House of Commons Hansard #127 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

All those opposed will please say nay.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #177

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion lost.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the House proceed immediately to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Seeds Regulation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

It being 7:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 4, 2010 consideration of the motion that Bill C-576, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona had the floor. There are seven minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-576 this evening. I want to compliment the member for Red Deer for his bill and all his hard work on the bill. I know this is the second hour of debate on the bill. It will go to committee, and I know that our caucus members, by and large, support the bill.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who will be speaking for our party, has indicated that he plans to introduce an amendment to the bill. I understand that the amendment will be favourably received by the member for Red Deer in this instance. So, it looks like the bill has a lot of potential to actually make it into law in reasonably short order, provided that the House does not dissolve into an election situation in the new few weeks.

The bill was brought about primarily because the member had a personal experience with someone in his constituency who was taken advantage of by someone who was impersonating a police officer by using flashing lights and wearing a police uniform. These were used as weapons to abduct a 16 year-old girl who had just earned her driver's licence and was driving alone. She was held captive for 46 hours and brutally assaulted before she managed to escape from her attacker.

The reality is that when we look for other examples of this type of activity, we see more activity like this than less. I am not sure whether it has to do with people watching too many movies on television or in the theatres, but the fact of the matter is that there are increasing numbers of instances where people are impersonating peace officers.

The bill would make impersonating a peace officer in the commission of another offence an aggravating circumstance to be considered for sentencing purposes. It would add one clause to the Criminal Code following section 130. Basically, it reads:

The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 130:

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 for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence.

The bill directs the sentencing court to consider this as one factor when dealing with someone convicted of personating a peace officer. The sentencing would still basically be up to a judge, so there is no prescription here for minimum sentences or anything like that. On that basis, we are well disposed to the bill.

In terms of some of the other situations that are similar to this, impersonating a police officer is not something that is recent. We see this in history. People will remember the St. Valentine's Day massacre. Its anniversary will be coming up very shortly. It happened in the days of Al Capone when he had two of his shooters dressed as Chicago police officers. I think everybody knows and understands what happened in the St. Valentine's Day massacre. They managed to kill, I believe it was seven people of an opposing gang.

In addition to that massacre, there have been other famous situations, including one involving John Dillinger.

John Dillinger had someone impersonate a police officer in order to get out of jail. Someone impersonated an Indiana state police officer claiming to come to extradite Dillinger to Indiana. He escaped from prison that way. This is not unheard of in history. Those are two famous examples and I have others in Mexico that I could get into.

In more recent times we have seen a number of examples of people engaging in activity like this because the equipment is easy to find. People search out sirens, equipment and handcuffs on the Internet. They are available in security supply outlets and stores. People have been able to obtain these types of disguises and equipment in order to commandeer people.

There is a case where a woman pretending to be a police officer stopped a motorist on an Ontario roadway and extorted money from him on the basis that he was speeding. It is only fair that the government starts to take a tougher approach to situations like this because this is an expanding sort of phenomenon. Over the next few years we may see more and more of this unless we take some proactive action against it now.

I commend the member for Red Deer for the bill. I can tell him that we in the NDP will be supporting it. We think it is one step closer to being more than just tough on crime but, in this case, smart on crime. This is one of the limited examples where we can say that the government has been both tough and smart on crime in bringing forward this bill.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise and speak today in support of Bill C-576, promoted and sponsored by my friend, the hon. member for Red Deer. I join in the comments of the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona in congratulating the hon. member for his hard work on the bill and the likelihood that the bill will become law in a timely manner.

The bill has but one provision. It is a short bill, but it is an important bill. That provision would make the crime of personating a peace officer a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing if the offence was committed for the purpose of facilitating any other offence.

Let me begin with the offence itself and a word about the terminology. The offence uses the term “personation”. This term was used when the offence was first enacted in 1913 and continues to be used today in the modern version of the Criminal Code.

In everyday speech, however, we often the use the “impersonation” rather than “personation” to refer to the act of pretending to be someone we are not. Members of this House should be assured that the two terms are synonymous. I will use the term “personate” because that is the language of the law and it is also the language of the bill before us.

Section 130 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime to personate a peace officer or a public officer. There are two ways that this offence might be committed. First, a person can falsely represent themselves as a peace officer or a public officer. This particular criminal offence requires a mental state associated with the acts and would therefore require proof that the person intentionally misrepresented themselves as someone if they did in fact not hold such an office. In short, the offence would require some evidence a person deliberately tried to deceive another person about their status as a peace officer or a public officer as the case might be.

The second way that this offence can be made is when a person who is not a peace officer or a public officer “uses a badge or article of uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe that he is a peace officer or a public officer”

Although worded differently, this second form of the offence is similar to the first form of the offence because both are based on a person falsely representing themselves as a peace officer or a public officer.

For example, a person falsely representing themselves as a peace officer would likely use a badge or other article of a peace officer's uniform or equipment. Likewise and similarly a person using a badge or other article of a peace officer's uniform or equipment that could lead others to believe that they are in fact a police officer is most likely deliberately misrepresenting themselves.

In both cases, some outward display of peace officer equipment would likely be present as would some evidence that the person's conduct demonstrated an intention to deceive others in regard to their true identity or status.

There is one additional aspect of offence which bears some consideration. The offence prohibits the personation of a peace officer as well as public officers. These are different terms, as I am sure members are aware. A peace officer is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code and includes holders of particular offices, most importantly police officers and corrections officers. The public officer is also defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code and includes customs officers and officers in the Canadian Forces.

It should be noted that the aggravating factor proposed in Bill C-576 would cover situations where a peace officer is impersonated but not a public officer. The narrow application of the proposed aggravating factor makes sense from my point of view and from this analysis.

One can immediately see the purpose of the offence once its elements are understood. Public trust in various important government office holders and the institutions to which they belong is absolutely critical to the proper maintenance of society generally and key government functions such as income tax and customs collections, for example.

Any instance of a public officer or peace officer personation risks diminishing the public's ability to trust in these offices and institutions and risks undermining valid public functions. That is why deception in relation to one of these offices is prohibited no matter what the purpose of the deception.

For example, the proposed offence in Bill C-576 would cover personation of a peace officer to obtain information from someone or to gain easy access and entry into an establishment.

Thankfully, peace officer or public officer personation does not occur very often. Every year there are typically between 120 and 160 charges laid under section 130 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is a very low number when compared to other sections. The conviction rate ranges between 30% and 50% of those individuals charged.

However, the use of deception with respect to peace officers is especially troubling. Public trust in the police is essential for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. The integrity of the uniform and the public trust in the office must be protected in their own rights. That is the genesis and the reason behind the bill that we are debating here this evening.

Canadians trust our police officers and our instinct is to be polite and responsive and to accept the authority of someone who appears to be a police officer. A police personator can approach, interact with and assert physical authority over others relatively easily by exploiting the trust Canadians have in peace officers. The reality is that members of the public would likely acquiesce to the authority of someone they believed to be a police officer.

Deference to police officers is certainly something that I was taught at an early age by my parents, and I would submit that deference to police officers is an essential element of the rule of law. Can anyone imagine a situation in which society does not trust police officers and people ignore the red and blue flashing lights when a police officer is trying to pull them over? It would lead to chaos and anarchy. As a result, police personation can be used, sadly, as a tool to facilitate the commission of serious offences that otherwise might be more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out when individuals who are not peace officers pretend that they are.

In the rare instance where police personation is used to facilitate the commission of a serious crime, such as kidnapping, sexual assault, theft or unlawful entry into a dwelling, it represents an extremely disturbing exploitation of the public trust in police and an even more disturbing violation of the victim's rights and interests. Members will know that this government and this member consistently and continually attempt to promote the rights of victims, and I would submit to this House that this bill certainly is in keeping with that motivation.

It is this situation that Bill C-576 seeks to address. The bill clearly identifies the situation of the false and deceptive use of the trappings of a police officer in order to facilitate the commission of another offence as one that must serve as an aggravating factor in the sentence imposed on the offender.

