Hamilton’s police chief has repeated warnings that a 20 per cent cut to the service’s budget, as demanded by supporters of the defund the police movement, would have “a significant impact on public safety.”
Eric Girt spent several hours answering questions from city councillors on Wednesday, and outlining the impacts of what would amount to a $34.3-million reduction in spending on police operations.
Girt says more than 90 per cent of the budget is tied to wage and benefits.
He noted during his presentation to Hamilton’s general issues committee that reducing 20 per cent from a roughly $171-million budget would mean 279 fewer members, including the loss of 107 front-line officers.
Girt adds that they would have to back fill through overtime to meet staffing numbers, because of minimum numbers outlined within collective agreements, resulting in “further cost, further impact on burnout and negative impact on morale.”
The chief did restate his position that police are not “proprietary” when it comes to other sectors playing a greater role in calls involving mental health, adding that he agrees with the community’s belief that there are alternate solutions.
Girt participated in the virtual general issues committee meeting following a previous request to appear from city councillors, and in the wake of recent demonstrations outside of Hamilton city hall.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger addressed what he calls “misinformation” that has been presented by defunding advocates, such as claims of a 50 per cent increase in the police budget over 15 years.
Eisenberger describes that as “flat out, plain out false,” noting that the increase has been closer to 15 per cent, and the percentage of the city’s budget that is spent on policing “has been static, pretty much for the past 20 years. It hovers at 19 or 20 per cent.”
Demonstrations in Hamilton, one of which resulted in “Defund The Police” being painted in giant block letters on Main Street this summer, have tried to draw attention to police-involved deaths in North America, while arguing for funding to be redirected elsewhere, including housing and social services.