CAN Secur/Int Committee: Time to Fix RCMP Federal Policing pgm

[Kirkhill]

Then how is that distinct from existing regulate or auxiliary police, or CAF PRes acting under AtCP? If what you’re proposing is that regulated, you’re just saying we need more of the same. Which is fine, but not what I think you’re arguing. If you’re arguing for a less regulated or capable body than those- I don’t think making a larger force of shittier troops for a fray is wise.

No, actually, I am arguing for more of the same. But a lot, lot more of the same.

And that would also relieve pressure from the Federal Forces, civil and military.

But.

It would increase provincialism at the expense of federalism. We would now be creating 10 separate provincial forces. What weaponry would be appropriate, how much and how heavy?

The US National Guard system addresses that issue by making the Guard subordinate to the states while it is equipped by the federal government to a level appropriate. And with the Feds having the right to call up the Guard to assist the Federal forces if necessary.

 

[brihard]

No, actually, I am arguing for more of the same. But a lot, lot more of the same.

And that would also relieve pressure from the Federal Forces, civil and military.

But.

It would increase provincialism at the expense of federalism. We would now be creating 10 separate provincial forces. What weaponry would be appropriate, how much and how heavy?

The US National Guard system addresses that issue by making the Guard subordinate to the states while it is equipped by the federal government to a level appropriate. And with the Feds having the right to call up the Guard to assist the Federal forces if necessary.

Ok, so you’re talking ten different forces- so provincial, not federal. So military is out. What exactly are you talking about with ‘weaponry’, then? Your choice of language suggests you’re considering something beyond what police already have.

It sounds like you believe Canada has a major capabilities gap for dealing with a problem set straddling major public disorder and insurrection. It sounds like you think that capability gap is a provincial problem.

I’m really struggling to wrap my head around the problem you seem to believe exists, and the solution you seem to have envisioned for yourself.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Yes, but that is because she is pretty much an Albertan version of Jacques Parizeau: even if the suggestion makes sense, it's automatically bad because " 'berta stronger on its own..."

On the other hand, some of the harder-core Smith'ites I know in AB would love an Alberta Provincial Police in hopes of not having Mounties seize their guns one day - "they work for the people of Alberta, not for Ottawa" sorta thing. Likely not a large number, but not zero either, and these days, sometimes the fringes on all sides can drive the centre of parties more than their numbers suggest.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

On the other hand, some of the harder-core Smith'ites I know in AB would love an Alberta Provincial Police in hopes of not having Mounties seize their guns one day - "they work for the people of Alberta, not for Ottawa" sorta thing. Likely not a large number, but not zero either, and these days, sometimes the fringes on all sides can drive the centre of parties more than their numbers suggest

Enforcing the same Criminal Code of Canada as per the Constitution.

Optics I guess...

 

[brihard]

On the other hand, some of the harder-core Smith'ites I know in AB would love an Alberta Provincial Police in hopes of not having Mounties seize their guns one day - "they work for the people of Alberta, not for Ottawa" sorta thing. Likely not a large number, but not zero either, and these days, sometimes the fringes on all sides can drive the centre of parties more than their numbers suggest.

An APP wouldn’t surprise me. The province certainly has the resources to do it though they may not like the opportunity cost, and likely the political will. If I had to put a dollar down on which province would be first to break its provincial policing contract with RCMP, it would be Alberta.

That wouldn’t mean an exit of RCMP from Alberta; just that they would be sticking to federal roles- national security, transnational and serious organized crime, borders, and cybercrime that hits a national interest or other sufficiently serious threshold. Butt you wouldn’t have Mounties answering calls or doing municipal or provincial level investigative work. Rather, Airdrie or Lloydminster Police Service; Didsbury or Banff detachments of the APP, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ok, so you’re talking ten different forces- so provincial, not federal.

Yes.

So military is out.

Why?

What exactly are you talking about with ‘weaponry’, then?

What starts off as an unarmed force with hard hats and batons can morph over time to side arms worn permanently, shotguns in the vehicles, carbines on patrol, SWAT teams with .338s, armoured cars, M113s



That level of armament is common among the European paramilitary gendarmeries.

Your choice of language suggests you’re considering something beyond what police already have.

My choice of language is in reference to what has already been shown to a demonstrable trend. If a sovereign entity is unhappy with the support it has available to it history demonstrates that it will secure the level of support it deems necessary for its situation.

