Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Thursday, February 7, 2013 Chair

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Thursday, February 7, 2013 Chair
Standing Committee on Public Safety and
National Security
SECU
●
NUMBER 069
●
1st SESSION
●
EVIDENCE
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Chair
Mr. Kevin Sorenson
41st PARLIAMENT
1
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
Thursday, February 7, 2013
● (0845)
[English]
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC)): I'll call this
meeting to order. Good morning everyone.
This is meeting number 69 of the Standing Committee on Public
Safety and National Security, Thursday, February 7, 2013.
This morning we're going to continue in our study of the
economics of policing in Canada. We're very pleased this morning to
have, in our first hour, the deputy commissioner of federal policing,
Mike Cabana. He's with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Welcome. He is accompanied by Superintendent Angela WorkmanStark, director of federal policing re-engineering. Our committee
wants to thank you for appearing.
I came in at about 8:15 or 8:10, and they were here. They were at
their post and they were ready to go, so we thank you for that.
If you have an opening statement, we look forward to hearing it.
Then we will go into the first round of questioning.
[Translation]
Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana (Deputy Commissioner,
Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you
very much, Mr. Chair.
Honourable members of the committee, good morning.
First, allow me to thank you for inviting me to appear before you
today to speak about the RCMP's Federal Policing program. I would
also like to introduce Dr. Angela Workman-Stark, who is responsible
for the team that manages and coordinates the re-engineering of
federal programs.
I would like to begin by introducing you to the Federal Policing
program and its mandate.
Federal Policing is a core activity of the RCMP and is carried out
in every province and territory in Canada as well as various
international locations. The RCMP's mandate under Federal Policing
is to investigate criminal activity linked to national security,
organized crime and economic integrity, develop and share criminal
intelligence, enforce federal statutes, conduct international capacity
building, liaison and peacekeeping. It must also ensure the safety of
state officials, dignitaries, foreign missions, Canadian aircraft, and
the safety of major events.
Practically, that means we are responsible for preventing and
tackling a very wide swath of serious criminality that impacts the
core of Canada's national interests.
Our mandate stretches from investigating extraterritorial acts of
corruption by Canadian business further to the Corruption of Foreign
Public Officials Act, to, through the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre,
shutting down more than 100,000 e-mail accounts annually that are
suspected of mass marketing fraud, to interdicting transnational drug
shipments, to working with young people nationwide to reduce their
involvement as victims or as offenders in federal crimes involving
drugs, terrorism, and street gangs, to disrupting a major organized
crime group in conjunction with partners, as we did just this past
weekend at a Super Bowl party north of Toronto.
Over the past several years the complexity of federal policing
operations has increased. Threats are increasingly transnational and
multi-dimensional. Technology and globalization, which have
empowered so many of us, have also empowered criminals.
Criminal investigations can no longer be limited to Canada's
borders, bringing a whole new series of challenges when conducting
operations abroad. These include considerations for human rights,
local corruption, information sharing, different legal standards,
training standards, investigative practices, technology issues, and of
course, organizational policies. Overseas it is harder to know whom
to work with, whom to trust, and how to build relationships that
create the right conditions for effective operational outcomes.
Other factors that contribute to the complexity of federal
investigations include ever-tightening evidentiary standards and
ever-increasing police oversight and accountability. We constantly
strive to meet public expectations and build on our experiences,
which is no small feat in a world that is changing as fast as ours is.
One small example is that 15 years ago an authorization to
intercept a target's private communications would have normally
involved a phone number or two and maybe an e-mail account.
Today, a single target generally has multiple phones, multiple e-mail
accounts, and portable devices, some of which involve challenging
public encryption.
2
SECU-69
February 7, 2013
The growth of the volume of data in any given investigation is
simply staggering. A recent investigation involved the interception
of 350,000 telephone conversations and nearly one million text
messages. The time required to compile, analyze, and present this as
evidence in a clear and compelling manner is understandably quite
considerable. At any one point, the RCMP is conducting several
complex criminal investigations of this nature.
I would like to conclude my remarks by briefly outlining perhaps
the signature change ongoing in Federal Policing right now, namely:
Federal Policing Re-Engineering .
The average cost of each is hard to assess, as each is quite
different. We are putting mechanisms in place to better tie projects to
outcomes and costs, and it will be interesting, in a year or so, to be
able to assess what that data tells us.
● (0850)
[English]
Notionally, however, we recognize that the range of efforts and
cost is substantial, from a small project team of two or three
individuals in project Opapa, which broke up an organized human
trafficking ring in Hamilton in 2010, to a large project, like project
Colisee or project OSage, which involved dozens of investigators for
long periods of time and resulted in many arrests.
At the larger end of the scale, it would be safe to state that our
major projects are generally multi-million-dollar initiatives, and we
recognize that we need to ensure that they deliver on the investment
we make in them.
We have long recognized that the high costs of major projects
means they cannot be our only approach to tackling criminality. We
must continue and are continuing to pursue innovative ways to
address the threat environment, like improving integration, tackling
threats at their source, and expanding information sharing. We have
taken some solid steps in these areas and we can build on these
successes. For example, CIROC, the Canadian Integrated Response
to Organized Crime, is a joint initiative of the Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police and the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada. It
is beginning to achieve the long hoped for goal of true operational
coordination between local, municipal, and federal enforcement
agencies. I believe its recent work in tackling a couple of very
specific threats demonstrates efficient and effective cooperation and
real progress towards real integration.
● (0855)
The purpose of re-engineering is to find effective ways of
delivering our diverse mandate by building an agile and integrated
federal policing program capable of efficiently and effectively
addressing operational priorities.
That means moving from commodity-based silos of work to areas
of functional expertise by executing six key activities: responding to
calls for service, which includes minor investigations; running and
supporting major projects; identifying emerging threats through
intelligence; establishing and leveraging partnerships; building
awareness and preventing crime; and, of course, protecting people,
places, and assets.
This change will enable greater coordination of national priority
investigations, stronger consistency in governance and oversight,
better prioritization of activities and resources, more rigorous
performance measurement, and a stronger commitment to the
primacy of operations, which simply represents the philosophy that
results matter.
We recognize the scale of this reform effort and, as we implement
it, we will continue to evaluate ourselves and consult with our
partners at the local, provincial, and national levels both in law
enforcement and in government, to ensure we remain on track.
Similarly, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit
operation on Sunday night in Toronto, which I mentioned a few
minutes ago, also demonstrates the reality and strength of working
together. CFSEU is a true eight-agency collaboration bringing
together multiple organizations to tackle a persistent threat.
Of course, there is more work to be done. We will continue to
explore new ways to bring criminals to justice, to deny them their
means and methods, and to disrupt their operations, using all the
tools at our disposal. We are committed to maintaining a streamlined
and integrated federal policing service that conducts focused and
effective investigations.
Another example is that we, along with partners, have deployed
resources internationally to work with foreign partners in detecting
and preventing illegal migrant vessels from embarking on the
dangerous journey towards Canadian shores. Their efforts have
disrupted multiple ventures, likely saving lives, and have prevented
the need for costly domestic investigations.
This concludes my opening remarks. I would be more than happy
to entertain any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
One last example: in 2012, we concluded an agreement with
police in India to facilitate creative information-sharing about the
shipment of synthetic drug precursor chemicals. This framework—
which respects Canadian human rights—continues to shrink the
number of borders that criminals can exploit to avoid detection and
prosecution by authorities.
We'll move quickly into that first round of questioning. For seven
minutes, Mr. Leef, please.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you
to both our guests for appearing here today.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
I have a quick question. In one of your bullets, you commented
that Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, in partnership with the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, is “beginning to achieve
the long hoped for goal of true operational coordination...”. Then
toward the end of that remark, you said, “...towards real integration.”
There are some key points in that. Could I get you to expand on
where we were in the past and what would lead to that remark about
true operational coordination? What does that means to you? What
might that mean in terms of delivering greater efficiency and
economy to policing services?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Thank you very much for your
question. I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak about what
CIROC does.
Historically, law enforcement agencies across the country have
expended significant effort to ensure a certain level of coordination,
to avoid duplication of efforts, and to try to work closer together.
The creation of CIROC goes back, I believe, to 2007. The goal of
creating this committee was to provide a forum where law
enforcement agencies, rather than speak of simply cooperation and
assistance, would have the ability to share real-time intelligence, to
work and prioritize their work based on a single threat assessment,
and to enter into discussions with respect to the highest level national
threats to ensure that those threats were not allowed to continue
unchecked. The goal and the discussion is to make sure there is a law
enforcement agency that has authority, that has a responsibility to
expend some effort to disrupt and interdict the threat in question.
