Review the Independent Investigations Office — Issue No. 2

Present: Mike Morris, MLA (Chair); Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dr. Doug Bing, MLA; Scott Fraser, MLA; Scott Hamilton, MLA; Darryl Plecas, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA

3. Resolved, that committee adopt the business plan as amended. (Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA)

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE


CONTENTS
Page
Draft Business Plan	5
Committee Meeting Schedule	8

M. Morris (Chair): The agenda is to review the draft business plan that you have before you and that you've had an opportunity to look at, and any other business that may arise here.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Certainly. The document you have in front of you includes a bit of background on the committee, which I think was probably covered off in your backgrounder that you received at the first meeting. It just gives you, in essence…. It references the terms of reference and that the report has to be submitted by February 25.

It talks a bit about the composition of the committee and the role of the committee staff, the researcher — so it's just background — and that we'll also try and promote the committee's work through social media. We'll do a social media plan as well as an advertising plan.

Then where we get into the meat of the document is on page 3, where we've listed out, essentially, three tasks that we want to accomplish for the committee's work.

The first one, of course, is to review the administration, general operations of the independent investigations office and what those steps involve. We're going to set up meetings with senior officials from the Ministry of Justice as well as meet with the chief civilian director of the IIO.

Task 2 is to solicit and consider written and oral submissions from interested persons and organizations. That will include a provincewide call for submissions as well as, possibly, a targeted survey that the IIO would distribute to, I guess, the groups that it has dealt with. We wouldn't be the ones distributing that survey. We would send it to the IIO and ask them to distribute it to the groups that they've had dealings with.

Then public hearings with stakeholders or experts. Then, finally, to develop the recommendations and finalize the committee's reports.

Those are the three major tasks. We've developed a possible timeline on the following page, page 4, looking at doing the meetings with the ministry in early May. Then once the House rises, we would travel to do the day in Surrey to meet with the staff at the IIO and then in the afternoon have that public portion, the consultation or meeting with the chief civilian director and staff of the IIO.

Again in June we would open the public consultation processes. That would involve sending out the call for submissions as well as scheduling some meetings with key stakeholders that the committee would like to invite. The hope would be to conclude the public consultation process by the end of August, giving us some follow-up hearings.

That would be in October. In September we'd have some additional public hearings with the stakeholders or experts. The consultation process that concludes in August is the written submission process.

We'd have some continued public hearings with stakeholders and experts either in Vancouver or Victoria, then in October have those follow-up meetings with the ministry and IIO so that they've heard everything that we've heard and can maybe come back with their view on what the committee has heard. Then we would start working on the report in November. As I said, it has to be tabled in February.

That's a very basic outline and timelines. The main idea is to see if those timelines work for members, especially taking into account the summer and that the House rises at the end of May. Members may be busy, as well, going forward in June. We're anticipating that the House will be sitting in the fall, so those meetings are based on that assumption. But if the House is not sitting, the meetings will still continue.

Then we've also put together a budget estimate based on where the meetings are held and on a media campaign as well, the cost of advertising, which is probably one of the biggest costs for the committee.

We've also included a draft advertising plan, a draft call for submission and a draft news release, but those are all elements that essentially, the Chair and Deputy Chair can work on once the committee agrees on the basics of the plan.

J. Tegart: The June 5 date does not work for me, just a heads-up. On June 5 I'm not available.

The other comment is I have a concern if consultation is only happening in the Metro area. There is, I hate to say, life above Hope. There are a lot people who live outside the Metro area that might want to be a part of this, even though they can give written submissions or do it on line.

It was certainly my experience with the Finance Committee. That opportunity to go into community and provide an opportunity for community to actually address the group is really important. Even if we did, or considered, perhaps a day in Prince George and a day in the Okanagan, I just think that it's important that we not work only out of the Metro or Victoria area.

One of the things that we talked about, the vice-Chair and myself, was exactly that. This is a living document, so
[ Page 6 ]
as we progress through this process, if we do get a significant call for where people do want to attend and be heard publicly, then we'll have to weigh that as we go along. Prince George is a good location, perhaps Kamloops or some other part of the Interior. We will make sure that we provide for that opportunity if we see that there's a significant need as we move through this.

