Conducted Energy Weapons and Selected Police Complaints Audits — Issue No. 1

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
INQUIRE INTO THE USE OF CONDUCTED ENERGY WEAPONS
AND TO AUDIT SELECTED POLICE COMPLAINTS

Present: Murray Coell, MLA (Chair); Kathy Corrigan, MLA (Deputy Chair); Eric Foster, MLA; Leonard Krog, MLA; Ben Stewart, MLA; Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA; Ralph Sultan, MLA; Joe Trasolini, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. by the Committee Clerk.

2. Resolved, that Murray Coell, MLA, be elected Chair of the Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons and to Audit Selected Police Complaints (Kathy Corrigan, MLA).

3. Resolved, that Kathy Corrigan, MLA, be elected Deputy Chair of the Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons and to Audit Selected Police Complaints (Ralph Sultan, MLA).

4. The Committee considered its terms of reference and discussed its preliminary consultation and meeting plans.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
INQUIRE INTO THE USE OF CONDUCTED ENERGY WEAPONS
AND TO AUDIT SELECTED POLICE COMPLAINTS


CONTENTS
Page
Election of Chair and Deputy Chair	1
Committee Terms of Reference and Preliminary Planning	1

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): I will call this meeting to order. As this is our first meeting, the first item on the agenda is the election of the Chair. Are there any nominations?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): MLA Corrigan has nominated Murray Coell. Murray, do you accept?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

M. Coell (Chair): Good morning, and thank you for the nomination, Kathy. I greatly appreciate that.

M. Coell (Chair): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further…?

M. Coell (Chair): I think we've got both of our Clerks with us today, Susan Sourial and Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who have done a lot of work putting the agenda together for us and the terms of reference, as well as the work plan. So if we can move to item 3, the review of the terms of reference, I'll open it up for any comment or question at this point.

M. Coell (Chair): If I could just briefly mention that we have, basically, two tasks that the Legislature has given us. One is the review of the recommendations of Justice Braidwood. One of his recommendations was that this committee would actually sit and review the recommendations to make sure that they are implemented — and not only that they're implemented but that they're working the way that he had suggested.

The other one is to have a look at the police complaints commission and to do a random audit of some of the complaints as to how they've been helped, dealt with and concluded.

I think that we have a workplan set out for us that has a number of decisions. When we get to it, we'll have to make those decisions today.

Susan or Kate, I don't know whether you want to make any comments about how you put these together.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): One decision I think the committee needs to make, to start, is because there are two parts to the terms of reference, whether you want to work on them concurrently. That's one of the decisions — whether to work on the terms of reference concurrently or sequentially.

Now, the timelines are set out in the statutes, so the review of the Braidwood Commission report has to be completed by December 31. The audit of the police complaints process has to be completed by January 1, 2013. The reports, however, aren't due for a year from when the committee was struck. So if the committee was struck in May, the reports are due May 2013. It's the review part, though, that has to be completed by the end of the year.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): Well, I'm glad to hear that, because my reading of the Police Act made it look to me like we had to have our report completed by December 31, and I was a little bit concerned about that. So I'm pleased to hear that. I'm happy to go with that interpretation, although I'm not sure it's exactly….

The act says that before December 31 "the special committee must conduct a review of the following matters and submit a report under subsection (6)." But you're interpreting that to mean that the report doesn't have to be there for a year, which is fine with me. I'm glad to hear that.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Under subsection (6), 40.1 says: "Within one year after the date that the special committee is appointed, the special committee must submit a report…." There's that part, and then they must submit a report for the second one within one year after the date. So there are the two dates.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I understand. I thought maybe it meant we should have started the work earlier, but it doesn't matter. As long as we're all in agreement that we've got a year to do the report, that's just fine.

Also, in terms of doing it sequentially or concurrently, I would submit that we should do it concurrently just be-
[ Page 2 ]
cause of the timelines that we have. That's my feeling on it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Just a point of clarification. In addition to the provisions that Susan noted, I think that when we look at subsection (2) in section 40, which is the provision that the committee must conduct a review of the conducted energy weapons, similar language is used in section 51 — must conduct a review.

I don't know if that necessarily means that your review must be concluded by those particular dates. As long as the committee is well underway by December, January, as I'm sure you would be, I think that you would fulfil your statutory obligation. I think that that portion of your work needn't be complete.

Just given the timelines of what we anticipate the next year will bring, I think it would be very prudent, of course, to move in an expeditious manner. But I think you do have some flexibility into the spring.

R. Sultan: Well, because of this pending event in May, I assume we would like to have this all wrapped up well before that pending event. Is that, indeed, our intent?