It is important to recall that, in determining an appropriate sentence, the court must always take into account all relevant, aggravating and mitigating factors. Members who are familiar with sentencing law will know that paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code describes a number of aggravating factors that apply to all offences. These include evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to his or her victim. In addition to the factors specifically listed, the sentencing court always retains the discretion to determine if additional circumstances revealed by the evidence are aggravating or mitigating factors that should be considered before the sentence is pronounced.

I would submit that police personation for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence is unquestionably a factor the court would consider to increase the sentence for the personation offence. A court would invariably treat the use of deception for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a serious crime against the victim, such as abduction, an aggravating factor for the more serious abduction offence. In essence, both offences work to aggravate each other and the total sentence imposed for all the offences in such circumstances should reflect the full range of harm caused by the perpetrator and suffered by the victim in these extremely disturbing cases.

The court can already consider relevant factors as aggravating by virtue of its inherent discretion in sentencing, as I just mentioned, pursuant to section 718, but Bill C-576 would clearly identify this particular situation as one that must lead to a more significant sentence than if it were not present. The bill would expressly force the judge to apply his or her mind to personation and how it accommodated the commission of another offence. I hope all members will join me in supporting the bill.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate at third reading of Bill C-576.

I had an opportunity to speak to the bill at a previous stage and expressed, as the official opposition justice critic, the position I am encouraging my caucus to take on this private member's bill, which is to support the bill.

We already know that the issue of identity theft has become almost an epidemic in Canada where people's identity is being stolen and frauds and thefts are being created.

What many people may not know is that in recent years there appears to have been an increase in the number of individuals who are personating peace officers in order to commit other crimes. There is the Penhold case, which was the subject of much discussion at second reading debate. My colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, who sits on the justice committee with me, gave an eloquent speech in which he discussed the Penhold case. That case resulted in an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to establish a five year maximum sentence for someone convicted of personating a peace officer.

This bill would add the conviction of personating a peace officer to be an aggravating factor or circumstance in the sentencing of that individual of other criminal infractions or offences for which that individual was been found guilty.

As was explained just before my speech by one of the Conservative MPs, someone who personates a police officer in order to unlawfully enter a home under the pretext of executing a warrant search to seize certain stolen property would be believed by the owners of that home to be an actual police officer and that the police officer had the legal right to enter their home and seize property.

There was an article in the newspaper about some incidents involving two young men in Montreal. In March 2010, the police arrested two young men with the intention of charging them with extortion, theft and personating a peace officer. They were alleged to have set up their SUV with a siren and other accoutrements that would lead one to believe that it was an official police vehicle and they would intercept motorists on the streets of east end Montreal and inform them that they were part of an undercover operation. They would check licences and papers and, if the motorists had an expired licence or permit, the two men would tell the motorists that if they paid some money they would let them go, otherwise they would seize their car and the motorists would have to pay the towing charges, the storage charges and any extra fines.

It is alleged that those two young men conducted such criminal activity over the course of approximately two weeks before a motorist became suspicious and called 911. The police were then able to apprehend the two alleged criminals, and I assume they have since been charged because in the report of March 3, 2010, the police spokesman said that they would be charged.

That is a case where innocent motorists, innocent citizens, were lulled into believing that they were dealing with actual police officers and that these police officers were corrupt. One must understand how reprehensible this kind of activity is.

I do not think there is anyone who would not understand how reprehensible that kind of activity is. Not only was a crime being committed, but an additional crime of personating a police officer was being committed in order to facilitate the commission of other crimes, whether they be crimes of theft, crimes of property or crimes against persons, such as sexual assault.

As the Liberal critic for justice, I am recommending that members of my caucus vote in favour of this bill. I think I have explained succinctly why I am in favour of this bill and why I will be urging my colleagues to support it.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill, which I am certainly in favour of.

As we have heard from others, there is already a section in the Criminal Code that deals with the crime of impersonating a police officer.

There are two aspects to it. One is where a person represents him or herself as being a police officer and the second is where a person uses a badge, article or articles of the uniform to allow people to draw the inescapable conclusion that the person is a police officer. Those are already offences.

