2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

2:30 p.m.

Douglas Fir Committee Room

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Norm Letnick, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Michelle Mungall, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Jane Thornthwaite, MLA; John van Dongen, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 2:49 p.m.

2. Opening statements by John Les, MLA, Chair.

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

4. The Committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.

5. The Committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

6. The Committee reviewed the correspondence received August 25, 2010 from Mr. Stan T. Lowe, Police Complaint Commissioner.

7. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

8. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to discuss its draft report to the House.

9. The Committee deliberated in-camera from 5:36 p.m. to 5:54 p.m.

10. The Committee met in public session from 5:54 p.m.

11. Resolved, that the Committee endorse the application of the Police Complaint Commissioner for an additional $65,000 for additional operational staff and $20,000 for related capital expenditures for fiscal year 2010-11 to defray the costs incurred by his office with respect to recent legislative changes regarding the police complaint process. (Doug Donaldson, MLA)

12. Resolved, that the foregoing motion shall represent the essence of the required correspondence to the Minister of Finance (Chair of Treasury Board) on the matter of supplementary funding to the Office of Police Complaint Commissioner, and that the Chair and Deputy Chair work with Committee staff to prepare this correspondence on behalf of the full Committee. (Doug Donaldson, MLA)

13. The Committee adjourned at 5:56 p.m. to the call of the Chair.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
Finance and Government Services

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Issue No. 33

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 943 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2010

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is John Les. I'm Chair of this parliamentary committee, and I would like to welcome everyone who's here in the room and also those out there in various communities who are participating in this important process.

Each year in preparation for the next year's budget, the Minister of Finance releases a budget consultation paper by September 15 which presents a current fiscal forecast. It also identifies the key issues that need to be addressed in the next budget. The paper also provides a focus for the consultations of this committee and includes information on how members of the public may provide their views on budget priorities.

Print copies of the Budget 2011 consultation paper are available in this room, and I hope that they're available to those who are presenting this afternoon as well. If not, they can find them on line on the committee website.

[1450]

The committee is the parliamentary committee which is responsible for conducting public consultations on the forthcoming provincial budget, and it's required to report back to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 15 of this year.

This year we are holding a total of 14 public hearings in the various regions of the province, and we've also scheduled three video conferencing sessions to hear from residents of the more rural and remote communities around B.C.

In addition to public hearings, there are a variety of other ways that British Columbians can share their views with us. We accept written submissions by letter or e-mail and also video and audio files. Further information on how you may participate using one of these methods is available on the committees website.

Committee members carefully consider all of the public input that we receive, whether it's an oral presentation such as is made here today by video conferencing, or whether it's an on-line survey form, a submission in writing, etc. Our deadline to receive submissions is Friday, October 15.

At today's meeting every presenter speaks for ten minutes with up to five additional minutes allotted for members' questions. Time permitting, there will also be an open-mike session near the end of the hearing. Today's meeting is a public meeting. It's going to be recorded and transcribed by Hansard. A copy of the transcript along with the minutes of the meeting will be printed and made available on the committees website.

In addition to the meeting transcript, a live audio webcast of this meeting is also produced and available on the committees website to enable interested listeners to hear the proceedings as they occur, and an archived copy of the audio broadcast will also be retained on the committees website.

I'd now like to ask committee members to introduce themselves.

J. Thornthwaite: Jane Thornthwaite, North Vancouver–Seymour.

J. Rustad: John Rustad, MLA for Nechako Lakes.

J. van Dongen: John van Dongen, MLA for Abbotsford South.

N. Letnick: Norm Letnick, Kelowna–Lake Country.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Hi there. Doug Donaldson, MLA for Stikine and Deputy Chair of the committee.

B. Ralston: Bruce Ralston, Surrey-Whalley.

B. Routley: Bill Routley, Cowichan Valley.

J. Les (Chair): Also with us today are two committee Clerks. Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Susan Sourial are here with us, as well as Hansard staff Monique Miller and Tamara Checknita.

With that, I'll call for today's first witness. I believe that Joanne McCullough is in Golden, and she's presenting on behalf of the Golden Early Childhood Development Coalition. Good afternoon, Joanne.

Presentations

J. McCullough: Good afternoon. To the members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak. My name is Joanne McCullough, and I'm the coordinator for the Golden Early Childhood Development Coalition.

Our goal is to develop a network of programs and services for children and families of our community. We do this work based on our knowledge of the profound importance of the early years in childhood development.

As members of our provincial government, I value the work you have undertaken and believe that your knowledge around the issues facing early childhood development in our province is wide. I'm not going to detail how rates in childhood poverty in B.C. are the highest in Canada. This is a well-documented fact and has been for the past six years.

I'm also not going to attempt to further inform you about the research being done by the human early learning partnership at the University of British Columbia that
[ Page 944 ]
indicates more than 25 percent of British Columbia's children enter kindergarten with demonstrated vulnerability. This information has been repeatedly published and widely discussed.

What is this vulnerability they speak of? It is not a simple concept to define, but imagine the first day of kindergarten as the beginning of a very long race. We as parents and caregivers do all we can to prepare our children for this race. With the right kind of support, up to 75 percent of our five-year-olds stand ready at the starting line in September, but when the gun goes off, more than 25 percent of our kids are still putting their shoes on.

How can we expect those kids to ever catch up? And knowing this, how can we allow it to continue? Do those kids not matter? What if they were your kids? In fact, maybe they are. Income is not a predictor of vulnerability.

To prepare all our children to get to the starting line in September, early child development groups across the province depend on the generous funding they receive. One of the strongest sources of funding comes from Success By 6, a program that has been dramatically cut this year and is to be completely cut as of March 2011. This unfortunate decision will have devastating effects on the ECD coalitions provincewide and has been discussed at some length in the Legislature.

[1455]

Without even a hint of sentimentality, I would like to remind you that British Columbia's children are its future. It has been clearly articulated by Paul Kershaw in his document 15 by 15 that an investment in the early years will have marked benefits to our GDP in the future. But you already know that.

Early childhood development groups across B.C. work tirelessly on fragile shoestring budgets. I am here to implore you to create a system of long-term sustainable funding for early childhood development programs and services.

The research is there. The discussions have been had again and again, and our children continue to arrive in school not ready to learn. Again, I implore you to create a system of long-term sustainable funding for early childhood development programs and services.

We all know why. What we don't understand is why not.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Joanne. That's certainly been one of the more brief presentations we've had so far, but not to worry. We actually have a few questions from committee members.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. Yes, we are aware of Dr. Paul Kershaw's work. In fact, he was in my territory of North Vancouver–Seymour last Friday, doing just what you were talking about with regards to early childhood vulnerability.

Anyways, I wanted to ask a question about what your thoughts were, because he does talk about this. If we were to embark on what you're asking, should the government be focusing more on universal child care or should we be targeting it to those individuals and income groups that need it most?

I want you to qualify your answer, looking at the taxes that will be required to pay for whatever you recommend.

J. McCullough: Again, and I sort of touched on this in my presentation, vulnerability is not an income bracket problem. Children that arrive in kindergarten with vulnerabilities are across the spectrum of income brackets. So I believe in the possibility of a universal system.

It is a difficult question for me to ask. I don't know exactly how to address this issue. I know that the people at the human early learning partnership, Paul Kershaw and his associates, have outlined a few of the recommendations that they feel would approach this problem anyway, and I would direct you towards their document, 15 by 15, to answer some of those questions.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation, Joanne. You touch on some very, very important issues around child poverty and the vulnerability.

A question I had for you is around the Success By 6 funding going to be completely cut by March 2011. What kind of financial implications does that present to your organization, what kind of funding does that represent, and what kind of programs will then not occur in Golden?

J. McCullough: Thank you for that question. This is taking a long time to really outline — a multitude of programs and services that that funding allows us to do....

In the 2009 budget we were given $18,000 and a little change. This year we're receiving just under $13,000, so that was a fairly substantial cut. And as I said, as of next year we'll be receiving nothing.

I understand Success By 6 is still discussing this, so there's a little hope there that we may continue that funding. But it has been announced to be cut. So we're cautiously optimistic.

As a local population of just under 5,000, there are also communities that we describe as outreach communities. The population there is just under 5,000.

These funds are used to provide mentoring programs and services. We've brought in drumming workshops. We've supported Books for Babies. We've done that in partnership with the Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy, where we actually give books to children and families.

[1500]
[ Page 945 ]

It's hard to even describe how many programs that this funding supports. All of those programs would be in jeopardy of ending were we not to get more funding. At that point we would have to look more into a fundraising model — which is, of course, something we would do.

There is definitely a make-do attitude in the world of ECD, because there is such a broad knowledge of the importance. The idea of having sustainable, long-term funding allows us to plan for the future consistently with the same type of funding streams.

One thing we've found with our programs is that consistency is key. When parents know that they are able to assume that a program is going to have longevity, they are more able to tap into it and assume it as part of their routine. When things get disrupted, it's much more difficult to pick it up again, so that's where the idea of the long-term, sustainable funding would be of great value to the ECD coalitions provincewide.

J. Rustad: Hi, and thank you very much for your presentation. I always find it curious, when we have the childhood poverty levels that we do…. You know what they are — above Canadian averages at the moment. They went up by about 40 percent in the '80s and about 38 percent in the '90s, and they've dropped about 12 percent. But that's not saying that there isn't a problem, because there is a problem. However, you just gave that as background information.

The question that I actually have around your presentation is about the coordination of efforts within your area. Often in types of programs there are a lot of people doing very good work. Sometimes there is duplication, and sometimes there is, I guess you could say, not quite as cohesive an approach.

I'm wondering, within Golden and within your area, what kind of coordination you have for the early childhood programs that you are talking about.

J. McCullough: The Golden Early Childhood Development Coalition has a list of approximately 50 people who receive our e-mails on a consistent basis. So there is a lot of communication happening around early childhood development.

There are also between ten and 20 active participants who regularly attend our meetings. These are people with Interior Health, the school district, the College of the Rockies, the town of Golden, the infant development program, the family centre, the women's centre. All of these groups have come together under this umbrella of early childhood development to focus every effort we can in Golden to have a singular approach to the issue of early childhood development in our town.

Early childhood development coalitions across the province, as far as I understand, do everything they can — without an identified provincial framework, we do everything we can — to limit duplication and the silo effect. That is partially due to the limited funding. We stretch every penny we can out of every dollar.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Joanne. I don't have any further questions from committee members, so we thank you for your presentation.

We now move to Fernie, where I understand we have the Fernie and District Arts Council standing by, at least if the schedule is working as it should. I don't see anybody in Fernie right now. We may come back to Fernie. I'm just wondering if we can have a look at Creston and see if someone is in Creston.

L. Bambrick: Yes, I am here.

J. Les (Chair): You're there. Okay. That would be Lendina Bambrick from the Kootenai Community Centre. Why don't you fire away.

L. Bambrick: Okay. I want to apologize, firstly. I'm not on my game today. I'm suffering a really bad cold and probably should be home in bed, but this is important, and I'm happy that we have this opportunity to participate in the rural areas. So I'm here doing the best I can.

[1505]

I am executive director of Kootenai Community Centre in Creston. We are a charitable, non-profit social service agency, and we provide a variety of services throughout the Creston Valley, including child and youth programs; advocacy programs — a lot of that with seniors, as our population is two times the provincial average, seniors to the regular population; and Stopping the Violence programs — shelters, outreach and accompaniment for court services and so on.