B. Stewart: I just concur with Ralph. I think the idea would be to submit this in a timely fashion so that it's not confused by what's going to be in the lead-up to the middle of May events.

M. Coell (Chair): I see that everyone is shaking their heads, so concurrent it is. I think that we would, as both Ralph and Kathy had said, move as quickly as we can but do a thorough and thoughtful process.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Then, in terms of the timelines, as we said, we set it out looking at starting with a preliminary review of the business plan in July and then starting to hear from some of the expert witnesses in August, depending on members' availability.

I mentioned to staff that there probably are three people we would want to hear from — Justice Braidwood firstly, then the Police Complaint Commissioner and then the ministry — to bring us up to date on what they have done before we actually start our own research.

The timelines that we've got in front of us take us up to January, but if need be, we would go past that. I think that's in agreement of everyone.

The other suggestion that staff have made is that we would hire two different groups to actually do the preliminary research and then bring it back to us on an ongoing basis.

I don't know, Susan, whether you or Kate have any suggestions of the type of person that we would be looking for, for either one of those jobs.

I suspect in one of them it would be, as you said, an audit firm that would specialize in corporate or government audits. Then they would set up a business plan for us, come back, we would agree to that and then do a random sample of maybe a dozen or 20 different complaints of how they've been addressed and concluded.

Then the other one, you would probably need an individual who would actually do some of the research working with us, with the ministry and with the recommendations of Justice Braidwood.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Yeah. I think, in terms of the expert advisers for the Braidwood side, it was more on the medical risks aspects of it, as that was one of the recommendations — that the committee review the latest medical information on the use of conducted….

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I noticed in reading some of the report, particularly on the medical risks, that there was a Dr. Chambers who had been attached to the Braidwood Commission. So I'm not sure. Will we ask staff to assist us in finding somebody, or is that a possibility? I'm just not sure where we go to for that expertise or whether others might have good ideas on that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would just suggest that perhaps once the committee has an opportunity to meet with Justice Braidwood and the ministry officials who also have an active, ongoing understanding of this file, as well as the Police Complaint Commissioner on the other side, you may have a better sense whether you can get the information and advice that you require through expert testimony to the committee. Or you may wish to determine in due course that you do want to hire, say on a contract basis, some advisers.

It might be helpful to determine that after you've had the initial briefings from those experts and any stakeholders.

L. Krog: In terms of the public hearings, are we anticipating travel? Are we sticking to the Big Smoke of Vancouver and Victoria, or has the Chair or anyone given much thought to that concept?

M. Coell (Chair): We have the ability to do that if we wish. That might be something that we would consider. I
[ Page 3 ]
like Kate's idea of maybe hearing from Justice Braidwood before we make those decisions, but I would certainly be open to that.

M. Stilwell: Yeah. I don't want to reiterate endlessly, but I assume that we would have a limited kind of consultation to review the review rather than starting back at the beginning of all the scientific research and review what has transpired in the interval, research-wise, which I suspect is very, very little, given the lack of research into Tasers in general.

I suspect that having people come and testify about the research in the interval would be one small, relatively limited piece and then have maybe a small reviewing panel — just review the review. Let's agree that….

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I think the timelines are good, subject to, as you said, the summertime. Getting us together could be a challenge with vacations and so on — not only us but those that are going to be doing the briefings. So I am comforted by the fact that the interpretation is that as long as we're up and going, we can move things a little bit, if necessary, in order to do the work that we need to do. I think it looks pretty good.

R. Sultan: I would presume, since the spring is going to be a rather busy time for all of us, I suspect, that the bulk of the work of this committee would take place before Christmas. That's my speculation, shall we say. While it seems the terms of reference give us very broad latitude to scour the province for witnesses and bring expert people from all corners of the province should we so choose, as Moira says, we don't want to reinvent the Braidwood Commission.

I think the timeline will force us to be very parsimonious in terms of how much time we spend on consultation with experts, ordinary citizens, police bodies, etc. If we truly want to wrap this thing up earlier rather than later, I think that will impose its own discipline on the timeline, which will be good.

M. Coell (Chair): When I look at the timeline, I think the majority of the work is probably going to be October, November by the time that we get underway. So I wondered whether…. Do we need a motion just to accept the timelines as presented? I see everyone's heads nodding.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I'm not going to move a motion yet. I'm wondering if, as part of that, though, we could set a definite end date. Okay, so we might bleed a little bit more than January. I mean, we might end up actually getting the work done, but the report might not be ready by January. I think we should set an end date that it has to be done by, sort of in line with what Ralph has been saying.