This bill would add a subsection that would require a judge, after a person has been convicted of those offences, to take into account as an aggravating factor if the impersonation had been used as a tool to commit another crime.

When I first read the bill, I thought that is what judges would do in most cases. My initial reaction was whether it was really necessary, but what really convinced me to support the bill was the letter that I received from the member for Red Deer, the proponent of this bill.

He spoke in the letter about the need to reinforce the trust we all must have in our police forces and officers. I want to commend the member both for the letter and his initiative in this regard because it strikes at that point. Occasionally, there will be a judge who may not take this into account, though I think in most cases judges would.

It is a way for this legislature to say, not just to the judiciary because, as I say, it is not so significant there but to the Canadian public, that if someone has committed such a crime and has used it as a tool to commit another crime, the legislature condemns that conduct and is asking the judiciary to make sure it takes it into account as an aggravating factor when a sentence is imposed. That is one of the reasons for supporting the bill.

I do not think we can be too careful about the need for the legislature of the country to be very clear about its support for the criminal justice system generally and for the actors within the criminal justice system. It is very important that we ensure the Canadian public is always onside in the sense of feeling a great deal of confidence in our judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, and certainly in the police.

In a large number of cases, the vast majority of Canadians will only come into contact with the criminal justice system through police officers. Unless people are called as witnesses or charged with an offence, they do not see the other actors. That is not to say the other actors are not important as they are crucial to the system, but the face of the level of confidence that we need in the criminal justice system is the front line police officer.

I had an experience when I was in Japan a few years ago on a public safety issue. I got the opportunity to spend a bit of time there observing the Japanese people, who have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, substantially lower than ours. I am exaggerating a bit, but on almost every corner there is a little structure that the street police use as their base. They are all over the place in the larger cities in particular.

That allows those police officers who staff those small units to have immediate, intimate contact on a daily basis with people who live in those neighbourhoods or who do their business in those neighbourhoods. It is very obvious that the relationship is a comfortable one with the sense that a person could turn to these officers if there are any problems and they will be there to provide service to the citizenry of that country.

We look at how successful that is. It is their key ingredient in keeping their crime rates low. It is the kind of thing we would like to see adopted here and practised. We have been doing this on a fairly regular basis, moving our police officers out of the large, institutional settings, and more and more trying to have them operating out of neighbourhood settings.

My wife was working at the west end of the city of Windsor for a number of years. While she was there, one of the changes she saw in the crime rate, which was a fairly high crime rate, was that they moved just two police officers into the neighbourhood, into a house, and used it as a mini headquarters. It had a dramatic effect over the years in reducing the crime rate, a good deal of the crime rate, by the way, coming over from Detroit. However, because they were having that day to day contact with the citizenry of that area, that was really a great methodology for reducing the crime rate.

If we have someone who would take advantage of that very fundamental, crucial relationship we need between the citizenry and the police officers and raise the mistrust level, then they have to be dealt with quite severely. The section here that is being proposed as an amendment very much goes to that fundamental change that we require in the Criminal Code to emphasize, to have this legislature emphasizing, how important it is to have that relationship rock solid.

We get the rogue police officers using physical force in excess, and that undermines it, but so does this in many respects. Whatever we can do in the way of amendments to the Criminal Code in our practice, funding police officers across the country, will ensure that relationship does not deteriorate. If it does in those first steps, we go to a chaotic society.

I have been in other countries where I have seen the fear in the citizenry because the police are either corrupt or they are abusive with their power. We can never go down the route of undermining them.

We will be supporting the bill. I think all of my caucus is in support of this private member's bill.

We have discussed a little bit with the member for Red Deer about having an amendment to the bill that would be clearer with regard to the judicial responsibility to give reasons if this section is to be invoked. We have been having some discussion about that and we should see that at committee. I expect the bill to go to committee very rapidly and hopefully to be dealt with at the justice committee rapidly as well.

Those are all the comments I have, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The hon. member for Red Deer, for his five minutes right of reply.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and close second reading debate on Bill C-576, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer).

I am very aware of the significance attached to a private member's bill that proposes changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.

