Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[Nick Cornea]

There are members on our page whom we try to monitor. We either mute them or delete them from the page. We probably would have close to 20,000 members if we didn't do this.

Many members comment on the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” type of mentality. That doesn't work. I foresee that if we start doing that and becoming vigilantes, the criminals are going to become more organized. They call it organized crime for a reason. They'll start coming with more ammunition or more rifles that in turn were stolen from a neighbour and used on you, or they will use your own weapons on you also.

[Jim Eglinski]

Thanks, Nick.

I'm going to swing over to Mr. Newark now. I know you want to answer it, but just give me a second; I'm going to add a question to you on that.

As a Crown prosecutor for many years, thank you for your service to the Province of Alberta. You and I saw many times when we went in to court on cases of self-defence—trying to protect yourself—under sections 34, 35, 36, 37 of the Criminal Code. They are very complicated sections, and it takes a good legal mind to understand them.

We've had some evidence come before this group that we need to look at possibly changing that and making it more friendly to the public, to the Crown prosecutors, the courts.

I wonder if you can comment on that, and then finish off with basically that line—

[Scott Newark]

Sure.

I made some suggestions in the report that I did for the Alberta Conservative Party about that. This is the way we tend to do things now with the charter and our courts that think they know best.

Where you don't change the discretion but instead Parliament adds on the relevant factors that the court should take into account in, for example, deciding on the provisions of self-defence in defence of property or in defence of person, I'd tweak them specifically to the rural crime situations. You want to make the law such that the court is obliged to consider these specific relevant factors in deciding whether or not the use of force was legitimate.

In a similar sense, I'd change section 718, on the principles of sentencing. We've already done this. You'll see in the legislation that it's already there. It was specifically adding in sections that emphasize deterrence and denunciation when people are deliberately going to rural properties to commit crimes based on the vulnerability of individuals. There are things that I think can be done in relation to that.

Cycling back to the point that was in your email, I can't stress enough—and it's the real reason I wanted to come to the committee and did the work in Alberta—that it is absolutely appropriate and possible for groups such as this committee, and political parties as well, not to simply engage in theoretical discussions or polemics but to get into specifics, to drill down into things that will actually make a difference, whether it's legislation, policies, or funding actions.

With regard to the thing you were talking about in relation to self-defence, let's put that clarification that I'm talking about in the Crown policy manual as well, so the Crown prosecutor sees what they have to consider in deciding whether to lay charges against somebody under that. That kind of stuff actually works.

It's hearing those front-line insights and input from people such as the other witnesses who were here, and law enforcement as well, and the community groups. In my experience, that's how you formulate informed and effective policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski]

I would have thanked you for a little more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, time is the enemy in all of these meetings.

Before I call on Ms. Moore, we are likely about to be interrupted by bells. I'm obliged to suspend or adjourn the committee at that point, except if I have unanimous consent to continue. My proposal would be that we have unanimous consent to continue to 5:30. Is that acceptable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Ms. Moore, you have seven minutes, please.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A lot has been said since the study began. I myself come from a really remote rural community in northern Quebec. There is a profound difference between what seems to be happening in Alberta and what happens in Quebec. Where I come from, property crimes—when there are any—are often committed by very disorganized young people, who get themselves arrested very quickly. In the little concession where I live, nothing has ever happened in 11 years. There have been no property crimes.

What is happening where you live seems to be caused by people coming from urban areas. So they do not come from the community. They are disorganized at the same time as they are somewhat organized. There is some idea of organization behind it all. You do not seem to have a lot of patrols either. In my community, the police are regularly patrolling the concession roads. We see them on patrol, specifically to prevent drunk driving. They are very visible, except when they are responding to an emergency. The situation seems very different.

My first question goes to Mr. Newark, who might perhaps answer by giving us more details. Can you tell us about a subject that has not been brought up yet, namely the link between this situation and organized crime, which is perhaps a little more urban? In your opinion, are members of criminal organizations providing weapons to those people and advising them about the places to go, given the risks of being arrested? For example, if an individual owes too much money to one of those organizations, is he told that his problem can go away if he steals two or three trucks, I would like to know the link between organized crime and what is happening in rural areas.

[Scott Newark]

What I was told by the police services all across the province was that in fact the criminal groups doing this were organized. That was not necessarily the same thing as with the Hells Angels, for example. It wasn't necessarily at that level, but it was organized criminal activity that had a chain to it and was involved in communications, exports, paying off the province and helping move people around.

It was organized, and a lot of the same strategies actually apply in relation to that. For example, in dealing with the more traditional organized crime as well as with street gangs, targeted enforcement works. When you target the bad guys who are the leaders of the group and you get them off the streets, it has an impact.

I saw that as a prosecutor. I remember being blown away by the fact that a bunch of people were doing break and enters for drugs. It was in all of the suburban areas around Edmonton. When we caught these guys—and it was in the good old days when you didn't get pretrial custody credits—they were denied bail. It was known as dead time, so guess what? They pleaded guilty.

When those people were taken off the streets, the break-and-enter crimes in all the suburban areas went down. A reality of our justice system is that a small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large volume of crime. Unfortunately, that reality also applies in rural crime.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

So basically, there is a direct link between what is happening and organized crime. It clearly is not being headed by the leaders of the Hells Angels; they already have a network. When they steal vehicles, they already have a criminal network that allows them to sell them again. This is not like kids stealing a vehicle without knowing what they are going to do with it and ending up leaving it somewhere and telling each other that it was a stupid thing to do. These people really have an established resale network, correct?

[Scott Newark]

Yes, although I can only comment with respect to Alberta, because that's where the focus of my work was, not in any other jurisdiction.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay, but it's your general impression.

[Scott Newark]

Yes, absolutely.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I am now going to turn to our two witnesses participating in the meeting by videoconference.

Do you see police patrols often? How many times per year, per month or per week do you see them, not responding to a call, but on patrol, watching what is happening and establishing their presence, if you will?

[Lane Becotte]

It's very seldom. We do see them maybe once a month. We call them three times a week, other than that. They are there quite often, but it's usually only when we call.

They are very busy with the northern communities just north of us here. That's where they spend a lot of their resources and a lot of their time.

[Nick Cornea]

In respect to southern Saskatchewan, we do see them once in a while. Their jurisdictions are 40 to 50 miles wide, or close to 100 kilometres from end to end. For them to go from one side to the other side every day is not possible. We have a grid road system down in southern Saskatchewan; they can't patrol everything and be seen everywhere.

With the vacancies we have in southern Saskatchewan in our area, they just don't have the resources to do it. Either they're going to court or they have night shift or day shift. They're just spread so thin that they can't make their presence known.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

By way of comparison, I will tell you that, in my constituency, the RCM that has the police detachment extends for about 100 km. So the police cover a lot of ground.

Do you have an idea of the number of police and vehicles that patrol at night?

[Nick Cornea]

In Moose Jaw, they have six officers, I believe, right now. For the most part, they have two on overnight at different times, and maybe three during the day. There are going to be people with a day off. There is going to be an officer who will have to be in court and will have paperwork. A lot of the time they're stuck at their desk doing paperwork. We could have funding for more admin staff to do the paperwork correctly for them, so that they could be patrolling and basically catching the bad guys.

[Lane Becotte]

It's the same with us. We also have six on ours. It's the same thing. There's always somebody off. We have two on at night. Lately, they've been in the same car because of the issues that we've had. The gangs and stuff in this area don't care whether they're RCMP. They go after them and they basically—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. We are running a bit long here, and Mr. Newark's....

Monsieur Picard, you have seven minutes, please.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. It's very helpful.

Let's go right away to Mr. Cornea and Mr. Becotte. It's clearly understandable when you explain that there was a break-in, and then you lose your stuff and you have to buy everything. The insurance costs are rising, and there are numerous impacts from a material standpoint, and then come the mental health issues, which are even more important.

I'm playing devil's advocate when I ask this question. As a government, if I put more teeth in my regulations, double the sentences, make the punishments harsher and all that, at the end of the day, Mr. Becotte, you describe the fact that those who are organized and used to this don't even care that they look at you or that you look at them. They keep on doing their crime. I don't think that a harsher punishment will stop them from doing their crimes because the vulnerability is such that when the time comes that they're in front of a judge—if they ever get caught—it's too late. The damage is done, and your concern then would be more about the prevention aspect than the reaction aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Who are you asking?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Could we have Mr. Becotte first, and then Mr. Cornea?

[Lane Becotte]

Yes, we need to do more prevention. I have had run-ins with some of these guys. It is disheartening.

I have a 15-year-old son. A guy walked into my house while he was home—I was at work—at three o'clock in the afternoon. He locked himself in his room in the basement so they could not get at him. I will agree that the damage to him is done, but a harsher sentence.... This was that guy's ninth conviction. If he had a harsher sentence from the start, he would have been off the street. He would not have been in my house, and quite frankly, we wouldn't have had to deal with him.