Provincial Police Funding

I’ve had a few residents ask me about a recent media statement from the RCMP union, officially known as the National Police Federation (NPF). So I thought I’d share some personal thoughts. This is just me speaking personally, not on behalf of anyone else.

I fully respect that people hold different views on Grande Prairie’s police transition. I also completely understand why the union representing RCMP members would oppose a major RCMP contract being phased out. There are for sure parts of the NPF’s statement that strike me as fair commentary.

That said, I’m confused by how the recent provincial funding announcement is being framed. The union used the phrase “Grande Prairie Policing Transition Costs Climb Again,” which seems to suggest the province is putting money towards un-anticipated costs. That’s not actually what’s happening. The province is on track to pay $17 million for the transition, which is what it was always budgeted to cost. The seven million dollars that was recently announced was simply a reaffirmation of a previous commitment, not a new or unexpected expense.

From an operational standpoint, the Grande Prairie Police Service (GPPS) is on track to have more sworn officers for less cost than we would pay to maintain the RCMP detachment. The main reason for this: it is more cost-effective to police an urban area with one large detachment than it is to police rural areas with many small ones. But under the current RCMP cost structure, per-member costs are equalized across Alberta. This means cities like Grande Prairie are effectively subsidizing rural policing. So once we are paying only for our own urban police service, we will see cost savings. This is a situation where we can increase a service level while also reducing taxes.

Of course, launching a new police service comes with one-time costs. A big part of this is temporary duplication, since we need leadership and training resources in both the RCMP and GPPS during the transition. Before Council approved the transition, we were assured the province would cover these startup costs. Our transition budget was around $17 million, with an added 20 percent contingency. The province committed to fund the $17 million. But rather than providing the full amount right away, they initially gave $10 million to cover the first two years. The recent announcement was simply confirmation that the rest of the original commitment would be delivered.

I am personally glad to see the province supporting our community’s move to a more innovative and cost-effective policing model. However, I do not fault the NPF for opposing the transition. Again, I get why the union representing RCMP members is opposed. And I also understand (even if I don’t agree with) the objections some members of the public have. But I do object to is the way the funding is being described by the NPF. Calling it funding to cover “costs that are climbing again” isn’t accurate at all. The province is fulfilling a promise to help with costs that were planned years ago.

I also want to speak to how the media statement described the Police Funding Model (PFM). Sorry, the following gets into technicalities a bit. But about the PFM:

Municipalities with more than 5,000 residents have always been required to pay for their own policing. Until recently, the province fully funded basic policing for rural and small municipalities. That was not a fair system. I do not believe rural residents should pay as much for policing as urban residents do, since cities typically have a higher level of service. But I also do not think it is fair for the full cost of rural policing to be covered by provincial taxpayers, including urban residents. All municipalities should contribute to the cost of their local policing.

That is why I supported the introduction of a Police Funding Model in 2020. Under the PFM, rural and small municipalities now pay a portion of their own policing costs. Collectively, they currently pay 30% of what the province paid to contract the RCMP in rural areas back in 2020 . Currently, these contributions are frozen even though RCMP costs have increased significantly since 2020. The province is doing stakeholder engagement as it decides where to move forward with the PFM.

The NPF’s statement raises some fair criticisms of the Police Funding Model. I agree that transparency and local input need improvement. There are also valid concerns out there about how each municipality’s share of the cost is calculated. But I strongly disagree with the suggestion that it is unfair to ask these communities to pay anything at all, or unfair to ask them to pay more as costs increase. That framing ignores the ongoing strain on urban municipalities, which pay huge costs for their police with very little provincial subsidisation. Also ignored is that urban municipalities with RCMP contracts have seen large cost increases every year since 2020, and they pay an artificially high amount because of the equalisation mentioned above. I may have missed it, but I have not seen the NPF advocate for cities with large RCMP contracts to be treated more fairly. Which I think it should do if it wants cities to continue with those contracts.

Those are a few of my thoughts.

I know some of you will disagree, and that is completely fine. I always welcome good conversation, especially if you are local so can meet up for a coffee (or other beverage). I love connecting with residents, especially when they want to talk out areas where we disagree or see the world in different ways.

Thanks for reading.

-Dylan