I am not promoting that level of armament. I am pointing out that while I support large forces being readily available to support the provincial governments there is a risk of expansion of scope over time and that that would not be a good thing. It might prompt some interesting situations if one province decided to impose a quarantine and unilaterally deployed an armed exclusionary force at their border. Or felt the need to prevent people transporting beer from one province to the next.

I tend towards the hard hats and batons end of the spectrum for a provincial reserve.

It sounds like you believe Canada has a major capabilities gap for dealing with a problem set straddling major public disorder and insurrection.

Does it have a major capabilities gap? I guess that depends on how the future develops. I subscribe to the "have it and not need it" school of thought.

It sounds like you think that capability gap is a provincial problem.

No. I was merely following this train of thought launched here:

For my money, I’d guess that on a 10-20 year time frame we see the federal government deliberately and actively work to unwind RCMP contract policing and leave it to the provinces to police themselves.

I’m really struggling to wrap my head around the problem you seem to believe exists, and the solution you seem to have envisioned for yourself.

Solutions have I none. But scenarios are aplenty.


Ultimately this is a continuation of my ongoing argument that the professionals seem to drastically under rate the value of a trained and regulated citizenry.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, but that is because she is pretty much an Albertan version of Jacques Parizeau: even if the suggestion makes sense, it's automatically bad because " 'berta stronger on its own..."

Please continue with the beatings until Alberta's morale improves.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the other hand, some of the harder-core Smith'ites I know in AB would love an Alberta Provincial Police in hopes of not having Mounties seize their guns one day - "they work for the people of Alberta, not for Ottawa" sorta thing. Likely not a large number, but not zero either, and these days, sometimes the fringes on all sides can drive the centre of parties more than their numbers suggest.

Give over.

Newfoundland and Ontario both have their own enforcement agencies. I won't reference the SQ because "Jacques Parizeau".

 

[Kirkhill]

The problems of provincialism.

Politics and the language of combat go hand-in-hand. We talk a lot about election “battles” and “fights to the finish,” but it’s all supposed to be figurative. Losers go away to lick their chops and try again next time. When that language starts to resemble the truth — when it represents a wide embrace of violence to achieve political ends — you get something different than a normal democratic contest: you get the United States heading into the 2024 election.

Forty-one per cent of Joe Biden voters and 38 per cent of Donald Trump voters “at least somewhat believed” the other side had become extreme enough to justify violence as a means of preventing their goals from being achieved, according to a recent study by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. That was only the worst part of the rejection of liberal-democratic norms uncovered in the poll.

“A staggering majority of both Biden (70 per cent) and Trump (68 per cent) voters believed electing officials from the opposite party would result in lasting harm to the United States,” the Center added. “Roughly half (52 per cent of Biden voters, 47 per cent of Trump voters) viewed those who supported the other party as threats to the American way of life.”

Keep in mind that there are exactly two viable national political parties in the U.S. due to the culture and the structure of the political system: Trump’s Republicans and Biden’s Democrats. These findings mean that supporters of each of these parties find the prospect of a win on election day by the other side to be unacceptable. It logically follows, then, that if they’re willing to embrace violence to prevent such an outcome, they’ll consider entirely ditching the normal mechanisms of governance.

In fact, in the University of Virginia study, 41 per cent of Trump supporters expressed at least some support for secession by conservative states to form a new country, while 30 per cent of Biden supporters thought liberal states should consider doing the same. Thirty-one percent of Trump supporters and 24 percent of Biden supporters say democracy is no longer a viable system and are willing to consider other forms of government. Higher percentages of both camps say the president should be able to bypass Congress.

J.D. Tuccille: Democrats believe violence is the answer just as much as Trumpers do

Partisans at the 'extreme' ends of both parties seem poised to do enormous damage

nationalpost.com

And we are influenced by their static.

When neither side trusts the other and there is no neutral body with the respect of anybody.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the good news

50% of Voters are independent and can't thole either side

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/17/poll-americans-independent-republican-democrat

So half of the 25%s with affiliations mean we are looking at 12% the voting population as insurrectionists.


Here's the better news

33% of adults don't vote at all

1. Voter turnout, 2018-2022

American Trends Panel: Pew Research Center’s online probability survey panel, which consists of more than 12,000 adults who take two to three surveys each

www.pewresearch.org

So the insurrectionist population would be trimmed by 1/3 to 8% each.


168 million registered voters

42 million Democrats with 21 million insurrectionists
42 million Republicans with 21 million insurrectionist

84 million Independents
84 million Non-Voters
84 + 84 = 168 million Centrists

21 - 21 - 168 - 21 - 21

Add in the Centrist Democrats and Republicans

21 - 210 - 21

And you have the news cycle being set by 16% of the population and a handful of "thought leaders".

84% of the population needs a louder voice.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Enforcing the same Criminal Code of Canada as per the Constitution.

Optics I guess...

Not really. Alberta hasn't said they won't comply, but when it comes to funding and employment of their enforcement, they just aren't on board and it is the lowest priority police tasking in the province. " We don't disagree, but we won't fund or spend resources on a federal program." If it is a civilian company, tasked by Ottawa, they will require a permit, issued by the province, to operate there. They aren’t ignoring the law. Just making it really hard for the feds to apply it.

 

[lenaitch]

Ontario seems to have no legislative issue bouncing police services inter-municipally to mutually support at major events; Queen’s University homecoming for instance, or the Ottawa convoy in a more extreme example. In the latter case there were municipal police from BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan empowered to act in Ottawa. So- although RCMP definitely seem to be an ‘easy button’ for surging cops to major events or disturbances, that’s by no means something they’re uniquely capable of.

I was thinking of extra-provincial assistance. In Ontario, the Police Services Act says all Ontario police officers are sworn in for the province. I recall that there had to be some kind of regulatory 'blessing of the fishes' for the RCMP to perform full-spectrum street policing in Ottawa during 'the Convoy'. Possibly for the SQ as well. There is provision in the Act for Ontario and SQ members to operate in the other's jurisdiction, but it is a member-specific designation.

What you’re describing - a government sanctioned mob to be ‘its side’ in major civil disorder - is frankly kinda concerning and isn’t exactly unknown in history. There’s a TON of potential for that to go badly wrong.

Not unknown in Ontario's past, and I assume other provinces as well, particularly involving labour unrest but also during the Red Scare period. Government's used to overtly direct law enforcement back then. At one time, the OPP was nicknamed 'Hepburn's Hussars' (a premier at the time) for knocking heads during strikes.

It is no doubt for that reason that the Ontario legislation has prohibited civilian direction of police operations as far back as the 1940s. Some seem to think that a province gaining its own police service will somehow translate into an enforcement arm of the provincial government of the day to support its will. Hopefully, the various Acts governing law enforcement have similar provisions.

Butt you wouldn’t have Mounties answering calls or doing municipal or provincial level investigative work. Rather, Airdrie or Lloydminster Police Service; Didsbury or Banff detachments of the APP, etc.

And this is where the dollars and cents aspect may run up against the aspiration. Paying to have and support APP members in Butt Creek is inherently more costly than more densely populated areas, and they won't have the local RCMP to fall back on.

Another aspect that hasn't been considered is FNTs. I'm not familiar with the policing arrangements in other provinces, but it will no doubt involve federal agreements, and I wonder if anybody has asked if the FNs would be on board with any change.

It would increase provincialism at the expense of federalism.

How? This isn't a Constitutional question. The provinces already have the responsibility; the debate is over how they choose to exercise it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was thinking of extra-provincial assistance. In Ontario, the Police Services Act says all Ontario police officers are sworn in for the province. I recall that there had to be some kind of regulatory 'blessing of the fishes' for the RCMP to perform full-spectrum street policing in Ottawa during 'the Convoy'. Possibly for the SQ as well. There is provision in the Act for Ontario and SQ members to operate in the other's jurisdiction, but it is a member-specific designation.


Not unknown in Ontario's past, and I assume other provinces as well, particularly involving labour unrest but also during the Red Scare period. Government's used to overtly direct law enforcement back then. At one time, the OPP was nicknamed 'Hepburn's Hussars' (a premier at the time) for knocking heads during strikes.

It is no doubt for that reason that the Ontario legislation has prohibited civilian direction of police operations as far back as the 1940s. Some seem to think that a province gaining its own police service will somehow translate into an enforcement arm of the provincial government of the day to support its will. Hopefully, the various Acts governing law enforcement have similar provisions.



And this is where the dollars and cents aspect may run up against the aspiration. Paying to have and support APP members in Butt Creek is inherently more costly than more densely populated areas, and they won't have the local RCMP to fall back on.

Another aspect that hasn't been considered is FNTs. I'm not familiar with the policing arrangements in other provinces, but it will no doubt involve federal agreements, and I wonder if anybody has asked if the FNs would be on board with any change.


How? This isn't a Constitutional question. The provinces already have the responsibility; the debate is over how they choose to exercise it.

Everything is always about the choices made.

 

[brihard]

I was thinking of extra-provincial assistance. In Ontario, the Police Services Act says all Ontario police officers are sworn in for the province. I recall that there had to be some kind of regulatory 'blessing of the fishes' for the RCMP to perform full-spectrum street policing in Ottawa during 'the Convoy'.

The RCMP convoy thing was provincial statutes. They have full criminal powers across Canada, but in Ontario don’t fall under the Police Services Act. A lot of the powers potentially needed in Convoy (e.g., non-criminal traffic stops, directing traffic, removing or seizing vehicles etc) were found in the Highway Traffic Act, so Ottawa had to swear a bunch of RCMP in as special constables. Not unlike the Mounties who work uniform in places like Cornwall border enforcement and get sworn as provincial special constables by OPP. Kinda of a weird and occasionally inconvenient legislative gap, more than anything.

 

[WLSC]

No, actually, I am arguing for more of the same. But a lot, lot more of the same.

And that would also relieve pressure from the Federal Forces, civil and military.

But.

It would increase provincialism at the expense of federalism. We would now be creating 10 separate provincial forces. What weaponry would be appropriate, how much and how heavy?

The US National Guard system addresses that issue by making the Guard subordinate to the states while it is equipped by the federal government to a level appropriate. And with the Feds having the right to call up the Guard to assist the Federal forces if necessary.

@Kirkhill, QC and ON are already doing it for a long time. It comes with good and ugly events but it works pretty well. Maybe 2 or mor provinces can do it together, or not. It’s about time all the provinces do the things they’re allowed to do.

 

[WLSC]

The problems of provincialism.

J.D. Tuccille: Democrats believe violence is the answer just as much as Trumpers do

Partisans at the 'extreme' ends of both parties seem poised to do enormous damage

nationalpost.com

And we are influenced by their static.

When neither side trusts the other and there is no neutral body with the respect of anybody.

I see a lot of good in provincialism. Everyone ha ain’t the same issues, less divide to conquer from the feds. Our constitution is design different then the USA one on that matters. The divergence are minimal IMHO.

 

[lenaitch]

The RCMP convoy thing was provincial statutes. They have full criminal powers across Canada, but in Ontario don’t fall under the Police Services Act. A lot of the powers potentially needed in Convoy (e.g., non-criminal traffic stops, directing traffic, removing or seizing vehicles etc) were found in the Highway Traffic Act, so Ottawa had to swear a bunch of RCMP in as special constables. Not unlike the Mounties who work uniform in places like Cornwall border enforcement and get sworn as provincial special constables by OPP. Kinda of a weird and occasionally inconvenient legislative gap, more than anything.

Thanks. I was trying to remember the news coverage at the time.

A friend was one of the early commanders of the Cornwall RTF. A lot of jurisdictional weirdness down there.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The OPP exist here, in part, because we can afford them. We have over 15 million people here.

 

[brihard]

The OPP exist here, in part, because we can afford them. We have over 15 million people here.

It’s way more digging than I’m willing to do myself, but I’m curious what the ‘cop to pop’ ratio is between jurisdictions policed by OPP and SQ, versus other provinces that are RCMP, if you control for municipalities that have their own services. And similarly, how much those provincial police (including contracts) are subsidized by provincial tax bases in municipalities that have their own service; e.g., do Calgary, Edmonton etc net subsidize Alberta RCMP, or does the GTA and regional municipalities subsidize OPP.

Any decision on policing transition will in large part depend on the bottom line cost. Every jurisdiction is paying for policing one way or another already, but there’s a ton of nitty gritty there. Someone already mentioned that the feds subsidize RCMP contracts. It would be tough to argue they should directly subsidize municipal or provincial police, but then the reality of that means a fairly significant cost currently borne by the federal government is getting downloaded. Policing is already one of the most significant municipal budget items. It would be a tough pill to swallow.

 

[childs56]

The RCMP convoy thing was provincial statutes. They have full criminal powers across Canada, but in Ontario don’t fall under the Police Services Act. A lot of the powers potentially needed in Convoy (e.g., non-criminal traffic stops, directing traffic, removing or seizing vehicles etc) were found in the Highway Traffic Act, so Ottawa had to swear a bunch of RCMP in as special constables. Not unlike the Mounties who work uniform in places like Cornwall border enforcement and get sworn as provincial special constables by OPP. Kinda of a weird and occasionally inconvenient legislative gap, more than anything.

Is there somewhere to read the policy or law for this agreement. I am curious as to swearing in the RCMP.