Conducted Energy Weapons and Selected Police Complaints Audits — Issue No. 9

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; Gordon Hogg, MLA; Leonard Krog, MLA; John Slater, MLA; Joe Trasolini, MLA

2. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions relating to Part 11 of the Police Act (Part 11 – Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings):

• Clayton Pecknold, Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services, Policing and Security Programs Branch

• Lynne McInally, Executive Director, Standards and Evaluation, Police Services Division

• Jeremy Wood, Senior Policy and Legislation Analyst, Police Services Division

4. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to consider its work plan. (Kathy Corrigan, MLA)

8. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to receive the Auditor General's preliminary findings regarding the audit of the outcome or resolution of randomly selected police complaints and investigations. (John Slater, MLA)

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
Briefing: Police Act, Part 11	135
C. Pecknold
J. Wood
K. Kirby

M. Coell (Chair): Good morning. We have the meeting scheduled from ten till 1:30 today, with a number of presenters. Our first group is the Ministry of Justice, led by Assistant Deputy Minister Clayton Pecknold, who is going to give us some context to the next part of the report that we'll be working on.

With that, any comments from members of the committee? Or shall I turn it over to Assistant Deputy Minister Pecknold?

C. Pecknold: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, committee. Before I refer to my prepared remarks, if you'll permit me, I'll just introduce the staff that are with me.

To my right is Ms. Lynne McInally. She is the executive director of standards and evaluation with our branch. To my immediate left is Mr. Jeremy Wood, who is the senior policy and legislation analyst at the police services division. To my far left is Ms. Kathy Kirby. She is the director of policy and legislation, also with our branch. Collectively, these folks are the ones who have the bulk of the knowledge in this area of law and are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Mr. Chair, as you know, I'm the assistant deputy minister of policing and security for the province of British Columbia. I'm also the statutory director of police services under the act. Appearing before you today, it's my intention to give the committee members a general overview of the context and history in relation to the current audit of randomly selected complaints that you're undertaking.

Committee members may be aware that in 2007 former Court of Appeal Justice Josiah Wood, who is now a member of the Provincial Court, at the time was Mr. Wood, QC. So for the purpose of my remarks, I'll refer to him as Mr. Wood. He authored the report on the review of the police complaints process in British Columbia.

The review process and Mr. Wood's accompanying report represent perhaps the most extensive and detailed review of a Canadian police complaints process conducted to date. The purpose of my presentation today is to provide you with an overview of my branch's role in assisting Mr. Wood with his review, as well as in implementing his recommendations for changes to the Police Act.

I believe the history and background related to the Wood report and subsequent amendments to the Police Act will assist committee members when considering the results of the current audit of randomly selected complaints, which I understand is being conducted by the Office of the Auditor General.

Much of the information that I'm going to talk about today is found in Mr. Wood's report and in part 11 of the Police Act itself.

To begin, I would like to provide the committee with a quick overview of the events which led to the Solicitor General of the day ordering Mr. Wood's review in 2005.

Significant amendments to the Police Act were made in the late 1990s in response to the 1994 Oppal Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia. One response to the Oppal recommendations was the creation of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, or the OPCC. The OPCC was established in part 9 of the Police Act at that time as an independent agency to ensure that complaints against municipal police in British Columbia were handled fairly and impartially.

In the five years that followed the establishment of the OPCC, a number of concerns were expressed about the efficacy of the legislation respecting the complaints process from within the system, including from the police authorities and the complaint commissioner himself.

In 2002 a special committee of the Legislature reviewed the police complaints process and identified four areas for improvement, including the need to improve public confidence in the process, improve the informal resolution process, improve procedures and clarify the role of the Police Complaint Commissioner. That committee proposed 42 recommendations, 22 of which were general policy improvements and 20 of which were legislative amendments to the Police Act that were considered but not implemented at that time.

Also, during those years a number of high-profile police incidents occurred that brought the issue of the handling of complaints against the police to the attention of the public. In June of 2003 the Pivot Legal Society formally submitted 50 complaints to the Police Complaint Commissioner on behalf of several marginalized residents in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. The complaints included allegations of abuse of authority, excessive force and unlawful detention, among other things.

