Addressing Rural Crime - Blaine Calkins · Addressing Rural Crime and Protecting Rural Albertans ....

Toward a Safer Alberta

Addressing Rural Crime

October 2018

Report Produced by the Alberta MP Rural Crime Task Force

Toward a Safer Alberta: Addressing Rural Crime | 1

Contents

1. Overview

2. Introduction

3. Gathering Information

4. Findings and Opportunities

5. Conclusion

6. Appendices

Thank you to everyone who participated in consultations or provided information that contributed to this report on

Rural Crime in Alberta.


Overview

In Fall 2017, 11 Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MPs representing

constituencies across Alberta formed a dedicated Task Force to address the

growing issue of rural crime. In partnership with United Conservative Party (UCP)

MLAs, the CPC Alberta MP Rural Crime Task Force (CPC-MP RCTF) met with

constituents, including community groups and law enforcement. We heard

concerns, issues, and potential solutions from Albertans province-wide. Their

contributions, in addition to relevant crime data, the criminal justice system and

legislative and policy materials all revealed operational and systemic deficiencies

which are contributing to the increase in rural crime.

This report summarises the findings of these meetings and the associated work

of the CPC-MP RCTF and UCP MLAs. This report recognizes the dynamic and

changing needs of rural Alberta communities related to crime and safety. This

captures public sentiment and expert information on issues related to rural crime

in Alberta. It provides detailed insights and opportunities with respect to the best

measures to address rural crime. The report also examines the sufficiency of the

current process of crime statistics reporting and offers recommendations at local,

provincial and federal levels as to how that can be improved. Relevant

experiences from victims of rural crime and from members of the criminal justice

system are also included in the reporting. The reflections, opportunities, and

observations in this report reflect the consensus view of those consulted, and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the CPC-MP RCTF.

Several themes emerged during these discussions, largely focused on the

criminal justice system, policing, person and property rights, crime prevention

initiatives, root causes of crime, and the treatment of victims and repeat

offenders. These issues, and more, are presented in the last section of this

report, accompanied by many options and opportunities for improvement and

change.

Emerging from the Task Force’s work was the CPC’s Motion 167, which calls on

the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study the

issue of rural crime in Canada. This study would focus on assessing rural crime

rates and trends, examining Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) policing

and staff resources, investigating partnerships with provincial and municipal

governments and agencies in rural and remote communities across Canada, and

1 1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4


providing recommendations to improve rural crime prevention and reduce

emerging rural crime rates.

It is the intent of the CPC-MP RCTF to submit this report to the Standing

Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) as part of the study on

Rural Crime in Canada prompted by Motion 167.

This report is a contribution to understanding the myriad of challenges related to

rural crime, and to capture the concerns, feedback and issues presented by

Albertans who participated.

1.5

1.6


Introduction

Rural Albertans are increasingly concerned about

their own safety, the safety of their neighbours, and

the protection of their property.

Addressing Rural Crime and Protecting Rural Albertans

In Alberta, the CPC-MP RCTF and the UCP MLAs organized wide-ranging

consultations with constituents to hear concerns, insights, and ideas on how to

best deal with rural crime and related safety issues. These meetings, which often

included local police and community groups, were extremely useful in providing

real examples and case studies of rural crime, and revealed systemic

deficiencies that are contributing to rural crime issues.

CPC Members of Parliament from other provinces have conducted similar

constituency consultations as part of a larger CPC caucus effort focused on

addressing the growing issue of rural crime in Canada. This CPC initiative

resulted in Motion 167 (Rural Crime in Canada), which was introduced by CPC

MP Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland), and subsequently adopted by the House of

Commons.

Motion 167 now sits before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and

Security (SECU). MP Stubbs appeared before SECU as the Sponsor of the

Motion on June 12, 2018 and expressed the need for a comprehensive study of

rural crime and the subsequent development of substantive and targeted

recommendations to address the issue.

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

In 2017, rural Alberta crime rates were 38% higher compared

to urban crime rates in the province.1


The text of Motion 167 (Rural Crime in Canada) is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be

instructed to undertake a study on rural crime in Canada and consider factors,

including but not limited to:

i. Current rural crime rates and trends

ii. Existing RCMP and other policing resources and policies in rural, remote,

and Indigenous communities, particularly in relation to population density,

policing geographic area, and staff shortages

iii. Current partnerships with provincial, municipal, and Indigenous police

forces

iv. Possible recommendations to improve rural crime prevention and to curb

emerging crime rates

v. Measures to increase the tactical and operational effectiveness of

Indigenous police forces

vi. Strategies and resources dedicated to the judicial and rehabilitation

systems in rural areas

vii. Improved support for victims of rural crime

and that the Committee report its findings to the House within six months of the

adoption of this motion.

An Unprecedented Increase in Rural Crime

Based on complaints from rural property

owners and subsequent police

investigations, it is clear that there has been

an unprecedented increase in crime in rural

Canada over at least the last two years,

particularly in Western Canada. These

crimes mostly involve unauthorized intrusion

onto farms, businesses, and rural properties

and subsequent break and enter to homes, theft of vehicles and other property.

These crimes are often perpetrated by persons who are armed and overtly

threatening to property owners.

2.5

2.4


How are People Feeling?

Rural property owners are fearful, frustrated, and angry that there are long delays

waiting for a police response to rural crime, or when there is no police response

at all. These frustrations have been raised repeatedly in town hall meetings by

landowners and rural community groups, and have sparked a debate over

whether they should have the right to take matters into their own hands. The

RCMP has confirmed that these complaints are legitimate and well-founded, as

there are deployment and systemic deficiencies with law enforcement’s ability to

respond that are having negative impacts on rural communities.

Uncertainty Surrounding Person and Property Rights

Increasingly, rural property owners—often victims of multiple break ins and thefts

without suitable police response—are warned by police, or even charged, when

they use force to defend themselves, their families and their property from

criminals. Many see this as an exploitation of the vulnerability of living in rural and

remote areas. These property owners are seeking greater clarity on allowable

measures of self-defence (and the defence of their families and their property),

instead of the currently imprecise and uncertain terms, such as ‘reasonable

force.’

Lack of Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System

The treatment of the victims of these crimes, the consequences for offenders,

and the prolific and ongoing criminal history of many offenders has led to a

growing lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system itself. It is

undeniable that a major factor of this rural crime outbreak is that the majority of

these crimes are committed by repeat offenders and by persons who have been

released by the ‘revolving door’ justice system.

Offenders Travel from Urban Centres to Commit Rural Crime

Notably, this crime increase is occurring in rural municipalities, and police confirm

that offenders from urban centres deliberately travel to isolated and rural

locations to exploit delayed police responses. Police also confirm that the rural

crime focus on vehicle theft is not a matter of isolated cases, but instead part of

an organized crime activity that is facilitated by ‘chop shops,’ illegal sales, and

the drug trade.

2.6

2.8

2.9

2.7


What Can Be Done?

The dramatic increase in rural crime in Canada is a complex issue that raises

several operational, funding and policy issues which encompass local, provincial,

and federal areas of jurisdiction. Rural property owners and residents—and

indeed all Canadians—are looking for substantive and targeted reforms which

will result in a significant reduction in rural crime.

2.10


Gathering Information

The CPC-MP RCTF received personal experiences, stories, concerns, and

frustrations related to increases in rural crime. This information was received

through meetings, roundtables, townhalls, direct correspondence, and other

consultations.2 The information collected primarily helped to identify the actual

nature of criminal threats and concerns, as well as determine how the current

system (police, Crown, Courts, victim services) is dealing with offenders and

victims of crime. Participants also shared opportunities for addressing rural crime.

Preparation for this report involved the following research and engagement

processes to gather this most relevant information from key stakeholders, in

addition to considering relevant information such as crime data, criminal justice

performance and legislative and policy materials.3 (See Appendix B)

Focused interviews were conducted with Alberta law enforcement personnel,

including RCMP (current and retired); as well as municipal police leaders, and

Alberta Federation of Police Associations executive members, rural government

officials (county and municipal), and UCP caucus members.

Materials were received and analysed, including policy papers with

recommendations from UCP caucus members, (especially those related

specifically to rural crime issues and from constituency town-hall meetings);

RCMP data specifically in relation to operational performance and rural crime

issues, and information, meeting minutes, correspondence, and other

communications from the CPC-MP RCTF based on constituency consultations

where issues and suggested actions were included.

Crime statistics, media incident reporting, relevant provincial and federal

legislation and policies, and crime prevention technology were also reviewed and

considered.

3 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

“I’m just tired of being a victim.”

Rural Property Owner from Northeast of Calgary 4

3.5


Findings and Opportunities

As Albertans shared their experiences, central themes emerged: policing, person and

property rights, treatment of victims and repeat offenders, crime prevention initiatives,

the root causes of crime, and overall improvements to the criminal justice system

(prison, probation, courts, law enforcement). Crime reporting, and availability of relevant

statistical data was also significant, as it ensures that policy reforms are substantive and

evidence based.

Of note is the complex and interconnected nature of many of these systemic issues,

present in rural crime cases. It is important to recognize that the issues shared in CPC-

MP RCTF consultations are the same conversations that happen daily across Alberta,

in coffee shops, at kitchen tables, and in lunchrooms.

During public consultations, participants brought forward both concerns and

suggestions for improvement. In this section, as each issue is explained, opportunities

that merit consideration follow, focused on federal jurisdiction and potential action.

There are, of course, many opportunities to positively impact rural crime at the local,

municipal, and provincial levels as well, in addition to the considerations listed here. The

UCP Party report, “A Safer Alberta: United Conservative Strategy to Tackle the Rural

Crime Crisis” 5 addresses these opportunities at the provincial and local level.

Policing

The changing needs of policing rural areas is top of mind for Albertans. The primary

concern expressed by rural victims of crime is the delay or, at times, non-response from

RCMP rural detachments to calls from residents victimized by break-in and thefts of

property. Many believe that crime has risen, but (policing) staff levels have not.

Overwhelmingly there was public call for additional RCMP resources to improve

response times in rural areas, to increase RCMP constable staffing levels – often to fill

vacancies, and to hire additional administrative staff to free up front-line officers.

4 4.1

4.2

4.4

4.3

4.5


To others, the core issue of addressing rural crime issues is the operational

performance of the current policing model (deployed in all provinces except Ontario and

Quebec). This includes where and how police officers are deployed, how they are

funded and whether a different model would increase effectiveness in key areas (such

as response capabilities), especially in rural areas. As Canada has a long and valued

history of its policing services being supplied by the RCMP with contracting

arrangements under the RCMP Act and varying federal financial support, considering

changes to the current model will have its challenges.

Many people recognize that police, as law enforcement specialists, have their hands full

dealing with prolific offenders, as crime reduction units focus on targeting the criminals

who hurt communities the most. Understaffed RCMP detachments and recruiting

challenges in Alberta today suggest that a review might help ensure the optimum

delivery of policing services for all Canadians, including those who live in rural and

remote areas. An example of this is regional ‘zone’ policing and creating satellite RCMP

detachments to better serve remote areas.

Improving the coordination, collaboration, and communication between law enforcement

agencies is key, none more so than in rural areas, enabled via technologies and

innovative programs or potentially integrated or centralized call centres for municipal

law enforcement and the RCMP. Overall, the immense task of managing information

sharing (regarding crimes and offenders) between all jurisdictions of government is a

necessary and will require further consideration.

Some rural municipalities have begun shouldering a portion of the policing burden, as

they pay for additional policing resources—setting up a partnership to fund extra RCMP

officers (General Investigation Sections) to help deal with what many see as an

‘epidemic’ of rural crime.6

Policing: Opportunities

Review rural policing models, including sufficiency of RCMP contract policing and

whether it needs to be revised, replaced by expanded regional policing models, a

fully empowered Provincial Police Service, the creation of dedicated RCMP rural

crime task force, or through the augmentation of the authority of other law

enforcement agencies.

Examine Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and Examine Ontario Provincial Police

(OPP) and Sûreté du Québec (SQ) models of rural policing.

4.6

4.7

4.9

4.8

4.10

4.11


Review First Nations policing models and practices to ensure that funding is

stable and predictable by deeming First Nations policing an essential service.

Examine RCMP contract policing positions to ensure they are not being used to

fulfill other RCMP mandate priorities, and review RCMP compensation to ensure

it is competitive to attract and retrain personnel.

Consider an organizational shift and accountability mechanisms to ensure that

law enforcement in rural communities are responsible to the communities they

police, and fulfilling their public safety responsibilities.

Consider reviewing dispatch effectiveness to ensure adequate and timely

responsiveness in rural areas.

Examine the sufficiency of medical and forensic evidence gathering services in

rural communities to determine what improvements may be required.

Person and Property Rights

Confrontation between rural landowners and ‘unwanted visitors’ or ‘perpetrators of

crime’ has gathered much media attention in the past year, with several high-profile

media cases in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Proponents of stronger rights for

landowners call for changes to the Criminal Code to acknowledge the unique and

vulnerable position of rural citizens. Advocates also ask for stronger and more clear

articulation of ‘defense of person and property rights.’

Complicating this issue is the reality of significant delays or non-response by police and

emergency services, who are unavailable when requested because of their large

geographic area of responsibility and their distance from the remote location of the

crime being committed.

“To say that the RCMP face a daunting task in rural Alberta

is an understatement. The Rocky Mountain House

detachment covers 9,600 square kilometres, and there are

only 30 officers to cover all of the shifts round the clock.” 7

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.17

4.18

4.15

4.16


Person and Property Rights: Opportunities

Consider the revision of the criteria for ‘reasonable’ use of force in defence of

person or property in sections 34-5 of the Criminal Code to include consideration

of remote locations and timeliness of emergency service response, the failure of

the offender to depart the premises when confronted which, in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, shall be viewed as threatening, the number of persons

committing the crime and the codification of current common law principles

regarding self defence, defence of third parties, and the defence of property.

Consider amending section 718.2 of the Criminal Code to add ‘targeting

vulnerable persons or property including remote rural properties’ as an

aggravating factor in sentencing

Consider amending sections 86-7 of the Criminal Code regarding the use of a

firearm to require consideration of any non-criminal motivation for the actions

involved.

Victims of Crime

Part of transforming the criminal justice system involves exploring how to meaningfully

engage victims and respond to their needs, while protecting their safety at all stages of

the criminal justice system. Many rural Albertans are unaware of services available to

them when they are victimized, and the process of navigating through complex systems

is often frustrating.

Better education and awareness is needed among all Albertans, along with improved

access to support services. Improving assistance to victims and protecting victim rights

is often not important until the victim is you—or someone you love. Although healing is

necessary, some people are overwhelmed by fear and anger and look for retribution,

which often complicates matters.

4.19

4.23

4.22

4.20

4.21


Victims of Crime: Opportunities

Consider an immediate review of the current models of victim service delivery,

victim assistance funding and victim compensation to ensure the optimal

assistance is being provided to victims of crime, including those in rural

communities.

Encourage provinces to work with local rural communities to increase awareness

of the community victim impact statement opportunity, and to revise their Crown

Policy Manuals to support and facilitate the delivery of such impact statements so

that they are considered by sentencing courts.

Examine increased applications by the Crown for restitution orders and support

for enforcement of restitution orders on behalf of victims as a remedy for property

crimes.

Victims need more opportunities for meaningful engagement throughout the

criminal justice system and be treated with compassion and respect.

Offenders need to be held accountable for their crimes and to be prepared to

successfully reintegrate into society once they leave the criminal justice system.

Crime Prevention Initiatives

‘Crime prevention’ includes a wide range of educational and preventive measures,

including Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Situation Crime

Prevention (e.g. locking doors, closing windows) and initiatives that focus on education

and promotion of well-being and mental health. CPTED initiatives include locked gates,

buildings, homes and vehicles kept on the property, cameras, alarms, and lighting.

Crime prevention measures undertaken by rural landowners, governments and

community groups that serve to reduce crime result in reduced public costs—which is a

benefit to all Canadians. Some rural property owners suggested that a federal tax credit

could incentivise the purchase of home security measures.

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

4.29

4.30


Proactive approaches to educate and inform the public on how to prevent crime are

invaluable not only as deterrents of crime, but also for the sense of connection that

grows between neighbours and within rural communities. Provincial and Federal funding

for approved rural community groups such as

Rural Crime Watch and Citizens on Patrol for

specific crime prevention is beneficial, both for

targeted activities and for rural landowner

advocacy. These crime prevention measures, if

proven to work, should continue to be funded.

Funding crime prevention initiatives requires

some creativity, such as using unspent or

uncollected revenues from unpaid fines and bail

forfeitures to financially support rural crime prevention measures.

Crime Prevention Initiatives: Opportunities

Consider amending section 734.5 of the Criminal Code to allow deduction of

outstanding fines or victim fine surcharges from payments by all levels of

government to generate non-tax revenues for crime prevention and community

safety programs.

Engage with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to ensure rural property owners

receive reduced rates when crime prevention and property protection measures

are implemented.

Ensure federal cooperation to help collect unpaid fines, bail forfeitures and victim

fine surcharges to generate non-tax revenues which can then be used by the

Provinces to combat rural and other crime through statutory dedicated funds.

Encourage law enforcement to have an increased presence in rural communities

to deter criminal activity and improve public perception.

Consider a federal tax credit for private individuals (non-business entities) for the

purchase and installation of crime-prevention measures.

4.32

4.31

4.33

4.34

4.35

4.36

4.37


Criminal Justice System

Canadians expect their criminal justice system to keep them safe while protecting their

individual rights and freedoms. This system, which encompasses prison, probation,

courts, and law enforcement, will require significant reform, especially to address rural

crime issues.

There is a lack of appropriate sentencing for repeat offenders (notably for rural property

crime) is commonly cited as a major frustration amongst those from rural communities.

Other issues include the increased resources needed for judges; hiring full time Crown

Prosecutors to meet rising rural needs; the length of judicial vacancies; and the

perceived lack of accountability of the judicial system.

Overall, many conversations focused on possible improvements to the existing justice

system performance, prisons and court processing reforms.

Criminal Justice System: Opportunities

Ensure all federal judicial appointments are made in a timely fashion.

Consider the reallocation of existing federal crime prevention and community

safety funding programs to enhance the use of Electronic Monitoring of repeat

offenders who are confirmed as main source of rural crime.

Examine announced federal funding to combat gangs and organized crime to

ensure that it includes actions that deal with rural crime groups which law

enforcement have identified, and such funding is actually allocated and

distributed.

Considering amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict

presumptive entitlement to statutory release at expiration of 2/3 of court-imposed

sentence to first time federal offenders and replace it with discretionary parole for

repeat offenders (Early release from a court-imposed sentence should be a

privilege to be earned and not a right to be demanded).

Consider amending Corrections and Conditional Release Act to create parole

eligibility consequences for offenders that commit new indictable offences while

on conditional release.

4.38

4.39

4.40

4.41

4.42

4.43

4.44

4.45


Consider amending the Criminal Code, Corrections and Conditional Release Act

and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to expressly authorize the

releasing authority to direct the use of electronic monitoring in all relevant

applications.

Consider amending section 719(3) of the Criminal Code to clarify that persons

denied bail because of their past record should not be given extra credit for pre-

trial custody except in defined circumstances as explicitly provided by the

sentencing judge.

Consider amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the

reporting of a breach of conditional release to the Parole Board for consideration

of release revocation.

Consider amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require

consideration by the Parole Board of past breaches and the availability of post

warrant expiry supervision orders.

Examine adjusting federal funding for local Legal Aid to increase the number of

full-time salaried duty counsel rather than using private lawyers who are paid

based on time spent on a case.

Consider amending the Criminal Code to create the offence of breaching parole

conditions.

Require Correctional Services of Canada to produce annual offender program

performance report where ‘success’ is measured in terms of recidivism.

Crime Reporting

Juristat, a division of Statistics Canada, publishes the crime statistics most frequently

cited by public officials, such as the annual Police-reported crime statistics in Canada.

Juristat also provides access to the raw data it receives which is organized into much

more relevant information to specific issues, available through what are known as

‘CANSIM’ tables. Although the relevance of Juristat’s reporting has improved over the

past decade, there is room for improvement in a number of areas, particularly with

respect to the criminal profile of persons charged with crime in Canada.

4.46

4.47

4.48

4.49

4.50

4.51

4.52

4.53


Additionally, despite the data being available, Juristat’s reporting does not always

provide the specific information relevant to specific issues such as has been identified in

the analysis of rural crime. It is also appropriate to recognize that, for numerous

reasons, not all people report crimes to police, which is relevant in assessing the actual

amount of crime that is occurring. The stated reasons for this low reporting rate are

varied but include, as noted by rural crime victims, a lack of confidence in the criminal

justice system.

Crime Reporting: Opportunities Work closely with law enforcement agencies to improve crime data collection,

including the RCMP, to ensure that all relevant data is collected, analysed and

reported to the public on annual basis with respect to rural crime including.

number of relevant offences reported (breaking & entering,

vehicle/property theft, mischief, robbery etc.)

number of rural crime offences involving firearms, weapons, threats,

assaults

number of rural crime offences committed by persons on bail, probation,

conditional sentence or conditional release (temporary absence, parole,

statutory release) or by persons with three or more past criminal

convictions

number of restitution orders made and compliance rate

number of stolen vehicles and number that have been recovered

Examine the potential of a Public’s Right to Know the Truth Act, which would

require an annual Report to Parliament containing detailed provincial crime

statistics.

Modernize the public crime reporting system to improve public confidence to

ensure all crimes are reported. It is important that the public is encouraged to

report crimes even when they believe it is not necessary to do so.

Encourage Juristat (Statistics Canada) to improve its crime data public reporting

by mandating analysis and annual reporting of relevant issues including those

dealing with repeat offenders and which expose systemic non-performance

(revolving door release).

4.54

4.55

4.56

4.57

4.58


Conclusion Rural crime prevention and safety requires a multi-jurisdictional approach to meet the

needs of changing rural circumstances. There are multiple policy issues and options

that merit consideration by all levels of government. The need for this systemic

approach is founded in the very nature of our criminal justice system—where much, but

not all, of relevant legislation is vested in the federal government—while the

administration of the justice system resides with provincial governments and local

governments share funding and policing priority determination responsibilities.

Additionally, because of this multi-jurisdiction reality, when one level of government

does or doesn’t do something it impacts other parties in the system. As noted by the

many people consulted for this report, resolving the complex issues that contribute to

rural crime and crime generally will not be achieved by a single action. As such,

consideration of policy issues and options for all three levels of government is

necessary.

The CPC-MP RCTF would like to thank constituents, UCP caucus members, and our

police and law enforcement agencies, crime prevention organizations, and other levels

of government who have been invaluable in informing the content of this report.

Scott Newark and Darlene Wilson did considerable work in the initial drafting of this

report, and the CPC-MP RCTF would also like to thank them for all their hard work.

CPC-MP RCTF members will continue to monitor and consult on rural crime issues in

their constituencies. Together, we can make a real difference as we address the

complex problems related to rural crime.

5 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5


APPENDIX A:

Public Consultation – Stakeholder Interviews

Issues Identification and Analysis:

The constituency consultations conducted by CPC MPs have resulted in the

identification of multiple issues relevant to the increase in rural crime as well as

suggestions for different actions to help address the problems.

The matters identified in the CPC consultations are also largely cited in the Alberta

constituency consultations conducted by UCP MLAs, although there are some

differences in identified concerns and resulting actions.

The result is comprehensive and detailed insights which are of great value in developing

an effective strategy to address the growth in rural crime in Canada.

What We Heard:

1. There is a need for additional RCMP resources and reform to the RCMP contract

policing funding model. This issue was raised 50 times during CPC consultations.

Specific concerns included:

A need for increased RCMP constable staffing levels, fill vacant positions

(with higher salaries if necessary);

Hire additional administrative staff to free up front-line officers

Improve RCMP response times in rural areas; re-assess existing

jurisdiction boundaries;

Require rural municipalities, areas and counties to pay for additional

policing resources as necessary;

There are an inadequate number of officers assigned to rural jurisdictions;

crime has risen but staff levels have not;

There needs to be an increased use of new technologies and innovative

programs as well as better coordination among different policing and law

enforcement agencies;

Provinces should consider regional ‘zone’ policing and creating satellite

RCMP detachments to better serve remote areas.


2. There needs to be stronger and more clear articulation of defense of person and

property rights. This issue was raised 17 times during CPC consultations.

Specific concerns included:

A greater ability for rural residents to protect their families and property from

unlawful activities committed on their property without fear of prosecution.

A clearer explanation of what constitutes “reasonable force” or “reasonable acts”

within the context of Sections 34 and 35 of Criminal Code is required.

3. There should be stronger sentences for property crimes, especially for repeat

offenders. This issue was raised 41 times during CPC consultations. Specific

concerns included:

A need for mandatory minimum sentences for repeat property crime

offenses;

A need for mandatory minimum sentences for serious property crimes;

A need for stronger penalties for property crimes in the Criminal Code to

create greater deterrence;

A need for increased sentences for fentanyl distribution and authorizing

medical rehabilitation for drug offenses;

Reducing the use of probation as a sentence for more serious property

offenses.

4. There is a need for increased resources for judges and Crown Prosecutors and

for greater systemic and individual accountability. This issue was raised 17 times

during CPC consultations. Specific concerns included:

Judicial vacancies in Alberta must be filled as soon as possible;

There needs to be a sufficient number of full time Crown Prosecutors

available to deal with rural jurisdictions;

There should be increased public awareness of the actions of the criminal

justice system including publication of verdicts and sentences and relevant

crime statistics;

There should be increased accountability for judges including through

creation of a public review board for judges where they can be held

accountable for verdicts;

Judges and Crown should be made more aware of the community impact

of crime and be required to consider these factors during the prosecution

and sentencing process;

There should be reduced use of plea bargains by Crown Prosecutors.


5. There needs to be proactive crime prevention efforts, including educating citizens

regarding crime deterrence measures. This issue was raised 33 times during

CPC consultations. Specific concerns included:

Encouraging rural residents to be proactive about preventing crime by

recording vehicle serial numbers, taking photos of property, locking doors

(vehicles, buildings and residence), installing security systems and crime

prevention through environmental design;

Encouraging residents to report all crimes and suspicious activity to

authorities;

Using constituency mailers from elected officials to educate people

regarding crime prevention measures;

Consider once more requiring license plates on the fronts of vehicles;

Increasing the focus on community-based policing which includes

community organizations.

6. There needs to be greater funding and promotion for rural crime watch

organizations. This issue was raised 25 times during CPC consultations. Specific

concerns included:

A need for increased funding, training, and support for Citizens on Patrol

and Crime Watch groups;

Greater cooperation and collaboration between police and Crime Watch

groups;

Help rural residents organize to track and report criminal activity via social

media;

Improve crime reporting capabilities to ensure faster and more accurate

crime reporting and info dissemination (robocalls).

7. There should be increased funding for mental health, education, and addiction

services. This issue was raised 14 times during CPC consultations. Specific

concerns included:

A need for greater funding for mental health and addiction services as part

of a strategy to reduce crime;

There should be increased support for at-risk youth and reforms

(unspecified) to the Youth Criminal Justice Act;

There should be increased focus on education, job training, and

rehabilitation programs in prisons to reduce reoffending.


8. Create a Federal tax credit or incentive for home security systems. This issue

was raised 6 times during CPC consultations. Specific concerns included:

Mandate (if necessary) reduced property insurance rates if rural properties

have approved home has approved security systems deployed;

Provide grants or tax credits for home and business owners to purchase

approved security systems to reduce crime.

9. Improve Justice system performance and court processing reform. This issue

was raised 14 times during CPC consultations. Specific

concerns included:

Prioritize scheduling of court appearances based on severity of crime

rather than a ‘first in first out’ process;

Investigate, monitor and report the consequences of the SCC Jordan

case ruling with respect to charges being withdrawn or dismissed and

consider changes to address delay;

Ensure full criminal histories and victim impact statements are provided

to the Court;

Increase the number of local Justices of the Peace and require them to

personally see offenders when conducting bail hearings;

Review current procedures and seek changes to eliminate onerous

police report requirements and increase the efficiency of the criminal

court system.

10. Review internal RCMP policies ‘no pursuit policy’ and other internal policies.

This issue was raised 13 times during CPC consultations. Specific concerns

included:

Repeal the ‘no pursuit’ policy for RCMP, especially in rural areas

Acquire RCMP police helicopters for rural areas;

Consider re-instating the auxiliary officer program for RCMP;

Improve the current RCMP telephone incident reporting system and

officer dispatch system currently used in rural areas;

Balance RCMP resources between neighbourhood and highway

patrols;

Introduce Integrated Crime Management programs in more rural areas;

Ensure officers assigned to RCMP detachments are performing local

law enforcement duties and not other RCMP mandated duties.


11. Consider changes to deal with repeat offenders. This issue was raised 12 times

during CPC consultations. Specific concerns included:

Support denial of pre-trial/sentence release of repeat or violent offenders;

Implement stricter parole conditions and penalties for parole violations;

Fund the use of Electronic Monitoring surveillance systems for appropriate

offenders on bail or as part of a court-imposed sentence;

Combat the current ‘revolving door’ and ‘catch and release’ system –

where offenders are committing crimes while on bail or awaiting

sentencing.

12. Improve coordination, collaboration, and communication between law

enforcement agencies. This issue was raised 18 times during CPC

consultations. Specific concerns included:

Consider providing greater authority and powers to community peace

officers as well as Canadian Police Information Centre clearance;

Integrate and centralize call centres for municipal law enforcement and the

RCMP;

Improve information sharing about crimes and offenders between all

jurisdictions of government.

13. Targeted reforms to the prison system. This issue was raised 8 times during

CPC consultations. Specific concerns included:

Take actions to ensure that incarceration is appropriately perceived as a

deterrent to potential offenders;

Address remand and prison/penitentiary cell capacity to reduce internal

pressures to release offenders;

Ensure there is sufficient capacity for psychiatric assessments of

offenders within prisons.

14. Improve assistance for victims of crimes and protection of victims’ rights.

This issue was raised 5 times during CPC consultations. Specific concerns

included:

Ensure victims of rural property crimes are able to access funds for victims

of crime.

Ensure increased application by the Crown for restitution orders and

support for enforcement of restitution orders on behalf of victims as a

remedy for property crimes.


APPENDIX B:

Crime Statistics Reporting

The following issues and Recommendations were provided in other interviews, reports

and materials relevant to this rural crime analysis.

Crime related statistics

As several people have noted, in dealing with crime issues, including rural crime, it is

important to examine the most relevant statistical data available to ensure that any

policy reforms are substantive, and evidence based. This is not just a good policy

strategy; it is the best way to get effective results. Put differently, we don’t need to be

‘tough’ on crime, but we do need to be honest about crime, so we can be smart about

crime.

The public reporting of crime statistics is done in a number of ways by different public

organizations including Juristat which is a division of Statistics Canada. These Juristat

reports are the ones most frequently cited by public officials commenting on crime

trends and they do contain valuable information through a variety of Reports issued

annually.

Among the most crime volumes relevant is the annual Police Reported Crime Statistics

which provides crime data by offence types and rates nationally, provincially and from

urban centers. Juristat partners with a special Committee of the Canadian Association

of Chiefs of Police to develop the methodologies of crime statistics reporting including

what gets analysed and reported from the total data gathered. The relevance of

Juristat’s reporting has improved over the past decade but it remains deficient in a

number of areas especially with respect to the criminal profile of persons charged with

crime in Canada.

Additionally, despite the data being available, Juristat’s reporting does not always

provide the specific information relevant to specific issues such as have been identified

in the analysis of rural crime. The latest Police Reported Crime Report for 2016 which

was released in July 2017, for example, shows virtually no increase in overall Break and

Enters and Vehicle Theft from 2015 to 2016 in Alberta. This is likely due to the merging

of urban and rural data and the non-reporting of data from previous years which would

reveal the actual increase.8


Fortunately, Juristat also provides access to the raw data it receives which it has

organized into much more relevant information to specific issues. This data is available

through what are known as ‘CANSIM’ tables the latest of which of relevance from

November 2017 can be found online.9

This more focused data shows an increase of Break and Enters in Alberta from 19,414

incidents in 2012 to 27,989 incidents in 2016 or a 42% increase. Offenders convicted of

these offences for the same time period also increased from 2,209 to 2,822 or an

approximate 31% increase.

It is also appropriate to recognize that, as this report has noted, for a multiplicity of

reasons, not all people report crimes to police which is relevant in assessing the actual

amount of crime that is occurring. This is also a subject which Juristat reports through

the Victimization Survey, the latest of which in 2015 confirmed a disturbingly and

continuing low crime reporting rate (on its selected offences) among Canadians of only

31%.10 The stated reasons for this low reporting rate are varied but include, as noted by

rural crime victims, a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.

In summary, while the Juristat crime statistics are useful, improvements need to be

made in what is analysed and reported. This more focused information will not only help

inform policy reforms, but will also be a valuable resource for systemic accountability. If

the public is aware, for example, of disproportionately high volumes of crime being

committed by persons on bail in one judicial district as compared to others, that may

lead to targeted questions as to why that is occurring and whether there are problems

with the Crown Prosecutors not opposing bail or judges ordering it despite evidence that

suggests detention is appropriate.

The RCMP has advised that all of its detachments produce annual Crime Statistics

which is a source of information that should be utilized. Further, through Provincial

Associations of Chiefs of Police or their own databases, Provinces are fully capable of

gathering, analyzing and publicly reporting the most relevant crime statistics to the

people of Canada.

Finally, it is advisable to be aware of deficiencies in the current methodology used by

Juristat (Stats Canada) which have been identified previously. This issue was raised at

the Public Safety Committee’s initial hearing on Motion 167 where Ms. Stubbs was

challenged on the importance of the issue by a Liberal MP who cited Juristat data.


To its credit, Juristat itself has identified the reporting methodology deficiencies which

include:

Use of Most-Serious-Incident Reporting

The report explains, in a footnote on p. 25, that “[c]ounts are based upon the

most serious violation in the incident. One incident may involve multiple

violations” (Dauvergne and Turner 2010, 25). In other words, even though an

incident may involve multiple crimes and multiple victims, Statistics Canada

reports only a single offence. While this approach might be appropriate in

circumstances where a conviction on multiple counts would not occur – say, theft

plus possession of stolen property or impaired driving plus refusal to undergo a

blood alcohol test – it is inappropriate and misleading to use it when separate

and distinct crimes have been committed for which the individual can be

prosecuted and convicted. The result from the current methodology would

appear to underreport crime.

Crime Severity Index

The report explains that, “[i]n the calculation of the CSI, each offence is assigned

a weight, derived from sentences handed down by criminal courts. The more

serious the average sentence, the higher the weight for that offence” (Dauvergne

and Turner 2010, 9). Thus, the severity of crime is based not on the objective

determination of designated crimes but on subjective assessments of appropriate

sentences as imposed by judges.


APPENDIX C:

Membership of the Conservative Party of Canada

Alberta Rural Crime Task Force

John Barlow

Member of Parliament for Foothills

Blaine Calkins (Co-Chair)

Member of Parliament for Red Deer — Lacombe

Earl Dreeshen (Co-Chair)

Member of Parliament for Red Deer — Mountain View

Jim Eglinski (Co-Chair)

Member of Parliament for Yellowhead

Rachael Harder

Member of Parliament for Lethbridge

Dane Lloyd

Member of Parliament for Sturgeon River — Parkland

Glen Motz

Member of Parliament for Medicine Hat — Cardston — Warner

Martin Shields

Member of Parliament for Bow River

Kevin Sorenson

Member of Parliament for Battle River — Crowfoot

Shannon Stubbs

Member of Parliament for Lakeland

Arnold Viersen

Member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock

David Yurdiga

Member of Parliament for Fort McMurray — Cold Lake


REFERENCES

1 “In 2017, rural Alberta crime rates were 38% higher compared to urban crime rates in the province.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/4349313/alberta-crime-stats-2017/

2 1 The matters identified in the CPC consultations are also largely cited in the Alberta constituency

consultations conducted by UCP MLAs, although there are some differences in identified concerns and

resulting actions.

3 Consultant and former Alberta Crown Prosecutor Scott Newark LLB was retained to consolidate this

work and make recommendations.

4 “I’m just tired of being a victim.” NE Calgary area rural property owner

https://globalnews.ca/news/4298822/rural-alberta-crime-spree/

5 http://www.ucpcaucus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Rural-Crime-Report-FINAL.pdf

6 https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/lacombe-county-funds-new-rcmp-investigator/

7 “To say that the RCMP face a daunting task in rural Alberta is an understatement. The Rocky Mountain

House detachment covers 9,600 square kilometres, and there are 30 officers to cover all of the shifts

round the clock.”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/corbella-rural-crime-a-meth-fuelled-epidemic

8 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54842-eng.pdf

9 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/caws

nsim/a33?RT=TABLE&sortby=id&themeID=2693&spMode=tables&lang=eng

10

www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.pdf.

Addressing Rural Crime - Blaine Calkins · Addressing Rural Crime and Protecting Rural Albertans ....

Documents

Transcript of Addressing Rural Crime - Blaine Calkins · Addressing Rural Crime and Protecting Rural Albertans ....