J. Tegart: Just a follow-up to that, Mike. Is it possible for us to take a look at where the work has been done by the office and then take that into account when we look at where we should be consulting?

S. Hamilton: I guess we do have some proposed dates here, and if we do have calendars and we have an idea where we're going to be on a particular day of the month, maybe we can have that discussion today. I was going to say it's the 12th that doesn't work for me.

Going forward, I do concur, and I'm glad you did have that discussion off line with the vice-Chair. I think we should take the opportunity to reach out to other communities. I think it's appropriate.

The independent investigations office, as far as I know, in terms of their workings, is engaged throughout the province at one level or another, on one occasion or another — under different circumstances, obviously. I think it might be healthy to hear it, if there's an appetite. Obviously, that's something you have to go forward and try to figure out. If people in Prince George want a little piece of this pie, then I think we should engage them.

I'm prepared to sit down and try to hash out some dates. And I concur that Vancouver isn't the centre of the universe. I think we should be making this committee's work available to people throughout the province. That's my two bits.

S. Fraser: Looking at dates, the 14th of May is a problem for me. I will be in Vancouver for most of the day at meetings there. So that can be put in the hopper. The other dates work for me. In June it's easier for me on the 12th, but I can probably make the 5th if I have to. It's probably good that we nail this down today. I think that's important.

I agree with Mike's submission about if there is a need, as the need arises in other communities, we should consider and certainly make the effort to get to those communities as opposed to just staying in the Lower Mainland.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Certainly, the Chair and I took that very much to heart. The province is a big one, and there are people who live all over it. The Finance Committee, in trying to reflect the province's makeup, chooses six regions, I believe, to travel into, understanding that there are those regions in the province.

However, the Chair and I did look at where the number of incidents occurred — investigations by the IIO. Just for the record, there were two in Prince George, where the investigations actually occurred, and one in Cranbrook, one in Creston, one in Campbell River and one in Port Alberni. All the rest took place in Metro Vancouver. So the vast majority of actual on-the-ground time has been in Metro Vancouver — not to say that the incidents elsewhere wouldn't warrant us potentially travelling there.

We were, however, also thinking about budgets. To travel, all of us, up to one area for maybe a 20-minute submission may not be the most efficient use of time or resources. However, based on what the submissions are, we may decide that's necessary. Certainly, the Chair and I will keep that in mind.

I think the other option, of course — and the Finance Committee does this very well also — is having meetings with the conference call option, with the Internet being a resource for us. Certainly, environmentally and economically, that's a more efficient option. So we'll keep that in mind.

In terms of dates, we could all play calendar all day today about what works or what doesn't work for us. But the suggestion I'd make is that we forward the proposed schedule on to our own legislative assistants and request that they work with the Clerk to find those dates that work for the vast majority, understanding that we're not always going to be able to get everybody in the same place at the same time — if that works for the committee.

S. Hamilton: I was going to mention the same thing. I mean, we do have technology available both at the cabinet offices here and in Vancouver. We do have video conferencing available through Prince George. If we want to engage people that way, we have that potential. So I'm glad you brought that up.

M. Morris (Chair): Right. There's a group of us here that are all very, very busy with our constituency work as well as our legislative work. So trying to stick to these timelines as best as possible, I think, would be helpful. If we can all make it, I think that is great. If one or two might be absent for some of these meetings, I think that's something that is….

Is the committee agreeable to holding a meeting if we don't have a full slate of committee members there? If there's one or two absent, is that problematic for our committee?

S. Fraser: I've been on two special committees so far,
[ Page 7 ]
and it's quite common that a member or two simply can't make it. That's understood. We catch up afterwards, and we have the resources to do that. I don't think it hinders the process, and it's not realistic to expect all of us to be here at all these meetings at all times.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I just had one question regarding the workplan itself, as opposed to the calendar side of it.