The Police Complaint Commissioner ordered an external investigation of the complaints to be conducted by the provincial police force, the RCMP. The RCMP investigation and the subsequent actions of the Vancouver police department in relation to the findings were the subject of some criticism by the Police Complaint Commissioner in his final report on the Pivot complaints. The commissioner concluded his report by recommending legislative reform with respect to the complaints process and by recommending a comprehensive audit of the Vancouver police department's handling of complaints.

Around the same time, the B.C. Civil Liberties
[ Page 136 ]
Association had publicly called on the Solicitor General to initiate an independent audit of the internal investigation process.

All of these events culminated in the review of police complaints process undertaken by Mr. Wood. In June 2005 the then Solicitor General ordered the review of the police complaints process under section 42 of the Police Act. Section 42 authorizes the director of police services to order an audit or study into any topic related to law enforcement.

I'll now outline for you the focus and methodology of the Wood review. Mr. Wood chaired the review and formed a review team with staff from police services division. Two experts were also seconded to the project. RCMP Staff Sgt. Debbie Chisholm came with considerable experience in conducting internal investigations and working in the area of anticorruption. Crown Counsel Peter Juk of the province's legal services branch came also with considerable experience in the area of prosecution.

An advisory stakeholder committee was established at the beginning of the process. The group provided input on the review project plan and was consulted with respect to the recommendations stemming from the review.

Membership on the advisory committee included the British Columbia Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police — I should pause here and disclose to the committee that at that time I was in fact the representative for the Municipal Chiefs of Police in this review, just to identify that for you — and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, the B.C. Association of Police Boards, the British Columbia Federation of Police Officers, the Vancouver Police Union, the Vancouver Police Officers Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, as well as the Pivot Legal Society.

The primary objective of the review was to identify and address shortcomings in part 9 of the Police Act in order to make recommendations for legislative change. The overall aim of the review was to ensure that the complaint process is fair, balanced and effective so that both the public and the police can have confidence in the process.

The reinvestigation of complaints was not part of the review process, nor was the critical analysis of the OPCC within the mandate of the review. The review was limited to the 11 independent municipal police departments, as the RCMP, as you know, does not fall within the scope of the police complaints process under the Police Act.

The review examined three key aspects of part 9. These included the adequacy of the existing complaint process, including implications for amending the current legal framework, that being part 9; the conduct of police complaint investigations by independent municipal police departments; and, finally, confidence in and satisfaction with the existing process.

Just a few comments on methodology. The review team utilized four main data collection and analysis techniques to gather and evaluate the information collected. The first major data collection method was surveys. Three separate surveys, each addressing a different aspect of the complaints process, were conducted.

B.C. Stats was contracted to implement a public awareness survey. The telephone survey was administered to a random sample of residents living in the communities policed by independent municipal police departments. It was aimed at assessing awareness of and satisfaction with the current complaints process. In total, 1,024 residents completed the survey.

With respect to the key findings of that survey. They were that awareness of the OPCC was low. Just over half of all survey participants — 55 percent — reported that they were confident or very confident in the current process, and 78 percent believe that investigations into complaints were conducted fairly by their local police. Those details are found in appendix E of the Wood report.

A second survey, named the core awareness survey, was designed to ensure that socially and economically marginalized populations were represented in the review. Strathcona Research Group was contracted to conduct a similar awareness and satisfaction survey with marginalized persons living in the downtown core areas of Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria and with representatives of community agencies serving these populations.

In total, face-to-face surveys were completed with 299 street-involved individuals and 44 service agencies. Key findings from the core area awareness survey were low awareness of the OPCC and the process for making a complaint. Confidence in the overall process and the belief that investigations into complaints were conducted fairly were in fact much lower — about 25 percent — among street-involved survey participants and service providers than respondents to the public telephone survey.

Street-involved survey participants were reluctant to raise concerns about police conduct with anyone and had only rarely filed formal written complaints. Service providers were also reluctant to refer clients with concerns about police conduct to the police. More details of that survey are found in appendix F of the Wood report.

A third survey, including all sworn members of independent municipal police departments in B.C., was conducted. The survey was distributed by e-mail to sworn members, aimed at assessing awareness of and satisfaction with the current complaint process. Overall, 1,270 sworn members responded to the survey, representing a 57 percent response rate.