M. Coell (Chair): Kate just suggested that this is preliminary anyway. It may change after we've…. So we don't need a motion.

M. Coell (Chair): I guess the only other thing that…. How are members for availability during the next six weeks this summer? I know, Kathy, you and I have a couple of weeks when we're not available.

L. Krog: As long as you don't interfere with the week of July 30 to August 3 or 4, my week's holiday this summer, I'll be happy as a clam at high tide.

J. Trasolini: I'm good. The only thing is that it would be nice to know ahead of time so that it doesn't interfere with some of the other activities that are happening — a day here or a day there. A bit of notice would be great.

E. Foster: I'm going to be in Victoria for a couple of events there. I've been scheduled there for some other meetings, too, for the first two weeks in August. So I'll be around those times.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): No, I'm okay. I'm leaving next week, at the end of next week, and then I come back, actually, about the 11th of August, I think, but that's a weekend. So the following week I'm available. But I'm certainly available to have discussions with you about any preliminary work that we want to get done.

M. Coell (Chair): Sure, okay. We should do that on a fairly regular basis, I think.

M. Coell (Chair): So with those additions, do we want to ask Susan and her staff to look at when Justice Braidwood is available, when the ministry is available and when the Police Complaint Commissioner is available? Is there anyone else we would want to hear from this summer?

It's just those three individuals, whether they're available this summer. I would think we would have to hear from Justice Braidwood first, the ministry second and the complaints commish third. We'll try and do it when the vast majority of members are available.

B. Stewart: Murray, with Justice Braidwood, I would think that everybody from the committee should be there. I just think that there's way too much…. He's gathered all this evidence, spent a good portion of time on it. I think we do want to make certain that we're in attendance. I think it's based on his availability, and we'd try to plug it in.

Then for the other ones, I don't really think that the ministry or the Police Complaint Commissioner would…. Unless there are holidays, etc., they probably are more available.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Right. So what we'll do is we'll contact Justice Braidwood and get an idea of his availability. Then I'll contact the members, and we'll try and coordinate to find a date where all the members are available and Justice Braidwood is available. Maybe on that day we can do Justice Braidwood plus….

M. Coell (Chair): We haven't picked a date yet. We'll try and get one when everyone's available.

R. Sultan: When you talk about having somebody from the ministry, what do you mean, exactly? Would it be the minister? Would it be somebody…? Can you give us a bit of a clue of how you would interpret that?

M. Coell (Chair): I would imagine it would be the deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister responsible for the implementation of the report.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): From the police services branch of the Ministry of Justice.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): I imagine also, maybe, the director of police services.

M. Coell (Chair): Any other thoughts? Or we'll proceed. Susan or Kate, do you need anything else from us at this point?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would just mention — just on Leonard's point earlier with respect to public consultation — a question that you will turn your minds to in time: the scope of the public consultation you need. The act, as you know, provides that you can seek either written or oral submissions to your committee, so it's not necessarily an expectation or a requirement that you must fulfil a comprehensive consultation process. It's very much what you think satisfies your need to collect evidence.

I think that previously, in 2002, a committee of this House which was reviewing the police complaint process at the time — which was another statutory provision under the Police Act — undertook public hearings, in addition to a call for written submissions. Those hearings, just for your information, were essentially located in Victoria and Vancouver, to reflect the scope of application of the Police Act at the time to municipal police forces, which are based in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas, as opposed to the RCMP, which is more prevalent, of course, in the rest of the province.

I just wanted to mention that to you. You don't need to turn your mind to that today. But in time, for any assistance that our office can provide you in planning your consultations, we would appreciate having the committee's guidance on that in the weeks ahead, should we need to coordinate arrangements for consultations in conjunction with other committee activities this fall. Certainly that, too, will become, I think, more clear to you after you have a better sense from the experts that you will be hearing from in the weeks ahead.

R. Sultan: Kate, on that previous consultation in 2002, what was the scope, in terms of time and locations, that the committee invested in that?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If I recall, I think the referral to that committee came forward pursuant to a statutory provision, again, in 2001. It looked, essentially, at the work of the Police Complaint Commissioner's office
[ Page 5 ]
and the police complaint process generally. So there were two streams of information.

One aspect of the committee's work very much focused, I think, on the effectiveness of the work of the office. There were at that time some concerns that had been brought to the committee's attention on the public record. There's quite a lot of information that we can discuss, should the committee have an interest in looking at that historic piece.

The other piece was really to look at the effectiveness of the police complaint process, which — as you will learn in time — is a very complex process and, of course, one in which there is a high level of public interest in as well. The committee at that time also undertook, I believe, a survey of randomly selected police complaints by contacting individuals who had worked with the office to assess their satisfaction and the effectiveness of the services that they had received.

There is a report that, I'm sure, Susan would be pleased to provide to you which gives you a sense of what was done at the time. It was very much a different scope than what you have in front of you. I think that this audit is less, perhaps, detail-oriented by comparison to the work that the first committee was tasked with ten years ago.

J. Trasolini: A question or comment that I have is in regard to informing different organizations such as independent police boards, police chief organizations or community groups that have a direct interest in this area. How are we going to make sure that they are aware early on if they wish to participate or, in fact, just get knowledge of this committee's work?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, that would be a decision for the committee to determine. But what we've done for previous committees is that we've identified, by working with the Chair and the Deputy Chair and all members, a list of key stakeholder groups that would receive in time a copy of any announcements that the committee would be making — for example, an opening call for written submissions or a notice of a public hearing. We would ensure that those groups are well advised to receive that information.

Should the committee wish to, as well, the committee could also invite, from a list of that kind, key stakeholders that you might wish to extend a formal invitation to appear before you. You can actually go as far as to coordinate a series of invitations, or just ensure that key groups that everyone agrees to and all the members are comfortable with are also well informed and able to step up on essentially a first-come, first-served basis to volunteer to be part of your process.

M. Coell (Chair): I think it might be worthwhile, following Joe's suggestion, to have staff start to put together a list of key stakeholders. Maybe members can, if they have thoughts on it, help put that list together.

J. Schofield: Could I just add something, Murray? When I first looked at this report, I did notice that there was a list of people who had made presentations to the original Braidwood inquiry. From the research end, that would be our starting point. So they would be invited if they would like to participate in the status of the recommendations. I think that would be a good start for us.

J. Schofield: We're not dealing with 8,000 or anything like that. I was just desperately trying to find it here.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): We have copies of the full Braidwood report. If anybody would like a copy, we've got them here for you. I think you were all distributed the executive summary of the report. You have that before you. This is the full report if you wish to read it.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I share Ralph's concern. I think we need to be judicious about how we do this. As much as I think it's really important to be open and allow people to participate that want to — and I think we should do that — I take Moira's advice that this is not a repetition of the Braidwood Commission. This is reviewing the progress that has been made on the recommendations, as well as the other piece. I think we're going to have to think a little bit about the scope and how we do it, or else we're not going to get it done by the end of December or sometime in January.

L. Krog: Just because I feel like gilding the lily a little this morning…. I mean, the terms of reference are that we conduct a review regarding the implementation of the recommendations. I see that as encompassing whether or not they've been implemented. If not, why not? If they have been implemented, have they proved successful? Have they made a difference? Is there some statistical evidence?

On the second part, regarding the scientific research into the medical risks, has there been something that Braidwood didn't hear that we have an opportunity to hear? Will Mr. Braidwood, experts in the area and others have some ability to say: "This is good" or "This is bad" or "We should be doing something different"?
[ Page 6 ]

At the end of the day, do we say to the Legislature as a whole that we should consider legislative change because there is a new and apparent risk or, in fact, this is not the risk it once was? Mr. Braidwood may even be wrong — not that I'm suggesting he would be, of course. I think if we give even the hint that we're letting everybody have another kick at the can again — as my friend Ralph has pointed out — we'll be here a long time after May 14 next year.

M. Coell (Chair): Thank you, Leonard. I appreciate those gilding-the-lily comments. That was well put. Any other comments?

We have a timeline in front of us. Staff are going to put meetings together for us, start putting a list of stakeholders together for us, and we'll try and get back to members as quickly as possible on the next meeting dates.

I think we can probably have a motion to adjourn. Moved by Moira and seconded by Joe.

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.

Chair:	* Murray Coell (Saanich North and the Islands BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Kathy Corrigan (Burnaby–Deer Lake NDP)
Members:	* Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	* Leonard Krog (Nanaimo NDP)
	* Ben Stewart (Westside-Kelowna BC Liberal)
	* Dr. Moira Stilwell (Vancouver-Langara BC Liberal)
	* Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver–Capilano BC Liberal)
	* Joe Trasolini (Port Moody–Coquitlam NDP)
	* denotes member present
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Josie Schofield (Manager, Committee Research Services)
	Matthew Cleeves (Committee Research Analyst)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE USE OF CONDUCTED ENERGY WEAPONS AND TO AUDIT SELECTED POLICE COMPLAINTS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
INQUIRE INTO THE USE OF CONDUCTED ENERGY WEAPONS
AND TO AUDIT SELECTED POLICE COMPLAINTS