Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[Nick Cornea]

Again, the damage is done, as Lane said, but it's not just the stricter punishments and the harsher penalties; it's enforcing those convictions. Much of the time, you hear about guys who get 18 months in jail, but they're out in three or they're out in five. I've talked with jail guards from the Regina area, and they tell me that they're full; they're understaffed and overworked. Basically, they need to have the revolving door, because there just isn't the room for these criminals.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I understand where you're going. It's totally justified. Whether it's three months, six months, two years, or six years, the damage is done. If one of your kids gets caught by a stranger in the house or if you lose everything that is in your house, the cost of recouping everything is tremendous. Then the anxiety that follows after that, even if nothing has happened, is there, and way before the person gets to court.

In order to help our communities to be safer or to feel safer, stronger and more visible action than we can imagine now should be taken. With all respect to the prosecutor, when you're in court, it's a bit too late.

[Nick Cornea]

It's true that the damage is done, but if we could have restitution that's more than just a slap on the wrist and they had to pay back the insurance premiums and actually pay for the $80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 grain truck or things that are stolen out in the fields as the farmers are working, maybe the next time they and their buddies are going to go out and have some fun and steal things.... If they had to pay back every cent for the $200,000 tractor that they just took for a joyride and damaged or the grain truck or the semi or the one-ton that they destroyed, maybe it would make them think twice. If they were caught and they had to do that, maybe they'd think twice before doing it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

I think Mr. Newark wants to weigh in on this.

[Scott Newark]

Can I just add to that? This is not exclusively about deterrence. I take your point about the value of rehabilitation and preventive programs as well, absolutely, without question, but how many people in this country do you think are aware of the fact that no matter how many times you commit a crime—a new indictable offence—while you're on parole, you're still eligible for parole the same as a first offender? That's ridiculous.

Statutory release is a good idea. We had the presumptive early release at two-thirds, but you know what? It applies to somebody whether they're a first-time offender or a second, or a third, or a fourth or a fifth. Maybe what we should be doing is differentiating between those people who commit crimes over and over and over and over again. In my experience, our failure to do that....

Let me give you one other example: We actually give pretrial custody credits—in my opinion, unlawfully—under section 719 of the Criminal Code to people who are denied bail because of their long criminal records. We then give them credits at their sentencing. That law has been back and forth a whole lot, but we are literally rewarding repeat offenders.

My experience is that those kinds of provisions actually undermine public confidence in our justice system. If we targeted those groups of individuals, they wouldn't be on the streets to commit the crimes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Your recommendation was noted, and it is applicable as well in rural environments and urban environments.

[Scott Newark]

It is, totally, everywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Mr. Motz, you have the final three minutes, unfortunately. Otherwise your whip and my whip will have heart attacks.

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

I'm sure they will.

[Scott Newark]

Let's test them.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

I'm going to ask you all one question that I wouldn't mind your response on. I think the entire committee would like to hear it.

From your perspectives—from the organizations you represent and from your personal experiences dealing with this—what steps can governments take, whether this government or the next one, to address this issue efficiently and effectively?

I'll start with the gentleman from Saskatchewan—from Edam—first, and then Nick and then Mr. Newark.

[Lane Becotte]

I think we've got to keep kids busy. If you want to keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble, we've got to keep them busy. A bored kid is one who's going to get in trouble. It's no different from you or me when we were young. We probably got in trouble when we were bored.

As far as the other criminals go, well, it's hard to say. You've got to keep them either locked up or make the punishment bad enough that they don't want to do it.

[Nick Cornea]

I think reducing that Youth Criminal Justice Act age, bringing it down, will deter the youth when they know they're not just going to get a clean slate at 18. I think that will also help with the lifelong criminals who have these teenagers doing these crimes for their benefit.

I think it would be a good idea to get some funding in place for a community constable type of system—we have five of them in Saskatchewan right now—and for the RCMP so they could do their jobs better and gain a little bit more backbone instead of having it all in the court's hands. This would enable them to do more and not have their hands tied so much.

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

Mr. Newark, would you comment?

[Scott Newark]

There's no way I can go through the list of recommendations in that compressed a time frame, but in the report I provided to the committee you will see very specific and precise recommendations. That's what I would really urge the committee to look at, and to find those things at all levels of jurisdiction, and not just legislation but policy and funding as well. That is incredibly important.

I think the largest single issue in western provinces in particular is ultimately going to be the policing model.

I admit some bias when I say this because I've spent my career working with the RCMP, but probably the number one issue that was identified was whether the existing contract policing model is sufficient to provide the necessary services or whether it needs to be changed. In Alberta it was by expanding the role of the sheriffs and by expanding regional policing as well.

Should those discussions take place, the federal government can play a role by making sure that we don't have the federal agency, the RCMP, saying, “We have a contract for 20 years; we're not talking to you for 20 years.” Those are discussions that need to happen. It is a modernization needed at the core of this unique feature of rural crime.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Newark. Thank you, Mr. Motz. Thank you, Mr. Becotte and Mr. Cornea.

With that, we are going to have to adjourn. Unfortunately, we have to run to a vote.

Thank you again. We appreciate your efforts to be here.

The meeting is adjourned.