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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Could I have the witnesses take their seats.
Mr. Larsen, would you lead off with your 10-minute statement, please.
October 23rd, 2018 / 4:40 p.m.
Dale Larsen Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
Good afternoon. My name is Dale Larsen. I'm currently assistant deputy minister, policing and community safety services, with the Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan.
I began my career with the ministry in 2013. Prior to that I was chief of police at the Moose Jaw Police Service.
I'm joined by Cory Lerat, currently an executive director with police quality and innovation, and also responsible for the CSO/peacekeeper program and first nations policing in our department.
Cory's previous police history was with the RCMP. He retired as an inspector with 30 years' experience.
In 2012, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association and Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities informed the Ministry of Corrections and Policing that their policing resources were insufficient to adequately address their community safety needs, primarily those high priority, low risk to harm policing calls in their communities, such as enforcing traffic safety, alcohol infractions and crime prevention initiatives.
Police leaders have known for many years and research has verified that the majority of calls for assistance that police officers attend are non-criminal in nature. Upwards of 80% of that police demand is non-criminal.
A large percentage of these calls, even though high priority, are low risk to harm from an officer safety perspective, calls such as traffic complaints and collisions, bylaw infractions, not-in-progress reports of minor thefts and mischief, and crime prevention initiatives that do not require the attendance of an armed, fully trained police officer.
With this in mind, the CSO/peacekeeper model is meant to offer municipalities, rural municipalities and first nations an additional option to support and enhance current policing services within their boundaries and increase crime prevention initiatives at the community level.
The alternate enforcement model was developed in collaboration with SARM, SUMA, RCMP, Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers and the ministry. It was important to work with stakeholders not only in consultation but in program design and implementation.
The development of the CSO program began in April 2013 with a literature review to examine models of delivering a low risk for harm policing model to enhance and support the policing services provided by existing municipal, RCMP and first nations police services The review examined low risk for harm policing programs based on models from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, and in particular, the Province of Alberta and their peace officer program. From the review, a model defined as a provincial program within current community policing strategies evolved. Providing an opportunity to enhance community safety and crime prevention through building partnerships with community stakeholders, it focuses on crime prevention and intervention, as well as low-risk suppression. It has come to be known as the community safety officer/peacekeeper program.
The literature review also outlined a structure based on four areas: functions, governance, training and competency, and an evaluation and outcomes area.
From concept to reality, the city of North Battleford, with 13,567 residents, a Saskatchewan city with one of the highest crime severity indexes in the nation, was chosen as the proof-of-concept site for the CSO program. The community safety officer program was launched in North Battleford in 2014. Today the program employs six officers and is an integral part of the city's community safety strategy. Even though community safety officers are distinct and separate from regular police officers, they are considered to be a vital element in support of the Battleford RCMP detachment.
The ministry discovered early on that the partnership between CSOs and the police agency of jurisdiction is absolutely critical to the success of the CSO program. F Division RCMP assistant commissioner Curtis Zablocki provided support for the program, commenting that by expanding CSO authority to “take on some of the lower-level investigations, the RCMP will be able to target more serious criminal activity.” North Battleford recently reported that, year to date, their community safety officer unit has dealt with 6,105 calls for service and has issued over 3,300 citations for different offences in this city.
Another early success of the program was in Edenwold, Saskatchewan. In an attempt to reduce their rural crime problems, the Rural Municipality of Edenwold, a small rural municipality of 233 residents, was also an early participant in the CSO program. Edenwold has found that their CSOs not only deter theft but also help prevent road damage through enforcement against overweight vehicles. The RM of Edenwold now contracts out the services of their CSOs to three other neighbouring rural communities.
The Saskatchewan CSO peacekeeper induction course is the minimum training requirement for issuance of a special constable appointment, and it's delivered through an MOU between ministry and Saskatchewan Polytechnic for the delivery of the six-week induction training, consisting of four weeks in class and two weeks online. There are some exemptions from the induction course that are considered on a case-by-case basis and that must be approved in writing by my office. The CSOs, once trained, are authorized to carry the following intermediate weapons and restraint devices: OC spray, baton and handcuffs. CSO/peacekeepers do not carry firearms.
CSO/peacekeepers are also provided their boundaries relative to the low risk to harm limitations of their authority. Traffic enforcement activities are not allowed on highways within their jurisdictions that have posted speeds above 90 kilometres per hour. They do not attend or participate in any way with occurrences where weapons are suspected. If CSOs encounter an assault or other potentially violent event in progress, they contact the local police service. Likewise, if impaired driving offences are detected, they contact the local police agency as well. CSO/peacekeepers are not authorized to engage in motor vehicle pursuits.
Upon successful completion of the CSO/peacekeeper training program, they are provided authorities under several provincial statutes, as well as enhanced authorities to attend not-in-progress Criminal Code property offences of theft under $5,000, and mischief, for the sole purpose of receiving information, evaluating and liaising with the local police of jurisdiction, as required, as well as non-injury motor vehicle collisions within their jurisdictional boundaries. Their employment also includes the authority and powers of peace officers under the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the service of summonses, subpoenas and legal documents.
Under program reviews, in July 2017 an evaluation of the community safety officer induction course was completed. More recently, in August 2018, a complete CSO program evaluation was delivered, and these recommendations are still moving forward.
In spring 2018, as part of the rural crime strategy, the minister hired one full-time staff dedicated solely to the CSO/peacekeeper program, and to implement the recommendations from the two reviews.
On discipline and public complaints, the CSO/peacekeepers are directly employed by the municipality, rural municipality or first nation, providing employers control of the schedule and deployment of their CSO/peacekeepers within the geographic boundaries pursuant to their special constable appointments.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. Larsen, you have a minute and a half. Sorry to interrupt your presentation.
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
I'm just going to skip ahead then to our final couple of pages in relation to a more direct discussion about first nations.
In Saskatchewan, we have 70 first nation communities, 51 of which fall under the first nations policing program, one self-administered first nation police agency covering five first nations, and 46 first nations that fall under the CPA. Those receive policing services provided by the RCMP under the federal-provincial first nation policing program funded 52% by Canada and 48% by the province. The total for the province of Saskatchewan, in funding federal and provincial, is closing in on $22 million annually.
As mentioned in a federal terms and conditions guideline document for funding for first nations and Inuit policing, we should look at innovative approaches to police service delivery in first nations or Inuit communities. With this in mind, our team is working with Public Safety Canada to explore ways of fitting the CSO/peacekeepers program into that funding model.
Recently, a pilot project was undertaken to facilitate the training in the communities of Pelican Narrows, Little Pine First Nation and Poundmaker Cree Nation. In September 2018, peacekeeper training started on Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, in Pelican Narrows. In October—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Could you wind up your remarks, Mr. Larsen. I'm sorry to be running the clock here.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
No problem. I sure will.
It is anticipated that by the end of the 2018 calendar year, Saskatchewan will have 77 trained community safety officers/peacekeepers working in the province.
In closing, the community safety officer/peacekeeper program provides municipalities and first nations communities an affordable and effective option to enhance local community safety and support, not replace those police agencies of jurisdiction.
It has been our pleasure to share the Saskatchewan community safety officer/peacekeeper program with you today, and we are open to any questions you may have.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Dr. Alan Drummond Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Yes, thank you so much. I'm really not sure why I'm here, but there must be a reason.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
I'll try to just re-emphasize some points that I made in May or June of this year.
Rather than considering myself an expert in the field of firearms violence, which I am not, following 35 years in rural practice as both a family physician and an emergency physician, and a coroner, I feel I can bear some degree of witness to the issue of firearms accessibility and rural death.
Prior to beginning in rural practice in Perth, Ontario, just south of here, I have lived in Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver, and have served three years of active service in the Canadian military. During that time, I rarely encountered a firearm injury or death.
Having been a rural emergency physician, however, and as a coroner, I've seen more than my share of firearm injuries and death by long-gun suicide. Of the three murders during my 35-year tenure in Perth, I had been involved on two of them—I don't know why I'm the lucky soul—including the difficult experience of investigating a double murder-suicide by long gun as a consequence of intimate partner violence. That is a memory that, 25 years later, still stays with me to this day. It reminds me constantly of the need to prevent firearms access for those who shouldn't have them.
I should note that we consider, as an emergency physicians group, the issue of the public's health an entirely non-partisan issue. This may explain why I, as a rural, licensed gun-owner and a member of the Conservative Party, view the issue of prevention of firearms misuse and injury equally through a non-partisan lens. It just isn't partisan for me. I'm not an anti-gun guy.
As a member of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, this will be my fourth appearance before a committee, dating back to when Warren Allmand was a chair, in 1994. That probably makes me an old guy.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
That makes you an old guy too, then.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
I know.
As a rural physician, and more specifically as a coroner, I have marvelled at the absolute disconnect between public discourse on gun control with its seeming single-minded focus on illegal hand guns, gun-related crime, gang violence and homicide, and my reality on the ground, which is suicide by legally owned long guns. Such a focus on crime has, in my view, prevented us from taking a very real opportunity to reduce firearm death and disability associated with suicide and...its prevention. Eighty per cent of all firearm fatalities in Canada are due to suicide.
In rural Lanark County, just south of Ottawa, where I live and practise, gun crime is practically unheard of. However, suicide by long gun is not at all uncommon. This is where this government and those that follow it must focus their efforts. Reducing accessibility to firearms, particularly for those at risk of self-harm or intimate partner violence, is where we need to focus our attention. It will obviously not solve the problem, which is complex and multifactorial, but it will be a small but important step in the right direction of reducing the tragic legacy of death by suicide.
I presented in May or June, and I'm not going to go through that again. You have all the data from StatsCan, I'm sure. What our association would call for is greater research. StatsCan is great, but it would be great to have research on how guns are used in terms of suicide, intimate partner violence and homicide so that we can focus our efforts on getting a bang for our buck—that sounds awful—in terms of appropriate action towards reducing firearms access and death. We believe there needs to be a much more rigorous screening of those individuals at risk. We also believe that physicians should play an important role by incorporating the well-established practice of reporting those individuals at risk. We do it for flying, for driving, and for people who have shown a tendency towards child abuse. Why not for guns?
There may be no clear subset of people where these efforts can be identified and focused, but I think we can all agree that the actively psychotic individual with paranoid delusions who wants to murder the Government of Canada probably shouldn't own a gun. I think we can agree that somebody who's involved in intimate-partner violence should not have access to a gun. That's where we, as a profession, and we, as a society, need to make that small but important step in mandatory reporting of individuals at risk.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Solomon Friedman Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and committee members. Thank you for inviting me to address you today. It's always a pleasure to appear before this committee.
Unlike my last appearance, I appear today as an individual in my personal capacity as a criminal defence lawyer. Although my practice is based here in Ottawa, I regularly defend clients and try cases throughout this region. My work often takes me through small towns and villages, from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in the east to Renfrew and Lanark Country—like Dr. Drummond—in the west and all places in between.
I have seen first-hand the unique challenges faced by rural residents as both victims of crime, and all too often, the subjects of criminal charges themselves. I found last week's testimony by Edward and Jessica Maurice to ring particularly true in this regard. Their story, sadly, is one I have heard many times before: Rural residents confront intruders on their property. Sometimes the intruders are armed themselves. Invariably, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Like the Maurices, they are faced with an awful decision either to act in self-defence or to risk unimaginable consequences.
At the outset, I should distinguish between two entirely separate concepts. There is an obvious difference between vigilantism, which is a crime, and the act of self-defence, which is a long-recognized right in both the common law and the Criminal Code.
To be a vigilante is to act unlawfully, to seek retribution or vengeance for real or perceived wrongs. It is to take the law into one's own hands. It is antithetical to the rule of law in a free and democratic society. It should be discouraged and punished by the criminal justice system.
Self-defence, on the other hand, is something else entirely. For as long as the modern common law has existed, the right of individuals to use proportional and reasonable force in repelling unlawful threats has been recognized and protected. It is enshrined in our criminal law.
However, it has often been my experience that it is the property owners acting in self-defence who are themselves the subject of criminal charges. In the end, many of those clients are ultimately acquitted or, like Eddie Maurice, have their charges withdrawn before trial, but this is little consolation. By that point, they have been arrested, charged and often placed on strict bail conditions. Some don't get bail at all and must await their trials in custody. These arrests are highly publicized. In the Internet age, I often tell clients that it is not the criminal record that should be most feared, but the Google record. Web searches by neighbours, prospective employers and others turn up in the news and social media stories about their arrests and alleged wrongdoing.
Then of course, there is the expense. In Canada, notwithstanding one's ultimate vindication, there is little one can do to recover legal fees expended to defend against even the most baseless criminal charges. As my clients often realize, much as the Maurices did, the process is often punishment itself. What can be done to rectify this?
In my view, the starting point is the current self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code. To be clear, these sections were recently amended and consolidated by the previous government in 2012. It was a long time coming. In fact, as far back as 1995, the Supreme Court stated that legislative action “is required to clarify the Criminal Code's self-defence regime”. Indeed, the previous provisions were criticized by that court as being “highly technical”, “excessively detailed” and “internally inconsistent”. But there is more to be done, particularly in light of over five years experience with how even the new provisions are being interpreted and applied by police and prosecutors.
Canadians deserve consistency and predictability in the application of the criminal law. More important, it is fundamental to the rule of law that the boundary between illegal action and legal self-defence be clear to all. I offer for this committee's consideration a number of practical steps that can be taken to further clarify the Criminal Code's self-defence provisions.
First, Parliament should consider codifying the existing common law self-defence principles in the Criminal Code. While these may not change the ultimate outcome where a case goes to trial—of course a judge knows the law and will instruct the jury accordingly—it would give clear guidance to law enforcement when they are considering a threshold question of whether or not to lay the charge, that is, whether reasonable and probable grounds exist to believe that an offence has been committed.
These recognized common law principles include the following:
One, the accused bears no onus to demonstrate that there was no reasonable way of withdrawing or retreating, from Ward, the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Two, people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection, from Mohamed, the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Three, a person defending himself against an attack, reasonably apprehended, cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary defensive action, from Baxter, the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Four, what is relevant to assessing a claim of self-defence is how the accused perceived the relevant facts and whether the perception was reasonable. In other words, an accused person is entitled to be mistaken so long as that mistake was a reasonable one. That is from Pétel, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Next, Parliament should consider an amendment to the Criminal Code that would clarify the circumstances in which an accused person would not bear the burden of establishing the evidentiary basis for a claim of self-defence. At present, in order for a court to consider a claim of self-defence, the judge must find that there is an “air of reality” to the defence, in other words, that the possibility exists in the evidence. While this does not formally shift the burden of proof to the accused, that is often the practical effect. Once this air of reality is met, the Crown must disprove the claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would recommend an amendment to the Criminal Code establishing that the air of reality is automatically met where the accused is on his or her own property and the victim is trespassing or otherwise unlawfully there.
Finally, I would propose a wholesale streamlining of the existing self-defence provisions. We can look to other jurisdictions for guidance.
For example, in New Zealand, the law is phrased as follows:
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
I conclude with this thought: Rural victims of crime should not find themselves twice victimized, once by criminals, and again by the criminal justice system. Much can be done to ensure fairness in how the Criminal Code is applied and enforced, and to restore the bond of trust between rural Canadians, law enforcement and the courts.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start with the assistant deputy minister, Dale Larsen.
I'm sorry, I missed the name of the other person who's with you.
5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
It's Cory Lerat.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay. Thank you to both of you.
You raised some issues about how you're addressing rural crime, but I want to pull it back a little.
I was looking at some stuff from Statistics Canada and it seemed to indicate that Saskatchewan might have slightly different issues as to rural crimes than some of the other prairie provinces. In one, it referred to Manitoba and Saskatchewan as having high rates of rural crime that were the results of higher rates of all types of crime: violent, property, and other crime. In Alberta, it was largely due to property crime.
There was another StatsCan study that referred to the crime severity index being much higher in Saskatchewan than in the other two provinces.
I wonder whether you could comment on that. Do you have any information about why that might be? That might help me understand a bit more.
5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
I noted also that property crime comment or determination that was in the StatsCan publication in relation to Alberta as well.
As you probably realize, the crime severity index and crime rate are two separate things. With our population and some of the violent crime we experience, both in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it pushes that crime index into a higher component. Just the regular crime severity index in itself includes both property and violent persons crime. It's difficult to compare one to the other.
In relation to our property crime, we're seeing a bit of a downtrend right now, but it is on the high side from a property crime rate perspective as well.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Do you have any statistics within Saskatchewan as to whether there's a difference in, say, the severity of crime or the types of crime in your urban areas versus your rural areas?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Services, Ministry of Corrections and Policing, Government of Saskatchewan
Surprisingly, Regina and Saskatoon, the bigger urban municipalities in the province, have close crime severity indexes to the overall provincial numbers. In the example we provided of North Battleford, their crime severity index is probably in the neighbourhood of twice the numbers for Saskatoon or Regina.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Have you done any research or examination as to why that might be?