Under "Task One" on page 3, we talk about reviewing "the administration and general operations of the independent investigations office." The language is almost identical to the language in, I guess it would be, the terms of reference.

The only thing that's missing there is potentially including the IIO's progress to becoming a complete civilian force. I think if we could add that line, just so that it's clear for anybody who might want to review the plan, so they see we're not forgetting that key step.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Other than that, I don't have anything more to add on the workplan. It looks good to me.

S. Fraser: I have a question. I've done some googling on this. There have been a number of quite vocal critics of the IIO. They're not necessarily directly involved because of an investigation, but they have other reasons, I suppose. Do we have any way of tracking those people? They obviously will want to be part of this.

The IIO might not want them to be part of this either. They may not volunteer that information because they haven't had a direct relationship with them except for being criticized by them.

Is there any way that staff can sort of track that historically so that we can make sure that those people have the ability…? They won't be able to come back and say that they didn't know anything about this.

M. Morris (Chair): Right. I see some nods coming from Ron over there. We will have a website and social media opportunities to interact with all British Columbians on this issue. I don't see any issue there.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): We will identify stakeholders, as well, but if members know of stakeholders that they would like to invite, we can, with the committee's agreement, extend invitations to any stakeholders that the committee feels should be invited, pro or con.

S. Fraser: If I could just follow that up with a supplemental. Do we have guidelines about interacting…? If we get a cold call in the middle of our deliberations on this stuff from somebody that has a point of view, how do we deal with that as individual members of the committee? Should we be referring them to dealing with the committee as a whole? Are there guidelines for something like that?

M. Morris (Chair): I would suggest — and we can discuss this more — that if we do get a call like that from an individual that wants to participate, we refer them to the website or someplace where they could put their concerns in writing too so that the whole committee gets the whole story the same way. Then we can respond as a committee to those folks, if a response is indeed necessary. But I would welcome other thoughts.

S. Fraser: Just further to that, I don't disagree. But I'm referring to…. I mean, I've been involved in these before. You can get lobbied. Individual members of the committee can get lobbied. That's not unheard of; that's probably the norm.

Do we have any kind of conflict with that? Is that inappropriate? Can we hear submissions individually as we are being lobbied? Is that a problem?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): The issue is more that you want the committee to receive the evidence, because unless the committee has either a written statement or some public record — like a Hansard record — of a submission, it can't become part of the committee's evidence.

If only one member hears it, it's not really part of that consultation that the full committee had. The best thing is to encourage any kind of, I guess, individual request to go through the committee process and bring it to the full committee.

We spoke about doing a public call for written submissions. But also, we spoke briefly about perhaps reviewing some of those submissions to see if there were any that we would want to follow up with in person by having them present to the committee. There will be different means for public participation, but certainly, written submissions are very valid and part of the consultation process.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): We've also discussed public hearings — not just written but in person — because some people feel more comfortable doing that. Obviously, in something like this there may be those that don't feel comfortable being public because it could involve their jobs or it could involve matters related to whatever the incident was.

I think that's partly why we wanted to reach out both through the IIO but also publicly, because there are those in the process — the IIO, if they agree — who may have
[ Page 8 ]
really liked the experience. They may have really not liked the experience. By giving them the opportunity…. Whether or not they were directly involved in an investigation or were not heard in an investigation, in their view, we should give them that opportunity.

If somebody wants to talk to a member individually, we all have our own experiences that we bring to this table. So I don't think that's a problem, if they refuse to go before the committee or share it. I think the issue, though, is that if you want to implement whatever it is they argue for, and if none of the other members have the benefit of that conversation, it's going to be harder to bring that experience to create whatever change they might be seeking.

M. Morris (Chair): Yeah. We have people approaching us all the time for a number of different things. I think the standard response to them, if they want to be heard on record, is to go through the regular channels. Otherwise, we can say, "Listen, I'll make sure that your concerns are noted by the committee," and we can introduce it in the public record. But we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if it is something that's controversial, we won't be able to have the benefit of cross-examination or however you want to deal with that.

I think it's best, to the extent possible, that we keep everything on the public record.

J. Tegart: Just further to that, there could be situations that are quite sensitive. Have the Chair and Deputy Chair talked about the possibility of requests for in-camera presentations to the committee?

M. Morris (Chair): We are cognizant of that, but we also have to remember that we're doing a review of the operations and administration of the IIO. If the topic gets into specific cases, that's not our function. I'm anticipating that some people may try to use this as a venue to re-examine the outcome of some of the previous investigations, and that's definitely not our role.

S. Hamilton: Just to expand on that, I concur. I mean, the nature of the IIO is controversial at best at the best of times. Going forward I'm quite certain we're going to attract those who might still be harbouring some animosity or are particularly not fond of an outcome. But I think if we keep in mind that we're doing this with a view to depoliceizing, if you will, this entire organization….

With all due respect to your previous profession, when police investigate police, it's always looked at with a certain element of mistrust. The way we're going about this and what it is we're going to achieve at the end, I think, speaks to trying to legitimize this committee, at the end of the day.

You'll have to keep snug reins on it; there's no doubt about it. I anticipate that is going to happen — just what you mentioned with regard to people coming forward wanting to rehash things or grinding their axe in front of this committee.

D. Bing: I think if we commit to our committee goals and tasks, we shouldn't have any problems. From time to time the committee might have to remind themselves of what we're here for.

M. Morris (Chair): Right. That'll be the Chair's and Deputy Chair's role — to make sure that we stay on task. Particularly, if we're into the public hearing mode, I can see probably from time to time we may have to remind any of the presenters of that as well.

S. Hamilton: It could form part of the preamble at the beginning of every meeting.

M. Morris (Chair): Yes, it will. In my previous role as an adjudicator, that was quite often what we had to do. I see the same thing happening in this kind of environment as well.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I don't know if there are any more questions, but if people are comfortable, I would move approval of the draft workplan.

S. Hamilton: One question, Mr. Chair. Just with regard to the dates — some of the earlier ones. I know Jackie had to leave, but she was suggesting that June 4 or June 6 was good for her, and either of those two days work for me as well. The 5th doesn't work for her, and the 12th doesn't work for me. I just wanted to put that out there as well.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Could we, after we leave this meeting, forward this on to each of our own individual legislative assistants and suggest that they look at the calendars and connect with the Clerk — if that's appropriate, Madam Clerk?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Yes. Certainly, what we would do before we set up any meetings is canvass committee members for their availability. I think the Deputy Chair mentioned and maybe the Chair — or perhaps it was Scott — that essentially we go with the majority. If a majority of members are available, we will proceed with
[ Page 9 ]
scheduling meetings, upon the advisement of the Chair and Deputy Chair.

I think our first meetings will probably be with the ministry on those dates in May, once the House is back. Then going forward we will, as I said, canvass committee members. The other thing we'll do is incorporate the revisions that committee members mentioned and send this out again by e-mail.

S. Fraser: Just further to the agenda or the possible timelines that we have — knowing that, as Susan has said, we can't always be everywhere — there are some key meetings. The first meeting, the briefing with the ministry — if it's possible to try to find a date that everybody can be there. I would submit that the visit to Surrey, too, the IIO, would be another one of those. It would be difficult to catch up afterwards if you didn't have that actual experience.

M. Morris (Chair): Right, that's noted. I think it's also incumbent upon our committee members to try and accommodate those dates as much as possible, knowing the importance of exactly what you said.

Okay, our agenda, then, is passed. Any other business? Any other issues with this?

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:	* Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Spencer Chandra Herbert (Vancouver–West End NDP)
Members:	* Dr. Doug Bing (Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows BC Liberal)
	Kathy Corrigan (Burnaby–Deer Lake NDP)
	* Scott Fraser (Alberni–Pacific Rim NDP)
	* Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	* Darryl Plecas (Abbotsford South BC Liberal)
	* Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Ron Wall (Committee Researcher)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE