Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2013

[Chief Michael Cunningham]

Yes, on the move to the single commissioner, the thinking behind it from government was to introduce much more democratic accountability: to have an individual elected by the public to hold me to account for delivery. Whether that is best served by one person or by a committee of people is a very debatable point.

The position of chief officers has been that it is not for us, as senior police officers, to decide how we should be held to account. That is an issue for government. They have decided, in the face of quite a lot of advice, that the move to an individual was their preferred choice. They've gone to it. It's new, it's still finding its feet, and it appears to be manifesting itself differently in different police forces across the country. I think there are definitely questions that need to be answered in relation to it, but we, as senior police officers, are going to try to help make it work effectively.

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

Thank you for that answer.

Moving to privatization, without talking about other police services, perhaps you might have some anecdotal stories. It seems to me there would always be a concern about privacy and privacy issues as you move from sworn officers to the private sector. Has that been a concern? Is it a concern for you moving forward?

[Chief Michael Cunningham]

Yes, I think—this is very much a personal view—the engagement with the private sector needs to be handled very carefully. I am not supportive of wholesale outsourcing, as I previously said.

I think there are many issues. We guard the reputation of the police service very preciously. You've already alluded to the fact that we I think enjoy a good reputation, and our reputation with the public is the relationship that makes us effective. Therefore, anything we do that cedes any of what we do to the private sector needs to be very carefully thought through and carefully managed. I'm not suggesting that it's a no-go area, but it's one I'd approach very cautiously.

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

I have one more question before my time is up.

With cutbacks, technology continues to improve, and you have to renew your services. You don't want to have a police service that goes back to the Stone Age in terms of communications and everything else. Of course, with the increase in crimes of technology and white-collar crime that you have to deal with, it seems to me that it's going to be pretty tough keeping up with them as you continue to cut back, particularly in numbers of police officers.

[Chief Michael Cunningham]

Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think crime types are changing, and we need to keep apace of that. We need to keep apace especially around technology and the like, but also, we need to think about how we can use technology to defeat those sorts of crimes and how we can use technology to assist officers to be more effective.

I think there is much more we can do in this area around keeping officers.... One of your colleagues referred a moment ago to the mobile office. It's those sorts of things that I think we need to be absolutely investing in to save.

I wouldn't want to leave anybody with the impression that these cuts have been easy; they haven't been. The challenges you outline are very real challenges, but they're not going away. We need to face up to them and find different ways of doing this with a lower cost base.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Chief Cunningham. Our time unfortunately has come to a conclusion.

We want to thank you. I will mention that our committee has passed a motion such that we may be able to visit Britain and see first-hand some of the changes you have made over there. That's not certain yet. We still have to go through the appropriate channels here, but certainly we thank you for giving us a little bit of an appetizer for what we may see if we do come over to see you.

I also want to mention that a number of times you've mentioned certain published research works and projects. In considering the answers to the questions today, if you ever want to expand in any way, even just by dropping us an e-mail saying, “Here is a work that perhaps I would suggest to your committee”, we would be very appreciative. We would look forward to it and welcome it.

Thank you very much.

[Chief Michael Cunningham]

Thank you very much, and if you do come to England, you'd be very welcome to come to Staffordshire. I'd love to be your host.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Chief Constable.

We will suspend for a moment and wait for our next guests.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

[Public proceedings resume]

I would like to call this meeting back to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are continuing our study on the economics of policing in Canada.

In the second hour we have a witness testifying by video conference from Surrey, British Columbia. This is actually the second time that he's appeared, kind of. The last time we saw him, we didn't hear him. We saw him leave, we saw him come back, and certainly we had some difficulties there with the teleconference system.

Appearing as an individual today is Professor Curt Taylor Griffiths. He is the professor and coordinator of the School of Criminology, Police Study Program, Simon Fraser University. Professor Griffiths is considered an expert in the fields of policing, community, and restorative justice, corrections, legal reform, and social development. He has co-authored more than 100 research reports and articles, and we certainly are pleased that we can reconnect again today.

Professor Griffiths, we are ready for your opening comment. We have a committee looking forward to questioning you as well.

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths, Professor, School of Criminology, Coordinator, Police Studies Program, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity for you to hear me this time rather than just see me wandering around aimlessly in a classroom.

I will provide some backdrop comments that could serve as a foundation for our discussions this morning.

I think everyone agrees that we need to move toward the development of effective and efficient police services in Canada, but as an observer of this process over the last few years, particularly as the economics of policing have come more to the forefront, I'm not sure we're going about it in the right way. I'll offer some comments about that, and hopefully we can get into a discussion about what might be the right way.

As a consequence of our situation in Canada, over the last three decades we've systematically dismantled our capacities to do police research in this country. Back in the 1980s for example, there was a police research unit in the then-solicitor general's ministry that was very effective and turned out excellent work. Another thing that happened over the last 20 years is the federal government has stopped the funding for the series of university-based criminology research centres that existed from Halifax to Vancouver. Those are no longer functioning.

As a consequence, our research endeavours with respect to policing in Canada are scattered, and there is no coordinating effort. There are very few linkages among universities, governments, and police services. Research is often being done on a one-and-done basis, whether it's by private consulting companies such as KPMG or by university-based scholars who work on a single type of project and then move on. We really don't have a coordinating body. We really don't have a repository, if you will, for police research, and an organization, agency, or institute that could serve as a catalyst for facilitating these collaborative relationships, and equally as important, for the dissemination of information.

There is quite a bit of information on policing in Canada but it's often inaccessible, sitting on bookshelves or hidden away in academic journals. Again, the consequences of this is that when we start to engage in this dialogue about the economics of policing, in many respects, we are really wandering in the dark because we don't have access to that substantive body of literature.

On a more operational basis, the consequence of this is that you have police service boards and policy-makers making very significant decisions about policing, particularly with respect to police service boards and police budgets. Municipal councils as well are making decisions in the absence of any empirical research on the basis of any information. As a consequence, the discussion tends to start with a statement such as “Crime rates are down. Policing costs are up, so policing is too expensive and not sustainable”. Again, that oversimplifies the complexity of what we're talking about when we look at the issues related to policing.

The second point I would make is that in Canada we really haven't defined what I would term “core policing”. We really haven't decided what the police should be doing, and as well, what they should not be doing. If we want to talk about controlling costs in policing, then there is going to have to be some discussion about what core policing is.

Since the 1980s when we asked police services to start getting involved in community policing initiatives, they've expanded their role beyond that of strict law enforcement and crime control, which was something they were encouraged to do. As a consequence, police are involved in a variety of activities that are not necessarily strictly related to law enforcement. They're involved in prevention activities and collaborative partnerships, so if we're going to ask them to draw back from that, we have to have a pretty clear idea about what we want the police to do.

From my perspective, another thing that's happened that's affecting what police are being asked to do is we have a massive downloading going on.

Whenever a provincial government cuts back on social workers, mental health workers, probation officers, and other types of service delivery resources, at the end of the day, it's the police officers on the street who have to deal with that. I think that if we look across the jurisdictions in Canada, we've seen police officers being left with an increasing number of tasks that, again, are expanding their role and expanding their activities merely because they're the only agency available 24/7/365. At the end of the day, if there have been cutbacks in programs, oftentimes there's an increased demand load on the police.

Another comment I would make that's really important to bring up in our discussion this morning is about policing in northern and remote communities. One thing that has struck me over the last couple of years in watching this debate and actually participating in this debate on the economics of policing is that there's been very little mention about the north. It's a very southern-centric discussion, and having done quite a bit of work north of 60 as well as in the northern regions of the provinces, I think it's something that really requires our attention.

In a final comment here, it's important to realize that we're not talking about making widgets. We're talking about a pretty complex enterprise in terms of policing. Noticeably absent in these discussions as well is the community. In a lot of the forums I've been to, I haven't heard a discussion about what the community expectations of policing are, and what the community wants the police to be. I would encourage a community component as well going forward in these discussions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Professor Griffiths.

We're going to move into the first round of questioning. I've just been told that Mr. Leef is going to open up this morning.

Go ahead, Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Griffiths.

I was taking notes as you were speaking. You started catching up to the questions I was going to ask. You mentioned that there hasn't been a lot of discussion on the north. As a member of Parliament for the Yukon and a former member of the RCMP in the Yukon, maybe I'll give you an opportunity to share some insights on some of your work in the north and where you think the economics of policing discussion can take us there. Are there particular innovations or challenges that you see facing this discussion to move the southern-centric point of view away for a moment?

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths]

Given your experience, obviously you're aware of some of the dynamics that go on, not only north of 60, but in the remote and rural northern parts of our provinces. I think it's basically going to require a different model of policing. The RCMP in recent years, for example in the territories, has tried to adapt and to deliver a different model of policing. In the Yukon in 2010, for example, there was a review of the Yukon's police service that resulted in a number of very significant recommendations. Two years later it's encouraging to see that a lot of those recommendations have been followed up on.

I think the Yukon provides an example of what can be done through a tripartite arrangement among the RCMP in that jurisdiction, the Government of Yukon, and the Council of Yukon First Nations to come together to really address an issue and follow up with it. I participated in providing materials for the review that was done, and I'm really gratified to see the work that's been done in Yukon. I think that it can be a model for fashioning a model of policing in Yukon that meets the demands of Yukon, which of course may be different from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut because there are significant differences even across the provinces.

I would say that the Yukon provides us with considerable optimism in terms of these kinds of collaborative approaches. The community is very much front and centre in those Yukon discussions.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I was just reading the progress report from Sharing Common Ground and you did note that many of the things that were listed as recommendations in the first report have been achieved in the update, which is great news.

You talked about what core policing is and then you said that the discussion hasn't been defined by the community. I was thinking, as you were saying that you hadn't defined what that is, about the Yukon example, knowing that, as much as we would like to—I say “we” as police officers—define what we think our role is when we're out there, really it's driven by the calls for services. It's driven by the community, the definition of what police officers should do. It's by and large out of your hands as a police service. It really falls into the hands of the community because they make the calls and we, as police, respond.

What are you seeing as the differences in the communities from an urban point of view of what their expectations of police are that vary from northerners' expectations or rural and remote Canadians' expectations of police service delivery from a community policing model perspective?

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths]

I think it's pretty fascinating, as I said, having done work from sea to sea to sea in Canada. It's interesting because policing in the southern regions is what I would call anonymous policing. In other words, compare an RCMP detachment in Surrey, British Columbia—it's the largest in Canada and has several hundred members—to the one in Watson Lake. The policing in the north is high visibility, high-consequence policing whereas in the south, things are more diffused and more anonymous.

Obviously, police officers in northern parts of the provinces and the territories are very highly visible in what they do. As you know from your experience, the consequences of their decisions are potentially much greater, including in public perceptions about what those officers are doing—who everybody knows—particularly if you look at Nunavut where they're on duty all the time and highly visible.

There's incredible potential for communities to be involved, and they are involved. But it's high-visibility, high-consequence policing. I think what you're seeing now, in Yukon for example, are communities being brought into the process, to the point of vetting officers who may be posted to their communities. That's impractical when you get into the southern regions. But within that northern policing model, there are things you can do in the north that hold great potential. As you know, the demographics are different, the environment and the geography are different.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

You'd be familiar with, based on some of the recommendations, the new relationship between Corrections and policing particularly when it comes to Corrections now taking over the cellblock services of the RCMP. They see themselves as playing a better role than policing services do in providing that care, and the aftercare, after arrest.

In your opinion, how significant is the relationship between policing and Corrections? We've heard, loud and clear, about the relationship between policing and social services, policing and EMS, policing and mental health service delivery—that front line. But then there's something that happens after. The justice system takes over, and people enter the correctional system and will eventually be released.

What kinds of things can we do in terms of the economics of policing, and how important is that relationship between our police and our correctional officers and correctional system?

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths]

I think that's an area that holds considerable potential. Just as an aside; up in Yukon, I would argue that those facilities should have always been there, that the police should never have been taking vulnerable persons into cells. There should have always been something, another facility—which there is now.

What we're seeing in some of the jurisdictions across Canada is collaborative efforts between police and Correctional Service of Canada. There are joint partnerships. There are joint teams working together to identify and monitor high-risk offenders in the community, and there are relationships between federal parole officers and police officers. When I think of the economics of policing, I think partnership, partnership. When I advise police services, I often tell them to look for a partner, not to take sole ownership of these things. It's not part of what core policing is. So partnerships, I think, have proven to be successful, with mental health services as well, across the country. There are a lot of really good examples of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll now move to Mr. Garrison, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Somewhat humorously, I have to declare a kind of conflict of interest here in that I used Mr. Griffiths' textbook for more than a decade in my teaching and have benefited from his research both as a police board member and as a counsellor.

Given some statements made yesterday, I'm just going to take a minute to say that my public record as a police board member and on a council is very clear: I never supported any reduction or moved any motion to reduce police resources at any time while I was on the police board or on the council—just so that doesn't interfere with our discussions here.

Having taken that time out, I want to come back. I want to thank you for pointing out the problem we have with research about policing. One of the things we're trying to deal with as a committee is how we grapple with the lack of organized information about policing.

Do you have any suggestions on specific best practices you're aware of that we should look at, beyond the north, as you’ve mentioned?

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths]

With respect to developing some sort of framework to bring some method to the proverbial madness, to bring together the research that's being done to facilitate these collaborative relationships between governments and university-based academics and police services themselves, I think we don't have to look too far. We're the only jurisdiction, really, of the G-8, for example, that doesn't have an organization that does this. You can look at Scotland, they have a Scottish Institute for Policing Research; the U.K. has a College of Policing; the Australians and New Zealanders have the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency; the United States has a number of platforms and portals, which I'm sure you've heard from other presenters. We can learn from what they have done, particularly in this age of technology. You don't need huge infrastructure to create this.

I think it's possible. In the discussions I've had with the persons who are involved in these other initiatives, they're more than willing to share their best practices, as well as share what hasn't worked for them. I don't think that would be difficult at all once we decide to go in that direction.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to pass the rest of my time to Mr. Rafferty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Rafferty, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

And thank you, Dr. Griffiths, for being here with us today.

When we talk about the economics of policing, part of the exercise, of course, is the question: how do we do more with less? I'm interested in your remarks on northern and rural policing, in particular first nations police services. I don't know how familiar you are with those particular services, but they are, in general, woefully underfunded.

Depending on how familiar you are with first nations police services, I want to ask you: is the current model of those services working? Or is there a new direction that you might suggest for first nations policing, a new model, if you will, of first nations policing, keeping in mind that first nations policing is there as a step towards self-government? I don't think anyone would suggest that getting rid of first nations police services is the way to go because it would be a step backward in terms of that goal, but I wonder if you'd like to make some comments on that.

[Dr. Curt Taylor Griffiths]

I think if we look back over the last, say, three decades of the experience with autonomous first nations police services, which I assume is what you're referring to—