Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 322
Mark Potter
View Mark Potter Profile
Mark Potter
2013-06-18 9:49
We'll be making one 10-minute opening statement.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randall Garrison): Please go ahead.
Mr. Mark Potter: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to everyone. It's a great pleasure to appear before this committee again and to speak with you about the economics of policing. As mentioned, I am joined this morning by my colleague, Rachel Huggins.
We've been following your work very closely and are pleased at the engagement of parliamentarians on this important issue and the wide range of impressive witnesses you have heard from during the course of your deliberations. We look forward to your report and believe that it will make a significant contribution to the work under way on the economics of policing and, most importantly, towards the future of policing in Canada.
Since we last met, there have been a number of developments. I'd like to take this opportunity to update you on those developments, as well as talk about the way forward.
First, however, I'd like to provide some brief background. The Minister of Public Safety has been providing strong leadership on the economics of policing. He has been engaged with all of his federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues through recent meetings of FPT ministers of justice and public safety to collectively advance this issue.
The work under way on the economics of policing is based on the following three commitments agreed to by all FPT ministers: first, to convene a summit on the economics of policing; second, to promote information sharing on policies and practices that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing; and third, to develop a shared forward agenda or strategy for policing in Canada.
The development of a shared forward agenda is a unique opportunity for governments to continue to demonstrate collective leadership. Such leadership can help contribute to the evolution of policing in Canada at a time of fiscal constraints and heightened public expectations.
As you know, the summit took place in January 2013. The summit was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety on behalf of all FPT justice and public safety ministers. The summit set out to meet three objectives: first, increase awareness of the economics of policing; second, provide practical information on how to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and third, get ahead of the issue so that we can take well-considered actions and avoid the drastic policing cuts being faced in some jurisdictions.
The summit was attended by over 250 participants from across Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and several other countries. Both formal and informal feedback on the summit was very positive. It achieved the objectives of awareness, practical information, and getting ahead of the issue. It also conveyed strong collective government leadership. A report on the summit is available on the Public Safety Canada website.
In fact, the summit and other developments, including the work of this committee, appear to have accelerated interest both in the issue of the economics of policing and, most fundamentally, the pace of police reform. The development of a shared forward agenda is intended to continue that momentum of change.
The closing session of the summit laid out a framework for advancing the issue of the economics of policing that is oriented around the three pillars of transformation. These are: one, efficiencies within police services; two, new models of community safety; and three, efficiencies within the justice system.
These pillars are underpinned by evaluation and validation of best practices, strengthened research, and of course engagement. The goal of the strategy is increasingly efficient and effective policing.
For the strategy to be successful, it must respect jurisdictional responsibilities for policing and it must be inclusive of the entire policing community and other key stakeholders. The goal, put simply, is to identify those areas where it makes sense to cooperate collectively. Engagement and consultation on the shared forward agenda are intended to flesh out this framework with proposed short- and medium-term actions.
The consultation plan is rolling out over spring and summer 2013. This process is being driven by all governments, notably through deputy minister and assistant deputy minister level policing and public safety committees. A core group composed of Public Safety Canada and the three champion provinces—Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia—will be taking the lead in identifying and developing specific actions for consideration by ministers.
In order to ensure that we get a broad base of input toward the shared forward agenda, we have put together a steering committee comprising this core group of federal and provincial government officials, along with key representatives of the policing community. The heads of the three national policing associations, representing front-line officers, chiefs, and boards, are on this steering committee, as well as an academic expert in policing, Professor Curt Griffiths of Simon Fraser University.
In addition to the development of the shared forward agenda, as directed by ministers, an index of police initiatives is being finalized as a tool to facilitate information sharing and learning from one another. The index is truly a collaborative effort by governments and police services across the country. We believe it is the first of its kind in Canada. The index brings together over 150 innovative initiatives, activities, and best practices in one database and will make them broadly accessible through a user-friendly search engine and on-line interface. I think many Canadians will be surprised at the many innovative policing reforms that are already under way in Canada and from which we can all learn. A number of the witnesses before this committee have referred to such innovative practices, such as the use of integrated teams to assist in responding to calls that involve individuals with mental health challenges, among many others.
In addition to such information sharing, policing transformation and innovation must be founded upon a solid base of evidence and research if it is to be successful. However, as noted earlier this morning, currently in Canada there is a limited policing-related research capacity, no central repository of accessible research information, and no agreement within the policing community on research priorities. A key aspect of the shared forward agenda will be to address such shortcomings.
In order to begin that process, Public Safety Canada has commissioned certain baseline research projects. Projects under way are reviewing policing research in Canada, use of performance measures, international comparisons of policing strategies, and the costs of police training in Canada.
Moreover, there is a major long-term research project under way on the future of Canadian policing. This project is being led by the Council of Canadian Academies and is assessing how policing is organized and delivered in Canada. The project is being undertaken by a number of eminent Canadian and international researchers. This independent study is expected to be released in late 2014 or early 2015.
In addition to strengthening research, another early focus of the work currently under way is on improving police training. A lot of money, as you know, is spent on police training, and the focus tends to be on costly and time-consuming traditional in-class approaches. Such approaches, as you have heard, are not always well-suited to the technology-based learning styles familiar to most new police recruits. Therefore, another short-term action will be to convene a two-day training summit with the Canadian Police Knowledge Network in September 2013. The workshop will bring together a wide range of participants to explore issues and approaches and help set priorities related to police training going forward.
Building on the index of innovative policing initiatives, Public Safety Canada will continue to advance information sharing through its economics of policing website. The website will act as a key portal to broadly disseminate policing information and research and to provide updates on activities related to the economics of policing.
To recap, in terms of next steps, we will soon finalize the index. There will be a training summit in P.E.I. in September, and based on the ongoing consultations, we will present the shared forward agenda to ministers in fall 2013 for their consideration.
The outcome of this committee's deliberations will, I understand, also be released this fall. Such timing would allow all governments to benefit from and draw upon your findings as we collectively shape the way forward.
That concludes the presentation. Your questions and comments would be most welcome.
Thank you very much.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you.
Can you talk a little more about the index? I think that's something we've heard a lot of recommendations on and something that is a very concrete thing the federal government can do. Can you talk a little more about the information, the index, as well as the website and where you're at with that? Just describe it a little more. Then I'm going to pass it on to Mr. Wilks.
Thank you.
Mark Potter
View Mark Potter Profile
Mark Potter
2013-06-18 9:58
The purpose of the index is basically to recognize that there are a lot of interesting and innovative activities happening across Canada. Of course, we're looking at the U.K., at Australia, and at the U.S., but there's a lot going on in Canada, so why not take the opportunity to learn from what we're doing right here and what works?
A number of provinces and police services have been pulling together information on things that have been happening at the local level over the past seven to eight months to improve policing to better serve their communities. They've compiled these into 150 different examples, and a number of these have actually been validated by researchers as best practices. That information is also related to these initiatives.
So if police services are thinking they want to improve in a certain area, this allows them to go into this database, enter search criteria, and find out what's happening in other parts of the country in those areas that they can learn from. There'll be contact and detailed information on the project or the initiative, so they can get more information, dig more deeply, and essentially learn from what's going on right across Canada.
View David Wilks Profile
CPC (BC)
Certainly in my years of policing, I felt that efficiency versus effectiveness was paramount. The police need to get the job done as quickly as they can, they need to do it as efficiently as they can, and they can't have roadblocks put in front of them. Personally, I think we've researched a lot of things to death. We come up with the same answers, but we don't come up with the efficiency model.
I'll give you a good example. In 1973, the RCMP came up with a community policing program. In 1999, they came up with a reinvented community policing program. If you were to put the two together, they would be exactly the same. So we research and we research, but we don't do anything with it.
I do like your idea with regard to one database system. A good example is that a lot of police departments in Canada are on PROS, while some are on PRIME. Why do we have two? Why don't we just have one?
Could you talk to that a bit, with regard to having one data system? With respect to the perspective of the police, they need to be consistent. They can't have one piece of data here and one piece of data there and think it's going to work, because it doesn't.
Mark Potter
View Mark Potter Profile
Mark Potter
2013-06-18 10:04
I think the challenge is that the policing community and other public services face a way of focusing the mind right now, focusing on how you deliver your operations more effectively. IT is a very good example of that.
We saw an example in the U.K.—I think this was mentioned earlier—where there had been these 43 police services. All of them had their own IT systems that didn't always match up. When faced with 20% cuts, they realized that while they didn't necessarily want to have a national IT system—although that may be the direction they ultimately head towards—they certainly said they would look at neighbouring counties and align their IT systems with them, because they're often involved in joint operations with them. They felt they could realize cost savings by having one administrator of their IT system, which would be a shared service between those two counties.
I think we're going to see more of that in Canada as we go forward, where there's a recognition of potential cost savings associated with cooperating on certain administrative areas like IT.
View Stella Ambler Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Mr. Potter and Ms. Huggins, for being here today.
I noted with interest the index. I was wondering if that is anything like the United States website, crimesolutions.gov. Is it similar, or will ours be more comprehensive, or less, or completely different? I'm just curious.
Mark Potter
View Mark Potter Profile
Mark Potter
2013-06-18 10:13
It's similar. Imagine a precursor of crimesolutions.gov, which has been evolving over a number of years. It has an administration around it. It has a number of academics who feed into it, who review the operational experiences that are put on crimesolutions.gov. Part of the advantage of crimesolutions.gov is that if you take, for example, a broken window strategy in Boston, it will be implemented, it will be assessed by one or multiple academics over time, and they will put their findings on that website. It's continually evolving, continually refining the analysis around the various initiatives that are under way. If you, as a community, are looking at moving in that direction, you'll know how the program started, you'll know how it's been evaluated, and you'll know probably how it's evolved over time, so that you can implement what is truly the best practice in that particular area going forward.
I would see our index as an early version of crimesolutions.gov. You have to walk before you run, and this is the first step in that process.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay.
What is the next step for your department? You've done what you had to do on this. Or are you putting out more...?
Mark Potter
View Mark Potter Profile
Mark Potter
2013-06-18 10:21
Absolutely. Right now we're in the midst of finalizing the index of policing initiatives. That will hopefully be later this summer. We're going to be organizing the training summit with the CPKN, and, most fundamentally, we're working with the steering committee on developing a strategy for policing in Canada that will go to all FPT ministers in the fall.
Alain Castonguay
View Alain Castonguay Profile
Alain Castonguay
2013-06-17 11:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear this morning to talk about Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013.
Canada has one of the most extensive networks of income tax treaties in the world, with 90 tax treaties currently in force. Bill S-17, once into force, will increase this number to 93, by implementing new treaties with Hong Kong, Namibia and Serbia. Bill S-17 will also implement a revised treaty with Poland, which will replace the existing treaty which dates back to 1987.
Further, Bill S-17 contains a protocol with Luxembourg and an agreement with Switzerland. In both cases, the agreements modify the provisions of the existing treaties with these countries relating to the exchange of tax information to ensure that they are consistent with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development standard for tax information.
Canada's tax treaties are generally patterned on the OECD model tax convention, modified to reflect the particularities of the Canadian tax system. Internationally, most tax treaties are generally patterned on the OECD model as well. Tax treaties are used for two main purposes: first, to eliminate tax barriers between two jurisdictions in order to promote bilateral trade and investment; and second, to prevent tax avoidance and evasion by encouraging the exchange of information for tax purposes between taxation authorities.
Allow me to expand slightly on each of these objectives and explain how the agreements in Bill S-17 support these objectives.
International double taxation can impose a barrier to cross-border trade and investment. Tax treaties prevent double taxation by providing greater certainty to taxpayers regarding their potential liability to tax in a foreign jurisdiction, by allocating taxing rights between two jurisdictions so that the taxpayers are not subjected to double taxation; by reducing the risk of "burdensome" taxation, which l will explain in a moment and which may arise because of high withholding taxes paid on certain payments; and, finally, by ensuring that taxpayers will not be subject to discriminatory taxation in the foreign jurisdiction.
