Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, welcome to this third meeting of the second session of the 41st Parliament of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Before we start today, let me first welcome our clerk, Evelyn Lukyniuk, who's just back from maternity leave. Certainly I think it's in order that we offer her congratulations on her new daughter, Elizabeth.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Prior to hearing from our witnesses, colleagues, I have one small change to the agenda that I would like to bring to your attention.

Under item two, committee business, we had a motion that was presented by Mr. Easter and that was in order. Mr. Easter has asked that we postpone that. He has a serious personal matter that he has to leave the committee early for today. So we will not be proceeding with that motion. He's asked that we defer it until after the Remembrance Day break. I will be bringing that back to committee for your consideration at that point.

We now have before us a familiar face for a number of people here. I understand that our guest, Mark Potter, has been here before. I think this will be the fourth time.

As a new member, I'm eager to hear his summation and his thoughts on the past studies and where we need to go forward from his perspective. I know that colleagues who have obviously had that opportunity to deal with Mr. Potter before are certainly looking forward to catching up on his thoughts.

I understand that back in June Mr. Potter presented a summit report that was issued. I'm hoping that most colleagues have had an opportunity to peruse that. If not, of course they'll have the opportunity on the floor today for questions.

Mark Potter, you now have the floor, sir.

[Mark Potter, Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. It's great to be back here again.

This is an important topic. It has been tremendously helpful that this committee has been engaged in this and has been calling the witnesses that it has to discuss this issue. We very much look forward to your report.

Since we last met in the spring, there have been a number of developments that I would like to update you on, as well as outline the way forward. Before doing so, and particularly for the benefit of the new members, I would like to provide some brief background information on the issue of the economics of policing.

First, what is it? What is the issue of the economics of policing?

The economics of policing is a wide-ranging issue related to the efficiency and effectiveness of policing and of public safety more broadly. It is both a challenge and an opportunity for Canada and many other countries. The economics of policing have become increasingly relevant as all governments grapple with demonstrating the value of increasingly costly public services at a time of fiscal constraints.

The Canadian public is aware of and engaged·on the issue. There is an active public commentary on the steady and significant growth in policing costs during a time of declining reported crime. However, within this public debate, there is only a limited understanding of the increasingly diverse and complex nature of police work and crime.

Police are increasingly called upon to deal with a high volume of non-criminal public order incidents, including a growing number of mental health and addiction issues. Police are also addressing significant and time-consuming new crimes and challenges, such as terrorism, cybercrime, financial crime, child sexual exploitation, and dealing with large-scale gatherings and protests.

For example, we heard at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police conference in August that arrests under the Mental Health Act have quadrupled in Vancouver in the last 10 years. Further, it was noted that on any given night at Sudbury's main hospital, there can be up to a dozen police officers dealing with mental health and addiction incidents.

Put simply, although reported crime has declined overall, police are still very busy.

Faced with these challenges, some governments and parts of the policing community are actively pursuing opportunities to strengthen policing through dialogue and engagement with citizens, taking actions to increase operational and structural efficiency and effectiveness, and investing in proactive, integrated community safety approaches to get at the roots of crime.

This momentum of change and innovation can benefit in many areas from collaboration through a common strategy and actions. The Minister of Public Safety has been providing leadership and coordination on the economics of policing. Provincial and territorial ministers, police leaders, mayors, and many others are also focused on this issue, and we have all come together to try to address it.

The work under way on the economics of policing is driven by three key commitments agreed to by all federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety in January and October 2012.

The first was to convene a summit on the economics of policing. The summit was successfully held in January 2013 and has contributed to the dialogue and momentum of reform.

Second, ministers agreed to share information across jurisdictions on policies and practices that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing. A key deliverable in this regard was the launch of the index of police initiatives in August on Public Safety Canada's website. The index is a searchable database of best practices that facilitates learning from one another so that innovations can be pursued without reinventing the wheel. For example, it can provide helpful information with respect to the adoption of best practices for dealing with individuals with mental health and addiction issues. The index currently contains 140 initiatives. It will continue to expand and grow. A link to the website index has been provided to each of you in the documents that have been circulated.

