Question Period Note: Contract Policing in Coaldale, Alberta

Recent news items have highlighted the Town of Coaldale’s long standing position that, as a 2016 new entrant to contract policing, they should not be paying 100% of the costs for RCMP policing services provided by Canada.

• Since 2016, the Town of Coaldale, Alberta has benefited from quality RCMP policing services through a contract with the federal government.

• In 2016, it was the decision of Coaldale to pursue an agreement with Canada for RCMP policing services, with the knowledge that it would be subject to the New Entrant Guidelines, and required to pay 100% of eligible costs.

• Any municipality transitioning to RCMP policing services from an independent police service, regardless of historical relationships with the RCMP, is subject to these guidelines and cost arrangement.

• The RCMP remains committed to working closely with the Town of Coaldale to deliver responsive and effective policing services, and to explore cost-containment, or other measures, to help address, to the greatest extent possible, the rising costs of front-line policing.

The Minister of Public Safety (PS) is accountable for the management and conduct of the RCMP and for the extent and quality of the services it provides, including under the 165 Police Service Agreements (PSAs or contracts) between the Government of Canada (GC) and provincial, territorial and municipal (PTM) governments where the RCMP provides front-line policing services.

Treasury Board implemented the New Entrant Municipal Policing (NEMP) Policy and Guidelines in the early 1980s to control contract policing costs by introducing measures aimed at limiting the growth of the Contract Policing Program.

The NEMP was amended in 1991 to provide even more stringent controls, only enabling municipalities with a population between 5,000 and 15,000 to be policed by the RCMP on the condition that they pay 100% for services received.

In 2016, and as a result of the RCMP seeking to establish a new Municipal Policing Service Agreement absent requisite authorities with the Town of Coaldale, Alberta, Treasury Board directed further amendments to the NEMP by specifying that new entrants to the Program only be considered if the RCMP had sufficient capacity to fully meet its existing commitments.

Provinces, territories and municipalities have long advocated for the elimination of the NEMP, arguing the policy was unilaterally implemented by the federal government, with no consultation with the PTMs.

The 100% cost recovery model is inconsistent with the foundational cost-sharing arrangements contained in the municipal police service agreements. As a result, this has served to stunt the growth of policing in small municipalities, while, at the same time, allowing Canada to benefit from contract policing in these new municipalities without having to pay for any of the benefits as it does with similar sized contract policing municipalities.

The existing population thresholds (5,000-15,000) in the NEMP guidelines negatively impact regionalization and integration of policing, thereby limiting the ability of provinces and municipalities to realize efficiencies.

On March 22, 2019, the Mayor of Coaldale wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that he intervene to assist Coaldale gain the benefit of the 70/30 cost share. In a letter dated May 6, 2019, the PSEP Minister Ralph Goodale responded on behalf of the Prime Minister denying the request. Coaldale subsequently sought judicial review of the Minister’s letter, arguing that the Minister breached its right to procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable. On July 23, 2020, the Federal Court issued its ruling denying Coaldale’s application for review of the Minister’s letter and decision.

On June 6, 2022, you received a letter from Alberta Minister of Justice, Tyler Shandro, highlighting the perceived inequity of Coaldale’s contract policing cost situation, citing Sackville and Codiac Regional policing jurisdictions in New Brunswick, that have received the desired 70/30 cost share when they completed their agreements in 2012. However, in applying the NEMP policy guidelines, and in consideration of the timing of this during contract negotiations leading up to 2012, these jurisdictions did not meet the definition of “new entrants”, and so were ascribed the 70/30 cost share in their contracts.

None