Under our own domestic laws, payments of dividends, interest, and royalties made to non-residents are subject to rates of withholding equal to 25 per cent of the gross amount paid. Many of Canada's trading partners also have similar rates of withholding. Because the withholding tax does not take into account expenses incurred in generating the income, a taxpayer frequently will be subject to an effective rate of tax that is significantly higher than the rate that would be applicable if the income were taxed on a net basis. That's what I referred to earlier as “burdensome” taxation, which is clearly an impediment to cross-border trade and investment.
Tax treaties alleviate this burden by setting maximum levels of withholding tax that a treaty partner may impose on these types of payments or by providing, in some cases, for taxation exclusively in the state of residence. For example, the tax treaty with Hong Kong would impose limitations on the rates of withholding to 5% on direct dividends, 15% on other dividends, and 10% on non-arm's-length interest and on royalties.
Hong Kong is one of the largest financial markets in Asia in terms of trade and an important destination of Canadian foreign direct investment. Once the treaty is in force, it is expected that it will further encourage trade and investment and solidify our bilateral links.
The second objective that I mentioned at the outset was the prevention of tax avoidance and evasion. A key element our tax treaties is the provision authorizing the exchange of information between the respective tax authorities. Better transparency and access to information are important tools for tax authorities to enforce their own domestic tax law and to prevent international tax evasion.
In order to enhance Canada's network of information sharing, budget 2007 required that all of Canada's new tax treaties and revisions to its existing treaties would include the standard developed by the OECD for the exchange of information. The six agreements in Bill S-17 contain exchange-of-information provisions that are consistent with the OECD standard. In fact, two of the agreements in the bill with Luxembourg and Switzerland deal exclusively with the exchange of information. These provisions mandate the tax authorities of the treaty partners to exchange information relevant to the administration of each country's respective tax laws in conformity with the standard. The provisions also ensure that the effective exchange of information is not impeded by bank secrecy laws that may exist in the other country.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that Bill S-17 would contribute to increasing the extent of our tax treaties network, but it is as important to revise our tax treaties and to update them, where necessary.
The treaty with Poland is a good example. The need to negotiate and sign a new treaty with Poland was the fact that the existing treaty between Canada and Poland was signed in 1987, in a much different economic context than today. The new treaty with Poland reflects Canada's new policies regarding maximum withholding tax rates on payments of dividends, interest, and pensions. Of course, the agreement includes the most recent standards when it comes to the exchange of information.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my remarks. I am available to the committee to answer any questions.
Thank you.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2013-06-17 11:11
Thank you.
You mentioned in your remarks just now that one of the ways in which tax evasion and the use of tax havens perhaps can be addressed is through the exchange of information provisions. Article 25 and the conventions before us deal with the exchange of information.
I was reading commentary on the OECD model tax convention to the effect that the language in this type of provision cannot just cover on-demand tax information exchange agreements, TIEAs and the like, but can also deal with automatic tax exchange information.
Is that your view as well, that this could accommodate automatic information exchange, if that's where Canada were to go?
Alain Castonguay
View Alain Castonguay Profile
Alain Castonguay
2013-06-17 11:12
That's correct. The article on exchange of information in our treaties accommodates on-demand, automatic, and spontaneous exchanges of information. Then it's up to the bilateral relationship to decide whether we're going to go to automatic. In our case, we have about 30 conventions where we have in place automatic exchanges of information.
There are two treaties in this bill where it's not the case, because the treaty itself explicitly limits it to on-demand. Treaty partners can decide to limit it if one treaty partner is not prepared to go beyond on-demand.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2013-06-17 11:12
For the countries we're talking about today, Luxembourg and Hong Kong, for example, could our exchange agreements be automatic with those countries under the current rules?
View Brian Jean Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for attending today.
Further to that, Hong Kong has other issues besides money issues. On the basis of the voluntary versus the on-demand exchange of information, my understanding is that Hong Kong is more worried about the privacy of its citizens and is worried that the information could be exchanged with China, for instance, or other bodies that may be seeking the information for other purposes. Is that a possibility? I've heard that discussed.
Results: 1 - 15 of 322 | Page: 1 of 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data