Justice Committee on April 30th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I believe Mayor Fassbender wanted to respond as well.

[Peter Fassbender]

I want to add a couple of points.

Number one, the reality is that municipalities only collect eight cents out of every tax dollar in this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's true across the country.

[Peter Fassbender]

I know it is, but policing budgets are the single largest item in all municipal budgets.

The other thing that's happened is that the shift from the federal government to the municipalities and from the province to the municipalities, as we're paying for more integrated services and all of those things, reduces our ability to put police officers on the street as community policing operations. That's a huge issue that needs to be looked at. And it's not just—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I don't understand that. Could you explain that?

[Peter Fassbender]

Right now in this province we have integrated services, which we believe in. That integrated model includes IHIT, the integrated homicide investigation team, ERT, the emergency response teams, and so on. We also pay our share; there's a formula that's used to pay for those. We've made an argument, as municipalities, whether they're RCMP or municipal, that if the burden of the integrated forces were paid for by the province and the federal government, allowing us to put all of our resources on the street with community policing, then we would be better able to serve them.

Municipalities like Vancouver and Delta, which are faced with having their own forces, have the need to provide those services in their community. We know that if we're going to deal with organized crime, we have to have the integrated services working together across all those jurisdictions.

And you know, the concern I have is that we're looking for a magic number to solve the problems. One of the things you've heard, I'm sure, up to this point is that we need to give the police across the board, across the country, better tools—not necessarily always more money—to do their job more efficiently, more effectively, to be able to deal with the root crime issues in their communities, with access to disclosure, more wiretaps, and all the tools they need to be more effective.

The amount of paperwork the average police officers today have to do on any given file does not allow them to be actively out on the street, because they're filling out too much paperwork. We need to change that paradigm as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Mr. Moore, for seven minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of you for being here today.

Our committee has been here in Vancouver all day. We've heard a lot of testimony. Our chair, Mr. Fast, took me for a walk. You certainly have a beautiful region here and a lot to be thankful for, and we want to partner with you on this crime issue, not just because this has been in the national news and it's a high-profile issue right now. We hope there is a downturn in the gang-related violence and we want to work with you on that to make sure that happens.

I want to talk a bit about sentencing, because that's one of the things that we as a government have been quite seized with. You've all made excellent comments. Ms. Renault mentioned the revolving door. We've heard that a lot. I'm from New Brunswick, and I hear the same thing in my community, the revolving door of the justice system, and ensuring that the penalties fit the crime.

I did want to mention some of our initiatives. One is on house arrest. We know that, certainly in my community, people don't want to see somebody who's committed a serious crime serving their sentence from the comfort of their own home. The other is on mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes. This has been mentioned by many of you, the gun violence and the recidivism we see where someone commits multiple offences but we don't see an increase in the penalty.

So in the last Parliament we brought in mandatory minimum penalties. If someone commits a crime with a firearm, it will be a minimum of five years, and that escalates. That's our way of saying we take this very seriously, and when the police make the effort to catch someone and there's a successful prosecution, we want to see that person serve time in prison.

The other thing, as was mentioned, is the onus on bail--people are out on the street, on bail, for a gun crime. In the last Parliament we introduced in our Tackling Violent Crime Act, a reverse-onus component whereby a person who has committed a crime with a firearm has to prove why they should be out on bail, rather than the crown having to prove why they shouldn't be out on bail. We've switched that.

In this Parliament we're dealing with legislation dealing with gang crime, including drive-by shootings, amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and bringing in tougher penalties for grow-ops. That's one thing we didn't touch on a lot today. I look forward to hearing a bit about the grow-ops in your communities.

Also, one of the things we heard coming out of British Columbia is the issue of credit for time served whereby someone in pre-trial custody for a certain period of time is finally sentenced and the judge says they'll be given two or even up to three days for the time they've been in remand.

I know I don't have time for all of you to answer these questions, but let's go to the issue of closing the revolving door and making sure those few people in your communities who are recidivists get the message and are taken off the street and have access to help in dealing with their issues in correctional facilities. Perhaps, Ms. Renault, you could comment--in your community, your area, the sense that we need to have the recidivists off the street and whether you think these initiatives might play a role in that increased sentencing.

We haven't heard from you, Dr. Plecas. I would like to hear a bit from you about disrupting the criminal enterprise, because when someone is not committing crimes on the street when they're off the street, in an institution. How important is it that we disrupt the criminal enterprise?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

How about one and a half minutes each?

Ms. Renault, and then we'll go to Dr. Plecas.

[Shannon Renault]

Okay, thank you.

We're certainly aware of both these initiatives you've cited, and they're definitely things we stood up and supported when they were announced by the federal government.

Speaking as the Chamber of Commerce, the specific piece about recidivism and repeat offenders we are most concerned about is the repeat offences related to property crime, which may or may not be committed with the use of a firearm. So the particular initiative that you cite may not apply to these individuals.

