those types of infractions. We're all familiar with the Baumgarte case, but are you aware of other cases, and of where the deception is directed more towards a specific part of the population, such as elders or young people?

Perhaps you could give us a bit of the background that led to this bill.

[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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You covered it.

I don't know if there's time left for Mr. Giguère.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Giguère, you have two minutes.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I want to thank you for putting together this bill, which addresses an important matter. Clearly, we support the principle behind the bill.

However, there is a problem, that being the definition of a peace officer in the Criminal Code. That definition gives rise to a major problem because it is not exhaustive.

I will give you a very specific example. Emergency call dispatchers are not peace officers, even though it says “police department” on their uniform. They may perform police duties, such as the video monitoring of cells. They answer calls at the desk in small police stations. They are not peace officers. That is the problem with section 2 of the Criminal Code. This bill opens the door to a discussion on section 2.

Are you willing to have the problematic elements of section 2 of the Criminal Code amended through your bill? Emergency call dispatchers could be added to section 2. And may I point out that this group is very much in favour of receiving the peace officer designation. In the event they are assaulted, for example, this designation would empower them to tell the perpetrators that they are assaulting an on duty peace officer.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'll try to respond to that as quickly as I can in the time remaining.

When I first introduced this as Bill C-576, it was just there as “peace officer”, but because “public officer” specifically refers to Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we expanded it. We had discussions with the drafters when I was going back over this. They felt that was probably the best and most inclusive way. Just to remind you, there were many different entities involved, such as customs and excise, immigration, corrections, fisheries, and Canadian Forces pilots in command of aircraft. No doubt you've seen others: wardens, reeves, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and police officers. This was the rationale for putting the two of them together. This way police officers were in both sides of the definition as it was in section 130, but I do recognize what you're suggesting about other specific ones.

I still think that by stating what this is, the courts would also then look at this as something that is relevant if that was the rationale or the trigger that was used in order to commit another offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, sir.

Next, from the Conservatives, we have Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for bringing forth this important piece of legislation. It's pretty much unanimous among the parties as to its importance, obviously; you've talked about the 50 cases that you've studied in which somebody's confidence in the public authority has been undermined. There's little doubt that this brings an additional element of protection to the public, because in Canada we do trust public officers and we do trust peace officers.

Given the importance of this bill, I take it that you've talked to a number of the police associations throughout the country, and I'm sure they've expressed some interest. Could you share with us what their reactions have been?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

In that this has extended over a couple of years, I've had quite an opportunity to speak to different groups. About a month ago, I was at an event in Red Deer. There was a ceremony where the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal was being given out to some of the police enforcement people for the great work they had done in the community.

A number of the different sheriffs there—and this was not RCMP—were talking about it and saying that they remembered that after that case, probably even six months afterwards, when they would stop a person, especially young girls, this event that had taken place in central Alberta had really affected them. They would see the types of things that were happening. These were people on the ground who were able to describe what was taking place.

Of course, I have had the opportunity to speak with police. We have police here and former police people who are part of the House of Commons, so I've had a chance to speak with them as well. We've had these frank discussions on that level. Also, with different police associations, this is something that we've talked about in a lot of detail.

A couple of days ago I was at an event in Red Deer where the police were part of a torch relay taking place for the Special Olympics. Every time we get a chance to talk to each other, they talk about this. They talk about the significance, and they talk about the concern in regard to losing trust any time you see this occur.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

You spoke briefly about Bill C-576, which I guess died on the order paper in the previous Parliament. It had worked its way almost to adoption. I'm led to believe that the only difference between Bill C-576 and this bill is that this bill is more encompassing. It takes in as an aggravating factor the personation of a peace officer and a public officer.

I know that Mr. Giguère asked you a question about this, but I sensed your answer was that the reason it covered both of these, both of which are defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code at great length, was to make it consistent with section 130, to which this is an appendage. Am I correct in saying that?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, that was the case. It was looking at all of the definitions that were there and recognizing that “police officer” and “RCMP” were actually in two different sections; however, the intent was the same.

As I say, in Red Deer for example, we are covered by the RCMP. In the province of Alberta, the agreement is with the RCMP, so there's a great RCMP presence that we have in central Alberta and throughout our province, but we didn't want to lose the fact that this is something that is for all of Canada. We wanted to make sure that we were using the terminology that was for both.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Various forms of authority, all of which must be protected and the confidence of the public restored....

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, absolutely.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those answers.

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dreeshen, for your work in this area. It's extremely important.

I'd like to go right to the bill and the way in which you've worked this. First, I'd like to give you incredible credit for not seeking to attach mandatory minimums to your bill and not trying to eliminate or circumscribe judicial discretion, understanding the importance that judges play in looking at the full facts of a case and taking decisions that are often very difficult.

I want to ask first, is your purpose primarily to ensure that anyone found guilty of these offences would spend more time in prison, or is your primary purpose to try to prevent this from happening again?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

In terms of the intent, there are a couple of things. As I said in my speech, part of it is recognizing the disarming effect. When you're talking to a victim, they'll say, “I would not have been in this situation other than because of this occurrence”. If someone comes up to you and pulls a gun out, you're going to stop.

The same type of thing occurred there. That was the rationale for it, to look at it and say that people have to realize that when all of the sentencing aspect of this is done, whether we're talking about mitigating or aggravating circumstances, what caused this was not their being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but somebody actually going out there with the intent to do harm. That's really what my main focus was—awareness.

Awareness is part of it. People then would ask, “Does that mean being an aggravating circumstance will mean the general public will say that they'd better not do that, because it is in the Criminal Code?” I don't think that, and I don't believe that is what aggravating circumstances are intended to be. But it is a case of giving this tool to the courts so that they are able to take it and during the sentencing hearing say, “No, this is serious. This breach that you have here, this was the disarming factor. This was the type of thing that was done, and that is the reason you had this opportunity to do even further harm.”

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

In your work, in your research and analysis.... For example, in my experience in dealing with the Canadian Police Association, they're always looking for very strong and robust analysis on what might work to improve the situation.

Had you come across anything, or was any analysis conducted for you, that would demonstrate, for example, that this would lead to longer prison terms?