Over the course of a number of years, the work of CIROC evolved
to the point where we now have a single threat assessment, but the
discussion has evolved to the point where agencies are actually
working together to disrupt these threats. Whether they are local in
nature, whether they are interprovincial or international, what we've
seen by sharing the information to the level we're sharing it now is
that even those local threats do have, at the very least, an
interprovincial linkage.
I'll give you an example. We have an ongoing project, currently,
that involves 28 different police services and 56 different
investigations that are being coordinated through CIROC. Already
the results are unprecedented.
● (0900)
Mr. Ryan Leef: Great. That expands on what you were talking
about. Now it's seeing true operational coordination. I would gather
that in the past it wasn't always as perfect or as positive as we would
have liked. Would that be accurate?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: That would be very accurate.
Mr. Ryan Leef: You spoke about putting mechanisms in place to
better tie projects to outcome and cost. Are you at liberty to talk
about a couple of these mechanisms?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Absolutely. Our ability to measure
outcome, our return on an investment, has always been a challenge
for law enforcement agencies. The type of work that we get involved
in is sometimes very hard to account for. There's significant work
within the context of the re-engineering initiative that we now have
to be able to not only focus our work but to develop a very concrete
prioritization matrix, to make sure that we prioritize our files
3
properly, but also to be able to measure the outcome of the different
files. This is very much a work in process. It will look at a number of
different components. Of course, you have the cost of the
investigation, the number of arrests as well, the outcome of the
court case, but also the changes and the impact that it's having on the
national threat assessment. We're focusing on trying to be able to
measure the level of disruption that has been created on each given
organization based on the file.
Angela Workman-Stark is managing a lot of that work.
I don't know if she wants to add to this.
Superintendent Angela Workman-Stark (Director, Federal
Policing Re-engineering, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I
would add a couple of comments.
I think you've heard from prior witnesses that certainly the whole
area of performance measurement around the policing world is not
really well developed. In terms of moving forward, what we're really
trying to look at is how we move toward measuring and assessing
the outcomes of law enforcement activities, rather than, say, a
number of arrests, a number of disruptions. How do we really start to
understand the impact on harm and reducing harm? That's an
ongoing dialogue that's been happening for quite some time. That's
the direction we're taking.
Mr. Ryan Leef: I have just enough time for one quick question.
We heard from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police on this recurring theme of front-line
policing being the agency of preferred choice and the agency of first
choice.
On the federal side, are there activities that federal policing will
get drawn into that really don't belong there and that could be
eliminated from the federal policing side? Front-line police will say,
for example, that they've become the social workers and mental
health care workers. They're the catch-all for everything in the
community. Does that translate upward into federal policing? Are
there things that you could eliminate where you've become the
agency of preferred choice?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Where we could become the agency of
preferred choice?
Mr. Ryan Leef: Where you could move away from being that.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Part of the concept of re-engineering is
to make sure that we are working on the highest possible threats to
Canadians. This is part of the dialogue and the discussions that we've
had during the initiative. For us to say that we will move away from
being involved in certain areas of criminality, we see that actually as
fairly high risk because potentially it will create a gap that the
criminals are going to be able to exploit.
Rather than doing that, what we're looking at is that we will not
stop any activities. We will prioritize it properly to make sure that
we're attacking the organization. We're no longer focusing on
commodities; we're focusing on the organizations. The most
important part of this is to make sure that the level of coordination
with the contract or uniform front-line officers is enhanced
significantly to avoid this duplication, to avoid creating the gap,
and to make sure that we have a good understanding of the impact of
our actions.
4
SECU-69
● (0905)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll move to Mr. Garrison, please, for seven minutes.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the witnesses, good morning and thank
you for being here.
Mr. Leef took my first question this morning, so I want to move
on to two other things. One of those is a general question and one is
a much more specific question. The first of those is in the area of
national security.
Since most of national security issues are potentially included
within the Criminal Code, there's been some concern expressed
about potential overlap between RCMP responsibilities and CSIS.
Where is the line between the responsibilities of those two, and how
are you managing that potential overlap?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: From our perspective the line is
actually very clear and very well defined. The RCMP's involvement
in the national security arena goes back many, many decades and
actually predates the creation of CSIS.
Our role, our mandate, is clear. It deals with criminal activity of a
national security nature. The role of CSIS is to develop intelligence
to identify potential national security threats and to inform the
Government of Canada of those emerging threats. We have very
different mandates. Ours is investigative in the sense of criminal
prosecutions and interdiction. CSIS's role is with respect to
intelligence and informing, but I'd suggest that they're actually quite
complementary to one another.
I don't think it's any secret to anybody that there have been some
growing pains in terms of the relationship between CSIS and the
RCMP. National security from the RCMP's perspective is part of my
umbrella, and I would say the relationship now is better than ever.
We have strong mechanisms, deconfliction mechanisms, in place to
make sure that each agency is aware of the work of the other, and to
ensure that we do not duplicate our work and that the priorities are
shared.
Mr. Randall Garrison: You understand the concern, in that when
you talk about interdiction, that leads you to the forward-looking
aspects of national security where CSIS is supposedly already
working. Is there any clear line that could be drawn between internal
activities in Canada's national security and the international aspects
of CSIS, or do you see those as having no line between them now?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: I think it would be dangerous to draw a
line between the two. There are criminal activities of a national
security nature that occur internationally that have a direct impact on
Canada. The RCMP is a lead agency, along with other federal
agencies, so I guess one misconception that I think we need to dispel
is that CSIS and the RCMP are the only two agencies that have a role
to play in the national security arena. There are many federal
agencies that bring their efforts and capacity to bear.
But no, I don't think I would define it with international or
domestic; the line is truly blurred.
February 7, 2013
Mr. Randall Garrison: You mentioned the idea of a lead agency.
Has there really been a clear designation of a lead agency in
coordinating the efforts in national security?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: There has been with respect to
criminal prosecution, criminal investigation. Where it sometimes
gets a little bit tricky, for lack of a better term, is at what stage a
given issue will transit from a CSIS responsibility to an RCMP
responsibility. As I said, there are mechanisms in place to ensure that
this transition occurs, and that the transition occurs at the earliest
possible time.
Every case is different and every case has to be assessed on its
own merit. To be able to say that there's a clear demarcation and that
it's assessed case by case.... This is why we've put committees in
place, to be able to make these assessments and come to a
determination of which agency should be leading at which stage.
● (0910)
Mr. Randall Garrison: My understanding, then, is you have
committees working at a kind of case level, but is there a committee
working over all levels on the coordination?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: There are a number of committees.
You're right, in that there's a committee that's working at the case
level. There is also an executive level committee where senior
executives of both agencies meet on a regular basis to discuss the
metrics that are being used, or the level of cooperation, to identify
potential requirements for change.
Of course, there are personal relationships that factor in. I
regularly have contact with my colleagues at CSIS where we have
discussions over how we can make things better.
Mr. Randall Garrison: Thank you.
I'm going to turn to the area of fraud, commercial and business
fraud, because often we tend to focus on the criminal aspects
involving street crime, violence, and community safety. There's lots
of harm done in the community. It's very significant, I think, in the
commercial crime and fraud areas, and particularly with fraud
involving seniors and those kinds of things.
I'm assuming that this falls clearly in your mandate. I wonder if
you have any general comments on the challenges of trying to deal
with commercial fraud.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: That's an excellent question. That
particular issue ties in directly with the discussion around the
economics of policing.
The complexity and the level of fraud has increased significantly
in Canada over the years, which has a direct impact on our bottom
line. The more resources that we have to attach to a file, the more
expensive it gets, and the fewer number of files we can do.
I think we need to bring this back to the prioritization matrix we're
developing currently. We're no longer looking at fraud. We're
looking at counterfeiting and narcotics. We're looking at the
organizations. Those criminal organizations are multi-commodity.
Frankly, they're involved in anything to make a buck. The
prioritization matrix will identify the highest organizations, but we'll
also look at the activities they're involved in.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
As we move forward with this new model, I anticipate we'll be
involved in even more fraud investigations than we are currently.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
5
who are obviously dealing with major crimes, but also some of those
smaller crimes that are issues that come out of mental illness and
addiction. We've heard about some good programs, good models,
that are in place to deal with that.
We'll move to Ms. Bergen, please.
Ms. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, both, for being here.
Deputy Commissioner, we're doing this study on the economics of
policing with a view to looking at how to improve efficiencies and to
see if, at the federal level, we can provide models for provinces and
municipalities to work together to reduce costs.
Given the complexity of investigations, given the fact that even at
the local level police are asked to do so much, is this a realistic goal?
Can we reduce the cost of policing without reducing the number of
front-line officers still delivering the services, still doing the
excellent work that Canadian police are known throughout the
world to do? Is this doable?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Absolutely, there is no doubt in my
mind that this is doable.
I keep going back to re-engineering, and you'll please forgive me,
but this is our flagship and we're quite interested in seeing where it
will take us. Re-engineering did not start from the requirement for
cost savings. Re-engineering predates this. We've been working at
this for a number of years.
The current economic situation has forced us to take probably a
more aggressive stance on how we would re-engineer and it has
forced us to have a look at some of our processes. We've found
significant room for savings in some of the areas.
For example, we're in the process of civilianizing a significant
number of positions at headquarters. We've identified a lot of
redundancy that existed in our processes. We're eliminating that. The
whole construct of our national headquarters and how it operates is
completely changing and we started standing it up last Friday, if I
remember correctly. Just in the headquarters piece alone, we were
able to reduce the federal footprint in our headquarters by
approximately 100 regular members.
I think the economics of policing should be looked at as an
amazing opportunity for law enforcement agencies to be innovative
and to think outside the proverbial box on how they do business.
I know from speaking to my colleagues at the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police that's very much the discussion
and those are very much the optics through which economics of
policing are being looked at.
● (0915)
Ms. Candice Bergen: That's good to hear because I think we all
recognize the challenges are greater. At the beginning of your
comments you even referred to the greater need and that there is
more accountability, many more eyes are on you, and so much more
is required.
I wonder about your thoughts on the issue of more local policing.
We've heard from different witnesses about local police, city police,
I know there is not a lot of research right now, and that's where we
find a gap. Where would it be better for police to focus? Would it be
dealing with some of the smaller problems, like the broken window
syndrome, except that now we're talking about policing as opposed
to fighting crime and reducing the cost, or is the technology
changing, as you referred to?
You're doing so much more work internationally. Where do you
think the greater focus should be: at the local level, reducing costs
and making sure it's more efficient, or keep investing heavily and
finding ways at the federal level to be more efficient?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: That's an interesting question. I would
suggest that it's not so much in terms of which area should be
favoured, but rather maintaining or attaining the right balance
between the international, the major cases, and the local level.
As I alluded to earlier, through CIROC, one of the realizations was
that the local level crime, what you referred to, I believe, as a smaller
kind of crime, has a direct link to some of the bigger organizations
operating and affecting our society. At times, I would agree that, yes,
this is where the investment should be made, but it has to be done in
a coordinated fashion. It's all about trying to identify, and being
successful at identifying, the weakest point of a criminal organization. If it starts at the front line, then that's where we should be
concentrating.
I would suggest that in the process, we need to make sure we
maintain a certain balance.
Ms. Candice Bergen: It was interesting when you talked a little
bit about the change in not focusing on commodities. I was going to
ask you what you meant by that, and then you did provide some
explanation. Is that a principle? I guess you'll see if that works. Is
that something that could be passed on even at the local level, or is
the reverse maybe better at the local level, when they're focusing
more on commodities?
Supt Angela Workman-Stark: I think the approach on that, and
it touched a little bit on your prior question, really is, again, moving
away from commodities, whether it's drugs, counterfeit goods, or
intellectual property type issues. It is really taking a broader view of
the actual threat. What is that threat? What is that threat engaged in?
By looking at that aspect instead of a much narrower view, that's
where we're going to have greater effectiveness. Those have been
some of the challenges in the past. Without having that opportunity
of looking more horizontally, we've missed opportunities and
probably haven't been as effective as we could have been. I think
that's more the approach.
6
SECU-69
If I could add onto your prior question, I really think of this as a
golden opportunity for an all-hands-on-deck approach to look at the
problem and embrace academia in that dialogue about where law
enforcement is most effective, what type of impact we're having in
reducing the harm, and determining where the role of the different
agencies is in that, because it is a whole of government approach at
this point in time.
● (0920)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll now move over to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Thank you,
Chair.
Thank you for being here. Your presentation has been very
interesting.
Mr. Leef took Mr. Garrison's question, and Mr. Garrison took my
question.
It's a very interesting issue that we're looking at here. It seems that
there's probably going to be a shift within, say the RCMP, towards
maybe hiring officers, towards hiring a greater proportion of
civilians. Is that what you envision for the future? It sounds to me,
with the growing complexity of crime, you need more people to
coordinate, more analysts, more technical experts, and so on. I would
think that if you look at the staffing numbers over time that you'd
have a growth in the proportion of civilians versus the proportion of
traditionally trained police officers. Would you agree with that?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: I'd say it's a pretty accurate
representation. I do anticipate that the percentage of the different
categories of employee will change over time. We're already seeing it
in the re-engineering. It's about having the right person with the right
expertise doing the right things. We also need to factor in the abilities
of some of our partner agencies, whether law enforcement or
otherwise, to make sure we eliminate any kind of duplication or
overlap and we have better coordination.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Will this save money in and of itself?
Are the salaries of civilian RCMP employees lower than the salaries
of traditional police officers? Are you expecting to get a cost saving
through that shift of emphasis over to having more civilians?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Notionally, I believe there would be
cost savings associated with that exercise, but the goal of what we're
doing now was not economic, actually, when we started. It was not
economically driven. It was focused, again, on making sure we have
our law enforcement officers at the front line of federal policing.
In the process, though, there have been economies that have been
realized. Some of those economies will be reinvested to the front line
or support areas, and some of the economy will simply be lost to
some of the deficits that we have now.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: The RCMP is facing a reduced budget
envelope. It's facing cuts.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Yes.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: The government has said, with
respect to other departments, not to worry about front-line service
because the cuts are all going to impact the back office. It seems to
me that in your business, the back office is really, in many ways, and
February 7, 2013
more and more and more, the nerve centre of the operation. It's not
police officers on the beat, per se; it's this bureaucracy of analysts
and experts who are tracking crime across interprovincial borders
and internationally and so on and so forth.
I have a hard time squaring in my mind the fact that on the one
hand we have budget cuts to the RCMP and on the other hand we
have the increasing complexity of crime.
If you look at financial crime alone, it takes months and months
and months and years to really get to the point where you can charge
individuals because what they're doing is so complex. Financial
transactions are so complex. There's that. There's the whole issue of
counterfeiting, which is now exploding. I've seen the statistics.
We've gone beyond printing bills in a basement—and in saying
”we”, that's the royal “we”—to tracking fraudulent counterfeit
consumer products, electronic products that are now finding their
way into aircraft electronics and so on.
The world is becoming more globalized. To me I see it a bit like
the health care issue. Costs are being driven not so much by salaries
but just by the complexity of the industry, if you want to call it that.
If you start to try to cut by rationalizing, someone's going to get hurt.
In the health care system, if you say that you're just going to keep
costs constant, in the face of more expensive drugs, people are going
to die just from waiting too long, perhaps, for a procedure. I'm very
skeptical about the ability to squeeze more out of the policing system
at a time when we need policing more, maybe.
You talked about some initial economies, and I'm sure you're
right, but maybe they're just initial economies, and once those are
done you can't repeat those economies year after year after year.
Once you've restructured, you can't keep restructuring every year
and saving that way. I'd like your comment on that.
● (0925)
D/Commr Mike Cabana: I don't know where to start.
The Chair: You have about a minute.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Okay, I'll try to do this within a
minute.
It's actually a very complex question that you're asking. I don't
think there's any simple answer to it, but I think I'd like to take the
opportunity to clarify something. Yes, the RCMP is subject to what
some would call significant budget reductions, but that has nothing
to do with federal policing and what we're doing now.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
Federal policing was not impacted by the deficit reduction action
plan. We were not. We were excluded from that. That being said, we
have other issues that are negatively impacting us, for example, the
unfunded salary pay raises over the past three years, which equated
to approximately 179 members who we have now to take off the
books. There's an affordability, and our affordability is shrinking.
You're absolutely right.
What's the risk associated with this shrinking affordability when
we compare that with the restructuring we're doing and all the
efficiencies we're realizing? You may not agree with me, but I
believe that the exercise we're going through now will actually allow
us to provide a better service to Canadians than we are now. Reengineering is not simply about reducing the number of employees
and looking at categories of employees. It also involves providing
flexibility to our managers in the field to be able to deploy their
resources to the highest priorities and the latest emerging threat.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Garrison and Mr. Rousseau on a split.