We absolutely need to have a greater focus on those repeat offenders. We have found in our own municipalities in the capital region--and it sounds like a worn-out statistic--that a good 75% to 80% of the crimes in our community are committed by probably 25 to 30 individuals. This has to be addressed. We believe that incapacitation and interruption is needed. It's a brake on the business community and the residential community that are constantly paying the costs, literally, of these repeat offences. It really should be a larger focus across the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Plecas.

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

We are in a ridiculous situation here in British Columbia, where, for example, Vancouver city police have called for “30 strikes and you're out”. Of course they're asking for that, because we know the incredible damage that's done by that collection of people. When Vancouver asks that, we should be reminded that they're talking about a group of people who have, on average, 47 prior convictions each. That's just for that small population.

Across the board, if we look at the successes that have been enjoyed in the province in terms of reducing crimes, it is a function of a multiplicity of prevention kinds of things, but in the main, one of the most significant things has been removing those highly recidivistic offenders off the streets. You can clock it down to the crime. If you want crime to go down, get those people off the street.

Of course it makes sense. We've known this for over four decades. That small group of highly recidivistic people needs to be in a custody situation to address the primary goals of sentencing. It is absolute nonsense, as I've told you before, for us to believe for a minute that you're going to rehabilitate anybody with a three-month sentence. That is not going to happen. Only an idiot would think that we're going to provide for public safety...provide specific deterrence, general deterrence.

We absolutely have to get people off the street. It's not a question of getting tougher on sentencing, it's a question of getting more effective. We want to make a difference. We know we can. We've seen it happen. Let's do more.

I absolutely applaud the government on the initiatives to get mandatory penalties.

[Shannon Renault]

Sorry, could I just make one comment on the revolving door? I apologize, I didn't mean to say that.

Because of a lack of focus on that recidivist behaviour.... I know there are crimes that are going down across the country, but you do need to know that businesses, certainly in Victoria and across urban centres, aren't bothering to report a lot of property crimes any more because the same person who broke into their store yesterday is back the day after tomorrow. When they report it, a lot of times the police say it's not worth the paperwork.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We'll go to the next round of questions.

Mr. Murphy, you have five minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, witnesses.

I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Plecas a couple of weeks ago in Ottawa. I want you to know that I'm waiting for some of the studies that were mentioned.

I want you to know also that this morning, Inspector McLeod, I think it was, from the Vancouver police said that the sentencing regime, the meting out of sentences, was fine, but we have to do something about the application of the parole system, which was the opposite of what you said two weeks ago. We have to get that sorted out. We have to have you back to Ottawa again to get that sorted out. I'm sure you enjoy coming up.

I just want to reiterate to the committee that I think we've learned a lot in this one-day session out here. Different parts of the country are unique; obviously it's unique out here. We could have a full five-day discussion on the root causes of crime. We're all in the same boat, I think, on that.

We have been arguing, probably a lot, about which legal tools to implement quickly, which ones to take a hard look at. The government's prime objective has been using the tool of sentencing. That's their flag, and they're waving it, and that's fine. But we heard today, and we heard from Wally Oppal when he came to Ottawa, that things like disclosure codification--whoever said that in this crowd--are a great way of encapsulating what we need to do, what can be done quickly in the Criminal Code amendment.

We need to get back in Ottawa and do it, and we also need to work with the outdated 1892 Criminal Code with respect to warrants and electronic surveillance.

I want to ask this question, and it's prefaced by this remark, that it's a great pleasure to have mayors before a committee. I think in my three years in justice we've had two mayors, maybe. It's great to hear from you, because you know how to manage the budget of government, from stem to stern, and you hear firsthand, every day, whether there's something wrong in your community.

With respect to policing, mayors--and there are only three of you left now, so that should be good for the timing--FCM has a campaign out now to say that when it comes to federal policing, the federal government should contribute. I know, Mayor Fassbender, you talked about that. Can you give us some hope that this campaign is getting somewhere, that we have to get the federal government involved in funding, let's call them federal policing initiatives, in the communities across the country?

This is on fire across the country, by the way. I'm a former FCM guy, and I know that all mayors are on fire about this and want to encourage the federal government to see that there are so many integrated units and so much federal involvement that you have to have the money.

Could you elaborate on that?

[Peter Fassbender]

It has been a subject around all of the tables, and we recognize that. What we have to do is define the different levels of policing and what value they bring federally, provincially, regionally, and then locally. What is local policing and what does it require? What is the difference between integration and regionalization? I think there's a big misunderstanding at times in all of those discussions.

From what I've heard from my colleagues around the various tables, if the federal government comes to the party in supporting funding for the integrated services for those things that cross boundaries, that require that collaboration and the funding to support it, we would support that wholeheartedly. Then that allows us to really focus in on community policing that we require on the streets of our community and how we continue to contribute to that.