I want to start first by thanking and recognizing any of those that may be in the room who are responsible for having the proposed cuts to those Stopping the Violence programs rescinded last spring, I believe it was. During times of economic uncertainty the call for these services is documented to have significant increases. As the funding for these services is minimal and inadequate to meet the standards on a regular basis in the times that we're facing right now, it's impossible to think of doing more with even less.

When you're dealing in the crisis field with crisis issues and you're seeing injured women and children at your door, you can't turn them away. So I really want to acknowledge that recognition from before and ask that you not consider any further reductions in this upcoming budget. Of course, we could always use more, but I know that in these times of financial restraint that is probably an unlikely thing.

It might seem odd that I'm here today to raise awareness of failings in the justice system — in the court system and with police services. But I do that because as
[ Page 946 ]
those agencies are critical to seeing women and children safe and in adequate shelter and housing, if we can't get any more money, at least we hope that those agencies can be funded to the level that is necessary to meet the need so that we aren't left trying to fill the gaps and the voids that are left from that. We are the least funded, the least paid service providers in this field, and that's where everything runs downhill.

There is, in my opinion, pretty near a travesty in the justice system that's occurring in rural communities now with the lack of judges, the lack of court time, of court clerk time, of sheriffs, the lack of legal aid lawyers and the lack of lawyers — period — that are prepared to even come and work in rural communities and deal with the difficult, challenging family law cases that sometimes, when it's an abusive situation, include criminal matters like assault.

Really, what we have in our rural areas of B.C., in my opinion, is an illusion of a court system and an illusion of police systems. We are just not adequately resourced to be able to come anywhere near to serving the need that is there.

What's even worse as this happens…. I've been in this field for over ten years. The cuts started when I entered the field, and they have not got any better, so I don't know what it's like to work in a field that's more fully resourced. My colleagues do, though.

What we see happening is that defence lawyers and lawyers hired by abusive partners who have access to financial ability to even hire a lawyer are abundantly aware of the lack of court resources. The underfunded system has become another tool for harassing and abusing women leaving abusive relationships, many of them with children.

I'd like to draw your attention to a paper just released by Andrea Vollans, from the YMCA in Vancouver. It's called Court-Related Harassment and Abuse. It does a very succinct, good job of outlining the numerous ways the lack of system creates serious safety issues for women and children. It becomes an enormous barrier to women leaving these terrible situations, which plays out over and over again through other systems — in school districts, in hospitals, you name it.

The effect of abuse on these individuals and their lifestyles — the mental illnesses, the addictions that are created, all of this stuff — could be minimized, at least, if not fully avoided if these other programs were adequately funded and we could get to the source of the problem more quickly. I can provide that for you, if you'd like, and can find out how to direct that so you could have it.

[1510]

What we see in rural areas is that the Legal Services Society last year advertised to actually…. They have to hire a recruitment specialist to go out to law schools and try and entice lawyers to come to these rural communities. Legal aid has been cut back to the point that it cannot adequately cover even the most basic and somewhat amiable case in family law with this kind of dynamic. Lawyers just don't take them because they know they would be being unethical because they can't provide the kind of defence or present the case in the way it needs to be presented to do an adequate job for someone.

Court clerk staffing is so inadequate that we have, over and over again, women who had managed to find legal aid. We helped them find legal aid. We find a lawyer. We get to court, and they get a restraining order. And it is months — I am not exaggerating — before they actually get a document in their hands that they can then show police — if you can get police to respond. Sometimes in rural areas there aren't police to respond.

This all puts women and children really in harm's way. We are now seeing, in our region at least…. I don't know about other areas in the province. I understand that with the lack of judges in the province, there are going to be more and more cases where criminals are going free because they haven't had their timely access to a court hearing. That is just unconscionable.

I've been told by a reliable source just recently that there are currently between 15 and 20 Provincial Court vacancies in the province, and this is just unacceptable. Criminals and organized crime that are very well established in these rural areas, and becoming more so all the time because there is nothing to stop them, are aware of this. As the courtrooms back up and the travesty continues daily in circuit courts throughout the province, our society becomes more and more dangerous.

That's not just the rural areas. That will affect urban areas, and likely is affecting urban areas at this time, but I'm not an expert in that particular area. We have members of organized crime attending court sessions, sometimes a number of them. Women who have been victimized by this culture are being threatened and expected to testify in a courtroom with only one sheriff who can only provide, again, the illusion of protection at best.

In my opinion, it is not a matter of when a tragedy is going to occur in a courtroom. It's just when it is going to occur. There will be one happen one day. We've seen them in the past — not recently. But as they get more and more bold…. It's not going to be a surprise to me.

The tragedy is already happening, really, in that young lawyers are not willing to come to rural areas to work on dangerous and difficult cases out of court facilities that are understaffed and do that for rates of pay that are not feasible. They just won't come, and no one can expect them to.

There are many lawyers here in these rural areas voluntarily doing pro bono work — hours and hours of it — that goes unacknowledged and unrecorded in the system. I believe that it's time the province recognized that and did something about it.

Right now, we're seeing the most vulnerable and needy citizens suffering from this lack of resources. But
[ Page 947 ]
as the system grinds to a painful halt, other members of society that are at this time more privileged will begin to see these failings. I sincerely hope that this committee will take these matters seriously and advocate for the funding necessary to provide the equal access to justice that we hold as a basic right in this province.

I'd lastly like to point out that funding for police in rural areas is also inadequate. Again, the criminal element is aware of this, and they are using it to their advantage. Our current community is looking at a regional kind of supplemental police force. The name of the system is slipping my mind at the moment. We need to look at ways that we can augment RCMP. If RCMP services are too expensive, or whatever the issue is, we need to find ways to get more RCMP out in these geographically isolated areas.

For example, in our valley, we have 15 officers to cover a 24-hour, seven-day a week rotation. It's over a dispersed, geographically isolated and challenging area from Yahk to Riondel. If you do the math…. That's a pretty hard stretch to cover as it is. But if you have anyone away on training, anyone sick or on paternity or other leaves, they're not replaced, unlike other essential services like hospitals. We just go down a body. We're just short a person. The detachment runs.

The reality is that there are many times when, in this huge and isolated rural area very close to the U.S. border — very well-known drug trafficking routes — there isn't an officer on. Or if there is, there's one, and they may be at the wrong end of the region. We really are vulnerable out here and becoming more and more so. All of these components are really crucial.

[1515]

So I am here today for women and children leaving violence and abuse and for seniors that are being victimized by these elements, but I'm not asking for money for our agency. I'm just asking that our service provision be maintained and that you support these other agencies at a level they need to be so that we maintain the level of work we have, and it doesn't grow. I hope that makes sense.

Just one point I want to make in regard to the comments of the last speaker around child poverty. It is unconscionable — the level of child poverty we have in this province of abundance. Part of what plays into that is these very women I'm talking about and the length of time it takes to have family assets divided, to have custody issues sorted out. The lucky ones are ones that can qualify for income assistance. They at least can eke out a survivable living, but it's at poverty levels.

Again, this plays into so many elements of other ministries and other agencies that I really think these things need to be looked at in a broader way, because the amount that they are perpetuated throughout society — all cultures, all levels, all socioeconomic brackets — is really an epidemic. It needs to start being recognized as that and funded like that.

I thank you and wish you luck with your decisions.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Lendina, especially given that you've got an awfully bad cold. Your MLA is here, and she'd like to ask you a question.

M. Mungall: Lendina, thanks for taking the time to come out and present, despite having a very bad cold. I hope you get better soon. Thank you, by the way, also, for bringing forward some very important issues for the Creston Valley. I've heard this story come up many, many times.

I want to go back to the legal aid issue around family court. I'm wondering if, in the Creston area, you can comment on what's going on for women who are trying to not only get a lawyer…. That's step one. It's quite hard. But then there's no legal aid for family court. What's happening to women in the Creston Valley?

On the Nelson side of things, I have been working with a constituent who can't get legal aid for family court because it's not there anymore. Because she's a personal friend, I've chipped in to help with her legal costs. Okay. She's lucky. What happens to women who don't have a friend who can do that?

L. Bambrick: Well, this is what I was alluding to in that we become the catch-all. Our agency, who has a three-quarter position funded out of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to do outreach services…. My cold is not allowing me to have the number of hours per month that it is, but it's something like 70. That might not be accurate, but it's certainly not a full-time position.

That person will try and do their best to go through the myriad of complex court forms and support that woman in court. But what very often happens is that we're going up or she is going up on her own with our limited, non-educated legal support against a lawyer being paid for by her partner, and it's just simply not a level playing field.

We don't have any lawyers in Creston that will take legal aid. We've gotten pretty good, actually, at making the applications for legal aid. At our legal aid office, Rick Strahl's office does a really good job of doing what they can with inadequate money, trying to make it go to the highest-priority cases. But in Creston we can't get anybody. I just sat last Thursday all day in Cranbrook to hear the commission on legal aid.

There has to be different ways and better ways to do this. Funding us to get some training so that we can do a better job of what we do is one thing. Even with that, we're still needing to have more legal aid. We're still needing to have a system. It's not just a matter of: more legal aid is going to fix it. We have to have the court system, the backlog, the lack of judges, the lack of court clerk time, the lack of sheriffs to protect people in courtrooms — all of that has to be addressed.

I don't know enough about how we got to this position. All I know is that it's really not working, and worse than
[ Page 948 ]
that, it's putting women and children and the most vulnerable of our citizens at risk every day in courtrooms.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation and the important information in it. Could you supply the committee with the paper you referenced? That would be helpful.

L. Bambrick: Absolutely.

[1520]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): You could get in touch with the Committee Clerk's office or however you managed to get your slot today, and they can distribute it to us.

L. Bambrick: Okay. It looks like this. I have a copy here, but I know you won't be able to read it. Everybody can watch for that.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): You're right. Thanks.

J. Les (Chair): Sure, send it our way through the Clerk's office, and they'll be happy to get it to each member of the committee.

I don't see any further questions. You're probably relieved at that, given that you don't have to talk anymore, then. Thank you so much for coming out this afternoon in spite of how you feel. Go straight home, drive safely, and look after your cold.

L. Bambrick: I will do that. Thank you very much to all of you.

J. Les (Chair): The earlier presentation from Fernie is not going to be presenting today, but we do have people in Golden. No, they were presenting earlier. I believe that's you, Joanne, isn't it?

A Voice: Sorry, Luke Nichols is here.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, so that's Luke Nichols.

L. Nichols: Yup.

J. Les (Chair): All right, you're next. Thank you for being a little bit early, and go ahead.

L. Nichols: Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Luke Nichols, and I'm speaking today as the Golden active transportation coordinator. My casual part-time role is to increase the mode share of non-motorized transportation in Golden. To do that requires education, infrastructure and money. I was pleased to hear the Premier announce more funding towards cycling paths and sidewalks. We are still waiting to see how that affects Golden.

As you may know, active transportation infrastructure is a multi-tiered, multi-generational investment. Active transportation helps to reduce the cost of road maintenance, of infrastructure, of health care spending and of workplace absenteeism. All these benefits are measurable and can save British Columbians a lot of money as well as increasing the desirability of our province to the world. With a strong, healthy workforce, tight human communities, we can build a strong, healthy society.

Being in rural British Columbia I feel the effects of being in a small community. Resources are tight; manpower is even tighter. With various members on a board representing small communities and hearing from your local constituents, it is tough to find the time and resources to complete a project that will enthuse community members.

Active transportation is one small step that can increase the overall health and well-being of a community, large or small. At the recent UBCM meeting several resolutions were passed that helped to focus the province on what local governments are looking for from the province. Resolutions B15, greener transportation; B16, increased shoulder width of highways; B17, B.C. cycling development program; and B18, trails along railway rights-of-way are all problems that Golden faces.