This bill was motivated by a horrendous act of deceit and torture that occurred in my riding, and the heroic actions of a brave survivor.

This bill honours such victims by recognizing that the disarming actions of their assailants are to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, for which the courts should hand out more appropriate sentences.

I am grateful to all of my colleagues who have spoken to this bill and have expressed their desire to move it forward. I truly appreciate the outpouring of support that I have received from this House; and on behalf of the brave family in my riding that has allowed me to share their story, I thank all members.

I am pleased that we have this consensus and are prepared to have this bill proceed to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As I have said, this bill is about sentencing. It speaks to the need for tougher penalties for this particular crime, in line with the fundamental sentencing principle of proportionality, which is stated in section 718 of the Criminal Code.

Victims must be assured that there will be serious consequences for criminals who have hurt them.

We need 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, and our laws must reflect this reality.

Therefore, we need to provide the courts the tools to deliver harsher sentences to criminals that breach the public's trust to cause harm.

I appreciate the contributions that have been made by all of my colleagues who have participated in this debate. I have taken under advisement the discussions surrounding the consecutive and concurrent sentencing.

If an offender were to receive a sentence for personating a peace officer, it might be served concurrently with another, lengthier sentence. Thus, a judge's finding of aggravation under section 130 may not be fully recognized in the concurrent sentencing.

On the other hand, consecutive sentencing would require the offender to serve each sentence, for each crime. These decisions, however, still rest with the courts.

I appreciate any input that the committee may have once it hears from potential witnesses. Any suggestions that would support the desired outcome, further the public's confidence in the justice system, and support the victims of this crime are worth considering. I would certainly take them under advisement.

The bottom line is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Bill S-4 increased the maximum sentence for this offence and now we should give the courts this tool to exercise the new maximum in the most serious of cases.

We know that there have been a number of incidents across Canada of criminals impersonating peace officers. It would be premature to say that this crime is increasing in frequency, as it may just be that it is being reported more, but the severity of some of the crimes that are being committed alongside section 130 offences are disturbing.

Only a few weeks ago, we heard of another case in Ajax where three men dressed as police entered a residence, handcuffed six people inside and ransacked the home.

This is a continuing, widespread and serious problem in Canada, and we as legislators cannot ignore.

In closing, I would once again like to thank my colleagues for their support. I appreciate that they too recognize the timeliness and necessity of this bill.

Too often it seems that Canadians only hear in the media about the negative aspects of Parliament; that there is little co-operation or consensus in this place. This is not true.

As members know, there are many times that we as parliamentarians are able to work together in non-partisan ways to improve the lives and safety of Canadians. This is one of those times. Let us work together and recognize our spirit of co-operation.

I look forward to working with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we can further our discussion.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the tragic death of Ashley Smith in a federal penitentiary continues to raise deeply troubling questions about the government's U.S. style plan for our prisons. Ashley's story is, first and foremost, a deeply personal tragedy for her family and her community. I know all members of this House recognize that and offer their sympathy.

However, the legacy of Ashley Smith prevails in the public eye as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the government's approach to prisons.

At the young age of 15, Ashley Smith was inappropriately sent into the Canadian prison system. This young woman should have been placed instead in a community mental health setting. Instead of learning from this essential fact, however, the Conservatives still pursue a misguided policy of putting more and more people like Ashley into our prisons. Convicted of throwing a crabapple at a postal worker, she ended up dying in a federal prison cell at 19.

There is a groundswell of opposition that is building to the Conservative crime agenda. Countries around the globe are rejecting policies that inappropriately and needlessly lock up their citizens. They are looking to more effective approaches that focus on increasing mental health and addiction services in the community, and crime prevention. American states, like Texas and Oklahoma, staunch bastions of right-wing ideology, have seen their budgets broken by escalating prison costs and are now actively reducing their prison populations. Even conservative icon, Newt Gingrich, recognizes the failure of the lock-them-up approach. He states:

There is an urgent need to address the astronomical growth in the prison population, with its huge costs in dollars and lost human potential. We spent $68 billion in 2010 on corrections--300 percent more than 25 years ago. The prison population is growing 13 times faster than the general population. These facts should trouble every American.