As Mayor Watts said, we put hundred-cent dollars on the table. We are maxed out to the limit in municipal taxes at this stage and we need the support to provide the funding for the integration. Take that burden off our backs as a first step. Allow us then to look at the community policing models to define what that is and what we need in our communities. We will be a partner, and we are. It's the largest budget item we have.

I think what we really need to work together on is to look at those things. What is federal policing? What does it contribute? We know in our municipality and in the other areas when there's a huge issue that requires the intelligence of the federal RCMP services, that's available to Vancouver and Delta if they need it. The chief in Delta can work with the RCMP if he has an issue that requires that kind of intelligence. We need to promote that, define those differences, what those individual roles are, and how they're funded. Again, you need to look at the statistics. The reduction of the federal funding to the policing across the country is significant.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Can the other two mayors answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're out of time.

We'll move on to Mr. Weston for five minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

I want to pick up where you left off, Brian.

I think having mayors in front of the committee is fabulous. You're on the ground and hearing what's going on. On the North Shore, Andrew Saxton and I have been working very closely with our mayors. I work with some 12 mayors throughout my riding and I find that I'm constantly educated and I'm a better federal representative because of that.

The second thing is that you're working together, so your influence is going to be so much greater because you help us by setting priorities. I think that is a great step forward.

From your comments I've been trying to summarize, and I'm hearing at least four priorities. You said there were some 55 in the materials that we'll be seeing, or maybe they've already been sent. You've expressed some support for more policing, sentencing issues, mandatory minimums, early intervention, and then new laws, some of which we are bringing on board.

I want to say something that you probably know. For some time the Conservative government tried to bring in various new laws and we never had consensus in the House. I think there's a new atmosphere, and by bringing in specific laws rather than omnibus ones, we expect to get more success from our friends from the other parties.

Mayor Fassbender, Bill C-15 is there to deal with situations where there are aggravating factors involved--grow-ops--and the penalties are to be increased if the offence was committed, for organized crime, near a school or in an area normally frequented by youth, or if the offence involved the use of violence or a weapon. Is this what you're looking for?

I'll ask the other two mayors as well what they have to say about Bill C-15. Are we on the right track there?

[Peter Fassbender]

My sense is that you are on the right track. I think when you do get specific about specific offences--the severity of those and the penalties that reflect that--it is absolutely the right direction.

[Dianne L. Watts]

Of course we'll support that because it affects our community directly, but it's a shame that it has to be such a scattergun approach. It would be nice to have a coordinated effort focused on this issue dealing with the broad-based issues that encompass organized crime and how it affects our community--including policing, sentencing, the court, intervention, and all of those pieces, as a strategy together.

You said that through your process the only way you can move it forward is in bite-sized pieces. Is there not an opportunity to have a coordinated effort and a strategy to encompass all of these things, and under each section identify what those recommendations and the legislation will be? Then you would have a package you could move forward with, so we would know what's coming down the pipe. We support all of that, and they're good things to do, but I don't know what the second or third piece is going to be.

We're trying to work together collectively as 21 mayors--with our chambers, boards of trade, and all of that--to deal with these problems, but there's no overall vision or coordinated approach to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mayor Jackson, do you want to respond as well?

[Lois E. Jackson]

I'm not sure if you're talking about grow operations exactly. Are you talking about recidivism, how we're dealing with that, and how we're all working together to try to make that happen?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Bill C-15 deals with amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, so it deals generally with grow-ops. But the specific provision I referred to deals with when there are aggravating factors that lead to more strict sentencing.

[Lois E. Jackson]

One of the big problems I saw when I became mayor in 2000 was we had 200 grow operations in an area of 50,000 people in the North Delta area where I live. We undertook zero tolerance, and our police department shut them all down eventually.

I went into a lot of these places, and dirt was everywhere--they were dripping and mouldy. I don't know if anybody's been in any of them, but you usually find two little people, from maybe Vietnam or somewhere, with a little shrine sitting there. They're the farmers. They have no record, but they look after the farm. They are never repeat offenders, because the gangs are a lot smarter than you think. They only put people in those places who are going to be the little farmers. You might put them in jail for three months or something, because they have no previous record.

So there's a lot going on relative to grow-ops. When you catch the people who are there, they're not really the ones you want. You have to go hugely underground to get the people who are really making money off these, so it's not as simple as it sounds.

We had some really good police work done. Fortunately we have the specialized forces now, and they work really well. There's a bit of concern about governance and accountability for dollars, but that's okay. That's something else we'll be dealing with in the policy paper we'll be putting together. We have to continue to look at community-based policing. Mayor Watts is absolutely right.

I'm sorry about the time. I get too passionate about this.

Thank you.