Laurie in Debate
Bill 52: Corrections Amendment Act, 2007
Bill 52: Corrections Amendment Act, 2007 debate in the 26th Legislature of Alberta, 3rd Session by Ms. Laurie Blakeman, MLA Edmonton-Centre
Alberta Hansard – December 04, 2007
Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to this. I’m going to speak to it because of some of the issues that have already been raised. I have spoken in this House a number of times about the number of people with mental illness that are constituents of mine in Edmonton-Centre. We now, I think, have collected enough statistics across the country and here in Alberta and here in Edmonton to understand that in a number of cases people that are in remand centres and further incarcerated after sentencing in fact have mental illnesses. But I’m most concerned about those with mental illnesses who are in remand centres because they may have committed a crime. They may not have, whatever. They are not guilty at the time they’re there.
I think we have created a situation where remand centres become de facto shelters for the mentally ill. I think that when we start using a term like “inmate” and don’t distinguish between someone who actually has been found guilty and sentenced – in other words, someone who is serving time in an institution. That I would define, certainly, as an offender. But when we mix the language between inmate and offender, we are capturing a population that I believe is inappropriate to capture. We need to do far more work in filtering out the people with mental illness that have found themselves in our judicial system and in our corrections system. What’s in this act right now, because of the choice of wording, is not helping us to make that distinguishment.
You know, we do have some programs that are running, like the court diversion program for example, that are a step in the right direction, but I think there are parts of this act and this part in particular, 14.4, that are a step in the wrong direction. They’re not helping us move toward that.
There aren’t many people who will speak on behalf of the mentally ill. I’m one of them because they’re my constituents, and I recognize that. I will speak on their behalf and try and defend them and actually try, when I see bills like this, to help them not get into trouble. This is what we’re setting up here. By using the term “inmate” instead of “offender,” we are capturing a population that we shouldn’t be. We are not only not helping them, but we’re punishing them, and that is my concern about this.
I would ask members of the government caucus to please have a look at what has been done here. I think what is intended is that we really want to direct this towards offenders and not inmates because that does in fact capture those that are in a remand centre, and they’re not offenders. They haven’t been proven guilty yet.
This monitoring of the phone calls – well, no. Sorry. Let me just stick to the amendment that’s in front of us, and that is striking out “inmate” as it appears in section 14.4 and substituting “offender.” I’m supporting this amendment. I think it’s the right way to go and the right thing to do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog