Public Safety Committee on Feb. 7th, 2013

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Can we in the future, do you think, anticipate consistency of the nature of crime? In other words, things that we see today have not always existed in the past and perhaps going forward into the future. I'm thinking of cost implications now, in particular, not just in technology but perhaps in other areas.

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

I think it depends a little bit on one's philosophical orientation. There's a train of thinking that says fundamentally all crime is theft, that if somebody steals from me, they steal from me, and I experience that theft. If somebody assaults me, I lose some level of physical integrity and sense of security. If somebody is killed, there is a loss of life, and productivity and interaction thereon. A strong argument can be made that, while we certainly see a lot of evolutions in the modalities by which people can commit crimes, at the core, crime is still pretty much the same set of circumstances that we've dealt with traditionally in terms of theft and robbery, assault and sex crimes, and things of that nature. The modalities and specifics may differ, but fundamentally an argument can be made that it's still the same crime problems we've traditionally had.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

One more quick question is directly related to the economics. When you look into the future, given all the changes that can happen economically and worldwide and globally, do you anticipate that policing is possibly going to get cheaper?

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

I think it probably depends on how broadly we want to defuse that cost. I think there could be an accounting orientation that would say if we offset some aspect of policing services and say we're going to shove this over to mental health, we're going to use this community service agency to help us with a gang reduction strategy, the budget of the police department itself might be reduced. But the more difficult issue to get one's mind around in terms of the overall investment in safety and crime prevention might perhaps be static, although again that assumes some level of a fair degree of constancy in the number of police personnel. If technology reaches a point where large aspects of police operations can be moved from performance by individuals to performance by technology, it's possible there could be a very large savings if large numbers of people, large segments of a force, are no longer needed because we have other ways to deliver that same service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Gill, please.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank Professor Schafer for being available and helping us with this important study.

Professor, I'm wondering if you could highlight and maybe give us your recommendations in which areas the police forces potentially could find efficiencies. Do you have personal recommendations where you believe there are areas of opportunity?

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

I would feel a bit reluctant to get too far into that conversation as an outsider to any individual police department and certainly to police forces in Canada, knowing that while there are a lot of parallels between American and Canadian policing, there are also some important distinctions.

That said, I think the answer is likely also going to be quite different in large forces, the RCMP and provincial forces, versus some of the very small and first nations agencies, where there may be very little efficiencies to squeeze out of such situations.

Evidence-based practices are an important indicator, I think, making sure that the practices we are doing and consider to be vital are in fact producing the desired results. If we don't think they are providing us with sufficient value, then for some practices, although they're nice to have, we might question whether or not we need to continue to staff or task those types of roles and responsibilities. That could take the form of specific community services or crime prevention services, units, or programs that a large agency might operate, or it could turn to questions about whether or not having the police department even deal with certain community matters makes sense given its severity and seriousness relative to other types of demands on the police department and the volume of time it's taking for the police force.

Although I would be reluctant to enumerate what any of those specific tasks or responsibilities would be, I think there are ways to approach that conversation, albeit a very difficult conversation.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Can you also please discuss your recommendations on how to provide quality public safety service during times of dwindling economic resources, and how to make cutbacks that actually make sense?

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

To some extent, I think this body and the work it's been doing are very important steps in that direction.

I would question to what extent there should be conversations with citizens on their thoughts about this. I often wonder, with regard to the services in any government agency that those working in the agency view as being vital and critical, i.e., the public demands that we do these tasks, whether the public really shares that value. Does the public really believe there is a similar amount of importance? Does the public want us, particularly in tight times, to continue doing that service, knowing its relative costs?

I think one of the ways to get at those types of questions is also to find ways to engage members of the public and members of various communities, to get their input on what they value and think is important, what they want to see in terms of how they conceptualize what quality policing services would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gill.

Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer.

Before we go back to Mr. Garrison, I'd just like to ask one little question.

We've talked a little bit about ways in which different jurisdictions have cut some costs. I can tell you a story.

I was to have a meeting with a staff sergeant, and the meeting was changed because he had to travel an hour and a half to appear before a court. We weren't able to have that meeting. Afterwards, I found out that he'd driven up to Edmonton, and the person, who was the defendant, I guess, didn't appear. The staff sergeant had travelled two hours to get there and two hours back, and he said it was the second time in that case that had happened.

Obviously there's a huge cost involved in having a staff sergeant in the RCMP travel that distance and take that much time, only to have the person not appear.

There must be other departments that play a role in how we can cut back, in that case, not just the law enforcement, but the judiciary. Are there any studies that would point to how we can cut costs in other departments? We've already heard about how mental health is a huge cost to our policing. Do you have any studies that would aid our committee in perhaps reducing costs with other areas, such as justice or whatever?

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

I don't off the top of my head, but I think it certainly is a very critical part of this conversation. It's perhaps a bit more difficult to address, because it starts pulling in the practices of other organizations.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any studies of that in the U.S.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know we're running out of time, so I'll skip my partisan preface to this question.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Dr. Schafer, in your suggestions, you talk about evidence-based solutions. I wonder if you have any particularly good examples, either positive or negative, of solutions that were adopted and which either were or were not based on solid evidence.

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

Yes. I think there's a wide range of examples in the U.S. in general in looking at crime prevention and public safety issues. I think that because of the lag time to produce solid research evidence among researchers, evidence is still not widely available related to this specific set of questions about whether certain changes motivated based on economic circumstances might achieve effective outcomes.

I think threads of what you're talking about can probably be located in CrimeSolutions.gov, such as looking at the problem-oriented policing centre and looking at other entities that seek to coordinate best practices, because often fiscal cost is a part of those conversations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

If I were to ask you for one or two police agencies that you think have been particularly innovative in dealing with these cost questions in the United States, are there one or two examples that you would think are the best practice and leading-edge examples of dealing with these larger cost questions?

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

Certainly, just based on the experiences I've had with them, I think Colorado Springs is a very good model, in part because their experiences certainly have not been a panacea. They've really wrestled with some of these important internal questions about whether they're sacrificing value in one area to preserve value in another. I think that's probably more honest and normative. I would be a little skeptical of agencies that make this seem really easy and painless.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We also want to thank you for appearing, Dr. Schafer. Our time is up. We did have some audio difficulties with our other guest from Vancouver, and you filled in and took not only half the questions but the full time here. We certainly appreciate your expertise. We appreciate your ideas as to places that we perhaps can look at. You referenced Colorado Springs a number of times. We thank you.

Also, if you are aware of any other studies or if in answering a question you think you could have expanded on it a little more—maybe I cut you off—we would invite you, and welcome you, to forward any of that information to our committee, if you wouldn't mind. We appreciate your attendance here this morning.

[Prof. Joseph Schafer]

It was my pleasure. Thanks very much to all of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Committee, our time is up, so we are adjourned.