Golden is surrounded by federal and provincial highways, Highway 1 and Highway 95; the CPR Railway; and two large rivers, the Kicking Horse and the Columbia. These challenges alone would make most people give up. However, we have had some successes.

Just recently the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure announced that along with road improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway of the Kicking Horse Canyon project, a fully separated cycling and walking path down the hill was going to be implemented. This is a huge win, as people frequently walk down the side of the hill on the highway, where there is a ten-centimetre shoulder and even smaller in places.

It links two different parts of town together, the downtown and an upper suburb, giving people an option about whether to walk or ride or drive. It frees people from having to drive, as it was unsafe before. Work is also being done to improve a second crossing on Highway 95 that has been looking for attention for many years, making it safer for tourists that come to town in RVs to cross the highway.

My request to the standing committee is that a focus be put on getting communities active, reducing associated health costs and improving community spirit. I would like to see a set percentage of all transportation money be dedicated to biking and walking infrastructure. I believe that money should be directed at rural communities, as the capacity to manage and implement projects is much harder.

Money can then be spent on people like me to coordinate projects and get other projects up and running.
[ Page 949 ]
It's like a bowling ball of ideas. These ideas can be spread throughout the province by collaboration between MOTI, Ministry of Health, LiveSmart B.C., Healthy Living and Sport, and Community and Rural Development taking the lead.

[1525]

A similar idea is starting to form in the U.K. and also in the U.S.A. Active transportation is not a one-stop ministry. It has to be shared between ministries to do their jobs collectively. Specific examples would be to create a safe walking and biking path in Golden to the small communities of Nicholson and Habart, which is limited by Highway 95, the railway and the Columbia River. The total distance by road is seven kilometres. This would dramatically increase the options of people living out of town in that area, as Highway 95 currently has no shoulders in places.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.

D. McRae: Hello, Luke. Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm living on the coast, obviously, in Comox Valley, so I am not too familiar with the geography and climate of Golden all throughout the season. But for a multi-use path — and I think that they are very, very useful — given what Golden's climate is, how many months of the year do you see that multi-use path being used? Or, because of using skis or other modes, is it something that would be used 12 months of the year?

L. Nichols: It would be used 12 months of the year. In winter you've got the option, because we do get a fair bit of snow out here, that you could use it as a ski trail. I personally cycle all year round, but I do live in town.

If there was that option, I'm sure many people would consider biking all year round, because if you're going to fall, you don't want to fall into the path of a semi-trailer. It would be an all-year-round path.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. I'm very familiar with Golden's weather, as I lived in Field for ten years. I think there are lots of ways, as you point out, that can be done to reduce non-motorized transportation. I'm wondering, to broaden it out around the province, if you have recommendations around whether we should always incorporate the idea of bicycling or non-motorized transportation in any kind of Ministry of Transportation contracts on roadbuilding.

You seem to be a person who has been able to do a lot of research. Have you done any research into carbon credits, for instance, incorporating these kinds of stipulations into Ministry of Transportation contracts on highway building that would therefore enable them to achieve their carbon neutrality goals by incorporating non-motorized transport as part of their construction plans?

L. Nichols: Currently the ministry seems to be doing that themselves, implementing on the project they are completing at the moment. They are putting 2½-metre shoulders on the road. They are also refixing the Donald Bridge just out of town, which is quite a dangerous bridge, and they are putting two-metre shoulders out there.

I think the main reason why they are doing that is not for cycling in any regard. It is because of the trucks. Their increased horsepower is damaging the roads faster. Therefore, if you put a wider shoulder on, you've got a better…. You can even the weight up more. It is for winter, as well, so that you can keep the water away from the actual driving lane. You can push the snow to the right so that the damage is done to the edge.

It would be something that could be looked at to stimulate that for the Ministry of Transportation, to put that in there.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you. I don't see any further questions, Luke, so on behalf of the committee, thank you for presenting this afternoon. We appreciate your input.

We are now going to take another look in Fernie to see if we have another delegation there. Have we got anyone in Fernie? We are looking for Doug Peck. It looks fairly quiet, so why don't we recess for ten to fifteen minutes and see if the Fernie delegation shows up.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Mr. Peck, can you hear me?

D. Peck: Yeah, I can hear you, but I can't see you. All of a sudden it's gone to just "Committee in recess."

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Well, don't worry about that. We can hear you just fine, and we can see you, so why don't you start your presentation now.

D. Peck: Good afternoon. My name is Doug Peck. I'm a resident angler, and I'm also a member of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and also a committee member of the provincial and East Kootenay quality waters committees. I'm here today to ask you to put finances towards making fishing e-licences fully functional. What I mean by this is that right now there is no way in which to control overcrowding of rivers by non-resident, non-guided anglers.

A little history. In or about 2000 I was part of a group who made the Quality Waters Strategy: Resource Document, which is the principle and policy on how angling manage-
[ Page 950 ]
ment plans will be done on quality waters, classified waters. Examples are the Elk River, Dean River and Skeena. Some of the guiding principles that have come from this government policy document are:

"To maintain the quality angling experience on selected provincial waterways. To provide quality angling opportunities for all anglers.

"To create an effective and mutually respectful process that facilitates sound management of angler use on provincial quality waters.

"When angling opportunities become oversubscribed, decisions regarding angling opportunities will reflect the priority and interests of British Columbia resident anglers first."

Those are just three of them. There are more within the document.

In 2003 I was part of the committee that built the angling management plan for the East Kootenay, where we classified seven rivers in the region. This was before e-licensing came into being. We were promised at the time that if the AMP needed some tweaking in the future, e-licensing would be able to take care of this.

Three years ago, through interviews done by the river guardian program on the Wigwam River, which is one of the seven classified waters in the East Kootenays here…. It was being oversubscribed by non-resident, non-guided anglers to the tune of plus 400 percent. This trend has continued to the present day. It is creating a very crowded and not a quality fishing trip.

When the local committee asked for some restrictions, like a lottery or first come, first served or allow only so many non-resident, non-guided anglers per day, we were told this could not be done through e-licensing.

[1545]

Another example is in the Skeena, where the AMP is just in the process of being redone. One of the proposals put forward is: resident only on weekends on a particular piece of water. If a non-resident goes on line to purchase a day licence on Saturday or Sunday, there are no filters in the system to say, "I'm sorry. Non-resident anglers are not allowed to fish on this day." A non-resident will still be able to get a day licence for that weekend, and if the conservation officer checks him, he has a licence for that day even though he is not allowed to fish. How can you fine a person with a government-issued fishing licence?

These are just two examples of e-licensing that could help with the overcrowding issues on classified water.

Both resident and non-resident anglers pay a premium price to fish these quality waters, and they expect a quality experience where they can catch good-sized fish and are not pushed off the water by too many anglers. We are hearing from our river guardian reports that people are complaining of too many anglers on the water, and e-licensing would help this problem a lot.

I just found out about this Finance Committee meeting yesterday afternoon, so I have not had a chance to do a lot of research on the amount of revenue that fishing licences bring in. I do know that sales of fishing licences being purchased have gone up in the last three years.

The Premier of this province said a number of years ago that his government was going to create the best fishing experience in the world in British Columbia. Please do the right thing and make this e-licensing system work. I would be willing to help put the proper tools in place to make British Columbia a better place on earth to come and fish.

Now, this is a little bit off the cuff, but I have a computer geek buddy who says that if I make a deal with you guys and you give us access to the e-licensing program and some money, we'll give you an e-licensing system that'll work. That's on e-licensing.

The other pet peeve I have — and I've had it for the last 15 years, and I'll bring it up anyway — is the enforcement within the Ministry of Environment. We do need more enforcement officers in British Columbia. The ranks of the conservation service are spread so thin with doing too many things at once. The average square kilometres per CO officer in British Columbia is 8,000 square kilometres. In the province of Saskatchewan the average is only 3,000 square kilometres, and they do not have to train like B.C.

A government employee, when I brought this subject up, said: "We cannot have a CO behind every tree." I do not expect that, but I have not been checked by a CO for the last 15 years. Please add a little bit more money to the service so we can serve the public better.

Thank you for listening to my concerns, which are the concerns of many resident and non-resident anglers. I hope you can find some moneys to help these programs work better.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Doug. I have a question from one of the committee members, Doug Donaldson.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for the presentation. I represent Stikine, and we've just gone through one of the worst processes ever called a quality waters strategy. So I'm glad to hear that you were involved with that back in 2003.

I want to ask you for some of your knowledge that might help us and the rest of the province with the recommendations. That would be around…. Now that you have an angling management plan in place, do you see the need for more resources allocated on the ground to ensure that that plan is carried out? We've heard from others in the province around not enough staff on the ground in the Ministry of Environment and some of the other dirt ministries, and it's led to problems and delays. But specifically around the angling management plan, can you tell me what you've observed?

[1550]
[ Page 951 ]

D. Peck: What I can see is that there needs to be more enforcement on the ground, be it more conservation officers, be it more river guardians. I know in the East Kootenays here our river guardians have the ability to do enforcement. If they are interviewing somebody on the river and they don't have the proper licensing, they can ticket them. They can ticket them for using barbed hooks and that sort of stuff.

In the enforcement industry, I'm sure every enforcement officer would help. I hear it all the time from different guys: "I haven't been checked by a conservation officer." I'm the same way. I haven't been checked for 15 years. I mean, it's just that I'm an honest, upstanding citizen, and I go out and buy a licence every year. I've told many government bureaucrats that I'm not going to buy a licence next year, and they go, "Oh well," and I give them my business card: "Here, come and find me and ticket me." But I don't do that. I mean, I do pay my dues, and I do the proper thing.

But the e-licensing is the main thing, so that you can…. It just doesn't work right now. In the East Kootenays here, where I can talk from experience, the Wigwam River is so oversubscribed, and we want to control the number of non-residents.

Now, the residents have first priority. Under the system, residents have priority angling first, then the guides and then non-residents. The guides are already controlled with the number of rod days they are allowed, and then the non-residents are just controlled by a $20 surcharge a day to come here and fish on quality waters. Well, that's not working.

The Wigwam has very limited — how would I say? — access. There are only a few access points to the river, and they are very, very crowded. I'm hearing from river guardians that the Americans who come up here and fish are even complaining, because the Americans are used to fishing on crowded water, and they come to Canada because they figure we know how to do things right.

This is where this e-licensing needs to be brought…. I don't know how much money it'll take. I don't think it'll take a whole lot of money to get this thing up and working properly.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Doug.

J. van Dongen: Thanks, Doug, for your presentation. If I was to summarize, then, your big issue besides compliance and enforcement — and I'm going to ask you a question about that — is having some kind of a mechanism to ensure that the number of licences that are issued on any particular day limit out at some point. Now in the planning that was done for the angling management plan, is there such a mechanism in the system, or are you asking the Ministry of Environment, together with local people like yourself, to add that to the current regulatory system?

D. Peck: As I said, when we had the problem with the Wigwam, we went to our local MOE office here and said: "Okay, let's put some restrictions on the number of anglers, either first-come, first-served, lottery — whatever we come up with. It doesn't matter." But then we were told that e-licensing will not handle that. We can't do that within the e-licensing program.

From my computer buddy, he says it shouldn't be that big of a problem to say: "Okay, there are a hundred rod days available on the Wigwam for non-resident, non-guided anglers. When the hundred is reached, cut it off." Or you put X number of rod days per day for a non-resident angler to come there.