Third, ministers tasked officials to develop a shared forward agenda or strategy for policing and public safety in Canada. Approval of that strategy will be sought when FPT ministers meet later this month in Whitehorse. The shared forward agenda is being developed through collaboration among all governments, most notably Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia as champions, as well as the active and constructive contributions of Canada's three main police associations and many others.

The main principles behind the evolving strategy are to cooperate collectively in those areas where it makes sense to do so, while respecting jurisdictional responsibilities for policing, and to adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach to public safety; that is to say, it involves reaching out to and working with all elements that contribute to public safety, from police to courts, to schools, and to social service agencies.

The expected goals of the strategy are: one, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in Canada; two, encourage learning, innovation, and the application of best practices; and three, contribute to improved public safety outcomes and social well-being through partnership and integrated approaches.

Overall, it is about working collaboratively and contributing positively to the evolution and sustainability of policing and public safety in Canada. The shared forward agenda is emerging based on the framework that was introduced at the summit in January 2013. It is being oriented around three pillars: efficiencies within police services; new models of community safety; and efficiencies within the justice system. These three pillars will be supported by the foundational elements of research and information sharing.

Policing reform and innovation must be founded upon a solid base of evidence and research if it is to be successful over the longer term. Currently in Canada there is minimal policing-related research capacity; there is no central repository of accessible research information; and there is limited agreement within the policing community on research priorities. The strategy is expected to begin addressing these gaps. Building on the index of innovative policing initiatives, it is proposed that Public Safety Canada will continue to advance information sharing through its economics of policing website portal.

Another information-sharing proposal that has emerged through consultations is the organization of focused learning events in areas such as civilianization, tiered policing, and the use of technology in order to advance reform efforts based on evidence, best practices, and sharing of experiences. At the core of the proposed strategy is helping police services to become more efficient and effective; however, one of the challenges in strengthening efficiency and effectiveness is measuring results and using that data as the basis for continuous improvement and public reporting. Ontario is a leader in this area and is developing a framework of key police performance metrics linked to efficiency and effectiveness and public safety outcomes.

Other potential actions that have been raised include: striving to reduce police equipment costs through common networks for procurement and shared services; linking police recruitment and training programs to qualifications standards; and helping police reform their organizations to be more effective.

In terms of new models of community safety, as you have heard from several witnesses, police services increasingly are exploring and adopting proactive integrated community safety strategies that get at the roots of crime through targeted support to at-risk youth and families. There are many examples of such programs, and some communities are advanced in their efforts, including the HUB model that has been successfully applied in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

The need to strengthen data collection, assessment, and evaluation around such new approaches to allow for the validation and refinement of crime prevention models of the future is an important element of any strategy.

With respect to the third pillar of the strategy, efficiencies within the justice system, nationally and provincially, efforts are under way to improve efficiencies. Such changes can have a direct and significant impact on police operations and costs. Potential actions under consideration are for governments to share information on reforms that improve justice efficiency and also that they work with police associations and others to identify policing priorities for justice reform and incorporate this information into current and future justice reform initiatives.

The development of the shared forward agenda is a unique opportunity for governments to continue to demonstrate collective leadership and accelerate the momentum of change. We also have an opportunity over time to build a more integrated and proactive public safety system that results in even less crime and greater social well-being and quality of life.

However, for the strategy to be successful, it will need to respect jurisdictional responsibilities for policing and be inclusive of the entire policing community and other key stakeholders. It is only through such a collective, focused, and well-considered approach that we can meet the high expectations of Canadians for continuously improving public safety and policing.

That concludes my opening remarks. Your questions and comments would be welcomed.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. We certainly appreciate your continued work on this file.

If we may, now we will go to the questioning.

With seven minutes from the government side, Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Potter, for your testimony.

To you through the chair, one of the first things, of course, when we deal with the economics of policing—I've talked to police officers out in the field, as I did over the break—is that I assure police officers that the purpose of this study is not to look for ways to lay off police officers. It's not necessarily to do that and not necessarily to change the parameters, but to look specifically at how we can perform the function of policing across this country. The federal government is just entering this study to look at a pan-Canadian experience in an attempt to identify models that work.

My specific question will be as follows. It is my observation that one of the reasons—and you mentioned it in the body of your presentation—is issues surrounding mental illness and how we treat mental illness, along with issues surrounding young offenders and how we handle young offenders. Would you not agree with me that one of the reasons...? In Ontario specifically, and I suspect in other provinces, there's a regulatory regime that requires police forces to have specially trained investigators for things like sexual assaults, to have special domestic assault squads. Would you not agree with me that one of the causes of the increased costs of policing has to do with the increased demands that we as the public and we as legislators put on police forces in saying that they must have specific individuals to do specific jobs? Also, we as legislators give them additional work to do every now and then, and we tend to not increase the size of their human resource complement.

Would you agree with some of those statements? Do you have some specifics you can relate in order to better assist the folks at home who may be interested in this subject and are looking at the work of this committee?

[Mark Potter]

Thank you for that question. You've touched on a number of important elements, and I'll just cover a few of them, if I may.

With regard to the issue of police officers' salaries, I'm well aware that's extremely sensitive. I think it's definitely not the role of the federal government to tell provincial governments and municipal authorities what they should be paying their police officers. I think police officers do tremendously challenging work and need to have very comprehensive training to deal with a wide range of possible scenarios whenever they go out to a call. It's that unique capability, which police in Canada fulfill tremendously well in almost all instances, that makes them, I think.... In order to attract and retain those types of individuals with the wide range of skills they need to have, you need to pay them well. I think if you want to have good-quality police officers, you need to pay them a good, reasonable salary.

I don't think the debate is about layoffs or necessarily about reducing officers' salaries; it's far from it. I think it's about recognizing that 80% of a police budget is typically for labour costs, so how can you most efficiently use that spending envelope? How can you deploy those officers most efficiently to achieve the objectives you're trying to achieve in terms of public safety outcomes?

I don't think the debate is about whether officers' salaries should necessarily be higher or lower. However, there is a reality in certain jurisdictions that police officers' salaries have been rising well above inflation due to the ratcheting up of those salaries through collective bargaining and arbitration processes. We are seeing a little bit more of a flatlining of those salaries happening across the country as a result of the recession and as a result of the fiscal situation in many parts of the country. I think that issue of salaries rising relative to the average Canadian salary is being brought under control just as a result of the economic and fiscal situation.

Regarding the broader point you raised about the demands on police, when we look at the number of calls for service, which is often a better measure of how active police are in our communities, it's been rising steadily over the years, and when you look at the nature of those calls, as was mentioned, the majority of them are non-criminal. We as a society are asking police to take on more tasks and more responsibilities, particularly with respect to individuals with mental health and addiction issues. Increasingly, they are dealing with quality-of-life issues, ensuring that the communities are safe, that residents feel safe in their communities, and that there is a visible police presence in certain types of communities that are experiencing challenges with disorder or with mischief.

As a number of you know from your direct experience in policing and from talking to police officers, they are often, as Chief Chu said, the call of first resort. They're available 24/7/365, and they're really the only agency out there that is. So often whenever there's a problem in a community, it's the police who are called.

They are tremendously busy responding to a whole range of calls. How efficiently can they do that? In most cases police have made a lot of gains in deploying those resources. Often the first challenge when you look at how to improve the efficiency is demand management. How are you responding to the demands of your community? How are you scheduling your officers? How are you deploying them—in crews of one or two—and so on? These are key questions they look at when they delve into how efficiently they're responding to these growing demands.