Mr. Gingrich went on to say:

If our prison policies are failing half of the time, and we know that there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners.

Mr. Gingrich notes that conservative republicans are instead strengthening their probation system, deciding against building more prisons and choosing to enhance proven community corrections approaches such as drug courts. They are getting better results and reducing crime.

Increasingly, however, this Prime Minister stands alone on the world stage in pressing forward with his wrong-headed and dangerous plan to lock up more and more Canadians for longer prison terms.

The Church Council on Justice and Corrections has written to the Prime Minister on this issue as well. The CCJC is made up of representatives from every major Christian faith group in the country. It represents millions of Canadian Christians. Its letter to the Prime Minister reads:

Proposed new federal laws will ensure that more Canadians are sent to prison for longer periods, a strategy that has been repeatedly proven neither to reduce crime nor to assist victims. Your policy is applying a costly prison response to people involved in the courts who are non-violent offenders, or to repeat offenders who are mentally ill and/or addicted, the majority of whom are not classified as high risk. These offenders are disproportionately poor, ill-equipped to learn, from the most disadvantaged and marginalized groups. They require treatment, health services, educational, employment and housing interventions, all less expensive and more humane than incarceration.

The CCJC told the Prime Minister:

Increasing levels of incarceration of marginalized people is counter-productive and undermines human dignity in our society. By contrast, well supervised probation or release, bail options, reporting centres, practical assistance, supportive housing, programs that promote accountability, respect and reparation: these measures have all been well-established, but they are underfunded. Their outcomes have proven to be the same or better in terms of re-offence rates, at a fraction of the cost and with much less human damage.

The American right gets it, the Canadian faith community gets it and New Democrats get it. When will the government get it and abandon its failed crime policy that is divisive, fear based, astronomically expensive and completely ineffective?

7:50 p.m.

Oxford Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Madam Speaker, the matter that my colleague first raised is truly a tragic situation that occurred. If my colleague was not quite so partisan and he went back and looked at what he first said, he would understand that the issue he raised to begin with was an issue of mental health in the communities, which is a provincial matter. However, I am prepared to answer his issue with respect to Canada's treatment of mentally ill offenders within the Canadian federal correctional facilities.

While I am not at liberty to comment on any specific case under the provisions of the Privacy Act, I can assure the members that our government is committed to providing reasonable and effective levels of mental health services for offenders.

As members are aware, our government is concerned first and foremost with public safety. Correctional Service Canada contributes to public safety by managing institutions at various security levels, preparing offenders for safe release and supervising offenders under conditional release in the community. Part of this continuum of care is effectively addressing and treating the mental health needs of offenders.

Correctional Service Canada routinely deals with high risk offenders whose needs are complex and diverse. This includes mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, anger and violence issues. As for treating mental illness, when the mental health needs of offenders are addressed through assessment and treatment, public safety and the safety of staff and offenders are enhanced.

This is why improving the capacity to address the mental health needs of offenders is a key priority for Correctional Service Canada. To fulfill this priority, the CSC has developed a mental health care strategy to improve the continuum of mental health care provided to offenders. The strategy is intended to address the mental health care needs of offenders at all stages of incarceration, from intake to transitional care for offenders being released into the community.

This mental health care strategy includes five key components: mental health screening at intake; primary mental health care in institutions; intermediate mental health care to address the needs of offenders who are unable to cope in regular institutional settings; intensive care at regional treatment centres for those who require that level of intensive care; and transitional care for release to the community.

In support of this strategy, the CSC has also implemented several management practices, such as the provision of mental health training to both mental health professionals and correctional staff.

Let me be clear. Our government is concerned about the mental health needs and treatment of offenders and is proud of the CSC's efforts to address this issue. Through budget 2008, and as part of the Government of Canada's plan to transform the federal correctional system, the CSC received permanent funding of $16.6 million annually for institutional mental health services, commencing in fiscal year 2009-2010.

Through these resources and support, this government trusts that CSC will continue to effectively treat mentally ill offenders within Canadian federal correctional facilities.