That's going to control the number of people that are going to be on the water. It's going to make it a much more quality experience. I feel that the conservation officers would have a lot easier time than if they go on the water and find a non-resident there, and he doesn't have a non-resident licence to fish that particular day. You've got some wheels to stop him.

J. van Dongen: Just a follow-up question. In your estimate as a guy who's knowledgable on the river, how much of the overcrowding…? What percentage of the people on the river at any point in time would not have a licence, in your view? Do you have any sort of gut-feel estimate of that? In other words, how much non-compliance is there, particularly on crowded days?

[1555]

D. Peck: I don't have the river guardian report in front of me from last year or the year before. If my memory serves me right, we've had barbless hooks on the books for the last ten years, and 30 percent of the people they checked were using barbed hooks. So that's one thing.

I can't remember the without a licence or…. It was more gear problems that were being done. Then there were a number of people that didn't have the proper licence.

J. Les (Chair): All right. Thank you, Doug. We appreciate your presentation this afternoon. There are no further questions from committee members.

Tight lines, as they say.

D. Peck: Tight lines and straight shooting. Don't let me get you in your sight if I don't hear good things about this, John. [Laughter.]

J. Les (Chair): All right. Thanks again, Doug.

That concludes our hearing for this afternoon. We will stand by for Mr. Lowe, who we are meeting with in just a few minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.
[ Page 952 ]

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): I think we're probably ready to get this meeting underway again. Stan is here with his staff.

Stan, I suspect you probably want a few minutes to go through your supplemental briefing package.

Office of the
Police Complaint Commissioner

S. Lowe: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'll try to make my submissions brief.

First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. members for having me here once again to address you and take you up on your invitation to speak about the current act and our current needs.

Before we begin today, though, I would like to address a matter that was raised by the committee last day in regard to the significant increase in complaints that we've been experiencing. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the committee that one of the important reforms that both parties in the Legislature endorsed in passing the bill into law was to improve accessibility to the police complaint system, so these complaints should not come as a surprise.

It's something that we alluded to earlier as a prediction. They've come to fruition, and as I go through my materials, you'll see where the areas in the act have increased the accessibility to the police complaint system. Thereby, that's why…. I think, in part, it speaks to the increase in caseload.

In addition to that, I'll also advise that we've made some changes in business practices in our offices to allow, for one thing, for on-line filing of complaints that would supplement the intent of the legislation. That has been an area in which we've received a number of complaints.

Speaking with my contemporary in Ontario, he addresses about 5,000 to 6,000 complaints a year. He says that more than half come in on the Internet, so we could expect more through the Internet in the passage of time. He's only about a year ahead of me as far as his new legislation.

Another matter I wish to raise is that the suggestion was made last day that perhaps we could engage in a more stringent vetting process in order to assert some control over this caseload. I again say that this would be counterproductive to the very goals that this House has sought through legislation to achieve.

The Legislature went to great lengths in the legislation to define categories of misconduct. Where a complaint engages one of these categories, it must be investigated and decided upon, so the number of admissible complaints contained in this supplemental briefing package all meet those legal criteria.

Make no mistake. The legislation that was passed by this House has truly set the standard in Canada. I was speaking with Mr. Les a moment ago, and I alluded to the fact that this morning I returned from a meeting of the heads of police oversight in Canada in Ottawa. I can tell you that on more than one occasion this legislation was referred to as the Cadillac of police oversight systems in Canada by some of my contemporaries.

[1610]

If I may borrow from that characterization and take it a step further, as we all know, a high-performance Cadillac system is more expensive to fuel and maintain, and it requires more resources. I'm here to ask you today: let's get this Cadillac system out of the showroom and onto the road.

Public confidence finds its roots in process. This Legislature has passed legislation which is rich in transparency and accountability in the process, and we request today the necessary resources to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the police complaints system.

Having said that, let's move directly to the supplemental briefing package. I will preface my comments by saying that we received a number of inquiries following our last appearance, last date, and we've tried to address those inquiries within this briefing package.

On the first page, and what I tried to explain to the hon. members last date, is that our scope of oversight responsibilities has increased substantially. What we've done is a comparison over the next few pages about the previous legislation and the current legislation. Rather than read line by line, I'll speak in general terms from the outset, and probably most importantly, of how complaints are accepted.

Now they can be accepted in writing or orally, mail, e-mail, fax, phone or even on line. This enhanced accessibility that was contemplated by the Legislature has resulted in more complaints being filed and determined admissible. We now have the responsibility of admissibility.

As I told you last day, I've spent approximately three weeks so far — I have another week to go — in reviewing every admissible complaint we've received over the course of the past month to determine if we can create a business practice upon which we can establish criteria that would appropriately vet complaints as they come in, to see if it makes a difference in the numbers.

I'm here to report that my experience to date has been this: where this vetting process has been beneficial has been on those borderline cases, and those borderline cases are few and far between. The vetting process that we've engaged in is actually contacting either the complainant or the police agency and requesting further information, in a way perhaps delving a bit into the investigative aspect of a police complaint.

What we've found on those borderline cases is that there has been a marginal decrease, in those cases, of admissible complaints. However, for the most part, our
[ Page 953 ]
inquiries have been confirmatory that it's an admissible complaint.

Now, what we have to balance as a business practice is that it takes a lot of resources to make these phone calls and to interview complainants, and what we're achieving, let's say, from a vetting process, I don't think is beneficial. I think it is a function that I, in future, will no doubt have incorporated into our admissibility, but perhaps not to the depth that we've gone to. I've asked the person that's assisting me to keep the time that it's taken to make these inquiries, and it is a labour-intensive process.

Moving quickly, the act contemplates an opportunity for discontinuance of a complaint, but it has balanced, and wisely balanced, the need for an improvement in the rights of complainants and members and an improvement in the accessibility or the input of complainants and members in the process. So to extinguish these rights has a fairly high threshold, as contemplated in your legislation.

There are terms they use — they're two legalisms — "frivolous" and "vexatious." That's an area where we have been entertaining applications for having matters discontinued. Our experience in that area has been that, quite frankly, so much of the investigation has been done that it should be matter that a decision should be made one way or another. If it results in a…. Cases that are often sought for discontinuations are actually those headed towards unsubstantiation.

I think in fairness to a member, when they've been the subject of a complaint, rather than the OPCC discontinuing it and saying that we've just discontinued it, rather than extinguishing the rights of a complainant without an opportunity in the legislation to debate with us why we're discontinuing it, it's better to let it go to fruition and to say: "We start with the presumption of innocence, and it's maintained." At the end of the day, if it's unsubstantiated, the complaint was not valid.

[1615]

What we're finding, and what we're setting as a business practice, is that sometimes they put more effort, the police were finding, into these discontinuance applications, and that half the effort could be done in just completing the final investigation report and deciding on the matter. We're trying to give them guidance, and they've really responded quite well to that. They understand where we're going with it.

In any event, going back. What we've tried to encapsulate is the various areas which have required more resources. The area of informal resolution and mediation is an area which the policing community has embraced, and should embrace, completely. But the concern that we have from our standpoint is that it is very labour-intensive to oversee these informal resolutions and mediations. We're finding that, again, has increased our workload substantially.

We are currently also advocating for some changes under the areas of mediation to allow for more disclosure and therefore more accountability to the hon. members here. The current legislation has these mediations go into a bit of a black hole.

Aside from that, though, another area, beginning with page 5, is contemporaneous oversight. Last day — I won't repeat myself — I gave the analogy of having 50 stories. We're finding with contemporaneous oversight that some analysts can't remember which files belong to them, because there are so many of them. If you can imagine keeping track of 50 stories….

As I've said earlier, that caseload must be reduced. With the current state of staffing in our office, it's between 50 and 60 files, and we are not engaging in contemporaneous oversight. We're still stuck in the de facto review when it comes to the time of a final investigation report being submitted.

Again, timelines for the OPCC reviews and decisions. The Legislature saw fit to set some stringent timelines, and rightfully so. The previous system was plagued with unacceptable delay. All stakeholders in the system complained about one thing, and it was unacceptable delay.

I'm not here today to ask you to relax those timelines. I think they're important timelines. People need an answer. It's not fair to an officer to have a matter hanging over his or her head for two years, nor is it fair to a complainant to file a complaint and not get an answer for two years. So we have to remove that, but in doing so we need to be properly staffed to meet these timelines. As I told you earlier, there were four occasions earlier that we did not meet the legislative timelines, and it was debatable whether or not we lost jurisdiction.

As I alluded to briefly in my submissions, complainants and members have expanded rights, and rightfully so. The legislation that you passed was wise in the effect that they have opportunities now to make submissions. Every one of these steps incorporate decision-making and review.

There are occasions when a member may request further investigation, may request the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. A complainant is afforded the right of submissions on a determination of a potential substantiation. The complainant has a right to ask for severed portions.

All of these requests are sent to our office, are moderated by our office, are looked at and adjudicated by our office, which again requires a tremendous amount of resources, in some cases, to sit and really agonize over the decision. It's not always a black-and-white decision. It requires some debate. It requires, in many cases, some legal advice.

Finally, moving to third-party complaints. The Legislature saw fit to pass an act which enhanced the rights of third parties. In doing so…. This is on page 6. The information requirements allow them to act instead of a complainant and affords some rights to that. Again,
[ Page 954 ]
we find with third-party complaints that there's an increased obligation on our behalf to ensure that we meet their requests and needs.

Now, adjudicative reviews. We had one before which was a public hearing. I'm pleased to report that on the two other avenues of adjudicated review, we've had two matters that went to a section 117. Just to remind you, section 117 allows for when a disciplinary authority unsubstantiates a matter. It can be remitted to a retired judge, and within, I believe, nine days he must render a decision. We've had two of those, and the decisions have been actually rendered in six days. It's really afforded the process some efficiency and some guidance in both cases.

[1620]

There will be more. What we're experiencing now — and I should report this to the committee — is that we're running out of retired judges that are prepared to do this work. I will be making submissions to the Legislature requesting that the part-time judges of the Provincial Court — we call them senior judges — should be allowed to be engaged, because we are running out of resources in that particular area.

Again, with three avenues of adjudicative review, once a matter goes to adjudicative review, an analyst is dedicated. That analyst who has conduct of the file is dedicated to producing all the materials and shepherding the process through with the adjudicator, so it's time-consuming. They serve as a liaison. They provide procedural advice. Again, they're taken completely away from their current work and are forced into expending a tremendous amount of energy putting materials together.

That's not even counting public hearings. When you go and attend a public hearing as an analyst, you're out of the office for days. Those 50 files are never looked at. Already we're trying to spread those other files and try to deal with immediate matters, but for days when these public hearings occur, an analyst must be there to assist counsel.

The other areas are the additional review responsibilities. Reportable injuries are a very important area. We have assigned a staff that had to review all the reportable injuries, and I'll take you to the charts and the graphs to show you that there has been a number of them.

Non-registered complaints is an area where we're developing business practices, but our experience to date has been that there are numerous complaints that come through this pathway. On a few occasions we have actually transferred matters that were non-registered into the admissible stream, if I can use that term. But had we had more time, I think that really there are a number of non-registered complaints that are actually admissible complaints, that should be dealt with as complaints.

There was one point where we were two months behind in our review because of just a lack of staffing. I don't think anyone could have contemplated or anticipated the amount of complaints that we're receiving now, as well as the amount of work that the legislation had contemplated, the work that would evolve from the changes in the legislation.

On page 8 — I'll return to that last — is my last request on the submission option costs. I want to come back to that last because there are some areas I want to point out.

We can go to the appendix. On page 1 is our statistical data. Dealing with the first chart, over the initial creation and the time that we actually had records for the OPCC starting back in 2001-2002, you are able to see our capital and operating budgets as they progressed until 2010-2011. But as you'll see, during the tough economic times in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 there was actually a shrinkage in budgeting for police complaints in this province.

It wasn't until 2006 that we returned to the levels of funding that were in place in 2001. You can read that for yourself.

As you move along…. There were some questions about FTEs and civilian versus retired, and you'll see that we've provided the ratios. Currently, as of August 31 — our most recent statistics — we had seven retired officers, in comparison to three civilians. These individuals, I think it's important to note, are in decision-making positions.

In the following line on the number of files opened, using the same statistics or the same root of cases that contribute to this statistic, you'll see that in the initial year it's 358. There was a period throughout 2005, 2006 and 2007 where the complaints were fairly steady, in the high 400s. But you'll see that even 2009-2010 was a year of 564 complaints.

What's projected for 2010 and '11, based on our most current statistics to September 30, is a caseload of 1,132. As I indicated earlier, on average, each one of these cases has at least two discrete allegations of misconduct as contained under the act. So we are looking at close to 2,000 individual incidents, if not more, that have to be investigated by officers.

The number of municipal police officers, on the last line, has increased slowly over the years but remains fairly constant. We don't have the last two years, but we know it's in and around 2,500 to 2,600 officers.

[1625]

Turning to page 2. It's basically a graphic that tells you a bit about our files that we have. Currently they are: registered, ordered investigations, reportable injuries, non-registered and monitored files. You can see, comparatively, through 2009 and 2010 there's just been a consistent trend developing that shows a substantial increase, almost doubling, of our files.

Page 3 itemizes how we receive our files. As you'll see, of the total of 352, at the bottom right, so far 112 are received on line. These are admissible complaints.
[ Page 955 ]

In 2009 the OPCC opened 532 files. Between January 1 and March 30, which is prior to the initiation of the legislation, the OPCC opened 143 files under the previous legislation. Since the new legislation was implemented on April 1 to September 30, the OPCC opened 566 files. The projected total amount of files that we opened in 2010 will be 1,005. The projection for January 1 to December 31, 2011, is 1,150 files.

Page 4 deals with our review and monitoring responsibilities. Each one of these graphs comes with what I hope is an understandable explanation or a clear and simple explanation as to our work and what the graph stands for. These are the admissible complaints. As you'll see, in September we had 53.

I started my review partway through September, and I will finish it in about a week's time. As you see there, they're averaging probably about the mid-50s per month.

Page 5 deals with what’s lying below the surface with the new legislation — the review of non-registered complaints. As you will see, our projected total for non-registered files is 245.

We can do a better job in this area. To be honest, some of these matters we've just let slide, which we could have taken issue with but for the overwhelming amount of admissible files. So we've had to pick and choose those that are the most serious to convert into admissible files.

Reportable injuries are on page 6. As you'll note, from April to September there were 54 reportable injuries, and 45 had to be reviewed and closed. Two investigations have been commenced and on seven — these are almost like monitored files — decisions are pending. We're waiting, as more investigation is occurring.

I'm pleased to report that the reportable injuries are being reported to the OPCC quickly, as contemplated and required by the legislation, and in detail. In summary, the added reviews of those that were added through the new legislation…. Our projected total for the admissibility of non-registered and reportable injuries for 2010 is 847 but, again, for 2011 is 1,128.

Now, it's hard the way we speak often. We speak a certain language with respect to oversight, and we use terms like DAs and that. It's hard to actually place what we're talking about. Appendix 2 is intended to just give you a broad comparison of the previous complaint process, and on the flip-over on the other page is the current process.

I think, without going through any of the specific areas, you can already tell the complexity when you turn the page over. This is about as simple as we've made it. This is what we've distributed to police departments and professional standards divisions to help them understand the system.

When we first brought this out during a professional standards meeting, it was met with laughter as we tried to say "a simplified approach." They looked at it and rolled their eyes. And it's true; it is a complex approach. It really reflects, in broad terms, the complexity of the act, and rightfully so. To have that type of an act, it requires checks and measures throughout the whole process.

[1630]

Finally, we were asked about time limits, so what we've done is produce all the time limits that must be monitored by our office during the course of a file, from the admissibility of a matter being determined to the resolution of the matter. That takes two pages. You can see that each one of my analysts actually has this chart on their computers, because they have to consistently refer to this. They're consistently asked by professional standards for assistance, procedurally, as to time limits.

We try our best, through computer notification process, to notify and assist professional standards departments with respect to upcoming deadlines. I think that's a requirement of the OPCC — to assist those professional standards sections. We're developing business practices to assist, to make sure that deadlines are met by either ourselves or the police.

Now, I know I've taken up a significant portion of time, but I hope that this at least has given you an idea or answered some of your questions. I'm more than happy and prepared to answer any questions you may have now.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Stan. I've got a couple of people here who have their names on the list. I'll start a new list for today. Just hang on. I've got two to start, and then I'll work my way around.

Just let me say this. You used the analogy of a Cadillac. It's probably not a bad analogy. Even a Cadillac, as compared to a Chev, drives down the road in sort of the same kind of way. It has a few options, some of which are used some of the time.

I think, although the legislation obviously was a big improvement over what we had, that there is still lots of room to use that legislation in a practical way. I guess the committee is sort of trying to understand what a practical implementation of the legislation would look like. I gather from your presentation that you're still, kind of, in a way, looking for parameters, establishing parameters and best practices.

Maybe you could answer me this. At the last presentation I believe you said that you were still waiting for the software that would allow you to do your contemporaneous oversight. I was interested in hearing that, because if you don't yet have that software, then I'm not sure that I'm really comfortable sort of getting a fix on what your resource requirements are going to be.

That's just one example, and I suspect that there are others where, you know, we're still kind of feeling our way through. We could maybe give you another million
[ Page 956 ]
dollars a year, and you'd probably happily use it. But I think that I, at least, would feel most comfortable right now in trying to hold back a little bit until we get a better feel for what does it truly take — once you've got all your equipment in place, once you've had the various police departments becoming comfortable with the administration of this act….

I mean, I'm conscious, as well, that if we give you more resources, that will ripple out into the various municipal police departments as well in terms of their requirement to respond to the various demands placed on them by the staff of the OPCC. So in terms of the contemporaneous oversight software, can you tell me when you expect to have that in place?

S. Lowe: Well, let me just take it a step back. Josiah Wood, in his report, recommended software or a computer system that affords the OPCC the ability to do contemporaneous oversight. What that would mean is that professional standards departments would work on this server, and we could access this server at any time we wished, look at any file and conduct oversight on it.

The funding for that server and that software was always contemplated to be on the part of government. When this new act was rolled out, the media was released. It spoke of this contemporaneous oversight computer system.

I'm not here to ask you for money. We're going to be meeting in a week's time about this system. I can tell you that the OPCC is not intending to pay a penny for that. We don't have money for that. That system is going to be part of the PRIME system. We've waited patiently.

What we have implemented in the interim was what was called a file transfer system that we purchased and provided free of charge to police departments to serve as an interim measure. They could download their materials to us on investigations. We could upload it. We could review it. We've been offering that service as an interim measure.

[1635]

That software system…. I won't be here asking you for money on that. However, the efficiencies that will be derived from that software system are going to be minor, because we're doing it now. But the only difference with the software system is that it will allow us to look in, and no one will know when we're looking in, and no one will know what we're looking at. That's what was important to Joe Wood: that our oversight would not be reviewed by police departments. They wouldn't know when we're looking and what we're looking at.

Now, the ripple effect. Giving us more staff, I can assure you, is not a ripple effect. If you heard Chief Chu today, he has already said that his cost for his professional standards department has increased by 46 percent. What municipal departments are having to do is to staff to meet the requirements of the act that they must meet, their obligations under the act.

Hiring more staff isn't going to increase the workload, because the workload is driven by the caseload. The cases don't get…. There are not going to be more cases because we have more staff. What it will do is allow us to do our work, our oversight. What was contemplated is: as a file was being reviewed or a case was being investigated, we would be able to provide advice. We would ensure that the investigation was thorough and professional. Then it comes down to, at the end of the day, the adjudication.

I think all the stakeholders, including the unions, are in agreement that it's all in everyone's best interest to prove that police can investigate police, to show the hon. members what Joe Wood was hoping to see: a substantial improvement in the quality and professionalism of the investigations.

And that is coming, but that is coming also at the cost to these municipalities. They're having to staff. They're realizing that when we say we're increasing by twice as much, their complaints are increasing twice as much, because it's their complaints that we're looking at. There has been this influx that everyone has had to deal with. So it's not a ripple effect. It's really being able to staff to do what we will…. We've only looked at our internal practices. It's what we need for staff to do what we need to do.

However, something that I didn't return to is that this is a critical crossroads, as I mentioned earlier. When you look at the Davies report and the inquiry into Frank Paul, when you look at the Braidwood report into Dziekanski and the recommendations, they have both emphasized, as I said earlier, that public confidence is in the process. They both emphasized the civilian component — that there have to be civilians within that organization.

What I've proposed, and what is set out on that page, is trying to maintain as a minimum a 50 percent level. If I may draw your attention to page 8 — and I'm sorry I didn't return to this earlier — I'd provided two options for the committee to review and determine. You're going to determine what we look like at the end of the day, by virtue of your funding.

I would like option 1. I would like to have four entry-level analysts. We have an eligibility list already created, with three senior-level analysts and one office assistant. I believe that that option in three or four years' time — I'm hoping through attrition — will be the same cost as option 2. The easy fix is for me to hire five retired officers. "In you go. Here are your files. Start your work."

The hard job is to take four people that have no experience at policing and engage in what I view as an apprenticeship program, where in four years' time, perhaps with retention and a good work environment, we can continue to have civilians engaged for long periods of employment, perhaps having a long career in public service.
[ Page 957 ]

As I alluded to last day, the average horizon for retired officers is a maximum of seven years. They come from 20 or 30 years in policing, they work for seven years maximum, and they're off to final retirement. What we're finding is that that's causing these gaps in consistency.

It's my hope, by having entry-level civilians and continuing to have entry-level civilians coming into the picture and being trained, soon it will be civilians training civilians. It's what Justice Braidwood had hoped for in the Dziekanski matter. But I'm of the view that there will always be a…. If I could always maintain a mix of a minimum of 50 percent civilians, I will always be able to draw on that expertise of those people retiring from the policing community to provide a balanced view towards the process.

I hope I've answered your questions there.

[1640]

N. Letnick: Thank you, Mr. Lowe, for the extra information and for your presentation today. My question is the one I actually posed to you after the meeting last time, which is this. It's one thing to be dealing with complaints as they come in. It's quite another to try to reduce your case workload. I don't see anything in here that would help us move the impetus back to where the cases are coming from — for them to do better training or more education with their own officers so that there are fewer and fewer cases and fewer and fewer complaints.

One thing that did come to mind, which I shared with you and shared with some of my colleagues, is the idea of attaching a fee to every complaint that's processed and not only using that fee to generate revenue to handle the complaints and issues of your office, as you would like more money, but also using those fees to provide incentives for cities and municipalities which are the host for their police officers and complaints. That would give them an additional financial incentive to do more training and education to reduce the number of complaints.

My question to you is: is that feasible? Is it done anywhere else, in your experience? Is it something that government could look at doing in the future? Would it work?

