Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[Dale Larsen]

Some of it is based on the formula itself. With a city such as North Battleford with a population of 13,000, trying to equate that to a rate derived from a per 100,000 population sometimes skews some of the data. We've looked into some of the, more or less, actual crimes and the rate that drives them, as opposed to the crime severity index, and are always trying to deal with those violent crime areas.

Currently, North Battleford has experienced a bit of a drop, but it's not substantial enough by far, that's for sure, from our perspective.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm running out of time and I wanted to jump in.

We've been talking a little bit about a project in Alberta that was taken on by the provincial government where $8 million was invested in policing, and it created some different ways of developing community links and building out. It was actually having an impact, reducing property crime, according to a six-month report. So six months in, that was what they had seen.

I don't know if you've had a chance to look at what's been happening in Alberta. Is there anything similar in the way you're doing things in Saskatchewan?

[Dale Larsen]

Yes to both of those.

I think what you might be referring to is the crime reduction teams that Alberta implemented with approximately $8 million to $10 million funding last year.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, that's right.

[Dale Larsen]

I think they have four in place right now. Currently, our second one was fully manned about a month ago. You're right. They're showing some interesting numbers in relation to not only property but to violent crime as well, downturn numbers.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Is that the same thing as when you were talking about the CSO program? Is that tied to that similar type of a program, or are these different programs?

[Dale Larsen]

No, the crime reduction teams are full police officer positions. In this province we currently have just the RCMP positions engaged in those, and we're looking toward municipal blend as well, but we haven't got there yet.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The other thing that came up when we were talking last week was a reference to something called Alberta sheriffs. Is there anything similar to that in Saskatchewan?

[Dale Larsen]

There is not as of yet. The Alberta sheriffs not only do highway patrol and enforcement, but they also do prisoner transport and court security. We're separate a bit in relation to our court security and prisoner transport units that fall under our attorney general side of the ministry. The peace officer program that Alberta currently has was kind of the model that we looked at in relation to our community safety officer program that we're implementing.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Perfect.

I have less than a minute, so just quickly, do you have response time statistics for your province, and do you have them broken down by urban and rural areas?

[Dale Larsen]

We have looked at those recently because of our PRT program, our protection response team, but at the push of a button I couldn't get them from the larger municipal agencies right now.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Right, but then do you have some type of a calculation as to what the average response time is in rural parts of Saskatchewan? Is there an average time?

[Dale Larsen]

I have, to some degree, but I don't have an average number for you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

All right. Would you be able to provide that to us at a later date?

[Dale Larsen]

We would have to check with F Division, our provincial police service of jurisdiction, and see if it could provide us with something.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Thank you, Mr. Larsen.

Before Mr. Motz starts, I'm looking at the clock. It's 5:10. By the time I do one seven-minute round, we'll be close to done. Is there any appetite to extend, given that we did have committee business in between the two panels? Do you want to do another two five-minute questions, for instance, afterward? Are you good with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, we'll finish off the seven-minute round and do two fives, one Liberal and one Conservative.

Mr. Motz, you have seven minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here.

Dale, it's Glen Motz from MHPS, you remember, and congratulations on your appointment. I haven't had a chance to talk to you since then.

[Dale Larsen]

Thanks, Glen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Friedman, you mentioned in your comments that the process is the punishment, specific to self-defence. Could you elaborate on the idea that, just because individuals are entitled to claim self-defence as a legal justification, it doesn't mean they won't still be subject to significant barriers in accessing justice? Can you explain that a little further?

[Solomon Friedman]

Sure.

We have to distinguish between somebody being charged with an offence and someone being convicted. In my experience, I've seen many cases where individuals are charged, but then the charge is withdrawn or they're acquitted after a trial.

The threshold to lay a charge is reasonable and probable grounds, and particularly in a province like Ontario where charges don't have to be approved by the prosecutor, you're relying on the policing policy and the individual knowledge and experience of the first officer to respond to a scene. Particularly where a firearm is used, or where there has been a violent incident, often I have seen that the first instinct of the officer is to lay a charge, and then say, “We'll let the court sort it out.”

The trouble with that is, of course, as I said, that the process is the punishment. This means a person is going to have their liberty restricted, sometimes by being placed in custody, strict bail conditions and an incredible expense, not to mention the stigma that's associated with having criminal charges hang over your head.

So it begins on the ground level, and it doesn't matter if you're acquitted or vindicated. Clients always say that no one remembers that follow-up small-print story at the end of the day. People remember the front-page news when you were paraded off in handcuffs for exercising your right to self-defence.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you for those comments. That plays into what I want to ask you next, sir.

The self-defence jurisprudence is quite clear. I think in R. v. Bengy the court found that the court must be alive to the fact that the people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection. You also mentioned the SCC decision in R. v. Pétel. To me, these decisions sometimes skew heavily in favour of a protection of self-defence rights.

Do you feel that the state of the law in the courts is effectively communicated to law enforcement to aid in their charging decisions? You indicated it wasn't, so how do we address the issue? How do we best deal with it?

[Solomon Friedman]

I think there are two ways to do it. One is to ensure that front-line officers receive a bare minimum of legal education when it comes to self-defence. Now, we're not expecting police officers.... I've encountered many police officers who are law graduates, who do have law degrees, but the vast majority do not, and you can't burden every police officer with having to carry around the Criminal Reports for the past 100 years.

What you can do, however, is number one, have a change in policy that reflects training in these areas. The second thing to do is remember what police officers do often refer to, and that is the Criminal Code. Very often police officers will open the Criminal Code as a reference point. If these principles are only in the common law, they are equally as binding as if they were in the Criminal Code, but they are just not accessible.

To me, an easy answer to this is to, say, take the common law that already governs the courts—that's why we see so many acquittals, but so many charges as well—and import those into the Criminal Code. Let the police officer say you don't need to weigh the niceties of your actions, or you're entitled to be mistaken. You don't need a law degree to know that. I can just read it in the Criminal Code.