Key findings of that survey were that self-reported awareness of the role of the OPCC was high. Half of the officers who responded to the survey reported being confident or very confident in the overall process for handling complaints. However, only 23 percent were confident or very confident in the OPCC at the time.
[ Page 137 ]

Approximately 75 percent of the officers believed that internal investigations were timely, unbiased and thorough. Only about one-third felt the same way about external investigations. Less than half of the officers who responded to the survey believed that disciplinary measures were applied consistently in their department. Again, more details of that survey are available in appendix D of the Wood report.

In terms of audits, the second major data collection tool utilized by the review team was an audit of closed complaint files. Two separate audits, each addressing a different aspect of the complaints process, were carried out.

The administrative audit involved a review of 294 files sampled from the complaints processed under part 9 which were closed between June 2003 and June 2005. The main purpose of the administrative audit was to assess compliance with part 9 requirements and the policies and practice directives of the OPCC.

The administrative audit also included a sample of non-lodged-complaints files. These were complaints that were resolved informally by the department without the filing of an official record under part 9. A total of 105 non-lodged-complaints files were reviewed.

The administrative audit was conducted by police services division staff members. The type of information collected from the file review included items such as whether prescribed timelines were followed, whether respondents and complainants were kept informed of the status of the investigation and whether the disciplinary measures were imposed, among other items. The main area of concern identified with the administrative audit was the overall lack of timeliness in concluding complaints. And again, more details of that survey are in appendix B of the Wood report.

The second audit involved a review of the same 294 files to determine the completeness of the investigations. These files were reviewed by Staff Sergeant Chisholm and Crown Counsel Peter Juk. Their review involved a qualitative assessment of the manner in which each complaint was handled by police.

Overall, the investigative audit concluded that the majority of files were handled in a reasonable and appropriate manner by police. However, the audit team noted a number of concerns, including but not limited to failures to conduct full and thorough investigations and failures to consider criminal charges against respondents or to inform Crown counsel of cases where criminal charges may have been appropriate. Those additional concerns are outlined in appendix B, which is entitled "The Overall Investigative Audit Report."

A third major data collection tool was interviews with key stakeholders in the police complaints process. Overall, approximately 150 interviews were conducted.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a number of participants involved in the process, including chiefs, internal investigators, police board members, members of special interest groups and respondent police officers, among others. Complainants from the file sample were offered an opportunity to be interviewed as well, and 29 of these persons consented to an interview.

Other interested persons in respondent groups identified through the course of the review were also interviewed at Mr. Wood's discretion. Primarily, this included lawyers who had experience with the process as legal counsel for police departments, respondent officers or complainants. Again, appendix G of the report lists those participants.

With respect to the analysis of key legislation and a synthesis of findings, the fourth and final methodology was the analysis of key documents and the synthesis of findings from the surveys, audits and interviews. Mr. Wood undertook this portion of the review himself, as well as participating in the majority of the interviews. This analysis is found in the main sections of the report.

With respect to the key findings and recommendations in the report. His report was released in 2007. The report included a number of findings and recommendations, as you may know, and I'll outline them at a very high level here.

Mr. Wood found that the majority of complaints against police are properly investigated and appropriately handled. However, he also found that about one in five complaints was not handled or concluded as it should have been. Mr. Wood was concerned that some of the more serious complaints tended to be the ones that had deficiencies either in the investigation or, in fact, in the disposition.

A variety of factors were thought to account for some of those deficiencies. Mr. Wood was particularly concerned about the lack of unconditional acceptance by some police of the concept of civilian oversight and the challenges to the Police Complaint Commissioner's authority which he observed during the review. Mr. Wood made 91 recommendations for improvements to the legislative framework aimed at addressing these issues.

Generally speaking, each of those recommendations aligns with one or more of the following principles: (1) increasing the oversight role of the Police Complaint Commissioner, (2) improving accessibility for persons to lodge complaints, (3) increasing the rights afforded to both members and complainants through the process, (4) improving timeliness, (5) expanding the use of mediation and other informal resolution process of complaints, (6) clarifying roles and responsibilities during the investigation and (7) developing a new process for reviewing decisions regarding complaints.