S. Lowe: We're working on that right now. Something more recently that I've come across and spoken with staff on and am moving towards is this. Not only should the OPCC be conducting oversight over professionalism; we should be promoting it. There is going to be more outreach work by us to go to each of the police agencies to identify the most frequent types of cases and how they can be avoided and to speak with supervisors and trainers to address these issues.

But what I think is slowly occurring is because of this. Nothing gets your attention better than an increase in funding and a loss of money. I think municipalities are now looking and saying: "My goodness, our costs are going through the ceiling. You're coming here. You're wanting 46 percent more. You want seven more officers and professional standards."

That's where they're asking their own management: "As police boards, as municipal managers, what are we doing about professionalism?" "How can we do damage control?" is probably the term I want to use. How can we educate better to avoid complaints? Also, how can we avail ourselves of the informal and mediation processes?

I've gone out to every one of the chiefs, and I've shown them that at the end of the day, through mediation and informal resolution…. What it takes a sergeant to investigate a file and engage in 20 hours of investigation — comparatively, expense-wise — is huge in comparison to two hours of mediation with an experienced mediator. In some cases it's $1,000 versus $25,000.

Everyone is getting up to speed. Everyone is looking at their own business practices. I think in time you will get greater emphasis and greater reliance on us to provide more professional training or more professional advice.

At this current time we're looking at the big issue of use of force. I'm commissioning studies on that area because in this province, working with the CPC, we're trying to establish better training in the area of use of force and we're turning back — to let the cat out of the bag a bit — to a Canadianized vision of policing, as opposed to an Americanized one, which we see as a problem.

Again, these are being done. We hope to have a protocol on use of force and some commissioned studies on training. Maybe that's where we start, with the JI and with Depot. With respect to use of force, if we do proper training and have de-escalation and work that way, I think we're going to see the complaints come down. But I think it's going to be short-term paying for long-term gain at the end of the day.

I won't venture in the area of funding. What we heard today attempts to have the province carry the burden of the increased costs. Of course, the province and the hon. members are saying: "Maybe, perhaps, the municipalities can do it." That's your bailiwick. It's outside my jurisdiction. I'm here because I need help.

D. McRae: Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't have much experience in the policing world.

[1645]

First of all, I'm just going to ask if my definition is right on this one. In regards to your department, if a complaint is admissible, that means it has merit to be investigated. If it is substantiated, then that is an admissible complaint that actually has to be reacted to through the courts or some other process — right?

S. Lowe: Well, what happens is that once it's substantiated, then it either attracts discipline, or corrective measures have to be considered.
[ Page 958 ]

D. McRae: What percent of complaints, from your experience so far, are substantiated within the office?

S. Lowe: I think that it has been 10 to 12 percent. But one of the shortcomings of that substantiation has been that in the past the only vehicle to challenge a substantiation was a public hearing, and it was always reserved for the most egregious of incidents. So in the past with our office, it may be a serious case that we disagree with, and then substantiation, but it didn't command the resources or meet the threshold necessary for a public hearing.

With the two intermediate avenues that Joe Wood had identified as necessary and that the hon. members have passed through the Legislature, now there's an economic and efficient means of dealing with these unsubstantiated matters, either through the appointment of a retired judge as the DA to review unsubstantiation or, where we have a disagreement over discipline or process, a review on the record. These are both very quick, economical — I emphasize economical — and efficient methods to address matters, in addition to public hearings.

There will always be a need for public hearings. I think we're only giving transparency and accountability lip service. There will be times when it has to be played out in the public through evidence and through the media reporting to understand the concepts and the needs that are necessary.

I should also indicate that there has been a change in case law. Not to get legal on you, but in the past few years the standard for proof of a substantiated complaint has now been identified as what's called a balance of probabilities — 51 to 49. There was a current of thought that prevailed in the earlier days of the OPCC that the standard was much higher, and that again kept the substantiation rate lower.

We are seeing more substantiations. We are seeing the police address the issue of professionalism head-on. As I say, 10 to 12 percent — that pans out to an 88 percent exoneration rate, in my view, also.

D. McRae: I have a couple more questions. I'm sorry, Chair.

I know you want to go into great detail in your answers. I don't want to cut you short either. I know other colleagues of mine have other questions they wish you to answer, but I have three others.

On-line percent of claims — if it's possible yet — that are inadmissible. I know I get lots of e-mails now in this job that are easy to send to multiple people on their concerns, and it also has a sense of anonymity. But the on-line is also a very useful service. Have you been able yet to get a sense of: are on-line submissions any higher a percentage of inadmissibility compared to other ways of substantiating?

S. Lowe: It's the same. It's just another method of filing. You still have to identify yourself. You're basically filling out a complaint on line. I don't think that there's…. Admissibility is really one of where the complainant complains about a particular act or conduct, and we have to determine if it's one of those covered in the act. It's a pretty simple process. There are about 12 areas of misconduct under the act. If it does not fit in, it's not admissible.

D. McRae: The reason I just wondered that is that I see all the figures, and for the most part lots of numbers are sustained, whether it's in person or from police forces. But all of sudden when we came on line, there was just a huge spike there. Like you mentioned, in Ontario there was a massive spike there. I'd just like, in future reports as well, to have some sort of discussion about the on-line side of it.

The last one I was going to ask, because I know my other colleagues will have questions, is comparing B.C. to other jurisdictions. We see projected complaints at about one complaint for every two officers in this province — give or take, you know; I'm not very good at math. How does this compare to other jurisdictions that you guys have looked at?

I guess the other question is: if we have 12 municipal police forces in the province, do we see a higher percentage coming from a certain police force over others, or is it pretty much a consistent number across the board?

S. Lowe: I think it's a consistent number across. Obviously, you're going to get the most out of Vancouver, because they have the most officers. They account for about 42 percent of our complaints, but they also have 1,600 members.

[1650]

What's important, I think, to drill matters down, is that 8 to 10 percent of the complaints are substantiated, but the 8 to 10 percent of complaints doesn't translate to 8 percent to 10 percent of officers. It's actually a far smaller amount. It's just that some officers may have, during a complaint, multiple allegations that have been substantiated. It's actually a very small proportion of the officers that account for the majority of the complaints.

D. McRae: Fair enough. If you could actually give those exact numbers down the road, if possible, I'd like to see them.

S. Lowe: As close as we can. It's hard because it takes a long time to develop those. You have to look at individual cases and count the counts and the names. It really is labour-intensive.

D. McRae: Well, if it's not too much work. Thank you.
[ Page 959 ]

B. Routley: I certainly agree with your belief that there need to be more civilians involved in the process, simply because the public justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. In order for it to be seen to be done, there is going to be a greater feeling of trust, I would think, by a larger majority of the public with a process that's not seen as somehow biased by having 100 percent of the police force basically policing themselves, if you like. I've heard that comment before.

My question was about the job description, or do you have a list of the requirements to fill a civilian position? Have you already developed the job description, and does that allow leeway for a large enough sector of society that it's not only limited to, say, security or military? Is it only those kinds of requirements, or are you looking for…?

For example, when I was a pension trustee, they wanted a prudent person. Are you looking for somebody that's kind of fair-minded and looking at it from a justice point of view? I'm just interested in that.

My last question was: out of the 10 to 12 percent where there have been some actions taken, what percentage of that group would be severe — so termination versus some level of discipline, ranging from a few days to multiple weeks? I don't know what the range is in terms of disciplinary actions that are taking place, but just if you could break that out in some way. Maybe you don't have that today, but if we could, at some point.

S. Lowe: Yeah. You can see that in our annual report. It's on line. It breaks down, actually, by the types of offences or misconduct. It'll lay out the numbers quite clearly.

But let me go back to your earlier question about our search for civilian candidates. We finished a job competition. In fact, I'll be happy to send you, Mr. Routley, our competencies. So we posted this job. Really, it only looked like it was going to be one job, the way we set it out there, because we didn't know what type of funding we may have. We created from that an eligibility list. We had almost 400 applications for the job after we set out some very clear competencies. I think I'll send it to everyone.

We managed to develop an eligibility list of four candidates. Their backgrounds are primarily mid- to late-20s or early-30s, master's from university in criminology, demonstrated community service, tremendous competencies in computer abilities. Then we had tests that dealt with their analytic ability and their ability to write and communicate. It was a pretty grinding process.

When we got down to the final four, we were pretty amazed with these particular candidates. They're on an eligibility list, and dependent on what the committee decides, we would love to offer all of them positions. I must say that, looking at people in their 20s and 30s, they are fresh faces, full of idealism, and I think they're just excellent candidates. I'll make sure that I send it off to all the members.

On the issue of types of offences or types of misconduct, we have to remember that most misconduct is really errors in judgment that are heightened by the emotional state and the chaos that's ongoing at the time. Police officers are asked to deal with people that we don't want to deal with. So people make mistakes sometimes. It's usually errors in judgment. It usually attracts corrective measures and, in some cases, discipline.

[1655]

The proportion of those that lead to dismissal is a very small proportion. Even though there is a comprehensive weeding-out process, there are still individuals whose moral character should not allow them to continue in the proud profession of policing, if I can put it in those terms. They are rooted out, and it's been my experience so far that the discipline authorities or chiefs had been dismissing those individuals. I think we see it from time to time in the news.

But for the most part, most of the complaints are at the less serious end. What attracts it a lot is…. The ones that attract the ire of the media are those involving use of force, I must say, that are abuse of authority. We get a number of those.

J. van Dongen: I would like to say first off, Stan, that I appreciate the vigour with which you are approaching this job, but I would like my questions and comments to be viewed in the context of what I think the committee would agree in our last ten days of travel across British Columbia — that there are intensive demands for dollars in all parts of government. So it's incumbent on all of us to be very thoughtful and management-oriented to make best use of all of the dollars.

I listened carefully to your comments about vetting of complaints and discontinuance, and I don't think I disagree with those comments, the spirit of your comments. But I think the admissibility numbers that you show for the last four or five months demonstrate that there are a lot of complaints coming in that don't even make the first test of admissibility. I don't need the number today. I'd be curious if we have similar numbers on the historic performance of the commission.

I suspect that with more access and more availability of both channels and knowledge of the complaint system, the numbers are up. When I consider projections of 1,150 complaints against, say, 2,600 municipal officers, then that strikes me as a fairly high rate of complaints. I don't know if we have any benchmarks for that. I wanted to make those comments about the vetting process and the discontinuance.

Similarly, mediation. You talked about mediation, and I'm certainly a believer in mediation as one dispute settlement mechanism. However, experience that I've had with other tribunals suggests that there are
[ Page 960 ]
lots of times when we enter into mediation and end up having to go back to an arbitrative or adjudicative type model.

I suggest that we be cautious in investing lots of dollars into mediation when the probability of a lack of settlement is pretty high. I think that's a caution flag for me based on experience with other tribunals.

I also wanted to comment further on the issue of contemporaneous oversight. I go back to the comments that our Chair made in his opening comments: that the legislation is there, and the legislation is the direction that you get. I submit that there is a lot of room for interpretation in how we implement legislation. We're not necessarily looking for the Cadillac on the interpretive side.

I think we're looking for a solid, defendable complaint process, but we're also looking for one that meets the test of value for taxpayer dollar when we benchmark it against all of the other critical needs that the people in the province have. I think there are different ways, for example, that contemporaneous oversight can be done.

The fact is that the analyst has access at any point in time in the process. Just because they have that access and it's legislated doesn't mean they have to use it on every case in the same way. I don't think we're looking to shift responsibility for investigating complaints out of the municipal forces themselves in anything other than the most serious cases.

[1700]

You made a comment that workload is driven by caseload. Certainly, caseload is a factor, but how we interpret, how we implement, how we manage is also a driver of workload. In other words, there are different ways of implementing the legislation, in my view, and I think we're looking, as I said, at value for money on that.

Similarly, on the issue of retired police officers as analysts versus civilians, again, I know about the perception issue that Bill talked about. But I think, ultimately, that we're looking for quality investigations and complaint management at the detachment level first, and then we're looking for quality analysts and quality investigators.

The fact that you as a civilian are overseeing this operation, I think, is a strong statement in itself. We may not be able to move through all of the implementation issues that we're going through and have a full civilian-based team as quickly as we might like to have. Again, I think there are value judgments that need to be made there. I think there are lots of retired police officers that, with the appropriate supervision, would do a quality job of an investigation.

So those are some of the comments that I wanted to make. As I said, the context is that we're all working with scarce dollars.

S. Lowe: I appreciate your comments, Mr. van Dongen. Let me begin by saying this. Whatever I get, I'm going to deliver on. I'm not going to come to this committee and say: "If you don't give the money, I can't deliver." I'm committed to delivering it.

However, although I respect you very much in your comments, using systematic euphemisms such as "There are efficiencies to be found" or "The way you interpret statutory interpretation…." I want to drill down further. I've looked at the legislation. We have to go back to the words of Joe Wood. This is the last kick at the can. The next model is police can't investigate police, and you have to have civilians investigate police. That prospect, from a financial standpoint, is huge.

Public confidence — and I think Mr. Routley hit it perfectly — is in the process. I understand there are scarce dollars. It's one thing to bring in legislation with fanfare, but it's another to properly finance it.

I said six months ago that I shouldn't be back here doing what I am today, asking for resources. Case numbers and vetting…. These hon. members, through the legislation, have defined what misconduct is. If a complaint engages in a relevant fashion one of those areas of misconduct, it must be investigated. It's up to you to remove those areas of misconduct if you want to change the vetting process. If you want discreditable conduct…. That's an area that attracts a number of cases. Remove that from the Police Act, and let there be discreditable conduct. But that's your choice.

You've given me 12 areas. I get complaints, and I say: "Where does it fit in these 12 areas?" If it fits, administrative law and procedural fairness says that it should go ahead, that it should be investigated and that it should be determined. It's a process that at the very end of the day, if this is carried out right, I believe will improve the image of policing in this province, and I think it needs to improve in this province.

With respect to the issue of contemporaneous oversight, you're going to have an audit three years from now. I want to take those comments…. It's important. When you do your audit, if you want modest improvements in the system, don't expect phenomenal advances in your audit. Look for modest improvements, then. Make sure your expectations are in line.

My view is that with contemporaneous oversight we can't let certain investigations go sideways because they're not serious, find out at the end. Then the police complain and say: "Look, you could have advised all the way along, and now you're telling us at the very end after an investigation that it's deficient." And they have a right to challenge us on that, and I invite them to challenge us on that.

[1705]

The system contemplates contemporaneous oversight, and it actually is set up for that, because there's a 20-day time limit at the end. You cannot look at a file at the end of the day and realize the investigation is terrible, say that it's an insufficient investigation, prolong the investigation again, send them out to do their work again, and
[ Page 961 ]
then come back and give a decision in 20 days. We're returning back to the days of atrocious delay. We're going to have the two-year cases and three-year cases, which benefits nobody.

I will deliver. I'm just asking for what you can give, and I'll find a way. I'll make a difference at the end of the day, but give me what you can. That's all I'm asking. Give me what you can, and I'll go away and go to work.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): We could get into an entire discussion around how this legislation was drafted and how we got to this stage, but I'm going to leave that to another day, because I think we're focusing in on what you've presented as a budget.

I have two specific questions so that you can help me understand it a little bit better. In your original report, on page 4 you listed a number of bullet points around additional obligations that this act will now have you fulfil. One of them, the third from the bottom in the bullet points on page 5, is resolution of substantive and procedural issues related to the act.

I assume that the resolution of those issues will decrease once we get into the act more. My question is: does this budget reflect the work that needs to be done in the bullet point? Therefore, we can expect that line item to decrease in future years because you will have worked your way through the act, so we could see a decrease in the budget in that line item particularly.

The second one is litigation support associated with the implementation of the act. The only area I could find, perhaps, where that would apply is under adjudicative reviews. I'm wondering if you've reached that stage yet in the act and how many adjudicative reviews you anticipate. The litigation support associated with implementation of the act — is that something that is strictly dependent on adjudicative reviews? So we can get a handle, maybe, in the future around whether that line item would need to be supported as much as it is in your budget now.

S. Lowe: Thank you for your question.

To deal first with the resolution of substantive procedural issues related to the act, the act has a number of procedural omissions. It's a very detailed and complex document, and I think it was an excellent working document.

For example — not to drill down too deeply in the process — when we appoint a retired judge to look at an unsubstantiated complaint, the act never speaks to: what if the original chief substantiates one complaint but unsubstantiates the other? Who gets it? Does the retired judge get both, or do they just get the one? Are there two separate processes?

What we had to do was engage legal advice and go back to Hansard and the intent of the government and craft a procedural solution but, at the same time, make representations to government to help us with this issue.

We're finding many issues like that. I just commented today to one of the policy analysts that one of the areas that we're looking at is like a law school exam. It's very complicated procedurally, and no one could have contemplated that we would end up there. So there are procedural shortcomings in the act and some substantive shortcomings in the act — which I think that from our office, done on the side of our desk, we can make submissions to government for legislative reform that will make the act run more efficiently.

You're right, but it does take people to troubleshoot these, to come across them, to identify them and to work with legislative drafters to place before you amendments that will make the efficiency of the act improve. That's going to take some time. It could take years.

Your second issue with litigation support — you're absolutely right. It focuses primarily on the adjudicative values, but we're having judicial reviews now. One of the primary issues we had to deal with first is: which act applied? We had a public hearing that commenced in Victoria, in the Kinloch matter, and the first issue was: which act applied?

The intent of the Legislature was very clear. You wanted, substantively and procedurally, this act to apply — the new act. It was a source of legal debate, and it was ruled upon by an adjudicator.

[1710]

The position taken, though, by the other parties now is that that's not binding. Eventually we're going to have to get to judicial review on that. With every new legislation there is that growth period where it needs the matters ironed out eventually in the courts. We anticipate that.

I can tell you now, as I alluded to earlier in my submissions, that our current budget of $100,000 for legal fees and adjudicative assistance has been far exceeded. I think we'll likely be moving into $300,000 or $400,000, commensurate with what I requested last time. There's a lot of legal advice that's being sought to help us and guide us through this process.

To get to what we've had under the new adjudicated review in section 117, we've had two adjudications. In the past five years there have been probably four public hearings called. In the first year of my tenureship I've called five already on issues. Just to take a step back, this province has lacked adjudicative precedent, and therefore, we've been running in the dark on some fundamental issues that needed to be resolved because of the fear of not having a serious enough case to go to a public hearing.

We've had to just blindly go, where other jurisdictions have had a broad and wealthy complement of case law that they can look at to help decide issues for DAs every day. So we're going to need more litigation in the short
[ Page 962 ]
term, more adjudication in the short term, and in the long term we're going to have some broad principles to apply that will really cut down the litigation costs.

It has to be done. The work needs to be done sometime.

J. Rustad: Thanks, Stan. I've just got a couple of questions. Hopefully, they won't be lengthy questions.

Looking at the numbers and what you're asking for in additional dollars, last year when you came in to the Finance Committee and asked for the uplift, we knew we had the new act. We knew there were going to be some challenges around implementing it. We didn't know exactly how to do it or exactly what that addition would be.

There was a 25 percent increase to your budget — just under $500,000 — and you ended up hiring two people. You've asked now…. Whether we look at option 1 or option 2 — option 2 is pretty close to the same number at $526,000 — you're going to be hiring six people. I'm just wondering. Where did the dollars — the 25 percent uplift to your budget — go from last year, when you can look at hiring three times as many people with the same amount of money with this ask?

S. Lowe: If I recall last year, I think our request was three for 2010 and four for 2011. I think what was approved at the end of the day was three, and we have hired three. One is on tap. We have a contract. I don't know if we've counted that, but it's the person who is currently on contract because, quite frankly, we're double-booked. We have two people in every office. We don't have premises in which to hire more people into.

I think that the numbers are there. It's not like money has disappeared. In fact, if we go back even further, I eliminated the position of commission counsel, which allowed me, at play, $180,000. With that, I backfilled with the contract and then another admin person, which should have still given me an overage of a few thousand. But in our case — what you've asked us for — I've filled those positions with that amount of money. It was more than just…. But what we were requesting was also TIs, I think, and matters with respect to the new lease too.

J. Rustad: Sorry, what I'm wondering is just the breakdown of where the $500,000, the 25 percent increase, went last year in terms of that. It would just be nice to know that.

The second part of the question, actually, as well, is…. This is October, obviously, in the middle of the ongoing year, and at the end of November, the beginning of December — whenever that time may be — you'll be presenting to the Finance Committee again for your budget for 2011-12. I'm wondering what kind of budget we can be expecting at that time, or whether this increase you're asking is actually going to be sufficient for the next year.

L. Hubbard: In terms of the award or the lift that went into the current year's budget, based on the committee's decision last year, the increase was $483,000 that was approved.

[1715]

Of that $483,000, approximately $320,000 went to the salaries and the benefits. Costs of hiring the additional three positions were approved. The remainder went into such things as the building occupancy charges that will accrue in terms of the move to the new building that's just about to happen. And amortization costs of…. There's $28,000 of increase on the amortization that will start paying for the tenant improvements that were made through the capital expenditure.

The remainder is little bits — $12,000 on office expenses, $6,000 on public information, $23,000 in data and word processing. The vast majority of what was approved went to the salary and benefits of the three positions that were approved.

The amount that was actually requested in the budget submission almost a year ago was, of course, quite a bit higher than what was approved, and it was to support five positions at that time. If the committee recalls, at that time Mr. Lowe projected a request for five positions starting at the start of the fiscal year and anticipated two more coming into the next fiscal year.

I'll let him answer in terms of what his anticipations are for the presentations in November, but I don't think he's anticipating further staffing increases for the next fiscal year. He's trying to get a jump on that, and that's why the figures that are presented in the request show what the cost would be for the remainder of this fiscal year and then for a full fiscal year going forward.

You've touched on an important point. It's that if the committee approves those dollars to augment the budget for the remainder of this fiscal year, there's little point in doing that without acknowledging the fact that this is a go-forward commitment.

Does that help? Is that clear?

J. Rustad: Yes.

S. Lowe: Mr. Rustad, I can tell you that my plans are…. With this staffing, it's really looking at a four-year plan. I would not be coming to this committee within the next four years requesting further staffing. I'm hoping that through attrition I actually can reduce, with staff leaving and those four civilians gaining more experience to be able to take on….

The problem with this is that when you train four people, you have to dedicate 1½ people full-time to their work. So that takes another person and a half, which works out to about 65 to 80 files that have to be transported to somebody else. I'm hoping that in four years' time we could actually reduce our number of FTEs or at least maintain it. But I won't be coming back for that.
[ Page 963 ]

You can anticipate that in November what I'll be coming back to see you for is, primarily, assistance with the litigation expenses associated with this legislation. We have five public hearings on the go that are slated within the next 12 months. One is just completed. There is a judicial review that we anticipate will be occurring fairly soon. And then the sage advice that we receive from counsel — we've had to rely on counsel through the implementation of this act — has been fairly expensive but has been necessary.

If anything, I'll be coming in November to produce to you my demonstrated need for litigation support, but I certainly won't be asking for any more staffing for at least…. I can commit to at least four years.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much. I want to ask you a couple of questions. For one, I'm a bit surprised that you wouldn't have statistics that would focus on the individual officers who…. I mean, we're obviously observing privacy and all that sort of stuff, but generally, I think you've acknowledged that it's a very small minority of officers.

I think my experience would say that their superiors know who they are, their colleagues know they are, the courts know who they are, the prosecutors know who they are and defence counsel knows who they are. It seems to me that the focus of the system is on a very small number of people, and I think that statistic would be helpful.

[1720]

Obviously, that's something that would be dealt with ultimately through the training at the front end and, I suppose, labour relations at the back end. So in addition to the investigations…. Not to minimize the importance of the complaints, but it's a very small number of people, I think, except in exceptional circumstances, who generate the majority of the complaints. I think you've acknowledged that.

You mentioned timelines. From what I understand from reading your material, there's no timeline legislated for the initial determination of admissibility, in which, at that point, 30 percent of the complaints are dismissed. I'm judging from what you've said here.

I take it, then, that to get to the 80 percent that are dismissed or unsubstantiated, the next few items in the timeline sequence are — it would be down to about, I think, halfway down the first page — "DA or PCC rejects FI and orders further investigation." Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that that's where the bulk of the work is done.

I guess my question is, given that you don't have a time limit at the front end…. I mean, I understand that the whole focus of Mr. Justice Wood's report was to put limits into statute. Those who have had experience with the RCMP complaints procedure know that it can just stretch out infinitely, for years, and you get a routine letter every couple of months just saying it's still under investigation. I understand why the legislation is constructed that way, and I support that.

I guess, just to get a sense of your request, are you saying that you need more people available at the front end or you need more people for the very small minority of cases…? You know, the use of force where there's a death or a serious injury — do you need more people to deal with those cases? What do you view as being the most effective use of any new personnel, or the money for hiring any new people, that this committee might decide to give you?

S. Lowe: Thank you, Mr. Ralston. I can tell you that on average in all complaints that we receive, the determination of admissibility occurs within ten business days. When I alluded earlier to some substantive issues that need resolving, one of the things that we'll be coming to government to assist us in is that once we make a complaint admissible it goes to the police department. It says it should be…. "An investigation and notice of complaint should be initiated forthwith."

That's been interpreted by the police fairly loosely. In some cases the clock doesn't run until you do that notice. Sometimes it's taken up to three months. So we need, unfortunately, "forthwith" to be defined with a specific timeline so that you give people guidance.

What happens is that the six-month timeline to complete an investigation does not start until the police decide to deliver a notice of investigation and an initiation of the investigation. We're finding a huge delay at the front end. In most cases it's for the right reasons. It's because they're trying to informally resolve those that can be done and resolved. But again, it slows down the process.

I've asked my staff that at a minimum there's a requirement of a progress report and an investigation log on a monthly basis. What I've asked them to do, without micromanaging the matter, is to review the progress log of the investigation and the investigation log and make notes where we see investigative gaps or missing investigative steps. They must do that at least monthly, on that basis. At the same time….

B. Ralston: If I might interrupt, Mr. Chair, just so that I understand this. You're asking your staff to monitor the police investigation after they've initiated their process?

S. Lowe: Yes. That's what's contemplated by contemporaneous oversight, because it allows us to give direction to the police investigation. If you don't give direction while it's ongoing, you can't give it afterwards. That's what we've heard loud and clear from the police: "Please."

We've worked in a pretty collegial atmosphere in the sense that they do rely on us as a check and balance, and we've come to become a check and balance for police. They often say: "I'm wrapping up my investigation. Take
[ Page 964 ]
a look at my investigation. Are there any areas that we've missed?" That's the level of informal advice that we're providing.

[1725]

However, on a monthly basis I ask that when it starts to appear that an investigative avenue has been missed, then they should start to contemplate giving advice. While this is occurring, they may be uploading from that investigation witness statements and witness interviews that take 30 minutes to listen to and read transcripts from, and they may identify areas that weren't appropriately canvassed in the interview or weren't drilled down far enough or were inappropriate leading questions.

That compounds the matter because you have to address that issue with the officer. So it's not just looking at the file; it's analyzing it as the investigation takes place.

The quality of the police work that's ongoing. Were the right questions…? Were they investigating it in the right order? Was it too early to speak to the member? Maybe they needed more information. These are things that have to be troubleshot because, as I say, understanding policing is a very complex area. It's not just looking and seeing if it looks okay. It's actually taking an active step to improving the quality of the police investigation. So if the bulk of the work occurs….

B. Ralston: Just so I might…. Are you suggesting that this is a routine occurrence? I mean, these police are trained investigators. Presumably, someone in the internal investigation is a senior investigator with many experiences in complex investigations, up to and including homicides and all the rest of it. With due respect, I think you're creating an impression of problems that might arise in the….

I appreciate that oversight may be necessary, and I understand that you don't want to leave the police alone to do their own investigation. But is that so common an occurrence that it's a major problem that you're encountering as you carry out your duties?

S. Lowe: Yes. I can tell you this. It wasn't until not so long ago that we were able to convince police officers to interview a complainant. Some of them wouldn't even interview the complainant, the person that laid the complaint. Only after we asked them — and said that it must be done in order for us to sign off on an investigation — did they go and actually take some time and ask them about what happened.

I can tell you that it's clear that Joe Wood found that the most serious files were the most efficient. I think it's fair to say that that's what we find from time to time. But when you bring in a major crime investigator that does murders, we're even finding now, in our most recent experience, that that doesn't necessarily guarantee an appropriate investigation.

We've found interviews in which officers were leading witnesses on answers and raising concerns with respect to bias with respect to the…. The only reason we're drawn to that is because complainants were coming out of the interview and complaining to us, saying: "We didn't get a fair shake in that interview." So these are the daily ongoing issues that we find in files.

When we talk about misconduct, what you've defined as misconduct under the act — for example, abuse of authority, corrupt practices, damages to police property, deceit, discourtesy…. "Discourtesy" — I mean, you put it in here; it says — "which is failing to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public…." We get a lot of discourtesy complaints.

I guess the question is really to this committee. If you don't consider it serious, cut it out. That would reduce it. But if you consider the way an officer treats a member of the public important — whether the use-of-courtesy-wise or not — leave it in. I consider it important.

I can go through every one of these areas. Discreditable conduct. Tell me what you want to cut out. Tell me what's not serious, because they are all serious.

B. Ralston: Well, I don't really think that's the point of what we're doing here today. The legislation has been passed. We accept it. We're not proposing amendments, and I don't think that approach is terribly helpful, frankly.

S. Lowe: But Mr. Ralston, you've minimized and tried to generalize on the complaints, sir. You say that some of them are not….

B. Ralston: No, I was just saying….

J. Les (Chair): Hang on. Bruce has the floor.

B. Ralston: I'm just saying that I was surprised to hear that the quality of the investigation in even a relatively routine complaint requires continuous intervention by your office. I'm surprised to hear that, given my experience generally. I mean, obviously it's patchy in places, but the professionalism of the police and particularly when they'd be conducting this kind of investigation….

[1730]

If anything, my personal experience would be that internal investigations are probably tougher on the police than maybe the members of the public ordinarily would expect or suspect. So I'm surprised by that. I'm just trying to get a sense of where the best efforts and the resources of this committee might be put to further the ends of the legislation.

We're not here to have a discussion about amendments to the legislation, and I'm certainly not minimizing any area of the legislation, although I think you'd have to agree that there is a gradation. Discourtesy versus use
[ Page 965 ]
of deadly force that kills someone — there's obviously a difference.

S. Lowe: There is obviously a difference, but the issue is that when you are presented with an allegation of that, the act itself says it constitutes misconduct and should be investigated. It's not for me to pick and choose as to what level of discourtesy is acceptable or not acceptable because of a matter of funding.

The investigation of professional standards is extremely difficult. In fact, one of the innovations that we've brought about in listening to the people that do the professional standards investigations was asking discipline authorities not to ask officers to comment on discipline. It made a big difference.

What we're finding now is that the quality of the investigations is improving because there was pressure on investigators throughout the whole time from various sources, from various stakeholders, when they had the ability to provide advice on discipline. We've made some operational changes that were requested by those in professional standards.

I must tell you that what seems a simple…. We do different levels of oversight with respect to the seriousness of the complaint. Some of those are assigned to…. We assign complaints, basically, in accordance with the skill set of the analyst. So those that attract the ire of the public, that are in the public, that are serious allegations of force go to my best analysts — the most experienced and those whose opinions I trust.

There are a lot of them. You can only do so many of those. You have a set of skill sets, but we can't do the same level on all files. What I'm telling you is that we're not doing any level on some of the most serious files. That is my concern. Some of the most serious files are not being looked at until a late stage because of the current caseload that we have.

As I indicated, I'm with you on the fact that there are gradations. People can figure out very early where a file is going. If it's a simple file, the analyst is going to know where it's going just by the evidence itself — be guided by the evidence. They're not going to spend and overcriticize that file. That's what I've asked them to do. I have to trust their ability to do that.

I'm just telling you that the numbers are here. The numbers are clear. You've asked for numbers. I've delivered numbers. At the end of the day, we're going to deliver. The question is: are we going to deliver the level that is going to meet your approval in an audit in three years?

J. Les (Chair): All right. I don't have any more people requesting the floor here, so I think we can wrap this up, Stan. The committee will seriously look at your request.

I think what you're sensing is that the committee is trying to take this request seriously. We, however, are mindful of the fact that this is new legislation. I said earlier that we could put a million dollars into this and you would find work for everybody to do. There is no question about that in my mind.

You haven't requested a million dollars. But we need to take this a step at a time, and I'm not going to prejudge what the committee may decide. We're trying to do this carefully, balancing all of the things that we have to balance and the things that you have to balance as well.

I think the point was well made a few minutes ago. There are many occasions where wisdom and judgment are required. I think that's what Bruce was alluding to. There has to be that ability to sort out the wheat from the chaff, focus on what's really important.

You mentioned earlier attracting people that are full of idealism. I worry a little bit about that. I don't mind people who are idealistic, but….

S. Lowe: Making a difference and being a true adjudicative. To embrace the concepts of fairness.

J. Les (Chair): I understand that.

S. Lowe: The concepts are principles. But not idealism in the sense…. I know what you mean.

[1735]

J. Les (Chair): You also have to have that leavened with sagacity and experience, I would suggest.

S. Lowe: Yes, and you have to gain it somewhere at some time.

I thank the committee for their attention in this matter.

J. Les (Chair): We'll let you go, and if I can ask the committee to stay behind for a minute, we'll see if we can maybe resolve this matter before we leave this evening.

Okay, John moves that we move into an in-camera session.

The committee continued in camera from 5:36 p.m. to 5:54 p.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Doug, you have a motion.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yeah. Do you want me to read it out?

J. Les (Chair): Sure.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): "I move that the Committee endorse the application of the Police Complaint Commissioner for an additional $65,000 for additional
[ Page 966 ]
operational staff and $20,000 for related capital expenses for fiscal year 2010-11 to defray costs incurred by his office with respect to recent legislative changes regarding the police complaint process."

Motion approved.

[1755]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): "I move that the foregoing motion shall represent the essence of the required correspondence to the Minister of Finance, Chair of Treasury Board, on the matter of supplementary funding to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, and that the Chair and Deputy Chair work with Committee staff to prepare this correspondence on behalf of the full Committee."

Motion approved.

J. Les (Chair): Motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada