Evidence of meeting #132 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was property.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Fair enough.
To speak to your comments about the need for the charges to self-defence laws to aid police making charge decisions, is it more likely that someone who defends themselves and their property is charged by the police currently, or does that depend on the circumstances entirely?
5:10 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
There are two separate provisions, and one is for the defence of persons where broader authority is granted. But I've encountered police officers who didn't know that you actually have a right to defend your property. In fact, the Criminal Code sets out a three-part test for when you have the right to defend property.
If you believe on reasonable grounds another person either has entered your property or is about to enter your property, and that act of entering your property constitutes an offence, you are permitted to use reasonable force in the circumstances.
I've had police officers tell me in cross-examination when I'm asking them as to why a charge was laid say they weren't defending a person, they were defending their property. But what they don't get to is the last part of the provision that says as long as the act is reasonable in the circumstances, then defence of property is permitted.
In my view, police need to be better educated that it's not just the defence of persons. Equally there's a defence of property provision that has its own rules but has binding effect.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
When we look at the whole area of rural crime, this is not a gun debate; this is a rural crime debate. We know that a lot of rural crimes do not involve firearms, but some do.
From your perspective, what do you think is probably the most effective change any government can do to have a positive impact on public safety in rural Canada on rural crime? I mean all aspects, from what Dr. Drummond said, and our witnesses who have experienced this. From your perspective, how can we make sure that happens?
5:15 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Because I'm greedy, I'm going to give you two changes, with the federal government playing a leadership role and influencing the provinces to follow suit.
I agree with Dr. Drummond. This is not a political issue. This is a policy effect and a legal issue.
In my view, number one, there needs to be reform to the self-defence provision so the code as it's written reflects the common law. Those are pretty simple legislative amendments. The Supreme Court has been calling for them since 1995. The last government tried. It added in a number of factors, but the police simply are not applying them, in my view, the way they ought to. That's number one.
Number two, the federal government can show leadership on the RCMP level by implementing policy for.... Mind you, we all know that the RCMP is actually the rural police force for the majority of this country where there are not provincial police forces and those places where there are not municipal police forces.
The federal government can show leadership by having a policy to allow first responders, police officers, to know the test for self-defence and apply it in the way the Criminal Code intended. What I would hope to see is the provincial attorneys general follow suit when it comes to the Crown policy and when it comes to their own provincial and municipal police forces.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
October 23rd, 2018 / 5:15 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you very much.
My questions and comments will be directed to Dr. Drummond.
My first one is about drunk driving. There is often a lot of drunk driving in rural areas, because there is no other way to get back home. That is really problematic. I work in an emergency department in a small rural area. We had a man who was so drunk that he had two times the limit of potential mortal alcohol in his blood. We had to intubate him, because he was not able to breathe anymore by himself, and he had been driving 30 minutes before.
Can you comment on alcohol drunk driving in rural areas? Is it something that you've seen often? Often, police officers bring those people to the hospital to draw a blood sample.
Do you think health professionals, including nurses, think about talking to the legal authorities about people who may potentially have a mental disease, or mental condition, and that perhaps a firearm would need to be taken away from them? As you're part of the health profession, do you know where to call, or do you think about doing nothing?
5:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
I dispute your comment about there being no other choice. Of course, there's a choice. There is no excuse for drinking and driving no matter what the rurality index is of your given community.
I'm going to try and focus on firearms, because that's why I thought I was here, but it does raise the issue that when we encounter somebody who has been drinking and driving—and has either come to our emergency department or been brought to our emergency department in Ontario and probably every other province in this country—we have a legal obligation, a mandatory obligation, to report that individual as somebody who may be unsafe to drive, because if they drink and drive, they could do it again. There's a mandatory reporting provision which on pain of death if we don't do it gets us into a lot of trouble.
By the same token, we encounter people quite often in the emergency department who are thinking about suicide, or ruminating about suicide, and then practically in every rural home there's a firearm— not every rural home, but a significant number of them. When somebody comes in with suicidal ideation or thoughts of suicide, or significant depression, it should be part of our process—it isn't actually, but it should be—to ask about the presence of guns in the home, and to make sure that during that period of severe depression, or suicidal thoughts, that they don't have access to a weapon.
Currently, we don't have the legal right to notify the police that somebody, who has presented suicidal thoughts, has a weapon in their home. That is something that we need to resolve. I understand there are concerns about the confidentiality process, and the fact that medicine is based on the ability to freely discuss items of concern with a physician without fear of government reporting, but that is a fact.
Your second point was with respect to....
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Do health care professionals have the reflex to notify the police? There is a hotline that can be called. Do they think about it?
Sometimes, a person goes to emergency, sees a triage nurse and tells the nurse about his problems, but then finds the wait to be too long and decides to go home. No one other than the nurse knows that this person came to emergency.
Do nurses understand that notifying the police is also part of their role or do they tend to consider it the doctor's responsibility?
5:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Clearly, we as physicians, emergency nurses, but particularly emergency physicians, have a societal obligation to report individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. There may not be any legal mechanism by which we can call a police department to say we have a drunk driver in our department and he's leaving, but if I had a drunk driver in my department, who left, I would call the police, and I would take my chances with my colleague, the lawyer.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Friedman, if, for example, as a nurse I call the police because I am worried about someone leaving the emergency department because he is totally drunk or because I think he could commit some harm with a firearm, could I have a charge laid against me because I called the police to say that?
5:20 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
It depends on what type of charge we're talking about. You certainly couldn't have a criminal charge laid against you. I am not a doctor so I don't specialize in professional misconduct, but I know a little about the colleges for both nurses and physicians and their confidentiality rules.
From the criminal perspective and the firearms control scheme—and I don't think I differ with Dr. Drummond on this—there is a reporting mechanism for everybody; it's a phone number, 1-800-731-4000. You can call the RCMP at any time to report a public safety complaint with respect to firearms. It's on the RCMP Canadian firearms program website. It's well publicized in gun stores all over the country.
I see the results of people using it and individuals do have their firearms seized and held until a hearing can take place to determine their suitability to own firearms. I think that's a perfectly appropriate process.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Okay.
I know that it is a little more difficult in Quebec to report someone who is intoxicated. As a nurse, I was told that I might have problems unless I could prove that the person represented an imminent danger. We had to use some kind of code with local police. For example, we would ask them to bring us a coffee, enter from the front and park next to the red car.
Do you think its an exaggeration for health care professionals to use such a system when, basically, all they want to do is to protect citizens?
5:20 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
I'll speak as a lawyer with my confidentiality obligations. I am protected by the only existing professional solicitor-client privilege—not confidentiality—I am bound by solicitor-client privilege. That privilege is waived in the face of an imminent threat to an identifiable person. I am then relieved of that privilege.
To me, as a lawyer, we know...and everyone thinks their privilege or their confidentiality is the most important, but mine is recognized as the most important constitutionally. But I am still relieved of it.
If there is an imminent threat to an identifiable person, I certainly wouldn't see why a professional confidentiality wouldn't be waived.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Moore. We really are running behind.
Mr. Spengemann, you have seven minutes, please.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
Mr. Larsen and Mr. Friedman, the motion that gave rise to this study is entitled “Rural Crime in Canada”, not “Crime in Rural Canada”. I am asking if this is a semantic distinction or that we may be inadvertently creating a classification that doesn't warrant that classification.
Should we be talking about crime in rural Canada, given that we have a common constitutional framework, a common Criminal Code and a common set of federal-provincial relationships? Are these just different allocations of resources and deployments, or is there something that warrants the title, “rural crime” as distinct from “urban crime”?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Sure, and then I'd like to get Mr. Larsen's views as well.
5:25 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Yes. Obviously, I didn't title the motion. I just showed up where I was asked to, which is generally what counsel does. Someone tells us to go somewhere and we go somewhere and speak.
I see a difference in the nature of offences and victims in rural Canada. I think they both face different challenges, just like the prosecution and the investigation of offences are different in rural and urban Canada.
You're right. There is one Criminal Code, one Constitution. But if you speak to a police officer who has spent his or her entire career in a rural area versus an urban area, they'll have very different experiences. So I think it is valuable to commit resources to trying to understand the distinction to ensure that we have a uniform, safe environment, whether you're in rural or urban Canada.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Larsen, may I have your views on this?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
I would echo some of what was just mentioned.
I am assuming you're talking about Dr. Ruddell's book.
Obviously in the rural setting for police officers some of the challenges are quite a bit different from a larger metropolitan urban area. Largely because of the nature of their deployment, they're usually single-officer units, and backup for them could be some time away.
That distance issue in relation to rural crime is always a challenge. We realize we can't put a police officer on every section of land, so going in that direction with more policing isn't necessarily the best or most effective way to try to deal with this problem.
We have to engage rural communities on a wider scale, such as rural crime watch, which we're expanding in Saskatchewan, and those types of different initiatives. We're exploring some of the available technology for tracking and monitoring farmyards as well.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thanks very much for that.
I note that the motion itself does not mention firearms, and I want to maintain that lens for my next question which is directed to Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman, Canadians who are listening to the testimony that you gave on the codification of the common law with respect to self-defence may find themselves thinking about Florida's law, which is the “stand your ground” law. Are you familiar with that piece of legislation, and if so, how does that compare with what you're proposing to the committee today?
5:25 p.m.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Yes, I'm familiar with it, as familiar as I am with a piece of foreign legislation that doesn't apply in Canada. That comes from both a different constitutional and a different criminal law framework.
Nothing that I have proposed has anything to do with the “stand your ground” law. I think the “stand your ground” law, in general, is often misunderstood. I've had prosecutors say, “What you're talking about is 'stand your ground',” and then the judge acquits my client on a self-defence provision.
What we're talking about is recognizing that you don't have to perform an exact mathematical calculus as to the reasonableness of your force. We know that these things happen in stressful situations, and our common law recognizes that.
No, this isn't castle doctrine, another American legal concept that does not have application here.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Nor is this a paradigm that would be limited. Maybe in practice it would bear out numerically, but it would be limited to firearms. It could be any other use of force to stop an offence.