Mr. Randall Garrison: Yes, it's a split, and I'm going to try to be
very brief. I want to follow up on the commercial crime area.
Anecdotally, as MPs, several of us have run across what constituents
see as a problem in terms of bankruptcy fraud.
My understanding of the way it works is that the Superintendent
of Bankruptcy turns over files to the RCMP for investigation if there
has been fraud in bankruptcy. What we are being told anecdotally is
that unless the assets are of a certain value the RCMP simply does
not investigate those files at this time, because the demand is too
great. Do you have any comment that you can make publicly on
that?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: I have a couple of comments, actually,
if you'll allow me.
I will start by saying that you're absolutely right. Currently, there
are assessments that are being done on what I would refer to...I
referred to calls for service earlier. That would fall in that category.
Our managers have to assess the severity of the file or the matter
that's being referred to them and compare it with everything else.
My second comment is that we're moving away from that. Again,
we're moving away from focusing on the commodities and looking
at the organizations and the individuals that are behind a criminal
offence. If a relatively minor, and I say “relatively”, fraudulent
bankruptcy actually allows us to impact a significant criminal
organization or individual, the new prioritization model takes that
into consideration. In the future, we will be doing that.
● (0930)
Mr. Randall Garrison: Okay.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Things are changing. Things are
shifting. This is why it's important for us now more than ever to have
dialogue with all of our partners, including the office of....
Mr. Randall Garrison: The Superintendent of Bankruptcy?
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Yes, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.
The Chair: Monsieur Rousseau.
7
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Thank you.
Francis asked some of the questions I wanted to ask you. That
seems to be the lay of the land this morning.
My question is for Mrs. Workman-Stark.
I studied human resources, work organization, to be specific. It is
a field that has much to do with time, movements, and the
rationalization of services and staff. However in many organizations
where these measures have been implemented, they have proven
problematic. We noted that their effect was to deprive people of
important aspects of their work as human beings, for instance their
intuition, spontaneity and creativity. In my opinion those aspects are
important when an officer has to assess situations.
How will it be possible to restructure while preserving those
aspects that are important to the work of a field officer, in my
opinion?
[English]
Supt Angela Workman-Stark: Thank you very much for the
question. It's not one that we haven't heard before.
Mr. Jean Rousseau: Yes?
Voices: Oh, oh!
Supt Angela Workman-Stark: It's true. We have. The genesis of
the question has really been more so about that expertise.
One of the things we've looked at going forward.... Also, just as a
side comment, with this, we've had the benefit of really looking at
doing things differently. I'll get to your question, but instead of
taking a 20% hit, say, and cutting off a limb, we've had the
opportunity to really look at how we can do things differently.
In terms of human resources, it's actually looking at changing our
structures and our models to really look at creating communities of
practice. Really, it's about communities of practice around the realm
of knowledge management, where you have people providing the
opportunity, whether it's related to financial crime, national security,
serious and organized crime, international policing, or intelligence,
but enabling an environment for them to really engage and be
creative, right? It's something that's going to be critical for us in
moving forward: identifying innovative ways of actually penetrating
criminality.
This is something new, and I think it's much better than we've had
in the past. We've been too siloed, so that innovation and creativity
have been limited to a certain area. This is what is actually going to
change to create that type of system. The measurements absolutely
are questionable, but this is something that we're going to monitor
for the next period of time.
Mr. Jean Rousseau: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
My second question is for Mr. Cabana.
There are four police forces in my riding, which is close to the
border. There are six entry points. The Border Services Agency is
there, as well as the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, and occasionally,
municipal police forces as well.
8
SECU-69
I would like to know how the restructuring and the next
$190 million round of cuts will affect services, and in particular,
everyone's responsibilities. How is all of this going to be spread out,
and what domino effect could the cuts to services and resources
have? When I speak to officers in the field, I already see that
resources are somewhat limited.
How will these cuts affect the morale of the troops, who are so
proud of their work?
[English]
The Chair: Could you give a very quick answer, please.
February 7, 2013
drug environment. That won't be the case anymore. They can go
after the organization by whatever means they want.
Flexibility for us also means managers can consider the return on
investment, if you want, from embarking on a full-fledged criminal
investigation versus maybe approaching the criminal organization
from a completely different perspective.
Maybe the solution and the greatest impact will not be through a
prosecution. Maybe, if the person is not a Canadian resident,
deportation would be better. Maybe a tax evasion investigation by
another department would be the solution.
[Translation]
D/Commr Mike Cabana: What we hear regarding the troops and
the RCMP is that our force is very excited. I am looking for the right
term in French. They are committed to these changes we want to
bring about.
Mr. Jean Rousseau: They are enthusiastic.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Correct. They are enthusiastic. Thank
you.
They see the possibilities and the flexibility that this is going to
give them in their daily work.
As for our partner agencies, certain adjustments may have to be
made. That is why we are discussing things with them and keeping
them informed about how our process is evolving, so as to ensure
that when we make the changes, this will not create a discrepancy no
one will take responsibility for.
● (0935)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hawn, go ahead, please.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Deputy Commissioner, you talked about no draft cuts for frontline policing, and that's great. You talked about flexibility and how
there are economies in the flexibility.
To follow the health care analysis a little bit, my opinion of the
health care system is that we have some wonderful high-tech stuff
out there, and everybody wants the high-tech solution when the lowtech solution may work just fine.
Is that comparable to the kind of flexibility you're talking about in
policing? You don't have to have the high-tech stuff all the time, and
basic policing will sometimes be just as effective and cheaper.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: That's an interesting question. I am
going to try to answer it. It might not be exactly on point, but these
are some of the things we're looking at.
Flexibility means flexibility in terms of being able to go after a
criminal organization by whatever means the investigators can
determine. Historically if the investigator was a drug investigator, he
would be attacking the organization from their involvement in the
There should be flexibility in the tools that are at the disposal of
the investigators. I think there are real benefits to be gained there.
Hon. Laurie Hawn: Good.
I want to go back to the international aspect and get your
comments on the importance of CSIS expanding their international
operations. The questions had to do with which was the lead agency,
what that changes, and so on. Maybe, by way of example, you could
step us through an operation to disrupt, say, human trafficking out of
Thailand, including where that would start and how it would
transition from an operation by CSIS to one by the RCMP to
whoever as it comes to Canada, and the impact of that on domestic
policing.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: How much time do I have?
The Chair: You have about two and a half minutes.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: It's hard to say how an investigation
would be initiated, especially in the context of human trafficking. I'd
suggest it's very likely that we would be the lead agency from the
start. Assuming CSIS was involved.... Actually I support CSIS
expanding their international footprint. I think it benefits everybody.
It benefits the whole country. Assuming that through their
international network they identified some potential terrorist or
national security threat, and they embarked on an investigation that
led them to secure some information or some indication that there
were actually individuals who would be travelling or would facilitate
the illegal immigration of individuals to Canada, at that point in time
there would be some discussions around the coordination table in
terms of what tools and what abilities we would be able to bring to
bear to potentially prevent the immigration itself, or potentially
disrupt it, or investigate it, and bring it to court.
Hon. Laurie Hawn: It's obviously cheaper for us as a country to
interdict it in Bangkok than it is to interdict it on Vancouver Island.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: Absolutely. History has shown that.
Hon. Laurie Hawn: Yes, you bet.
Again, sticking with the international, the RCMP is involved in a
lot of international operations side by side with the Canadian Forces,
in Afghanistan, for example. There is a cost to that.
How important are those kinds of missions to the RCMP in terms
of developing an overall capability in a combat operation like
Afghanistan or something like Haiti?
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
9
D/Commr Mike Cabana: They are extremely important for a
number of reasons. First of all, it gives us an opportunity to bring
some of the culture and some of the principles that Canadian society
holds so dear to the international forum, and potentially, hopefully, to
try to implement it or share it with foreign jurisdictions.
actually in Quebec specifically focused on looking at the operation
of organized crime groups within first nations communities.
From a criminal perspective, it allows us, by assisting that
jurisdiction, that country, to attain a certain stability and capacity in
attacking criminality domestically within their borders, which can
actually prevent that criminality from coming to Canada. Again, it is
extremely important.
● (0940)
Mr. John Rafferty: I'm also thinking of the actual economics and
the finances of having chronically underfunded first nations police
services right across Canada and the RCMP in those provinces
having to pick up the slack really. Just in terms of answering calls
and supporting and doing that sort of thing when your own budgets
are being cut, it seems to me that the economics are looking pretty
grim across the country.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll move to Mr. Rafferty, please.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Thank
you very much, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
I'd like to move the discussion back to more traditional policing.
We've been talking about fraud and international policing and so on
and so forth. I'd like to talk about aboriginal policing and the work
that you do in the provinces and territories, the territories being a
separate item where the RCMP is the front-line service, and your
support for first nations policing in the provinces. We'll exclude
Quebec and Ontario because the OPP picks up a lot of that slack
right now.
The RCMP has done a lot recently, in the last number of decades,
in fact, to save costs. I'll use, just as an example, not moving officers
around as much or not in such a short period of time.
Let me talk first about the work that you do in the provinces and
your relationship with first nations police services. I know first-hand,
and we've heard from witnesses, that first nations policing is in
trouble. How does re-engineering fit into helping ensure that
aboriginal police forces are effective and that you are able, with your
own budget cuts and so on, to provide the support for those first
nations police services that is lacking, certainly in northern Ontario
where continual chronic underfunding of first nations police forces
has forced the OPP to pick up a lot of the slack? And they're not
doing it anymore because they don't have the money either.
I wonder if you'd like to make a comment on re-engineering and
how that works. This is for either one of you.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: That's a difficult question to answer,
especially if you exclude Quebec and Ontario.
Our role in first nations policing or in assisting first nations
policing is actually being managed out of our contract side of the
house. Within Ontario and Quebec, and actually nationally, to a
certain extent, the flexibility or the benefit of re-engineering for first
nations policing would be in terms of our prioritization and our
ability to have a more robust view of what's going on in our ability to
assist first nations policing in attacking whatever criminal organizations are operating within their communities.
Within Ontario and Quebec, and in Quebec specifically, we have a
very strong relationship with first nations policing. They are part of
some of our combined forces enforcement teams. There is one
That's why it's hard for me to give you a national perspective of
what the re-engineering would do.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: I can't disagree with you, but as I said,
unfortunately, in terms of how our contract's going to be mitigating
whatever reductions they are going to be subjected to, I don't think
I'm the one who should be speaking to that.
What I can tell you, though, as the government, as the minister,
even, has mentioned on several occasions, the impact to the front
line by some of the reductions will be minimal, if any.
You were talking about the back office. The back office does not
necessarily refer to the intelligence analysts. It refers more to some
of the administrative process that the organization has.
Mr. John Rafferty: I would hazard to suggest that the minister is
wrong in that assessment—
Hon. Laurie Hawn: There's a surprise.
Mr. John Rafferty: —in terms that the economics are not going
to be impacted. Really, the RCMP, in terms of first nations and
aboriginal persons, are picking up more and more of the slack
because you've got another police service that's not well funded. I
don't understand that.
You both talked about opportunity, so where's the opportunity
here in terms of first nations and aboriginal policing, with reengineering?
● (0945)
The Chair: Please reply very quickly.
D/Commr Mike Cabana: In terms of our contract work, the
opportunities are very minimal. In terms of aboriginal communities
that are located in Ontario and Quebec, the relationship is already
there. In terms of the collaboration and the enhanced coordination
with them, working together to attack organized crime, that's already
there and that will continue.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We want to thank you for appearing. We've heard this before
many a time. In the decade from 1997 to 2007, policing costs went
from $6 billion to $12 billion.
Even though Mr. Scarpaleggia talked about not just the wages or
the personnel being cut, that makes up 80% to 85% of the costs of
the overall policing. So we want to make sure that, in other areas as
well, we can see ways that more efficiently provide safety and
security for Canadians.
10
SECU-69
Also, if you have any suggestions, anything else that you would
like to add to what you've said today, if you wouldn't mind just
forwarding it to our committee, that would be entered in as evidence
or as testimony as well.
I think we see from all parties a general understanding that we
have to become more efficient in the way we deliver this. Even from
the police forces we see that, and I thank you for coming her this
morning to help us understand this topic a little better.
We are going to suspend for one moment. Our next guests will
come to us via teleconference.
● (0945)
(Pause)
● (0945)
The Chair: Welcome back to meeting number 69 of the Standing
Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
We're continuing our study on the economics of policing in
Canada. In our second hour we have two witnesses appearing by
video conference. We have yet to bring up one.
From Burnaby, British Columbia, testifying as an individual, we
have Curt Taylor Griffiths, a professor in the school of criminology
and coordinator of the police studies program at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, Canada. In Vancouver it would be about a
quarter to seven, so he will be here with us shortly, I am told.
Professor Griffiths is considered to be an expert in the field of
policing, community and restorative justice, corrections, legal
reform, and social development. He is a co-author of many different
books, research reports, and articles.
Also appearing by video conference from Carbondale, Illinois, we
have Joseph Schafer, associate professor with the Center for the
Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections at Southern Illinois
University in Carbondale. He is president of the Society of Police
Futurists International, a member of the Futures Working Group and
a futurist in residence with the behavioural science unit of the FBI
academy in Quantico, Virginia. Dr. Schafer's research examines
police leadership, police discretion, police organizations, and
program evaluation.
Our committee thanks these witnesses for helping us with our
study on the costs of policing in Canada.
I will begin by welcoming Professor Schafer. We could begin with
you, sir.
● (0950)
Prof. Joseph Schafer (Professor, Department of Criminology
and Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University, As an
Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I know this body has
already heard some important and informative testimony so I will
keep my comments brief in light of the time restrictions and what I
believe you've already heard.
Matters of economics, sustainability, cost, and value in policing
are of critical importance in considering the future of public safety
services in any nation. Regrettably, in my opinion, these issues have
largely been ignored. Resources more typically are infused into or
drained away from police services and other public safety agencies
February 7, 2013
with a limited understanding of how we might maximize benefits
and minimize harm when those types of steps are necessary.
As a consequence, we don't really have a clear understanding of
how to ensure we've received the most benefit possible from our
public safety tax dollars. To me, the consideration of economics in
policing comes down to the related issues of cost and value. Cost is
easy to understand and relatively easy to measure. I suspect it both
motivates many of the conversations around the economics of
policing and it often tends to drive budgetary decision-making in this
area.
Cost, however, does not give you, as decision-makers, all of the
information you need to do your job with diligence. Discussions of
economics in policing must also incorporate consideration of value.
This is a more subjective issue, but in general, what is the value or
return on investment for an infusion of public safety expenditures.
I'll focus my brief comments this morning on five major themes. I
would note that my orientation is certainly conditioned by my
American perspective on this issue, which you may find in this
consideration either helpful or at times irrelevant. My orientation is
also influenced by my work looking at future issues in policing. In
conducting your important work, I would encourage you to not
simply consider the current economic realities of policing and public
safety in Canada, but also to consider how those realities may
manifest themselves in the future, a situation that at times might be a
radical departure from current circumstances.
First of all, existing performance measures in policing are
convenient, though they're imperfect and limited in scope. They
only tell us a small part of the narrative about the ability of police
officers and organizations to influence the communities that they
serve. While it's relatively easy to identify alternate performance
indicators that might provide a more holistic understanding of the
influence police have on communities, such as the fear of crime, a
sense of safety among citizens, the provision of justice, measuring
those indicators is challenging from both practical and fiscal
perspectives.
Second, certainly using the United States as an example, we can
find ample examples of troubled communities that have made
appreciable cuts in policing services in the last five years and have
experienced violent crime rates that have escalated rapidly. At the
same time, we can also find examples of agencies that have made
analogous staffing cuts and did not experience major increases in
serious crime. Whether those distinctions are a consequence in the
latter jurisdiction, whether there are other consequences, such as
increases in disorder or minor crime, remains open to debate. There
is not always a clear relationship between police staffing levels and
crime rates. Crime reductions, whether driven by staffing or other
considerations, are a function of a community's composition, the
capacities and skill set of the police force, and importantly, the way
in which policing resources are directed and deployed.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
The point here is that increasing or decreasing police staffing by
itself may not condition subsequent rates of crime and disorder in a
direct manner. Our understanding of the staffing deployment crime
and disorder relationships is imperfect and incomplete. More
experience is needed and more evidence must be presented so we
can have a more robust understanding. I would note that what we do
understand about the relationship between police staffing and crime
tends to be derived largely from urban areas. These dynamics may be
quite different in jurisdictions serving small, rural, or first nation
communities. We simply do not know.
● (0955)
Third, it is important that a conversation on economics in policing
look beyond the crime rate in judging success. There are less evident
outcomes of policing services, such as generating and sustaining
public trust and confidence, fostering a sense of community, creating
an environment in which people feel reasonably safe and secure, and
providing citizens with quality government services that are
responsive to the public's needs and expectations.
All of these are quite difficult to measure, and, at least in the
United States, our experiences with recent economic difficulties do
not clearly illuminate whether or not these intangibles have been
affected by recent staffing and budget changes.
The value received from government investment in public safety
may go beyond simple reported rates of crime and disorder. A
community in which citizens are objectively safe but who live in fear
and lack trust in the police is not a preferred outcome, in my opinion.
Fourth, I believe I have been asked to speak before you today
because one of my areas of expertise is future studies as it relates to
policing. Future thinking is not a process intended to strictly predict
the future; rather, it is a process to help us make better decisions
today. In effect, it is a form of strategic planning.
For the sake of brevity, I would note that a major implication of
future studies is the observation that as groups engage in discussions
about the economics of policing, it is critical that the discussion of
the future does not always assume constancy or even a linear pace of
change.
I would encourage your body to consider several questions. For
instance, what challenges and opportunities will emerge for the
commission and prevention of crime in the future? When, where,
and how are citizens likely to wish to receive policing services in the
future, a situation that might be quite different from the status we see
today? How will emerging technologies create both challenges and
opportunities to deliver quality public safety services and also
address ancillary needs, such as training and education of police
personnel? How might generational differences between those in the
labour force today and those entering the labour force change the
values and motivations of police personnel?
How might social and technological changes manifest themselves
in the ways in which citizens wish to access police services? Today
we might suspect that most citizens would prefer to personally see a
police officer when they are reporting a victimization experience. In
2025, as an example, the typical crime victim may be perfectly
content reporting their experiences electronically, or even by an
artificial intelligence-based system. If that is the case, there are
11
important implications for thinking about police service delivery into
the future.
How will emergent social and technological transformations
influence the ancillary costs of policing? For example, how might
educational technologies be used to streamline when and how police
personnel are trained and educated?
The fifth and final issue I would address is that this conversation
should not simply be about cutting policing services and/or police
personnel. It should include consideration of how services can be
delivered in acceptable alternate ways and also by those other than
sworn personnel. This might include using technology to facilitate
police-citizen interactions that are not always direct and face to face.
This might include the use of civilian and volunteer personnel.
Consideration of the latter should not be restricted to the
traditional focus of off-loading low-end tasks onto non-sworn
personnel. Civilians and volunteers might be ideally suited to take on
some of the more challenging tasks and mandates confronting
modern police agencies.
Though we certainly must use caution in deploying these
strategies, we must also recognize that they may not always be
available in smaller and more rural jurisdictions.
I would reinforce in this discussion that cost alone cannot win the
day in considering these types of transformations. This body must
examine whether the public will be adequately served and
sufficiently satisfied with such changes. Will they still see that there
is an appropriate value in the services they receive from the tax
dollars they pay to support public safety?
I will conclude my comments with three brief suggestions for this
committee and its efforts.
First, I would encourage you to approach this task with a futures
orientation. Do not presume that there will be continuity in when,
where, and how police operations are conducted. Do not presume
that the public safety expectations of the public will remain the same.
Do not presume that the motivation and skills of police personnel
will be stable. Do not presume that the nature and volume of crime
will look the same 20 years from now as it did 20 years ago. The
future presents both challenges and opportunities for us. Be aware of
the former and seek ways to capitalize upon the latter.
● (1000)
Second, bear in mind that errors can take a long time to correct
when considering issues of public safety. An unpopular decision to
stop sending first responders to immediately take a report for a given
criminal incident might over time be found sufficiently unpopular
with citizens, but the consequences of that error are likely relatively
minimal and relatively easy to reverse. Alternately, a decision that
results in a failure to effectively address emergent delinquent
conduct among youth might result in a generation of future offenders
being created, and once that creation has occurred the consequences
of that error can take decades to be resolved.
12
SECU-69
Finally, though resources are tight, as an academic I would
encourage this body to continue to seek evidence-based solutions
and demand evidence-based evaluation of any changes that are
made. In 1936, sociologist Robert Merton wrote a classic essay in
which he discussed what he termed the “unanticipated consequences
of purposive social change”. His implication for this body in that
essay is that it is important to use evidence and experience to guide
choices. Moving forward, it is also important to use evidence to
ensure your changes achieve the desired results. Perhaps most
importantly, in seeking to monitor results, it is important to look for
things we did not expect, to seek to detect both the mistakes that
might be made and to seek out the possibility that advantages have
been realized that were not anticipated initially.
I commend this committee and its constituents for taking on such
a difficult and important task. I thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer.
We have Professor Griffiths with us now. I introduced him earlier.
At least I think he's with us. It looks like he's left the building.
Anyway, Dr. Schafer, thank you. We were trying to get a setup.
We've had some difficulties with the audio into Burnaby, British
Columbia, and Professor Griffiths was with us. He's just left. I'm
anticipating that we'll be able to come back. Maybe they've moved to
a different room; I'm not certain.
We'll go into a first round of questioning.
Dr. Schafer, and to our committee, if Professor Griffiths comes
back, I will probably break right there and go to him and hear his
testimony.
Mr. Norlock, would you begin, please.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you to the witness, thank you for making yourself
available, Professor Schafer.
I'm going to start off with referring to the previous witness. There
was a discussion as to whether or not you can achieve savings within
a deployed police force with a reduction in certain personnel. In my
past I was with a deployed police force. We were able to do that by
three police detachments within a smaller jurisdiction combining
their administration. You can reduce the number of administrative
personnel and ancillary civilian jobs while keeping the same number
of front-line police officers in the field.
Of particular interest to me—in some of the biography I read and
some of the issues that you've dealt with—are different forms of
criminal justice, and, of course, the time a person is with the police.
Before I left policing some dozen or so years ago, the Ontario
criminal justice system was adopting the restorative justice regime. I
think its roots were in New Zealand through the Maori, the healing
circles. It had to do with positive shaming. The victim and the person
with the anti-social type behaviour would be put in the same room.
They would not go through the criminal justice system. That relieved
in the future the person's quasi-criminal or anti-social behaviour, and
thus reduced costs.
February 7, 2013
I wonder if you've looked at that at all in your studies.
● (1005)
Prof. Joseph Schafer: That's not something I would claim to
have personal expertise on. I think in general your assessment is
correct. If we think particularly about first-time or low-severity
offenders part of the conversation for achieving public safety savings
may be in identifying programs through which we can achieve a
long-term crime reduction outcome with that offender outside of
conventional public safety criminal justice responses. Potentially that
could achieve both a savings at the initial point when they have
contact with the justice system but also hopefully it could reduce
their proclivity to offend in the future and therefore achieve a longterm savings as well.
Mr. Rick Norlock: Thank you.
I also observed that this past January you attended the Summit on
the Economics of Policing. Can you tell the committee what your
role there was and of any best practices you may have taken with
you, or brought away with you, or some suggestions? You have
already talked about some of those suggestions in your preamble. I
just wonder if you have anything in addition to say, especially on
those issues surrounding your attendance at the summit in January.
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes, sir.
My role was similar, I believe, to my role here today, to provide
some discussion for the attendees at that program about this notion
of futurist thinking, about this notion of not simply anticipating a
linear progression of both the problems in the environment in which
public safety operates, and to be not just aware of emerging
challenges but emerging opportunities.
To the comments I presented earlier, one of the clear examples we
can see that's very germane in my normal daily life in college and
university education is the radical and rapid changes in how people
are being provided opportunities to learn, using technology to
accomplish things that even a few years ago were not possible in the
college classroom and in the high school classroom.
It's only a matter of time before it would be logical to look at those
same types of ideas and ask whether we could realize efficiencies in
the ancillary aspects of public safety by rather than requiring several
dozen people at a time to attend a particular training session,
facilitate completion through online platforms. The possibilities we
may be able to see in that area, even in the next two to three years,
are light years away from how most people have considered online
education and training for the last 10 to 15 years. It's going to be a
radically different environment.
I think that in terms of many of our past concerns about online
education, of online training being a very poor alternative to face-toface contact, in reality we're going to see some very strong
possibilities that could both enhance training and also substantially
reduce costs.
Mr. Rick Norlock: Thank you very much for that.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
I noticed something in the information I have about you, and I
wonder if you could point this committee to police forces, whether
they be in the United States of America or perhaps European
countries, countries that have similar policing structures to those in
Canada and the U.S., particularly Canada. How have they dealt with
the economics of policing vis-à-vis either stagnant.... When I say
“stagnant” I mean funding models that are relatively constant or that
don't grow at an exponential rate. How have they been able to adjust
their service delivery and still maintain a high level of productivity?
That means solving crime and meeting with community expectations, which are not, as you would know, always the same.
I wonder if you would be able to provide some examples to our
researchers, and perhaps comment right now because we may end up
asking for, as additional witnesses, some of those police forces or
agencies.
● (1010)
The Chair: Very quickly, as we have about 30 seconds on this
round.
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes, I can certainly reflect on that and
provide some additional names.
One agency that certainly comes to mind, which I've had some
discussions with, is the Colorado Springs Police Department. They
have a very challenging tax structure that compounds their budget
reductions. They have done what I think are some very innovative
strategies that they've deployed to address these types of issues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer and Mr. Norlock.
We'll now move to Madam Doré Lefebvre.
[Translation]
You have seven minutes.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Thank you
very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer, for being here with us at this
hearing of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National
Security. Your comments are greatly appreciated.
My first question is related to research and innovation. Many of
the witnesses who appeared before the committee have said that it
might be important to invest in research and innovation and to create
a department or national agency where best practices could be made
available to all police services, urban or rural, throughout the
country. I know that there are several research and innovation
agencies in the United States.
Do you think that this would be a good way to transfer
information among the various police services? Do those types of
agencies function well? Are they used to good advantage in the
United States?
[English]
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes, I think that a distinction could also be
made in your discussion about efforts to create a research clearing
house, a way to centralize what is known from various agencies. I
believe in reviewing some of the earlier materials the committee has
heard that there have been discussions of the website CrimeSolutions.gov.
13
The problem-oriented policing centre also provides a way
whereby agencies can pass on small research projects and
experiential projects they have completed, and then that is compiled
and collated so that other agencies can learn from those examples. I
think that's one perhaps relatively inexpensive way to centralize
knowledge.
The other format might be more in line with our National Institute
of Justice, and ways in which our federal government seeks to fund
and support the creation of new knowledge. I think it's important to
know that there is a distinction. Certainly, both of those activities are
quite important, but in economically challenging environments,
funding robustly the creation of new knowledge may be far more
challenging. A slightly more austere approach might be simply to
create a mechanism by which agencies can share their experiences
and best practices with one another.
[Translation]
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much.
I have a brief question concerning the privatization of police
services. You may be more familiar than we are with that type of
operation. What do you think of the privatization of police services?
I know that that is done more frequently in the United States. Does
it work well? Would you recommend it?
[English]
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Privatization is something that needs to be
approached with a great deal of caution. Certainly, any government
agency, any public service organization, might have somewhat
inflated costs, might not be quite as lean in its operation as a private
corporation, but in my opinion there is also some truth to the popular
phrase that you get what you pay for. I think at times that
privatization—the increasing experience in the U.S., although it's
still somewhat mixed—while it might save costs, also reduces value.
That enters into that subjective area that I mentioned earlier in
passing, whereby it becomes a bit of a matter of personal opinion
whether we are willing to accept a lesser quality of service in
exchange for a reduced cost of that service.
I think savings certainly can be achieved, but often that may be at
the expense of having personnel conducting duties who are less
trained, less equipped, less prepared, less educated. It's certainly a
function of what we are expecting people to do. We can see
examples in the United States of very successful privatization efforts
for discrete, specific, narrow policing tasks where it makes little
sense to have a full-time, sworn, uniformed, equipped officer doing
what amounts to little more than a security function. As to having
private security personnel engaging in a broader level of public
safety patrolling and handling incidents, I think that becomes a much
more complicated circumstance.
● (1015)
[Translation]
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much.
At the beginning of your intervention, you talked about a more
collaborative approach among police services, and if I understood
correctly, the various social services.
We lost the lighting and we could no longer see you.
14
SECU-69
[English]
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes, I think I sat still for too long.
[Translation]
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre: You talked about cooperation
among various services, in particular medical services, and social
and police services.
In your opinion, could this be useful in fighting street gangs?
Could this contribute to keeping young people away from crime? Do
you think we should emphasize that approach?
[English]
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Again, the evidence is not 100%. There are
strategies that have been attempted that have not proven to be
successful. There are a lot of strategies that have been successful in
which by taking a more integrated collaborative approach towards
matters of delinquency, gang activity, urban violence, substance
abuse, and the needs of those with mental illness, we're not simply
placing that responsibility on the shoulders of the police. Instead,
involving police with other community, health, education, and
outreach specialists can achieve very positive results. I think it's very
important to explore non-traditional ways of thinking about how we
might resolve those types of problems.
[Translation]
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer.
We'll now move to Mr. Payne, please, for seven minutes.
Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Thank you, Chair.
February 7, 2013
As for the Colorado Springs experience, I had some opportunities
to visit that community about a year and a half ago, and one of the
issues they have wrestled with is a radical cut in budget and the
cascading effect of a reduction in patrol personnel.
Their response has been to create alternative ways to handle
common but low priority, what are often referred to as low
solvability offences. Theft offences underneath a certain dollar value
of loss, when there are no witnesses or forensic evidence, and those
types of cases, regrettably, have an extremely low rate of being
solved. Rather than dispatching a uniformed officer at the time an
incident is reported, they are encouraging citizens instead to use a
reporting website to call in and speak with an officer who might be
on light duty at the police station and who will complete a report by
phone. In their experience, these types of incidents can be handled
without physically sending an officer in many situations. Although, I
think even the personnel from that agency would caution that they
have some trepidation that while perhaps they've done a good job
and because of these strategies they've been able to ensure the patrol
force can focus on serious and violent crime and keep those matters
largely in check, there is some internal trepidation that perhaps that
achievement regarding serious and violent crime has, to some extent,
been at the sacrifice of doing a quality job of providing full service
towards low level property offences.
I certainly can put your staff in contact with some of the folks I've
worked with within that agency. I'm sure they would be happy to
share some of their experiences with you further.
● (1020)
Mr. LaVar Payne: Okay.
Thank you, Professor, for sharing your knowledge with us.
I noted in your opening comments that you talked about
something I call the best bang for the buck. I think you called it
cost and value. You touched on an area of the Colorado Springs
police. I think you said that was a good police force that was doing
some excellent work. I know you're prepared to send some
information, but I'm wondering about a couple of things.
First of all, could you give us a bit of detail on that?
Second, are you aware of other police forces that are sharing best
practices and which ones are those? Would it be good for us here in
Canada to look at those forces or at forces in another country that
you might be aware of?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Certainly. I would be better positioned to
provide some other specific agencies once I have a chance to review
some materials after today's session.
The one caution I would reiterate from my opening comments is
that I think what we do know from the American experience tends to
be with rather large or urban agencies, maybe not Chicago but a
suburb of Chicago, from their agency and things like this. What we
know about these matters in smaller jurisdictions, in more rural
areas, and what might be effective or ineffective in first nations
areas, I think, is another matter. We have to be cautious, both in the
U.S. and I would suggest in Canada, about assuming that those
experiences will transfer over.
Are you aware of other organizations sharing best practices that
could potentially benefit us?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes, I think there are some efforts out
there.The International Association of Chiefs of Police has done
some work looking at this. The Police Executive Research Forum, or
PERF, has put together some publications and has looked at some of
these matters as well. I'm not sure, but, off the top of my head, I
suspect the Police Foundation has explored this issue as well. Those
would be three good starting points, although I'm quite confident
there are other efforts that simply are not coming to my mind at this
point.
Mr. LaVar Payne: Okay.
Professor, could you describe current trends in crime rates in the
U.S. and how they've affected the police forces’ services? Do you
see any comparison with those in Canada?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: I think the crime rate in the last five years,
in light of the economic downturn in this country, has defied what
conventional criminological thinking would have suggested. At the
onset of the recession, there was a great deal of discussion about the
idea that we expected to see crime increase dramatically and that the
15-plus years of declining and low crime we had experienced would
be over.
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
What we have generally seen is the opposite of that. We've seen a
stable to, in some situations, declining crime rate. There certainly can
be numerous examples to the counterpoint of that statement. That's a
very broad statement. You can find sources out there that tend to
cherry-pick and say, “Well, robbery in this community has gone up
15% in the last year”. It's not going to be a uniformly accurate
statement, but in general, we've not seen the fallout and the
consequences.
I would reiterate one of my opening comments. What we don't yet
know are a couple of things. One, we don't yet know whether there
has been a clear influence on citizen satisfaction, fear of crime, and
perception of safety. Two, it may be too early to tell whether some of
the initiatives and programs that have been cut, that might target
youth, might possibly result—I don't think we know or have a
preliminary indication—in a future generation of offenders who are
not being pushed away from that poor choice. Once people start on
that track, if we don't have the right interventions and early warning
systems in place, it can very quickly get away from us. I don't think
in the U.S. we can say that we are going to evade any problems with
this particular economic downturn.
15
You mentioned the idea of using civilian volunteers. You made the
point, perhaps a pre-emptive point, that you weren't just talking
about the creation of neighbourhood watch groups, that you thought
civilian volunteers could play a part in more complex, if you will,
aspects of policing. Could you elaborate on that?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Yes. In the U.S. we've tended to view
volunteers as doing very low-level type tasks, what I generally say in
addressing the issue with American police forces. Typically we see
volunteers being brought together when there's a community festival
and we need somebody to sit on a barricade to block traffic from
going down a particular road. It's not a particularly high-skill task but
an important task. We tend to view volunteers as supporting fairly
low-level security and public order tasks, supporting very low-level
clerical tasks.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: That was very interesting, Dr.
Schafer.
I've heard of examples of agencies in the U.S. in the last couple of
years training civilian volunteers to gather forensic evidence at crime
scenes, again, using that as a way to dedicate fully trained staff for
more serious incidents. You have burglary incidents where the
forensics tend to be fairly simple: photographing a crime scene,
dusting for prints perhaps, collecting some type of tool-mark
impression, things of this nature. Having a civilian do these types of
low priority, less serious types of events that tend to be quite high in
volume and consume a lot of resources allows for fully trained
personnel to focus on more complex violent crime incidents.
On your last point about the economy and crime, would it not be
accurate to say that crime has more long-term causes many of which
could be economic? For example, the persistence of youth
unemployment over many business cycles results, sometimes, in a
kind of criminal gang-related underclass or a drug subculture.
I'm not sure to what extent that situation has been legally vetted in
terms of admissibility of evidence in U.S. courts. It goes back to cost
and value for us and whether we are willing to offset for the savings
in cost.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Schafer.
We'll now move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.
One has trouble intuitively understanding that if someone is laid
off at the local GM plant, that suddenly they go and rob a bank or
whatever. Would you say that the link is more long term and, as you
say, maybe endemic, that if we don't deal with youth unemployment
quickly, we end up creating this stubborn problem that may only go
away with an aging population?
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Yes, because evidence is the crux of a
case, so you'd want to make sure that people who are accountable—
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Absolutely.
● (1025)
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: —experts are gathering the evidence,
I would imagine.
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Certainly I would preface this remark by
saying I'm not an expert in this type of macro-level economic and
criminological research. My view is that our past experience in the
U.S. with crime during times of economic downturns leads us to
believe that we would have seen a clearer manifestation of those
problems by now than we have. There certainly is an argument that
there might be a lagging effect. The relationship is not direct. It's not
about dad who loses his job at the GM plant. It's about what happens
when dad loses the job, is unable to find employment, falls into
depression and alcoholism, and neglects his son, who ultimately
grows up to make poor choices.
There's the whole issue of indicators, which seems to be quite a
complex one. How do you measure the impact of policing? Is it just
in terms of GDP lost? How do you measure the consequence of a 95year-old grandmother who's been defrauded out of her life savings
having to move into her daughter's basement, and so on? That must
be one of the more challenging aspects of this exercise, developing
indicators that are solid, that mean something, and that achieve a
consensus of meaning, if you will, to measure impacts. I guess this is
one of the major challenges.
You are certainly correct in that we have to be very cautious in
thinking that in the U.S. we've dodged the bullet, if you will, on this
situation simply by virtue of not seeing that immediate outcome. It's
a very complex set of relationships, many of which are long term and
very difficult to disentangle or correct.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Thank you.
● (1030)
Prof. Joseph Schafer: Absolutely. I would agree with you fully.
It's getting a really accurate understanding of economics that goes
beyond simple salary and benefit data into the impact of crime, and
also measuring the less tangible influence that police and public
safety officials have beyond simply the crime rate.
16
SECU-69
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: You also mentioned that privatization
reduces value. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: I would not necessarily say that in all
situations and circumstances, but I think there can be times when
privatization is a good idea and can save money.
We've also seen experience in the U.S. where, in the long run, it
was determined that privatization actually was as expensive, or more
expensive, than it would have been to simply keep something under
government control. We're starting to see some examples and
evidence of that in the U.S. with privatization of jails and prisons.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Thanks very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I should also make mention, and maybe I did make mention of it
already, that we will not be going to committee business.
We'll go back to Mr. Rafferty, please.
Mr. John Rafferty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is a
fascinating discussion.
Thank you, Professor Schafer, for being here.
I have to comment on everybody's questioning. It really is of high
quality. I'm learning a lot.
One of the things you talked about was asking questions dealing
with what the future holds. When I look to the future of policing, I
have a little trouble prognosticating. Maybe I watch too much
science fiction. All I can think of is the movie I, Robot.
You mentioned some of the questions you would ask. If I were to
ask you to look into the future, what are the sorts of things 10, 20,
and 50 years down the road that you could perhaps personally
anticipate might happen in policing, and what should we be looking
at?
Prof. Joseph Schafer: One of the issues I alluded to in that set of
questions related to public expectations about when, where, and how
police services are delivered. Also, I think for most people over the
age of perhaps 25 or 30, the notion that routinely we might interface
not with a live police officer when we are a victim of crime, but by
communicating by computer or telephone or some other type of
telecommunications device with a computer system driven by
artificial intelligence to report our victimization, is hard to fathom,
hard to understand, and probably is very much an antithesis to our
traditional idea about how citizens interface with government.
Today's youth is growing up more and more with less emphasis on
face-to-face contact, and more reliance on technology as a modality
of communication. In 10 years, when such technologies are more
readily available for very low cost and at a very high technical
quality, those folks, as they enter into adulthood, might think nothing
of having their victimization reported not to a real, live person, but
rather to a computer system that can understand what it is being told
and ask follow-up questions, for instance, about the burglary that I've
experienced. Therefore, we shouldn't necessarily presume constancy
in the public expectation to have a uniformed, live patrol officer
there to validate my experience as a crime victim.
Mr. John Rafferty: Can we in the future, do you think, anticipate
consistency of the nature of crime? In other words, things that we see
February 7, 2013
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.
● (1035)
Mr. John Rafferty: 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: Thank you very much, Mr. Rafferty.
Mr. Gill, please.
Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): 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?
February 7, 2013
SECU-69
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.
Mr. Parm Gill: 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?
● (1040)
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: 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.
17
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: Thank you.
Mr. Garrison, please.
Mr. Randall Garrison: 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!
Mr. Randall Garrison: 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 problemoriented policing centre and looking at other entities that seek to
coordinate best practices, because often fiscal cost is a part of those
conversations.
Mr. Randall Garrison: 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?
18
SECU-69
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.
● (1045)
Mr. Randall Garrison: Thank you very much.
The Chair: 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
February 7, 2013
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: Thank you.
Committee, our time is up, so we are adjourned.
Published under the authority of the Speaker of
the House of Commons
Publié en conformité de l’autorité
du Président de la Chambre des communes
SPEAKER’S PERMISSION
PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT
Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons
and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is
hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate
and is not presented as official. This permission does not
extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial
purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this
permission or without authorization may be treated as
copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act.
Authorization may be obtained on written application to the
Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre et
de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel
support, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne
soit pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois
pas permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les
délibérations à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un
profit financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise
ou non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme
une violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le
droit d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur
présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de
la Chambre.
Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not
constitute publication under the authority of the House of
Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the
proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to
these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes
briefs to a Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in
accordance with the Copyright Act.
La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne
constitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre.
Le privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la
Chambre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lorsqu’une reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un
comité de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de
leurs auteurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à
la Loi sur le droit d’auteur.
Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the
privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of
Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this
permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching
or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in
courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right
and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a
reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission.
La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges,
pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses comités.
Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas l’interdiction
de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibérations de la
Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La Chambre
conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisateur
coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduction ou
l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permission.
Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the
following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca
Aussi disponible sur le site Web du Parlement du Canada à
l’adresse suivante : http://www.parl.gc.ca
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Related manuals

Download PDF

advertisement