It would not be an exaggeration to state that the implementation of Justice Wood's 91 recommendations with amendments to the Police Act resulted in a complete overhaul of the police complaints process.
[ Page 138 ]

Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, established the police complaints process in a new part 11 and added over 100 sections. Bill 7 was given royal assent on October 29, 2009, and brought into force on March 31, 2010.

Before concluding, I'd suggest it's worthwhile to reiterate that the mandate of police services, which I touched upon at my previous appearance before you, is complex and broad, and at its core is overseeing and superintending policing in British Columbia.

One facet of the mandate is to function as the custodian of the Police Act. We work at the direction of the minister, as you know, to ensure that the act supports adequate, effective and accountable delivery of police services in the province. I therefore look forward to learning of the Auditor General's findings with respect to the audit under section 51.2 of the act.

As well, I'm very interested to hear the comments and reflections of the Police Complaint Commissioner with respect to the audit and the legislative changes that resulted from Mr. Wood's report.

I also look forward to comments from a wide range of other interested stakeholders, each of whom I know has a unique and valuable insight into the police complaints process and the legislative framework for that process contained in part 11 of the Police Act. I also very much look forward to the special committee's recommendations respecting improvements that can be made to the legislation to ensure a fair, accountable and transparent police complaints process in British Columbia.

In conclusion, I would like to turn to Mr. Wood's final recommendation — that a follow-up audit of closed complaints files be conducted three years after the Wood report's recommendations have been implemented. That recommendation, of course, is what brings us here today.

In making this recommendation, Justice Wood underscored that a follow-up audit be conducted with a view to determining whether the current police complaints process and civilian oversight model should be retained. For the committee's benefit, I think it's worthwhile to read Justice Wood's closing paragraph of his report.

"Acceptance of civilian oversight by the police is not something that can be legislated. But what can be legislated is an entirely different model for processing complaints against the police, one that removes that process in its entirety from their control, placing responsibility for investigation in the hands of a completely independent investigative force and the responsibility for adjudicating the results of those investigations and imposing discipline in the hands of an independent civilian agency.

"While there is a strong argument to be made that the processing of complaints against police is an essential element of the entire discipline structure which is so essential to the day-to-day operation of an effective police service and that, as such, the complaint process should therefore remain the responsibility of police management, that argument can prevail only so long as there exists a demonstrated willingness on the part of such management and all those who serve below to fully accept the authority of civilian oversight.

"With that in mind, and if the recommendations contained in this report are implemented, I recommend that a further audit of the random sample of closed complaint files, similar to that which was conducted as part of this review, be undertaken three years following the date of such implementation, with a view to determining whether the…complaint process and civilian oversight model should be retained in this province."

On that note, I hope these prepared remarks have been of some assistance to you. I look forward to receiving any further questions you may have.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): One of the points made in the report was that one of the hurdles that was faced in dealing with the police complaints process had to do with the culture of the police. The culture of the police, and some resistance to the complaints process, is not one that can be addressed in statute particularly, although some things can be done.

I'm just wondering, in your role overseeing police services in this province, whether you believe that either changes in the legislation or just changes generally in the culture of police have made the implementation of the recommendations — and the process, generally — more successful.

I've had the privilege over the last 18 months to be part of the implementation of the independent investigations office, which, as you know, has been a considerable step forward for police oversight and independent civilian oversight of the police. I would say that that has demonstrated to me, in terms of the way that the police have embraced this new office and the collaboration that has gone on to give effect to the office and to assist it in its implementation, that we have come a long way in this province in terms of the culture of policing and the acceptance of civilian oversight of police.

To answer your question more directly, yes, I do think that there has been an evolution, and there is wide acceptance at the senior leadership and throughout policing of this generation of police officers with respect to civilian oversight of the police.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I had another question. One of the areas that was pointed out as having deficiencies in many departments was the training of the individuals who were responsible for the investigations — the internal affairs officers. I don't think that's the term that's used but, basically, internal affairs. I'm wondering if there has been significant improvement in that area.

C. Pecknold: The professional standards officers, as we
[ Page 139 ]
refer to them in this province…. There is a course at the Police Academy, Justice Institute, for new professional standards officers. It is a basic course to ensure that they have a sufficient level of understanding of the act and the complexities of the act as they do their investigations.

The OPCC — Commissioner Lowe can speak to this in more detail — does have an ongoing collaborative working group, where they work with the professional standards officers and the leadership to try to iron out any procedural challenges with the act. I think, frankly, there's more work that we can do around that, and I hope to do some work.

We've recently entered into an agreement with the Justice Institute of British Columbia with respect to how we're going to manage the funding that we provide to the Police Academy. Under that new agreement, we'll be setting standards and goals for police training more broadly, not just specifically to professional standards. We're also working with the Justice Institute, and the Police Academy in particular, to make sure that they have the staff and resources available for curriculum development to make sure that the curriculum that's developed around the various courses is defensible and meets national standards.

G. Hogg: You made reference to the principles that were applied in terms of looking at and developing the report. I'm just wondering. In the three years following the report that has now come out, are there other jurisdictions and comparators to other jurisdictions where they've actually taken action?

Can you give us some comparison between what's taking place now as the result of this report and the result of the actions we've taken subsequent to that? Utilizing those same principles, I assume, unless there are other principles which you might want to add, do a comparison between how we are performing now in this jurisdiction or what we might learn from other jurisdictions, how we compare with them and what impact they might have.

J. Wood: Hi. Good morning. In general, I think it would be not incorrect to say that overall, other jurisdictions…. I can point to Alberta. They've amended their act subsequent to the amendments brought into force here in British Columbia on March 31, 2010. In doing so, they attempted to move to more of a contemporaneous oversight of the complaint process, which, of course, is highlighted in Justice Wood's report.

As well, there are very similar models in place across other jurisdictions. Here I'm referring to Alberta and Ontario, two jurisdictions, I think, that are worth comparison. In Ontario they subsequently established an independent police review office which has similar powers, almost identical, to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner here in British Columbia.

C. Pecknold: I might add, as well, that the bill before federal parliament right now, Bill C-42…. I believe it's referred to as the modernization of the RCMP act. I could be incorrect on the working title. It increases the powers and reforms what is the civilian police complaint commission of the RCMP to enhance its powers and its oversight abilities. It, like, in my estimation, the other provinces that have implemented a similar regime, is rooted on civilian oversight and transparency and accountability to the civilian authority.

G. Hogg: Are there other jurisdictions outside of Canada which may be informative in terms of the things that we're looking at?

C. Pecknold: I'm sure there are. I don't know if any of my staff know one, offhand.

K. Kirby: Yes, when we did take a look years ago at different legislations in other countries, one of the places we did take a look at — and I don't know; we haven't taken a look at it recently — was Australia. They actually had transformed their entire complaints process there as well. So we have taken a look at some other countries.

G. Hogg: And are there any principles that…? You've just highlighted another three principles, which I think are the three that come to mind. Are there other principles that we should be looking at in terms of the evaluation and review we're undertaking?

C. Pecknold: I refreshed my memory with Mr. Wood's report before appearing here today, and I suggest that he's hit all the important principles. Beyond the ones that I've just identified, I think efforts to make sure that police discipline is responsive to the complainants in a timely manner and responsive in whatever form best results in a satisfactory outcome.

What I mean by that, I think, is…. Mr. Wood spoke strongly about the importance of informal resolution and mediation. I do believe you will hear from the Police Complaint Commissioner that he has increased his use of that method of resolving complaints. I do think that with the appropriate safeguards of ensuring that the commissioner is aware appropriately of all complaints of misconduct by the police, the use of informal resolution in the appropriate circumstances provides a much more satisfactory result for many complainants in certain types of offences.

G. Hogg: With the principle of timeliness, would you put specific timelines on those, or would you just say that we generally look at them?
[ Page 140 ]

C. Pecknold: Part 11 did increase them. The implementation or the creation of part 11 in response to the Wood report did increase the timeliness and the requirement for timely reports and timelines. I do think that that has, on occasion, created some challenges, but our staff has worked both with Police Complaint Commissioner's office and with the policing community to make sure that we can give the best effect we can to the intent of his recommendations.

G. Hogg: When we submit our report, I'm hoping that we're going to be able to also look at and have confidence that we have looked at other jurisdictions outside of Canada. Is it you that would appropriately provide us with that information, or is that something we would come back to our research staff for? How would we best look at that?