Perhaps I'll pause there and allow for further questions.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have observed, although I've been out of the business for quite some time, that more and more demands are placed not only on proper training.... I recall having four to six obligatory days per year for training. There's roughly a week when the officer isn't on the road doing his or her job.

I'd like to ask you a specific question. I know you are aware of some of the places this committee has gone and some of the things we've observed. You talked particularly about Saskatchewan and the hub. Have you observed in your studies and your communications with other entities that police forces today are sharing more and more best practices?

Could you also comment on how what works in one police department does not necessarily work in another because of socio-economic realities and workload and the realities of geography?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Could we have a very brief response, Mr. Potter?

[Mark Potter]

I think in terms of information sharing there's a considerable gap in Canada. When you look at what exists in the U.K., in the United States, in Australia, and in New Zealand, in terms of their capacity through databases, through research forums, and through learning events to share information and exchange best practices, we are well behind other countries in those regards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Potter, for being with us again.

My first question is about how the work we're doing in this study potentially relates to the strategy. As I think all members are aware, because of prorogation we were set back by a month, so we have not actually completed our report and were unable to have it fit in before your recommendations go to the ministers' meeting.

At this point, I guess, here's my question. When we do get the report...? Again, we're probably going to have another delay, because Bill C-2, instead of going to the health committee, is going to be referred to this committee, and legislation takes precedence, so we'll be set back even further.

I'm concerned about how the work we've invested in this study can be most effectively communicated to you at Public Safety to be considered as part of the strategy that's being developed.

[Mark Potter]

Thank you.

I think there are a couple of dimensions. We've been following your deliberations very closely. It's been very helpful for us to hear what you've had to say, what the witnesses have had to say, and the sorts of questions that have been raised. We've taken careful note of a lot of the information that's been conveyed to this committee, and that's been factored into what we're bringing forward to the ministers next week in Whitehorse.

The second answer I'll give is that we think your study and its recommendations will be tremendously helpful in providing further guidance, another key ingredient in moving this issue forward, so what we will look to is those recommendations. We'll look at them in contrast to what's going to be brought forward to ministers next week.

What's being brought forward to ministers is at a pretty high level, as these strategies typically are. There's research, there's information sharing, and then there are the three pillars: efficiencies within police services, new models of community safety, and justice efficiencies.

Under each of those categories, there are three, four, or five directions that are identified. Some of those areas we foresee, because we know there's already a pretty strong consensus in the policing community, particularly on the research and information-sharing side, for what we need to do. We've looked at other models and we've done a lot of research, so we have a pretty good plan. It's more a question now that once ministers approve it, we can begin moving it forward. There will still be a lot of details to work through, and there will be active consultations to do that.

Then there's another phase to the strategy: those areas where it's going deeper. I mentioned, for example, common procurement of equipment, which is something that we're seeing in other jurisdictions. That's a pretty big step for a number of police services and jurisdictions. We have, based on the consultations to date, a considerable level of support for that, but it's something where you need to continue to do your research and further engagement and get more input. There's a number of recommendations in that second phase where particularly the views of this committee could be tremendously helpful.

Then there's the stuff that we haven't necessarily thought about, or that anyone has thought about, as thoroughly as we should have. Hopefully, the committee may have a few insights in that regard. I don't see the strategy as being set at one point and that's it. The strategy will be presented to ministers. It's at a pretty high level. It contains a number of directions, but that strategy is going to continue to evolve.

As I think a number of people have said, this period of transformation and reform in policing is not a single point where you decide what you're going to do and you move forward. There's a lot of learning by doing and there's a lot of experimentation happening, both in Canada and elsewhere, so the reactions of governments and police services to this challenge are going to continue to evolve.

I guess the short answer is that we're very much looking forward to your study. I think it will be very helpful input, certainly for the federal government, as well as all governments, and for police services going forward.

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

Thank you for that reassurance. I know that all members of the committee will be doing our best, within our constraints, to get your input as soon as we can.

I have a concern about a phrase that appears a few times in your presentation. It is “while respecting jurisdictional responsibilities”. It seems to me that in emphasizing that phrase there's a danger that a couple of things will be neglected. One of those is first nations policing, which we've included as part of our study and which quite often gets shuffled about, as many first nations issues do. Instead of people actually tackling the issue, they point at each other and say, “That's really your responsibility.” I have that concern about first nations.

Secondly, it seems to me that the RCMP is not mentioned here. While the RCMP does a lot of its policing under provincial jurisdiction, it is a federal police force. While the strategy is not aimed at any of the particular problems we have in the RCMP right now, such as sexual harassment or the missing and murdered women controversy—and I don't expect those to appear here—it seems peculiar to me that the emphasis is always on municipal and provincial policing and that we have no mention of the RCMP in your document. I'm presuming that there may be some gaps, from my point of view, in the strategy because of that.

[Mark Potter]

I think it's a fair question. What we've tried to stress, and if I had more time I'd elaborate, is that the strategy is for all policing—first nations, provincial, municipal, and RCMP. As to the jurisdictional split, I think as you well know, the Minister of Public Safety has a mandate to provide leadership for public safety in Canada. That's the mandate upon which he is trying to show initiative and advance the strategy. But clearly the Constitution Act says the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, and we have to be extremely respectful of that.

It's about working through the FPT processes to build consensus on a way forward. When we've been doing our consultations through the associations with police services, we've been very cognizant of ensuring that first nations are engaged in that process. That happens in a number of ways through their involvement in the various associations for policing of which they are active members. They have their own police association and we've been talking to them. We talk to individual representatives of first nations police services. We are very aware of the testimony that has been provided here.

There was in fact a conference last year in Whitehorse on remote and northern policing that looked at the particular challenges. It's an extremely challenging environment, as you know, to provide police services in remote and northern communities. That element is one that is very well considered. But the strategy itself you'll only see as we begin to roll out various elements of it. Once it is approved, as we hope it will be, we will see how we are going to make sure it responds to first nations concerns.

The Minister of Public Safety is accountable for the RCMP to Parliament. He has taken certain actions, and I've mentioned those during previous times that I've been here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I believe Mr. Garrison has one more quick question. He has about 15 seconds or so to get to you. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. Garrison, do you have a question?

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

Well, I appreciate the things mentioned here. One of the things we'll need to grapple with is that governments are awfully good at doing studies and compiling information and then not actually doing anything. I look forward to our committee considering what the federal government could do in some of these areas instead of just thinking about it. I'm a former academic and I believe in evidence-based policy. But at some point, you have to take action. I'm a little concerned that we're lacking action in all of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison and Mr. Potter.

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be sitting in on this committee.

Mr. Potter, I appreciated your presentation and your answers.

I'm going to turn the channel a little bit here. I was in municipal government for 12 and a half years, and I still follow my local government. The big issue out there today, and it was a concern when I was on local council, is rising policing costs. In every municipality in my riding, that seems to be in the papers almost weekly.

One thing has come to my attention over the last couple of years, and I'd like you to comment on it. We all know about the seat belt blitzes and RIDE programs. Now the big one seems to be distracted driver blitzes, because of texting and what have you. I understand that they are all part of policing and educating the public. But one thing does concern me, and personally I think it's wrong. It has come to my attention that police don't do it on their regular policing shifts. They bring in officers, all on overtime, to do them. This seems to occur in all police forces, although I'm not sure about the RCMP. Anyway, I'd just like your comments on that, whether you think that's right. There's no doubt in my mind that this has a huge effect on driving up local policing costs.

[Mark Potter]

First, with the utmost respect, I would have to say that it's not the role of the federal government to comment on the operations of particular police services in this country, including the RCMP. That is a clear delineation in law and there are good reasons for it. So I'm reluctant to comment.