M. Coell (Chair): I think we would leave that up to our research staff to work with the ministry and bring us back some of those examples that you're looking for.

G. Hogg: I am so doing, and you are very good. That's timeliness at its best. Thank you very much.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I have a question about the discontinuance and consolidation of complaints in section 84. That was one of the things that was dealt with in the report as well.

I'm wondering if there have been any concerns expressed by any third parties or how this section has worked, from your perspective. This may be something that the commissioner wants to talk about. I'm interested in that.... When a third party makes a complaint — I think at times that might be B.C. Civil Liberties or an organization like that, perhaps Pivot — has this section come into play? If so, has it worked well?

I guess what I'm envisioning is that perhaps a third party might make a complaint, and then at some point the complainant themselves makes the complaint, and in a mandatory way it removes the third party from being involved. I'm wondering if that has operated well, or have there been concerns with it?

C. Pecknold: Let me state more broadly…. I should have stated in my remarks, actually, that our office does receive submissions from various interested parties — including the police associations, the Police Complaint Commissioner and others — with respect to suggested amendments to the Police Act. We are in receipt of a number of those. We have been waiting for this committee to convene so that we could hear from the committee before we reviewed sort of a comprehensive review of the act.

With respect to that particular section, I don't particularly have any knowledge on it. I'm sure the Police Complaint Commissioner may. I don't know if any of my staff have any particular….

K. Kirby: If I could make maybe a minor comment on it, one of things, when the bill was first tabled…. I think it was tabled in the spring of 2009 and then in the fall of 2009. Section 84, if you take a look at the difference between the two bills, was one section that was actually amended and changed a bit to reflect some comments of Civil Liberties.

C. Pecknold: I will say that if we do have any submissions with respect to how that section may or may not be working appropriately, we'll certainly look at that carefully.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I guess just one more general question. From your perspective — I guess there's a bit of, well, value judgment here — are there recommendations that were made that were, therefore, translated into amendments to the act and that have proven to be problematic in their operation?

C. Pecknold: Well, we've certainly heard that from some constituents. We've heard from some groups that there were some sections of the act that had imposed (a) some difficult timelines or (b) some overly procedural processes that didn't result in the type of efficiencies one would hope for in the process. We've heard that from some constituents.

We've also made some amendments in the immediate term to deal with what were some drafting challenges, I think, or some interpretation challenges. Specifically, we did some amendments with respect to the retention of our findings or discipline records to try to clarify some of those areas.

As director, I have heard, from some members of police boards and the policing community, concerns about the complexity of the bill. I think the complexity is a result of trying to give effect to all of Mr. Wood's recommendations.

I think it's an interesting question to ask going forward with respect to the way this bill exists in the context now of the IIO and the fact that those high-level, high-order events have, rightfully so, raised considerable concern in the public's mind. Now that those are now being dealt with separately, it raises an interesting question about the applicability of the act and the way it works.
[ Page 141 ]

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I'm glad you mentioned the IIO because I wanted to ask how the two will fit together. I guess part of that is going to evolve, but how do they fit together? Does the complaints process…? Once the IIO is involved, the complaints process is gone, or…? No. Somebody can still make a complaint to do with the cases. How do the two fit together? Can somebody make a complaint with respect to the IIO? I assume they can — right?

C. Pecknold: Yeah. I think your first comment that it's evolving is accurate. It is evolving. They operate concurrently. For example, if there is an IIO-investigated complaint, there may be — and there likely will be — a parallel, corresponding investigation by the OPCC because of the nature of it. If it's an RCMP officer, it would be corresponding under their processes, and there'd be a certain amount of parallelism.

I do meet occasionally with both the director of the IIO and the Police Complaint Commissioner to talk about implementation and how we can navigate those areas. It is a bit of a work in progress, but the IIO investigation doesn't cancel out the authority of the OPCC.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): I'm wondering if you could be a little more specific when you said that there are some groups that have expressed concerns about some of the timelines and processes. What areas are you talking about?

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): Well, yes. You don't have to name the sections, but just generally, you said that the operation of the act…. Some people believe that there are problems with the timelines. I'm just wondering what those are.

K. Kirby: I can maybe answer the question. We did hear, particularly with regard to timelines and submitting the final investigative report. I think we changed that, actually, in 2011. I think it was section 125 — operationally, when people tried to work with it, it needed some clarification — and section 141, just with regard to the timelines and the review on the record, the clarity of that.

Also, some further clarification when it came to the service record, I think, in section 180. Those were some of the general comments. There were amendments made in 2011 and 2012, still keeping with Wood, to try to address some of the comments that had made it difficult for those working with the act, on how it would operate.

K. Corrigan (Deputy Chair): One of the things mentioned in the report that Mr. Wood was grappling with was trying to balance off making sure that information was received from complainants and encouraging — they may not be able to write well or whatever — oral complaints, versus trying to have a certain structure so that you could analyze the data and keep it and, probably, analyze it later.

I'm wondering if that tension still exists, from your perspective. Maybe the complaint commissioner will better answer that. For example, form 1 — whether or not there should be a form 1 filled out, whether that should be mandatory. Have those issues been resolved satisfactorily, from your perspective?

C. Pecknold: I'm not sure I could ultimately come to a conclusion, whether they've been resolved, without hearing from the Police Complaint Commissioner. But I did thumb through his last annual report, and I noted that from 2009 to 2011 there has been a significant increase in the amount of files opened.

The stats also suggested to me that the amount of on-line submissions and complaints has gone up significantly. That suggests to me that the accessibility of his office has increased, but it would be interesting to know from him — something I'll be looking for.

M. Coell (Chair): Any other comments or questions? I just have a brief one for you, Clayton, having been a chair of a police board some 20-odd years ago. There have definitely been some culture changes in the policing and the expectations of the public. Both Justice Braidwood and Mr. Wood made recommendations — I think it was three years in both cases — that their recommendations be reviewed as to the implementation of them. That's of course the reason for this committee.

I'd just be interested in your comments on the process of doing that. Is that helpful to you and your staff, to have recommendations and then again an audit to implementation? Basically, just how do your staff and your offices deal with those recommendations?

C. Pecknold: Absolutely, your work is helpful to us. We look forward to it in terms of incorporating it into what we hear from the various constituents. I think it would allow us to somehow focus in a direction from a policy perspective. I think it will be very helpful.

Three years hence, I believe, we'll hear from another committee of the Legislature with respect to the IIO implementation. I think we continue to be on the evolutionary path in terms of police oversight in this province. Where that will converge between the work the IIO does and the OPCC and the changes that will happen federally in the RCMP Act is something that we're going to have to
[ Page 142 ]
monitor carefully and continue to work on to make sure that we, at its core, maintain the public trust and public confidence in policing, because that's what this is about. It's a long way of saying that the process is very helpful to us as the Police Act evolves and refines.

M. Coell (Chair): Thank you very much. We appreciate you and your staff being here. We may ask you to come back after we've heard from the Auditor and the commissioner as well. If there's any need for that, we will be in touch. Thank you for being with us this morning.

M. Coell (Chair): If members would like to take just a five-minute recess, then I'll call the committee back to order at that point.

M. Coell (Chair): We have a couple of things I think we need to talk about — one, the report writing, which is underway. I think, Josie, you have some handouts for us to look at.

M. Coell (Chair): We're in public session now. Is there anything that members wanted to add? We're scheduled for two days next week and then one day the following week.

M. Coell (Chair): After hearing the draft of the Auditor, we may have one day on our hands. That would be the Tuesday we would cancel, if we didn't need it. I don't think we'll know that until Monday.

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)
	* Gordon Hogg (Surrey–White Rock BC Liberal)
	* Leonard Krog (Nanaimo NDP)
	* John Slater (Boundary-Similkameen BC Liberal)
	* Joe Trasolini (Port Moody–Coquitlam NDP)
	* denotes member present
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Josie Schofield (Manager, Committee Research Services)
	Matthew Cleeves (Committee Research Analyst)

Witnesses:	Katherine Kirby (Ministry of Justice)
	Lynne McInally (Ministry of Justice)
	Clayton Pecknold (Ministry of Justice)
	Jeremy Wood (Ministry of Justice)

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