I can comment on studies and analyses that have been done. Let's take the Vancouver Police Department. They had an overtime problem in the mid-2000s. Overtime was an increasingly growing share of their budget and it just wasn't sustainable. Edmonton has had similar challenges, as have many police forces. They've looked at what is causing that overtime and how they can contain it. Whether it's court appearances, which often involve officers wasting a lot of their time sitting around courtrooms, as you've heard in this committee, or whether it's some of the other examples you gave. I know that's an area of focus for them. When they look at demand management and the best use of their resources, often overtime is a key starting point.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Right, and I'm glad to hear that you recognize it's probably part of the problem.

What I was asking you for was not about the legalities of whether you can comment or not. I think from a personal standpoint you could have, but I'm not going to dwell on that.

I have the utmost respect for policing. I put the police on the same pedestal as nurses, doctors, and paramedics. I'm not going to get into the wages. I don't think they're underpaid, but I'm certainly not going to sit here and say they're overpaid. That's a discussion people will always have. I think overtime is an issue.

One other thing I've noticed, which you could comment on, is that when it comes to accidents—both major and minor accidents, in my opinion—the police almost appear to be working for the insurance companies. They seem to be there. The roads are now closed for hours, where they didn't used to be. Roads might have been reduced to one lane, but at least that would keep the traffic moving. But most police tell me, and I have family members in it, that it's basically there to CYA, meaning cover your butt, when it comes to insurance investigations.

While I'd like to think that policing has always been done thoroughly, I wonder what the reason for the change is, because the appearance is that they're working for the insurance companies, as much as anything.

[Mark Potter]

I think one of the benefits of this issue of the economics of policing is that it has started a public debate. Police services, police boards, and their residents are talking about what it is the police do and how they do it, and about issues such as cost recovery.

In Ottawa, for example, the Ottawa Police Service has brought forward a program of cost recovery for exactly what you're talking about. When they prepare an accident report, often it is primarily, but not exclusively, for the benefit of an insurance company. They have adapted their policies and their related cost-recovery fees to fully cost recover the preparation of those reports and to charge the insurance companies for that. I think there are movements afoot to do that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm glad to hear they are recovering that cost. I think a lot of people, including me, weren't aware of that.

To go back to overtime, one thing I've always sympathized with police over is all the work and paperwork they have to do. Then, whether or not it's their day off, they have to attend court cases whenever they occur. Quite often I think, and I'd like you to comment on it, whether it's due to our judicial system or just lawyers, a lot of cases end up getting remanded and are basically a waste of policing time.

Could you comment on that, and how the federal government could possibly make some changes that might help that situation? You're never going to eliminate it, I realize that.

[Mark Potter]

When the Canadian Police Association came here, they talked about a number of concerns in that regard. They talked in particular about disclosure and the disclosure of all documents, evidence, and information to the judiciary in moving forward with a case. They highlighted the incredible burden that's often placed on police to prepare that information. I think the solution is not only things like processes but also things like technology. How are we using information technology to streamline and make that process as efficient as possible, so that the officers are able to minimize the time they're spending on administrative paperwork but still ensure, for due process, that the information the courts require is conveyed?

When we say we want to engage under that third pillar of justice efficiencies with the justice community, we're respectful of the independence of courts, but we would like to ensure that as they reform themselves, whether through procedural change or use of technology, they're aware of policing priorities and the policing implications of everything they do. Document discovery is one very good example, highlighted by other witnesses to this committee, where there needs to be some streamlining, possibly through the use of technology, to make that a lot more efficient. What we can do is convey those concerns.

We can also look at what the best practices are, for example, through learning events on the use of technology more broadly in policing. What's happening in the U.K., Australia, and the U.S. to streamline those and many other processes through the use of technology?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's the end, Mr. Potter.

I appreciate your just snipping off on that, but I think we should give Mr. Easter an opportunity now.